GuessStoppo Raids Coming Soon

[MSimon]

As a result of predictive policing.

See the discussion that brought it on : viewtopic.php?p=109489#p109489

More here: http://classicalvalues.com/2014/01/guessstoppo/

[GIThruster]

You wouldn't be experiencing this paranoia centered around police activity if your weren't using dope.

[MSimon]

You wouldn't be experiencing this paranoia centered around police activity if your weren't using dope.

Well the thing is cops are already using it against gun owners.

http://classicalvalues.com/2014/01/your ... ere-is-it/

I sincerely hope you don't have any registered guns. Or a concealed carry permit.

If I did use dope I would not register with the state. The black market is safer. That is probably true of guns as well.

[williatw]

I was under the impression there was some kind of a "transit" rule. That is, if you are just passing through a state, even one where your CCW is not recognized, that as long as you are just driving through your gun was still legal.

[GIThruster]

No actually the reverse is true. Transporting weapons across state lines is a felony when such transport does not satisfy the requirements of the state. This has forever been a sore point for hunters hunting out of state, since depending upon the state they are often required to send them through firearms dealers with Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) to get where they're going. This is a legitimate reading of the federalist intention that all authority not specifically granted the feds, resides with the states. If you live in Florida where its easy to get a handgun, and carry it into Mass. where its not, the authorities in Mass. have every reason to see you are still meeting their state requirements. Else folks will just go to FL to purchase what are then illegal weapons in Mass.

One interesting example on another level is flying to Alaska. The gun laws in Canada require a permit to transfer a firearm through canadian airspace, and the authorities in Alaska require anyone flying a small plane over Alaska have firearms (intended to protect persons from bears.) So anyone flying from the contiguous US to hunt in Alaska, has to stop on the way and register their weapons in Canada. There's a small fee and then the plane can fly on.

[kunkmiester]

Wrong. FOPA 1986(9?) established a federal clause that says if its locked in the trunk basically you're fine no matter what the local laws are.

There is an issue with flying, places like New York City used to arrest you when you rechecked your luggage and had to declare the firearms per TSA. Big deal at one point don't know if they still do it or got properly sued or what.

[williatw]

Wrong. FOPA 1986(9?) established a federal clause that says if its locked in the trunk basically you're fine no matter what the local laws are.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles ... ation.aspx

In most states, firearms may be transported legally if they are unloaded, cased, and locked in the automobile trunk or otherwise inaccessible to the driver or any passenger.
The exceptions to this rule apply mainly to transportation of handguns and so-called “assault weapons.” The myriad and conflicting legal requirements for firearm transportation through the states make caution the key for travelers.

If you travel with a trailer or camper that is hauled by an automobile, it is advisable to transport the firearms unloaded, cased and locked in the trunk of the car. If your vehicle is of the type in which driving and living spaces are not separated, the problem becomes one of access. If the firearm is carried on or about the person, or placed in the camper where it is readily accessible to the driver or any passenger, state and local laws regarding concealed carrying of firearms may apply. It is recommended, therefore, that the firearm be transported unloaded, cased, and placed in a locked rear compartment of the camper or mobile home, where it is inaccessible to the driver or any passenger.

[TDPerk]

@GIThruster

"No actually the reverse is true. Transporting weapons across state lines is a felony when such transport does not satisfy the requirements of the state."

As Kunkmeister has already pointed out, you are drastically full of shit.

This is yet another example of your not knowing your nether aperture from a hole in the ground.

[GIThruster]

Obviously, you're suffering the consequences of severely impaired reading comprehension, Perky. There is hope. You can get remedial reading classes at your local elementary school if you can play nice.

As was noted by me, and by William, the specific details of the law vary state to state, and indeed, if you don't meet the demands of a particular state, transporting firearms unlawfully across state lines is a felony. This is why hunters like myself, do not carry firearms from places like Oregon where they are not required to be registered, to places like New Jersey where they are so required.

[TDPerk]

"As was noted by me, and by William, the specific details of the law vary state to state, and indeed, if you don't meet the demands of a particular state, transporting firearms unlawfully across state lines is a felony."

You doubling down on BS is no surprise.

States cannot require you to disassemble the the thing, it is not a case of anything goes. This is the adjudicated law. There is a federally protected right prohibiting states from making any laws that come into their heads, as to how a firearms carrier can move through their state, going from where it is legal to where it is legal.

I have no reading comprehension problem here, you just don't know what the superseding federal law is.

" This is why hunters like myself, do not carry firearms from places like Oregon where they are not required to be registered, to places like New Jersey where they are so required."

Again you don't know what you are talking about, and you flaunt your stupidity in front of us--and it is stupidity, ignorance is no excuse here. The federal law in this case applies while taking a firearm from where it is legal to anywhere it is legal. It has nothing to do with going from where it is legal, to where it is illegal, and no one has said anything to contrary.

Although a clear nexus of Heller and MacDonald, is that the New Jersey law is FOS, constitutionally, as it prevents perfectly normal access to and ownership and use of firearms common to the purpose of self-defense and other lawful purposes, and the government is not empowered to make firearms uncommon to self-defense, and thereby make firearms prohibitions constitutionally valid.

