The right to disarm you !

[Al Norris]

Samuri, the first two quotes you pasted, had to do with intimidation. Completely a different thing from a right.

The third quote you used says exactly what it means. If you must have a license or a permit to do something, then it is not a right, but a privilege. Should I have cited the court cases to prove this?

Regardless, in no way can any of those three quotes be interpreted as my having said the guy's rights were violated. You are reading into what I wrote, something that was never there.

So, now I'm a little confused. What is it, exactly, that you're trying to say??? If cops don't have the right to disarm someone, because it's "intimidation," but this guy, who was disarmed, did not have his rights violated, then what happened???

The man's rights were not violated. Even if we assume (for the sake of the argument) that the man had a right, it was still not violated. Keep reading.

The police do not have a "right," they have authority (granted by the State) to disarm a citizen during an investigative stop. The State has determined that pursuant to officer safety, the officer may disarm the individual during the stop (note the use of the word "may"). That is a lawful regulation of a right, as it is temporary in nature.

We throw around the term, "right," way to easily when we really mean privileges and authorities as opposed to actual rights. Further, many seem to assume that all rights are absolute. This is simply not so. Not even the Founders believed this.

Does this help clear up your confusion?

 

[Samurai]

Antipas, I'm glad we agree.

 

[OBIWAN]

aaarrrghhhhh

Ok...slightly on topic

Where we seem to differ is this

It simply does not matter to me that someone is armed

What matters to me is what he actually does...not what he can do

You sound a little like the Sarah Brady crowd when you maintain that the very act of having a gun makes you a hazard

For example....here in Colorado it is perfectly legal here in Colorado to have a handgun on your car...even if you don't have a CCW permit

So if Joe citizen gets pulled over and has a handgun but no carry permit then he has no requirement to mention that weapon to officer friendly. Officer Friendly gives him a ticket and they part ways....no worries

But next month Joe Citizen gets his CCW Permit....Officer friendly pulls him over and being a "good guy" Joe mentions to Friendly that he has a CCW permit and he is armed.

OF immediately realizes that JC has become a menace to mom, apple pie and society as a whole. Rather than simply issue him a ticket he first disarms him and unloads the weapon

So....the only difference is that in one case the officer KNOWS the person is armed. He is in no more and no less danger ....it is only his awareness that has changed...and therefore his actions

Me...I treat everyone like they are armed...from the lady in the checkout line to the nut that thinks I am driving too slow and should get out of his way.

I personally think that absent any ill advised actions on the permit holders part there should be no need to disarm them

There was a post a while back about a guy that had his coat ride up while shopping and another patron saw it. When the sheeple told the store manager they called the police. When the police got there they did not calmly ask the guy if he was carrying and did he have a permit...no....they tackled him

Both that...and the traffic stop we are talking about strike me as overreaction by the police. Immediately classifying someone as a threat simply because they are armed...now I was not there...perhaps the guy had shifty eyes or something

For myself...if I was the cop...the fact that the driver told me he was armed would cause me to

1. Be just as careful as I would if I didn't know he was armed

2. Assume he was probably not planning on killing me since he had warned me

So please...stop assuming how I would react in a given situation...I may be better adjusted than some memebers of law enforcement...or maybe not

Cops have the power to do lots of things that are still bad ideas

Stop and ask yourself two things

1. Should a cop handcuff an unarmed driver if he is bigger and stronger than the cop....you know...in case he decides to take a swing at him???

2. If the cop decides to disarm/frisk the guy and he finds some drugs in his back pocket...is it a legal search????

 

[robc]

Arguing that cops can/should/could/might/may/have to/aughta/ disarm people during routine traffic stops is tantamount to asserting that cops are inherently, fundamentally imbued with rights that I am not. The 2nd Ammendment does not end with "...especially cops." The fact that this happens should be a constant reminder to all of us that the 2nd ammendment no longer exists. If you are a pro-gun cop who is arguing these points with his heart, you have my appreciation, sympathy and prayers. You DO NOT have constitutional rights that exclude me. If I anounce my firearm at the beginning of a stop I am no threat to you. Deep down you have to know that... You may just be part of a society that has, subconciously at least, let go of the second ammend, watching it slip down into the black depths while we cling to our liferaft in the vain belief that someone else might swim down and save it. Like I said before, if it's my belt today, it's my basement tomorrow. Look at how the cops in New Orleans looked out for everyone's safety in the aftermath of Katrina!!

 

[Al Norris]

Antipas, I'm glad we agree.

No... Actually we don't.

