Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Really? Handguns can be full-auto too. Glock 18C for example...Originalist wrote:[ That is also why I will most likely never OC a AR like that because I dont want any cop to have any reason to come talk to me. I do OC a handgun in Virginia and Pennsylvania (where it is legal to do so) because then that NFA bug cant bite me.
You are arguing against even yourself.EEllis wrote:I'm not going to argue with you but yes they can. Running down a city street a 2am in street clothes is totally legal but if the cop can articulate why he felt it was suspicious then he is allowed to briefly stop the person to investigate. Can't arrest, can't make him stop, but can investigate.Gat0rs wrote:EEllis wrote:
And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs.
I have no clue where you went to law school, but I hope to god you are not a practicing criminal attorney. NO, the police cannot stop you if your actions are total legal and they just think you look suspicious. That is the point of needing reasonable cause, and walking down the road with a firearm in compliance with the law is not reasonable cause any more than walking down the street black is reasonable cause. Maybe you should re read your crim law book.
True, but what is the likelyhood of that? I guess the same can be said for ARs too. I wasn'y saying it was right... More like a devil's advocate... It is a way they could have justified it and given the current climate, it could be determined reasonable. Yes? No? That is merely what I was saying.. Clearly, I dont think of everything... :-)sjfcontrol wrote:Really? Handguns can be full-auto too. Glock 18C for example...Originalist wrote:[ That is also why I will most likely never OC a AR like that because I dont want any cop to have any reason to come talk to me. I do OC a handgun in Virginia and Pennsylvania (where it is legal to do so) because then that NFA bug cant bite me.
So if that's all it takes for RS, then it could apply to anybody with a firearm -- well, other than a revolver, I guess.
[youtube][/youtube]
EEllis wrote:Because you say so? Well why go to SCOTUS bdickens is here to lay down the law! Guess what I'll give you one. Walking around in the sumer with a ski mask. Legal, can't stop you from wearing, and will get you legally stopped.bdickens wrote: So an ostensibly law-abiding citizen walking through an area open to the public simply carrying an object that it is lawful for citizens to possess is not one of them. If you have so little regard for the Constitution, then you deserve what you get.
Bend over, here comes the TSA.
I'm thinking it'd be a totally different conversation if he'd had a wood-stocked Remington 700BDL in .223 with a 3x9 Gold Ring slung over his shoulder...bdickens wrote:
Walking around on backcountry roads, carrying a hunting rifle, with your son who is working on becoming an Eagle Scout in tow is not only NOT suspicious, it is downright admirable and healthy no matter what some panty-wetting libtard fresh in from Commiefornia thinks.
Well the problem with that is that there is nothing in the law that makes the cop tell the person they stopped why they are doing so. The cops must be able to articulate it to the court but not on the street, by law policy may be different. All it takes is one clever, articulate, cop and it's a good stop. We don't know why they stopped him so it is not possible to make a pronouncement on the RS involved.Originalist wrote:Therein lies the problem.. In Terry v. Ohio, in order for the cops to lawfully detain you, they must have RS. RS of a crime that has occurred, is occurring or will occur. In this case, rudely displaying a gun in not a crime therefore the detention is unlawful. Someone calling to report a man with a gun, when it is lawful activity, without some other information, does not give RS to a cop to make a detention. We dont surrender our rights because someone feels icky or uncomfortable. If the detention is unlawful then so is the search (running of numbers, looking the gun over) as well as the seizure of property (disarming) however, Texas does allow a cop to disarm a CHLer given some broad, easily manipulated circumstances (I say that because what judge isn't going to err on the side of officer safety, regardless). Now, since it doesnt appear they asked for ID, there was no duty to show CHL even if the lawful demand is in question. Traffic stop = lawful detention, this situation does not appear to be, IMHO.EEllis wrote:No, wrong, massively wrong. First the cop is free to walk up and make contact with anyone so they easily could of gauge many things. Second they don't need probably cause they need reasonable suspicion to investigate and SCOTUS has said , and I repeat myself, that the cops need to be able to articulate a reason that a reasonable person could believe. That's it. And when stopped he could of told them that he refused to give ID, except for his CHL, refused to say squat, let them check his gun out and if they didn't quickly let him leave then I would say the cops were totally wrong.jmra wrote: Again, SCOTUS disagrees with you. There never should have been an opportunity for the officer to gauge attitude because there never should have been a stop.