'Course New Jersey is FOS generally, since they won't let you pump your own gas.

[ladajo]

Is not the real issue in all this a basic violation of civil rights with unreasonable search and attempted seizure? Not to mention the violation of privacy.

It is fundamentally wrong to me that (if it is the case), the acting police used an out of state database of personal information to attempt law enforcement with no cause.

They a.) Should not have access to that information. b.) Should not have acted on it if they did.

The missing piece in this for me is why the stop was made in the first place.

Also, the fact that folks do not know their basic rights. You have no need to answer any question of an police officer. At all.
If it is a traffic enforcement stop, he has a right to verify your right to be on the road with the vehicle. Nothing else.
So all the bullshit about "Where are you going? Where are your coming from? Where do you live? Where do you work? What were you doing? blah blah blah" has no requirement to be answered. It can be met with a simple, "Officer, as a personal choice I do not answer such questions. I have provided you with accepted proof of identification (which could be the person next to you vouching for who you are), and proper proof of legal operation of this vehicle. Do you have reason to require anything else?" If he does, then tell him to talk to your lawyer.

As a former cop in a past life, I can tell you that we were happy to ask questions as folks were generally idiots about answering away and talking themselves into a corner. It was our policy to try. If they chose not to answer, there was nothing we could do without demonstrated cause. Even stop that resulted in turning up good other issues could go bad because the premise of the stop was faulty. "Fruit of the poison tree". We dreaded that. Thus with a cause based stop, we loved to ask questions. It tended to give more weight to anything we turned up in the process. But the idea of me asking someone where their gun is and accosting them over it based on a database hit for a CC is ridiculous. It has ACLU written all over it. At best, if I determined to process someone, then I would ask, "Are you armed? Are there any weapons present?" But ONLY if the decision to process had been made. And if they chose not to answer, the burden was mine, not theirs. The burden became theirs when they chose to use a weapon on or nearby to prevent me in my duties (based on cause) or make harm to others or property. The ACLU loves it when cops go to a house and process someone for a non-weapons issue, but decide to roll up a weapons safe in the premises "just because". That falls firmly in illegal search and seizure" as the weapons were not related to the issue. Especially when stored safely.

All of this is bullshit. It is one of the reasons I went a different route than law enforcement (federal plans at the time) for a career. I found that the entire premise of "protect and serve" had been flushed and the new fear based premise of "dominate and control" had taken its place. I dare you, go ask a cop for directions or advice on something in the area and see how suspicious he is of you. Policing is about presence. Unfortunately that is now interpreted to mean fear vice respect (value).

This entire issue is not relevant to drugs. It is its own thing. Bad policing is a struggle throughout history.

[GIThruster]

Okay Perky, so since you don't want to admit what I said is true, that the example I gave is accurate and to the point and that though I have already agreed to the general notion of the utility of locking stuff in the trunk but noted there are states where more specific laws apply, you have decided you need to press the issue in your infantile fashion, despite you don't know the law here nor could care less.

While federal law does superceed the state law, policing forces are agents of the state, and they enforce state law. So despite the fact FOPA says you can get away with certain behaviors, state practice is quite another thing and the states do not routinely respect federal law. Take the recent decriminalization of cannabis use in CO. It doesn't matter that the feds have made this illegal if there is no one there to enforce the law. This is why hunters who are hunting out of state, routinely use the services of those with FFL's to ship their weapons, because they don't want to have hassles of interpretation with silly internet lawyers like you, Perky. Having been a hunter for more than a quarter century, I can tell you yes indeed, this is the practice so your contentions otherwise don't mean anything.

This is why we frown on inbreeding, Perky; it has these unfortunate results. There are limits to what we can do for hillbillies whose grandparents were brother and sister, but there are social services available and all manner of remedial helps so you should check them out.

Perky's family: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... t/4009825/

[MSimon]

Is not the real issue in all this a basic violation of civil rights with unreasonable search and attempted seizure? Not to mention the violation of privacy.

It is done all the time in the name of fighting drugs. IMO it is because not many understand the http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... dment.html

John Hancock was a drug smuggler (alcohol). His ship was the sloop Liberty.

Smuggling was the reason for general searches by the Brits. The colonists didn't like that. A LOT of Americans these days have no problem with it. Liberty used to have a much higher value 225 years ago than it does today.

Take asset forfeiture laws. You don't need to be convicted of a crime to lose your property. Just suspected. Some police depts. fund themselves with this "tool".

===

And the right to be on the road? Traveling is a human right.

http://classicalvalues.com/2014/01/you-can-refuse/

There are US court cases affirming it. You don't need a drivers license.

===

Policing used to mean (for the most part) following up on citizen complaints. Citizens initiated cases. We now have "enforcers". The same sort of thing that got people riled up in 1776. We now live in a police state. I applaud you ladajo for choosing a different career.

[TDPerk]

"Okay Perky, so since you don't want to admit what I said is true"

It isn't true. Your own example about New Jersey proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

Your last post reminds me of two things Conan said were best in life. In your post, I see my enemies running before me AND the lamentations of their women. You're a twofer.