Saturday, February 23, 2013

Law Student "Schools" Policeman On His Gun Rights

Your results may vary depending on the demeanor of the public servant you are dealing with.
(source)

Learn the laws and rulings backwards and forwards.

Do not comply with illegal laws or illegal policies.

Resist!


31 comments:

  1. did it end there please post further on what happened later.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's so awesome I don't even have the words to express it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow If I ever need a lawyer, I going to find this kid.

    Razor in the Benewah

    ReplyDelete
  4. You did a great job not only citing case law to defend yourself but you were cordial and nice to the cops. I don't typically defend the latter but perhaps you realized that they mostly deal with morons - so offering them the chance to rise to the occasion was wonderful to see. I'm glad they took it.

    Dan in snowy Colorado

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brilliant. However if he had been Black they would have killed him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably not, it looked to be either Portland, OR or Portland, ME.

      Delete
    2. Bullshit, they would not even have stopped him with Eric the Red ready to pounce on any racism against blacks.

      Delete
    3. Congress Street, Portland Maine :)

      Delete
  6. Wow. That is quite motivating. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anyone got a list of those laws etc available for reference and use?

    ReplyDelete
  8. They followed him home with a drone and dropped a JDAM on his ass.
    That won't be found in the case law books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are working on that. The government really prefers if their actions follow perfectly with the laws written by their own lawyers.

      Delete
  9. thats F..ked up.. Welcome to Obamas America

    ReplyDelete
  10. thats F..ked up.. Welcome to Obamas America

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Bush's America, and Clinton's America and the other Bush's America and Reagan's..... Dude, get over the partisanship. BOTH parties are our enemies.

      Delete
  11. Excellent video. It is noteworthy that the citizen did not become aggressive. He merely insisted that the police officer respect his constitutional rights. He did not give his name, he insisted that he be allowed on his way, he insisted he have his firearm returned to him, ... when confronted by a representative of the state, he simply demanded his rights be observed and respected.

    The law student had a few "legal precedents" on the tip of his tongue, but, that aside, the major questions that he ask of the police officer were:

    Why did you stop me?
    Do you suspect me of a crime?
    Is what I was doing (carrying a firearm) a crime (in all cases)?
    Do you have cause to stop and detain me?
    Do you have cause to believe I am a convicted felon?
    May I proceed on my way?
    May I have my property back (his firearm)?

    He pointed out that the police officer, in taking possession of his (the citizen's firearm) threatened him with lethal force when he pointed a loaded firearm in his direction.

    The citizen was firm in his position; he did not threaten the officer; he persisted in non belligerently demanding why he was stopped, if there was probable cause for his being stopped, if he was suspected of committing a crime; he explained that he did not consent to being detained, searched or of having his property confiscated; he refused to identify himself. Of the latter it seemed innocuous until he explained that he did not want his name listed on a police report, a report which would naturally be filed as a matter of course due to the stop and exchange.

    Had the officer responded differently, that the person was suspected of committing a crime, what would have been the student's response?

    One thing that might be learned from this video is the need we all have for "legal-self-defense" training. Are there resources available that may prepare us for encounters similar to that experienced by the student in this video? Could some level of training be made available through 912 and Tea Party Groups? As citizens, we have a responsibility to be knowledgeable of the rights and privileges of American Citizens and the limitations imposed on government and government officials at all levels.

    As to self education, there are resources available on-line as well as some handy references such as "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States." The NRA, Buckeye Firearms Association and other organizations offer resources as well.

    I have noted before that in the words of the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", there exists no limiting description for the size, type, style, color, caliber or other feature of the arms "the people" have a constitutionally protected "right to keep and bear." As the Second Amendment is part and parcel of the Constitution, the only constitutionally viable means through which such limits can be lawfully enforced in through a constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention ... neither of which should be pursued at this point in our history.

    I firmly believe that current members of Congress and other government officials who accepted an oath to uphold the Constitution as a condition of their being awarded their respective seats of governance, that in openly conspiring to infringe on constitutionally protected rights they have disavowed their oath of office and should be subject to immediate removal from those offices and held, individually and collectively, criminally and civilly liable for the costs incurred to elect their replacements.

