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

[perfor8]

People who perform these jobs should be ashamed of themselves. They are spitting on the graves of REAL heroes who bled and died so that we wouldn't have to put up with BS like this in our country. Suspicion-less checkpoints belong in police states and dictatorships; not in the Land of the Free.

Personally I am not in any way moved by the plight of someone who takes a job, the requirements of which involve violating my rights. And no, I'm not one of the types who think our rights can be given or taken away at the pleasure of the government or the Supreme Court; I happen to think they are natural and inalienable, the way those fellows who signed the Declaration of Independence thought. As for the people who lament how unpleasant it is to hold one of these jobs that involve violating people's rights, I say decent, freedom-loving people should MAKE that kind of job unpleasant for anyone who takes it. The Nuremberg Defense ("I was just following orders") doesn't hold any water with me. Sure the people who write tyrannical laws bear responsibility; but so do the people who are willing to enforce them. I think a lot more people should express their outrage when they are stopped at suspicion-less checkpoints like the one in the video, and the ones they do here in Oklahoma. Maybe it would cause some of those people working the checkpoints to re-think the justification for what they're doing; and maybe it would cause some of the higher-ups in the law enforcement agencies to quit doing this stuff for fear that it is causing anti-police sentiment to spread in society.

I for one will let anyone who stops me at one of these things know exactly how I feel about it. It may just be part of their job, and it may even be a part they don't like very much... but it is part of MY job as a responsible citizen to speak out against outrageous violations of my liberty. If you disagree with something but you don't speak out, you have no grounds to be upset about it... you are as much a part of the problem as the people who perpetrate these violations.

OK, lawyer hat back on... as for the legal issue, yes, in Oklahoma the law says that you are supposed to tell any law enforcement officer that you are armed any time you come in contact with one, if you are carrying pursuant to a concealed carry license. This would apply to any law enforcement officer, whether local, state, or federal; and it would apply to any kind of contact, including contact at one of these checkpoints.

And this.

 

[dutchwrangler]

The Constitution is dead and swirls around the toilet bowl. There was a time up until recently that I defended it and the ideals it held with passion. A few months ago I simply said fuggit when it became obvious that no matter what a few gun owners on the internet thought... those in power could care less about it. Government and religion are unnecessary evils humans have decided to saddle themselves with. History proves that neither brings us closer to being free as the Creator intended.

Do yourself a favor. Turn off, tune out and unplug. Enjoy life for what it offers, savor the moments with family & friends, and have your thoughts dwell on the Creator and all he has created. Fawk government, fawk religion, fawk the stress. My 2¢ of advice.

 

[Glocktogo]

And this.

So you also believe that no one should work for the Border Patrol and that the borders should be self regulating?

 

[henschman]

"You see, you and I, we believe in life. But you want to fight for it, to kill for it, even to die--for life. I only want to live it."
-- Kira Argounova in We the Living, by Ayn Rand

I guess I am more the former.

And to glocktogo: yes, I do not believe it is ethical to take a job that you know will involve violating the rights of your fellow man. It is not just tyrants that make tyranny possible -- it is equally the responsibility of the people who are willing to carry out the tyrant's orders. If no one were willing to enforce laws of this sort, policies like suspicion-less searches could not exist.

Unfortunately, in every society, there has never been a shortage of individuals who are willing to follow any orders if the pay is good enough. It can always be justified in a person's own mind -- especially through the effects of group dynamics, such as the camaraderie of those who perform the same job with you.

 

[dutchwrangler]

"You see, you and I, we believe in life. But you want to fight for it, to kill for it, even to die--for life. I only want to live it."
-- Kira Argounova in We the Living, by Ayn Rand

Good quote. One that I began applying to my own life a few months ago. Just live life.

 

[spd67]

Well I guess we can just agree to disagree. This all comes down to a differing opinion in the interpretation of the Constitution and Interpretation in the Law. Because we are a Nation of Laws and we live with Rule of Law. What I don't agree with is your bully attitude and temper tantrum when someone disagree's with you. We live in a nation where we CAN disagree. Where we can have a public debate with differing views, Where we Can question our law making body without fear of repercussion.

Sir, I may not agree with your views, But I respect your right to have them. In the future If you truly want to attempt to educate your fellow Oklahoman's and Americans you should go about it in a different manner. In stead of calling people who disagree with you ignorant and acting like a child you could simply respectfully disagree and then you might actually have an adult discussion. If you truly are for individual freedom then you surely must agree that a person has a right to their opinion even if it is against what you believe.

When it comes to the topic of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Sir, I can spout them off verbatim, as well as cite Court Cases, State and Federal Statute, and SCOTUS Rulings.