Or maybe you don't have have a problem with "let me see your papers".
Now, had the cop been a tad smarter, here is what I would have said... Some called and reported a man with a gun, I drove by to check you out and I noticed that the gun is an AR style rifle and if it was select fire, would be subject to the NFA. I am lawfully detaining you until I determine that the rifle you are carrying is semi auto only or that you have the required paperwork if it is select fire. BAM! RS explained and disarming to determine ok... I will say, the 2A proponent that I am, I would never pursue a course such as this. That is also why I will most likely never OC a AR like that because I dont want any cop to have any reason to come talk to me. I do OC a handgun in Virginia and Pennsylvania (where it is legal to do so) because then that NFA bug cant bite me.
Let me rephrase then to make it more direct while you ignore facts for pedantic nonsense, "can't prevent him from continuing the actions after the stop."Gat0rs wrote:You are arguing against even yourself.EEllis wrote:I'm not going to argue with you but yes they can. Running down a city street a 2am in street clothes is totally legal but if the cop can articulate why he felt it was suspicious then he is allowed to briefly stop the person to investigate. Can't arrest, can't make him stop, but can investigate.Gat0rs wrote:EEllis wrote:
And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs.
I have no clue where you went to law school, but I hope to god you are not a practicing criminal attorney. NO, the police cannot stop you if your actions are total legal and they just think you look suspicious. That is the point of needing reasonable cause, and walking down the road with a firearm in compliance with the law is not reasonable cause any more than walking down the street black is reasonable cause. Maybe you should re read your crim law book.
Sure the cop could BUT it would be just as unlawful. RS isn't something that can be made up based on a phone call about a guy with a gun. He has to be doing something or about to do something or did something that was illegal. A misdemeanor a cop has to see (with some exceptions). If the cop doesn't see any illegal activity he can engage in a consensual encounter but the things this cop did took from that to a detention without RS of a crime. Evident by his made up "Rudely" charge.EEllis wrote:Let me rephrase then to make it more direct while you ignore facts for pedantic nonsense, "can't prevent him from continuing the actions after the stop."Gat0rs wrote:You are arguing against even yourself.EEllis wrote:I'm not going to argue with you but yes they can. Running down a city street a 2am in street clothes is totally legal but if the cop can articulate why he felt it was suspicious then he is allowed to briefly stop the person to investigate. Can't arrest, can't make him stop, but can investigate.Gat0rs wrote:EEllis wrote:
And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs.
I have no clue where you went to law school, but I hope to god you are not a practicing criminal attorney. NO, the police cannot stop you if your actions are total legal and they just think you look suspicious. That is the point of needing reasonable cause, and walking down the road with a firearm in compliance with the law is not reasonable cause any more than walking down the street black is reasonable cause. Maybe you should re read your crim law book.
bdickens wrote:EEllis wrote:Because you say so? Well why go to SCOTUS bdickens is here to lay down the law! Guess what I'll give you one. Walking around in the sumer with a ski mask. Legal, can't stop you from wearing, and will get you legally stopped.bdickens wrote: So an ostensibly law-abiding citizen walking through an area open to the public simply carrying an object that it is lawful for citizens to possess is not one of them. If you have so little regard for the Constitution, then you deserve what you get.
Bend over, here comes the TSA.
Man, you're about a smart a[lec] aren't you?
Because the Constitution says so, that's why.
Walking around on backcountry roads, carrying a hunting rifle, with your son who is working on becoming an Eagle Scout in tow is not only NOT suspicious, it is downright admirable and healthy no matter what some panty-wetting libtard fresh in from Commiefornia thinks.
Yes I do get a bit smart alecky. I get frustrated when I see people misrepresenting facts and just plain getting stuff wrong. You call me a smart a then try and insult further because the facts don't support you so maybe insults can win for you. 