You are arguing that the police should disarm citizens at every opportunity. For his safety. Because a citizen with a gun intimidates the officer. Because the officer can't control the situation if he knows a guy he stopped is carrying.

All of those reasons have been given. And you know what? That's paranoia.

I agree with OBIWAN. It is not always necessary. It is not intimidating. The officer looses no more control than if he stops a citizen who has a gun but doesn't tell him. And...

The more a gun is handled by those who are unfamilar with its workings, the more chance of an ND occurring. Don't even try and tell me that police officers are more familar with guns than the gun owner himself. That dog won't hunt.

 

[G-Cym]

Arguing that cops can/should/could/might/may/have to/aughta/ disarm people during routine traffic stops is tantamount to asserting that cops are inherently, fundamentally imbued with rights that I am not.

You, and others, seem to have a misconception. You believe that cops have no more authority than you do. You are wrong. We live in a democratic society, and a society of laws. We elect people to govern us, and appoint and hire people to enforce our laws. We do give them special authority that we do not personally have. If you don't like the concept of Police, then you should move to a country that is in disarray and anarchy. In America, we have indeed granted police authority beyond our own, and in that function, they do have the right to exercise that authority. The authority given to them by elected officials. Are these right fundamental? No. But they are indeed imbued with special right and authority. Are they always right? No. But that is what training and reviews are for. Again, if you are uncomfortable with the authority Police have, and think that you should be on the same level as them, move to a third world nation that has no police.

 

[robc]

Words have specific meaning

We elect people to govern us, and appoint and hire people to enforce our laws. We do give them special authority

I never said anything to the contrary. I get that. I accept that. What I said was,

You DO NOT have constitutional rights that exclude me.

Yes, Mr. officer, sir, you have authority. You have the ability to take my gun if you so choose. Happy now?

I'm pretty sure we're talking about people getting stopped for 37 in a 30 and having to surrender their sidearm so the cop "feels safe." I say that's a load of crap. I don't care who you are. When I anounce I have a CCW, I'm trying to be nice, trying to eliminate tension, reduce the possibility of alarm, trying to be cooperative and compliant. Don't hand me that crap about feeling safer after taking my gun, unloading it and putting it on the roof of the car. There's an ulterior motive here and I know it. This society is slowly, but surely letting me know that my guns aren't really mine. I know this is a subtle thing, and many of you don't agree. The Bill of Rights says I can have them. LEO's that participate in what we're talking about are, maybe not knowingly, participating in a new (mandatory) social contract that says guns are no longer your right. We'll take them away from you permanently when we get around to it. It's analogous to the boiling frog theory. If you put a frog in a pan of water and boil it slowly enough, it'll never realize it's being killed. This society is slowly taking our guns (and our will) away.

 

[Al Norris]

You, and others, seem to have a misconception.

Yes, I believe you do.

You believe that cops have no more authority than you do. You are wrong.

Actually, in a republic, they have no more authority than you.

We live in a democratic society, and a society of laws. We elect people to govern us, and appoint and hire people to enforce our laws.

We live in a Constitutional Republic with some democratic trappings. In a democracy, the mob rules and the minorities have only the rights the mob grants them. Get that straight, and much of the rest falls into place.

We do give them special authority that we do not personally have.

Wrong. We cannot give what we ourselves do not have. That is the basis of a Republic. The people gave to the State, powers and authorities that belong to the people as a whole, to exercise in the governing of the whole. None of this means that the people did not retain the right to exercise those same powers and authorities, unless written into the federal or state constitutions.

There are some states wherein the people gave to that state an exclusive power to arrest. However, in most states, the people retain that power in conjunction with that authority given to the state.

If you don't like the concept of Police, then you should move to a country that is in disarray and anarchy.

Most of the US did not have police until the late 19th and early 20th century. You had a magistrate, who could call upon the militia should the need arise. For much of the history of America, that was the "police."

What we now call, the police department/force is a fairly recent addition to law enforcement in America.

In America, we have indeed granted police authority beyond our own, and in that function, they do have the right to exercise that authority. The authority given to them by elected officials.

No. We granted the state the police power. Our elected legislatures passed laws to further enforce its authority. The police have no rights. They are an arm of the government. Governments have powers and authorities, not rights. Rights are reserved for living human beings.

Our elected officials (the legislatures) could not have given any power to the police if we, the people, had not first given such authority to the legislatures.

Are these right fundamental? No. But they are indeed imbued with special right and authority.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong! They (the police) are imbued with nothing whatsoever. Whatever power and authority the police have are derived directly from mandates by the state legislatures and therefore, indirectly from us.

