Are we required to disclose a firearm at a suspicionless DHS internal checkpoint?

[Glocktogo]

I bailed on LE because I didn’t sign up for the Gestapo. I’m not going to get into the long and the short of it. You are obviously full of S#%T just like most “you will obey” cops that think because you have a badge and a gun you can make up for all the time you spent in a locker in high school. You can take personal shots at me all you like, while you’re at it hold your breath and stomp your feet. But you STILL haven’t answered my question. Call me an anarchist all you like, take shots all you like. But just because you are not smart enough to see the point and/or too afraid to answer it, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Now that you felt the need to make an intelligent conversation personal, let me just add, I’m not going to get into an insult match with you or anyone else. So jump up and down and tell everyone that you win, but remember getting into a personal insult match on the internet with someone that you have never met and claiming you won is like winning the special Olympics. Sure you won, but your still a retard

Well you started the argument, so you should know!

Seriously, you don't know me at all. If you actually knew me, you'd know that I don't put up with the type of S#%T you say you walked away from. I never spent a single second in a locker and I never put anyone there either. I don't take any S#%T and I don't give any S#%T, because I'm not in the S#%T business!

I haven't answered your question because you keep circling, but you've yet to ask a valid one. Feel free to make all the inferences you like, it won't help you one bit. Neither will doing the [Broken External Image] dance with all your Nazi/Hitler/Gestapo crap. That's a crutch for people with no valid argument. You're the one that started with the hyperbole and I called you on it.

And you're 100% correct about winning an internet argument. That's why I'M still in the game. You benched yourself by your own admission. So if winning an internet argument makes me a retard, what does that make someone who loses an internet argument?

 

[dutchwrangler]

What I find amusing is that the SC, a branch of the fed.gov, has been bestowed the status of final arbiter above "we the people", essentially making the people subjects of the central government they created. Ironic...

 

[Glocktogo]

What I find amusing is that the SC, a branch of the fed.gov, has been bestowed the status of final arbiter above "we the people", essentially making the people subjects of the central government they created. Ironic...

They have not. If the people feel strongly enough about the topic, they can overrule the SCOTUS with a Constitutional Amendment. That is the only true way the COTUS is a "Living Constitution".

What you lament is a populace with poor civics. The government has not failed us. We have failed to instill in the government a sense of boundaries, due to poor civics.

 

[Dave70968]

They have not. If the people feel strongly enough about the topic, they can overrule the SCOTUS with a Constitutional Amendment. That is the only true way the COTUS is a "Living Constitution".

What you lament is a populace with poor civics. The government has not failed us. We have failed to instill in the government a sense of boundaries, due to poor civics.

This. A thousand times this.

The Constitution truly is just a sheet of paper. I've seen it; it's hanging in the National Archives in DC. The idea behind it--the spirit of liberty--is the magic, and that is what makes America what she is. Unfortunately, too many people have forsaken that idea. Nothing will change in government until the people demand it, and enforce it by electing leaders who not only respect, but revel in, that spirit. It's a cultural problem, not a Congressional problem.

 

[henschman]

You CAN politely decline to converse with the officer. You can simply stare at them like a bug from outer space if you want. You can hold up a sign stating that you're exercising your 1st Amendment rights by staging a silent protest if you choose. I can assure you the stalemate will not last forever. You'll either win and they'll wave you on, or they'll make a mistake and take you into custody, in which case you can file a tort claim against them that you'll most likely win.

Yes, but the difference between the checkpoint and a man on the sidewalk is that you don't even have to stop for the man on the sidewalk. But the checkpoint requires you to stop, and force will be used against you if you don't. The notion that it is a voluntary contact is just silly.

What if you don't believe in the "Creator?" Do you have any rights at all? Who granted them?

I believe that rights can be deduced from the nature of reality, including the nature of man and the requirements for his survival.

From what I've seen, most natural rights theorists who believe in god call it a god-given right because they believe it is god who established human nature and the nature of reality. But belief in the existence of god is not a pre-requisite for belief in the concept of natural rights. Some of the strongest proponents of the concept are atheists.

As to whether the Constitution is dead, it is really irrelevant to me, since my rights exist whether there is a Constitution or not. The Constitution just established a political structure, most of which had the effect of protecting my natural rights from infringement by the government. I will continue arguing for returning to the Constitution -- not because I believe it to be the end all, be all -- but because it is something that is helpful to promoting my cause. If it was inimical to my cause, like the Constitutions of many other countries are, I would be arguing for ignoring it or abolishing it. There are plenty of things I would change about it, but for my present goals of moving toward greater individual liberty, it would be a very good start to get the government back to obeying the Constitution. There would still be plenty of work to do once that was accomplished, but you know, baby steps and all that!

 

[Dave70968]

Since we're getting philosophical, I'll go a little further down the road. I used the word Creator deliberately, both as a reference to the founding documents and to separate it from conventional religion. I'm with henschman on the idea that rights are a natural consequence of existence. Actually, it took law school for the final piece to fall into place: property.