Well they can't. He didn't go to jail for the gun. He went to jail for not cooperating with police when they stopped him. You continue your childish insults if you wish, unless you come up with something factual I'm done wasting my time.It just is not unlawful. There are no strict guidelines the cop just has to be able to justify to a court, articulate why they had RS and the judge must agree. Without knowing why or what the RS was saying it's unlawful is obviously absurd and has more to do with bias than fact. The way your coat hangs has been okayed as RS, why not the way your gun hangs? Maybe the cop started to just talk and saw or heard something he felt provided RS. RS is required to be present but the officer has no duty to inform the citizen of what the RS is.Originalist wrote: Sure the cop could BUT it would be just as unlawful. RS isn't something that can be made up based on a phone call about a guy with a gun. He has to be doing something or about to do something or did something that was illegal. A misdemeanor a cop has to see (with some exceptions). If the cop doesn't see any illegal activity he can engage in a consensual encounter but the things this cop did took from that to a detention without RS of a crime. Evident by his made up "Rudely" charge.
Also, funny thought.... How does one argue qualified immunity when the cop clearly believes they are above law?
Edit to remove my words from quotation
Not completely correct.. The cop, if he indicates he is detaining you, has to tell you why. If not then you both would be stuck in a circle that would never end. Furthermore, Terry v. Ohio says that as soon as the cop determines no crime, they must terminate the detention... Can you cite case law that says the LEO doesn't have to tell you why they are stopping you?EEllis wrote:Well the problem with that is that there is nothing in the law that makes the cop tell the person they stopped why they are doing so. The cops must be able to articulate it to the court but not on the street, by law policy may be different. All it takes is one clever, articulate, cop and it's a good stop. We don't know why they stopped him so it is not possible to make a pronouncement on the RS involved.Originalist wrote:Therein lies the problem.. In Terry v. Ohio, in order for the cops to lawfully detain you, they must have RS. RS of a crime that has occurred, is occurring or will occur. In this case, rudely displaying a gun in not a crime therefore the detention is unlawful. Someone calling to report a man with a gun, when it is lawful activity, without some other information, does not give RS to a cop to make a detention. We dont surrender our rights because someone feels icky or uncomfortable. If the detention is unlawful then so is the search (running of numbers, looking the gun over) as well as the seizure of property (disarming) however, Texas does allow a cop to disarm a CHLer given some broad, easily manipulated circumstances (I say that because what judge isn't going to err on the side of officer safety, regardless). Now, since it doesnt appear they asked for ID, there was no duty to show CHL even if the lawful demand is in question. Traffic stop = lawful detention, this situation does not appear to be, IMHO.EEllis wrote:No, wrong, massively wrong. First the cop is free to walk up and make contact with anyone so they easily could of gauge many things. Second they don't need probably cause they need reasonable suspicion to investigate and SCOTUS has said , and I repeat myself, that the cops need to be able to articulate a reason that a reasonable person could believe. That's it. And when stopped he could of told them that he refused to give ID, except for his CHL, refused to say squat, let them check his gun out and if they didn't quickly let him leave then I would say the cops were totally wrong.jmra wrote: Again, SCOTUS disagrees with you. There never should have been an opportunity for the officer to gauge attitude because there never should have been a stop.
Or maybe you don't have have a problem with "let me see your papers".
Now, had the cop been a tad smarter, here is what I would have said... Some called and reported a man with a gun, I drove by to check you out and I noticed that the gun is an AR style rifle and if it was select fire, would be subject to the NFA. I am lawfully detaining you until I determine that the rifle you are carrying is semi auto only or that you have the required paperwork if it is select fire. BAM! RS explained and disarming to determine ok... I will say, the 2A proponent that I am, I would never pursue a course such as this. That is also why I will most likely never OC a AR like that because I dont want any cop to have any reason to come talk to me. I do OC a handgun in Virginia and Pennsylvania (where it is legal to do so) because then that NFA bug cant bite me.
Why? If they must then you should be able to cite the requirement no? Truth is you can not only be stopped without being told why there is no particular law requiring you to be told why you are being arrested or that the cops must be correct if they do say why you are arrested. They can say it's for being an idiot and as long as when the defendant is tasken to court the officer can show PC then everything is fine.Originalist wrote:
Not completely correct.. The cop, if he indicates he is detaining you, has to tell you why. If not then you both would be stuck in a circle that would never end. Furthermore, Terry v. Ohio says that as soon as the cop determines no crime, they must terminate the detention... Can you cite case law that says the LEO doesn't have to tell you why they are stopping you?
But I'll rephrase to try and be more accurate. The officer doesn't have to tell the person why he believes he has RS for a stop.``While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we have never held that to be constitutionally required,'' Scalia
EEllis wrote:You think so but what bdickens thinks isn't the standard by which it's judged.