...if you ... think that you should be on the same level as them...

But we are. They (the police) are civilians, just as we are. The police however, are mandated to protect society at large and to uphold the laws of the state they are employed in.

 

[Lord_Nikon]

I'm with Antipas, and coincidentally, basic political science, here.

 

[Samurai]

Ok. Now YOU'RE putting words in my mouth that I clearly didn't say, Antipas. In post #31, I said:

Nobody was talking about "mandatory" disarmament of civillian CCW holders. The point is, cops DO, in fact, have the right to disarm you, if they feel they should.

In fact, it's been quoted at least once! You're clearly not listening to the point-counterpoint of this discussion.

I think I'm done with this topic. But in conclusion, I have to say that I think it's pretty stupid to "mandate" a person "to protect society at large and to uphold the laws of the state they are employed in" while denying them the ability to temporarily remove a gun from a person that they perceive, for whatever reason, to be a potential threat. Seems to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

A person cannot protect anyone from anything unless they have the means and the authority to remove potential threats to their charge. If the cops can't disarm someone they feel is a threat, then we might as well not have any cops at all.

Antipas, your proposal is a pretty bad solution to the minor inconvenience of having to unholster and hand over your pistol at a traffic stop (which likely won't even happen, unless you spook the cop somehow). And, if you're not trained in your weapon well enough to hand it to someone else safely, you shouldn't be carrying it.

Ok, I'm done.

 

[Al Norris]

I was going to quote all the things you said, that on the whole, appear to say what I said you were arguing. But I don't have to go that far. Just look at what you wrote back at post #27:

For a cop to be secure from attack with the weapon, the weapon must be taken away, and not within reach of the stranger.

That most certainly implies that the police should disarm the citizen at every opportunity.

Then I gave the list of reasons. Was I out of line there too? I think not.

I called it paranoia. And it is.

If the cops can't disarm someone they feel is a threat,...

I don't believe anyone in this thread said they couldn't. That's a strawman argument.

Antipas, your proposal...

What proposal? Where did I propose anything?

And, if you're not trained in your weapon well enough to hand it to someone else safely, you shouldn't be carrying it.

You have mistaken what I wrote. I'm not worried about me. I'm worried about the officer who is most likely not familiar with my firearm.

You're clearly not listening to the point-counterpoint of this discussion.

Really? And here I thought I had a good grasp of the situation.

You (and some others) keep calling this thing that officers can do, a right. It is not. It is a power they have. An Authority, if you prefer. But a right? Hardly.

All I've really said is that it may not be necessary in each and every situation. Something, until now, you have objected to:

...the minor inconvenience of having to unholster and hand over your pistol at a traffic stop (which likely won't even happen, unless you spook the cop somehow).

The part I underlined appears to agree with me. Now.

 

[DKSuddeth]

No offense intended, but have you actually taken a concealed-carry class??? Officers ALWAYS have the right to disarm civilians who are in possession of weapons during questioning. When the cop pulled your "buddy" over, he didn't know your buddy from Adam! The cop, just like every other American in this country, has the RIGHT to feel SECURE in his person, PARTICULARLY when he's out there putting his neck on the line, trying to keep the druggies/murderers/rapists out of your HOUSE, so that you can breathe the air and enjoy your "God-given Rahtz to keep an' baer ahrmz!"

I swear! People who eat and sleep under the comfort of the protection of this government, and then shout at the men who provide them that comfort, just irritate me!

then prepare to be irritated.

Do officers have more rights that I do? Do they have more rights than YOU do?
Why is that? what is it about a LEO that grants them more rights than the average citizen?
Having my weapon secured by a LEO does not make me feel more secure in my person. neither should it make YOU feel more secure, unless you happen to be one of those people that feel that LEO's are superior in all things firearms related because they wear a badge and had superhuman training.

A LEO doesn't make the air that I breathe, nor do they ensure that I have a quantity of it to breathe on a daily basis. He doesn't put his neck on the line anymore than I do on a daily basis by going out in to the world any more than I do.

by reading "God-given Rahtz to keep an' baer ahrmz!", it seems to me that you have as little tolerance for the Second Amendment as Bloomberg and brady do.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I would look at it from the policemans point of view. If I was a cop I would have done the same thing. The cop has no idea if you are a law obiding citizen or a crazy killed. Its not like it really matters if he took it or not. I mean y does it matter? If it makes the cop feel more comfortable, Im for it. If he is uncomfortable or mad that just ups my chances of getting a ticket.

absolutely, it's not like there has ever been a LEO was crazy or homicidal and killed someone when they shouldn't have. I mean, random shootings shouldn't count when it comes to LEO's, right?