On the first day in Property class, our prof asked "what is property." She got the expected answers: land, things you own, tangibles, etc. Then she hit us with the better answer: property is a relationship. Property is, fundamentally, the right to exercise control over something, and to exclude others from doing the same. I "own" my land because I can do to it what I will, and I can keep others from doing the same. Property becomes a meaningless concept when you exist alone (as on the hypothetical desert island). Wrapping my head around that was the key to understanding natural rights.

There's more to a person than the corporeal manifestation. The body is just that--a body. There's something special about life that creates a person, as opposed to an organ sack. If the person, then, is something other than the body, then the body becomes property--specifically, the property of the person. I, Dave70968, own this (rather pudgy) pile of flesh in fee simple. I have the highest title to it, binding against all others. From that flows all else. Murder, assault, rape all involve somebody else--someone with inferior title--controlling what happens to my body, my property. Slavery is wrong for the same reason: it appropriates a body from it's true owner.

Start from that point of view, and everything starts making a lot more sense, and becomes a lot more consistent. The First Amendment: I have the right to express myself because I own the tools of expression. The Second: I have the right to defend myself because I hold the highest title to my body, and thus any interloper would be violating that title. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth: I have the right to have a claim of harm to another heard by a neutral arbiter, tried by fair process, a solid defense, and so forth, so that the any punishment is the result of legitimate and recognizable means. Everything flows from the right of ownership.

 

[henschman]

That is a very good way of explaining it, Dave.

If you don't have self-ownership, then you don't have $#!t.

 

[Glocktogo]

Yes, but the difference between the checkpoint and a man on the sidewalk is that you don't even have to stop for the man on the sidewalk. But the checkpoint requires you to stop, and force will be used against you if you don't. The notion that it is a voluntary contact is just silly.

No one said it was voluntary but you. It is not a voluntary contact, but everything you divulge during the contact is. The agent may attempt to elicit information and you may divulge or not divulge that information. "Need, want, should, can", etc. are all request words. "Shall, must, demand, require" are command words. Until an agent uses one of these words, they are merely requesting your cooperation, not commanding it. Our society likes to place emphasis on non-verbal communication, but in regards to the law, the spoken word is primary.

FWIW, at a sobriety checkpoint, you are required to divulge your DL and insurance, because you're driving on a public road, but that's it.

 

[MLR]

The message is "Don't kill the messenger". When you have a beef with the law, take it up with the courts and your legislators. In this case, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the BP agents are not violating any laws or anyone's rights. The perception of people's rights being violated is an emotional response based on what the viewer thinks their rights are. The courts and the law disagree. As I've pointed out, I don't agree with the checkpoints. If I were in Janet Napolitano's position, they wouldn't be doing it. However, that does not make the order to do them unlawful.

I also don't have a beef with people expressing their rights at these checkpoints. What I take issue with is people improperly attempting to express their rights by misquoting and misapplying them, refusing to acknowledge legal precedents, and being completely miserable jackasses in the process. It's unnecessary and makes those of us who've actually spent time and energy researching our rights look like a bunch of ignorant gasbags by association.

Geez, the FUDD in this thread is STRONG!

You and I are pretty much on the same page here. My comment was not on the law itself but was with the idea espoused by some that those enforcing the law should somehow be afforded a break in how they enforce it. The idea that the ends justify the means is wrong.
"I hear it all the time when an abuse is pointed out. So and so has a tough job, we need to allow him some leeway in applying the law."
This should never be an excuse for sloppy police work.
My comment is only about the "its a tough job" excuse.

If it is a good excuse I hope you feel the same way about a doctor that cuts off the wrong leg during a surgery.

Michael

 

[dutchwrangler]

Self ownership is the First Principle of being free. Violation of this first principle one iota negates the entire thing, the same as a drop of piss in clean water no longer makes clean water pure. Considering that each payday property is taken without consent by government regulates men to being nothing but serfs. Asking permission to arm oneself at anytime regulates us to subjects. Demanding that we stop for checkpoints makes us no better than animals to be herded. The government's only ability to coerce participation in these actions is to hold the threat of physical violence against those who attempt noncompliance. It's been pointed out on this thread and many others on this forum, "... go ahead and see how that works out for you." The implication is that the moment you attempt to exerice your self sovereignty that harms nobody else... the use of physical violence will be brought to bear on you by government employees. They have the guns, the courts... the prisons.

The US is the world's largest basketcase of hypocrisy. Everyone says "land of the free"... but reality proves otherwise. Many on this forum for some reason can not or will not acknowledge that government is the problem, not the solution. Those who continue to support government in any manner (support the police, the troops, etc.) perpetuate the growth of government and ensure the infringement of liberty. Straddling the fence supporting one entity of government while decrying the actions of another is nothing but hypocrisy at it's finest.