And as far as saying that Boarder Patrol Agents are violating the rights of American Citizens I again have to respectfully disagree with you. The highest court in the land has ruled on that matter and the Boarder Patrol is acting in accordance with that ruling. You may not like it, but it is the way it is.

They are doing a Job that is dangerous, tedious, hard, and they are doing it under the guidelines set fourth to them by LAW. They are not violating your rights. People like you, and the people in the video you showed do nothing but perpetuate a culture of discourse against people in Law Enforcement. That kind of behavior does nothing but emboldens resolve until somebody gets hurt.

Your quick to criticize but Sir, have you ever stood on a line, Served in the Military, Put on a bullet proof vest and a uniform. Sir, have you ever been shot at, assaulted, spit on, had guns and knives pulled on you. Sir, have you ever ran into physical danger for the benefit of another. Have you ever cleaned up a Meth lab, Have you ever had to call DHS to pick up a child because a toddlers mother has OD on poison brought from Mexico. Have you ever worked a crash were a juvenile is dead and have to break that news to their parents.

My point is that it is real easy to sit back and be a Keyboard Champion who wears a red cape and tights, but I believe in walking in their shoes before I pass judgment.

 

[perfor8]

Your quick to criticize but Sir, have you ever stood on a line, Served in the Military, Put on a bullet proof vest and a uniform. Sir, have you ever been shot at, assaulted, spit on, had guns and knives pulled on you. Sir, have you ever ran into physical danger for the benefit of another. Have you ever cleaned up a Meth lab, Have you ever had to call DHS to pick up a child because a toddlers mother has OD on poison brought from Mexico. Have you ever worked a crash were a juvenile is dead and have to break that news to their parents.

I've worn uniforms of the type that require an oath for almost 25 years. I'm former military and current LEO.

So you also believe that no one should work for the Border Patrol and that the borders should be self regulating?

I find it interesting how men (in the broadest scope of the word) are willing to intentionally misquote those with whom they don't currently share space. I'll not rebut your obvious logical fallacy. I will ask that you refrain from putting words in my mouth. I will state, for purposes of clarification, that I believe no one should violate the Constitution while employed as border patrol. You can quote that as often as you're capable of accomplishing it with accuracy.

 

[Fatboy Joe]

Err..

 

[Fatboy Joe]

I will ask that you refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I believe he was asking you a question. That isn't a quote.

 

[Glocktogo]

"You see, you and I, we believe in life. But you want to fight for it, to kill for it, even to die--for life. I only want to live it."
-- Kira Argounova in We the Living, by Ayn Rand

I guess I am more the former.

And to glocktogo: yes, I do not believe it is ethical to take a job that you know will involve violating the rights of your fellow man. It is not just tyrants that make tyranny possible -- it is equally the responsibility of the people who are willing to carry out the tyrant's orders. If no one were willing to enforce laws of this sort, policies like suspicion-less searches could not exist.

Unfortunately, in every society, there has never been a shortage of individuals who are willing to follow any orders if the pay is good enough. It can always be justified in a person's own mind -- especially through the effects of group dynamics, such as the camaraderie of those who perform the same job with you.

It seems funny that I agree with your assessment regarding violating the rights of others, but disagree with you that line agents and officers are routinely doing just that. It seems to me that your disagreement is with the Supreme Court, not the line agents. They've been informed that their orders are legal and they have court decisions to back it up. You on the other hand have feelings and opinions that disagree. So which are a logical audience to believe?

I doubt that the original founders searching for British spies during the war of independence would agree with you on this subject, but we have no way of knowing that so I'll refrain on that point. Anyone else in this thread (not you) who brings up Nazi's saying "I was just following orders" to comapare the BP agents orders is an idiot, pure and simple. Asking a person their citizenship status within 100 miles of a porous border does not compare to gassing Jews. Only a fool would think it does.

I've worn uniforms of the type that require an oath for almost 25 years. I'm former military and current LEO.

I find it interesting how men (in the broadest scope of the word) are willing to intentionally misquote those with whom they don't currently share space. I'll not rebut your obvious logical fallacy. I will ask that you refrain from putting words in my mouth. I will state, for purposes of clarification, that I believe no one should violate the Constitution while employed as border patrol. You can quote that as often as you're capable of accomplishing it with accuracy.

Not your words, but you agreed with henschman and he has pretty much said no one should work for the Border Patrol. So feel free to correct me by saying you DON'T agree with him, but weasel-wording doesn't help you. There's no logical fallacy here. You either believe in the core mission of the Border Patrol, or you do not. Which is it?