 

[SteelCore]

The cop, just like every other American in this country, has the RIGHT to feel SECURE in his person, PARTICULARLY when he's out there putting his neck on the line, trying to keep the druggies/murderers/rapists out of your HOUSE, so that you can breathe the air and enjoy your "God-given Rahtz to keep an' baer ahrmz!"

Actually, in many states and cities, cops (and politicians) are the REASON why citizens don't feel safe -- because they're enforcing unconstitutional gun laws. Those who are willing to break the law because they don't want to put their personal safety at risk are then in danger of being arrested by cops.

If all Americans have the right to feel secure, then no cop has the right to disarm anyone who isn't under arrest for a crime. They may be able to do it legally, but that doesn't make it right or constitutional. Police are no better than any other human beings, and some of them are themselves criminals (e.g., the LAPD Rampart Division). It's not good when they're armed and no one else is.

 

[tom650604]

There are good cops and bad cops. There are also dumb cops or not so common sense cops. There are also cops who like to pull the rank stuff or big shot on normal citizens. You name it and there's one or a few in every law enforcement departments. Example: Not all attornies are smart, right?

Let's be honest here. If you were a LE and stop a citizen and he/she hands you his/her license plus CCW permit. You already know that this person is a honest citizen although don't let your guard down anytime soon. However, repect the fact that the citizen is repectful enough to disclose that he/she is armed and don't be a punk about it. Most BG, don't carry legally, don't plan to or will not disclose they have a gun, during traffic stops.

SENARIO: You get pulled over for a traffic stop, you handed your DL and CCW permit to the LE. LE started asking you all this dumb questions like "Why do you feel you need the gun? and etc." Answer: For the same reason the knuckle head has one, duh! If this LE lack that much common sense, you know you got one of those LE discribe above, PERIOD! If he takes your gun for any reason, even if he just wanted to run it or whatever, 70% of the time, you know you are in for the ride. Just another LE pulling the stuff on you. The best part of this whole thing is:::::::>> They know they are playing with you and the worst part is you know it too.

Honestly, we don't get them all good, smart and with common sense. This means that we have some really dumb ones out there.

PEACE!

 

[KSFreeman]

I would say it depends.

Greg, what does your state law say. Is there a provision allowing the police to do this on traffic stops?

If not, I would argue that the officer has commited Criminal Confinement and Criminal Conversion and needs to be prosecuted.

 

[9mmsnoopy]

"A police officer who disarms a civillian is not being intimidating, he's just looking out for his own safety.

...you are saying that p-o-l-i-c-e-m-e-n are NOT civilians?

...huh, imagine that..."



Thats exactly what there are, civilians. Some of them just have a superiority complex with a huge ego to feed.

 

[9mmsnoopy]

"PARTICULARLY when he's out there putting his neck on the line, trying to keep the druggies/murderers/rapists out of your HOUSE"



Lets get real here, if a druggie/murderer/rapist is about to enter my house or your house, is a cop going to be there to prevent it? NO.

I know it can be a dangerous job, i do respect that, but they are not PREVENTING much of anything, they primarily will solve some cases(which yes i know, is a benifit to society) and write a whole slew of tickets to generate revenue for thier respective cities.

 

[invention_45]

For his safety. Because a citizen with a gun intimidates the officer.

*

Antipitas: I understand your argument. I just copied from you as a convenient source for this concept, while I know it isn't how you feel.

*

"For his safety" is code for "so we can hold it in the property room while your lawyer tells you it'll cost you more than the gun to get it back, and then buy it for ourselves at a deep discount when it's auctioned".

In other words "for my safety" = "so I can legally steal it".

 

[TexiCali Slim]

WOW this reminds me of a joke!

Two buddys are driving across the country, well they're speeding through Mississippi when a cop pulls them over. The cop walks up to the window and taps it with his flashlight, "License and registration please", the driver pauses a second and looks in the center consel when *WHAP* the cop hits him in the head with his flashlight and tells him "Here in Mississippi we have our driver licence and registration ready" the driver apologizes and contiues to look for it. The cop makes his way over to the passenger side of the car and taps on the window and right when the passenger rolls the window down *WHAP* the passenger rubs his head and say's "What the he** was that for!?!?", the cop says "I was makin your wish come true", "My WISH?!?"he asks, The cop says "Well if I would've let Ya'll leave without hitting you once I went down the road youd've told your buddy; Man I wish that cop would've pulled that sh** on me"