    Emmette Boone
    College Corner, OH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Emmette Boone,

      We already have on the books the laws that we need enforced.

      -----
      USC 18, Chapter 13, para 241 & 242

      UNITED STATES CODE
      TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
      PART I - CRIMES
      CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

      § 241. Conspiracy against rights

      If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

      If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -

      They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.


      § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

      Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

      -----

      Now all we need is a Sheriff with the backbone and cojones to actually make the arrests.

      stay safe,

      gooch

      who is not holding his breath ....

      Delete
  12. This guy is great. Love it. THE BEST DEFENSE of 2nd Amendment is knowledge and the next best defense is willingness to fight for it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. out fucking standing!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think the real issue here is how everyone thinks its acceptable to be walking down main street with a gun out. You people have been brainwashed into thinking its acceptable. the 2nd amendment is outdated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it acceptable for the Police to walk down that same street armed? Wearing the uniform of the Police State does not guarantee you any more freedoms than it does me. I am more fearful of an armed Uniformed Pirate, than I am an armed civilian. A civilian is held liable for damages he causes, armed agents of the Theftocracy are not.

      Delete
  15. Anonymous @ 15:13. Have you considered that maybe you are the one who has been brainwashed? In what sense is the 2nd amendment outdated? Have all persons of criminally violent inclination been locked up? Has all risk of tyrannical government been eliminated? Until those two things have happened, the 2nd amendment will never be outdated.

    ReplyDelete
  16. this is crap.. the guy was a dick and the cop was concerded.. what if this armed "citizen" was a nut or wanted .. how is the cop supposed to know without a check ? you gun guys take this shit way to far... the 2nd is to keep you armed incase the government trys to take our FREEDOME away .. keep your gun but is there a NEEED to make it public ?? grow up

    ReplyDelete
  17. The removal of this video is a First hand example of CENSORSHIP on the internet. This is why the First and the Second Amendment are mutually supportive. Our RIGHT to Free Speech has just been infringed upon. What's next?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the heads up. I found another source for the video and linked it.

      Delete
  18. Anonymous -- Your reasoning/opinion is flawed in so many ways! First of all the problem is not that EVERYONE thinks it's ok to walk down the street with a gun out it's quite the opposite. We have been brow beaten and brainwashed by libs to the point that gun owners (until recently needing to make a political point) do not open carry just for the reason the cops dropped on by. If more people who are responsible open carried as this guy did then maybe the exposure would seep in and make it not so scary to the morons who called it in. Crime would go down.

    Next, the scenario that played out here probably would have ended a littled more heavy handidly if this bright, disarming, young man didn't have a camcorder rolling during the whole episode. The cops knew that the arguments made by the armed individual were on point but they persisted in trying to 1)disarm him 2) illegally search him and 3) illegally detain him baselessly.

    Finally, the second Amendment actually states "right to bear arms". What part of "bear" don't you understand. This is the pointless argument of the left. They keep insisting that the public be corralled into their homes with certain guns, when the spirit of the amendment is to openly carry (or bear) if you will arms in such a manner the oppressors see what their dangers are if they try to impose tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think another point for the police to consider when they get these calls from "concerned citizens" is they actually ask those calling if 1) is the man brandishing the weapon or acting in a manacing way towards the public vs. just armed. The tire argument that liberal police officers love to cite is "wearing a gun caused the public to be concerned". Big whoop, this guy was good.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You know this sort of thing just make you feel better and scares the other side even more? Fear gets people working harder then warm fuzzes do.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The law may stipulate freedom, but it shouldn't advance crime. In this case, where obviously propaganda-fed Americans (cops alike) have been convinced that being American is a "public safety issue", it is obvious that Bloomberg-Obama terrorist-friendly libs are way out of line.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There are different firearm laws and safety rule which should be follow every person having a gun. I always prefer to go for firearm safety class to learn all information regarding firearm.

    ReplyDelete