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

[Double Tap]

She only slowed down because she was not properly trained, was afraid of the camera, and wasn’t sure if what she was doing was unconstitutional (which it is). Had he not had a camera, he would have found himself face down on the concrete, in hand cuffs and his ride torn apart. But you pricks need to STOP questioning authority!! DO as you’re told!! WE are the Government; we are here to protect you!! Resistance is futile!! You will be assimilated!! I say let the terrorists in! I’ll deal with the ones in my backyard and you deal with the ones in yours. If the Government would GET OUT OF THE WAY! Think about it, flight 93, would things had been different if citizens that had ccw’s have had their guns? Hmmmm.

 

[Double Tap]

It seems funny that I agree with your assessment regarding violating the rights of others, 2. 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?

3. 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. 1. 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.



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?

Point one.... Which of your constitutional rights are they aloud, or it is ok with you, for the Government to ignore or violate when they “feel the need” and why is it ok to violate one and not another? Serious question… If they can violate the 4th why not the 1st?

Point two… Officers have “qualified immunity” whereas the judges have “absolute immunity” meaning Officers can be tried and jailed and/or sewed for violating civil rights, however judges cannot.

Point three… are we at war here inside the US? IF we are, wouldn’t war time rules apply? IF we are, isn’t our president on the wrong side by wanting to grant the enemy (illegal immigrants) immunity? If we are why is there not more effort to close not only our southern border, but the border to the north? Did you know, you may cross any of the great lake and are only required to check in at a “border patrol” office as soon as you arrive? Did you know that the unguarded border of Canada is vastly larger than that of Mexico? Are they doing these check points with-in 100 miles from the border of Canada? What keeps people from getting on a boat and coming to this country illegally to our east and west cost? Oh nothing…happens in Florida come to think of it. So are they doing these checks in Florida? Of have the figured out, and didn’t tell us, that terrorists would only come across our border from Mexico? Or is there some other reason they are preforming these “check points” and only using the “reasons” they are publicly announcing to look for something else, and if that is what is happening then the line officers do know they are wrong and engaged in a sanctioned illegal and/or unconstitutional terry stop. And we all learned in the police academy (yes I am a full time certified police officer in OK) that the Officer is responsible for his actions should he follow an unlawfully order (just like the Nazi’s were) and that that “just following orders” is NOT a defense in a bill of rights case, legal or civil, against an officer.
Just saying…

 

[henschman]

A question for you who think our rights are given by government and can be granted and taken away by the rulings of the Supreme Court: do you feel the same way when your own personal beliefs DO NOT line up with the Court's decision? Let's say before Roe v. Wade, you believed that an unborn baby has the right to live. Would you change your mind on that issue just because the Supreme Court decided that they DON'T have that right? Will you henceforth be OK with doctors performing abortions, since the Supreme Court told them that it is OK?

And if you believe that Obamacare violates your rights by forcing you to buy health insurance, will you change your mind if the Court decides that you don't have any such right?

Whether you are actually for or against either of these things isn't the point -- the point is to give you an idea of how we natural rights advocates see things. Also, to see whether you truly believe the words you are saying, and think that we must accept whatever so-called "rights" the government and the courts, in their kind generosity, decide to bestow on us or take away from us. I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that this view is so widespread... even in the time of the Revolution, there were as many Torries as there were Patriots.

Thankfully the Patriots were willing to fight harder for their beliefs, and were able to found a nation based on the idea that rights are natural, inalienable, and God-given, regardless of what any government says to the contrary. And we who believe in that vision of the founders will go on speaking out and fighting for our rights whether the government recognizes them or not.

Glocktogo, your speculation that warrantless searches would have been acceptable to these men is 1) pure unsupported speculation, and 2) highly unlikely, since warrantless, suspicionless searches were one of the violations of liberty that the founders complained about when they committed treason against King and Country.

 

[Glocktogo]

She only slowed down because she was not properly trained, was afraid of the camera, and wasn’t sure if what she was doing was unconstitutional (which it is). Had he not had a camera, he would have found himself face down on the concrete, in hand cuffs and his ride torn apart. But you pricks need to STOP questioning authority!! DO as you’re told!! WE are the Government; we are here to protect you!! Resistance is futile!! You will be assimilated!! I say let the terrorists in! I’ll deal with the ones in my backyard and you deal with the ones in yours. If the Government would GET OUT OF THE WAY! Think about it, flight 93, would things had been different if citizens that had ccw’s have had their guns? Hmmmm.

Emotional hyperbole much?

Point one.... Which of your constitutional rights are they aloud, or it is ok with you, for the Government to ignore or violate when they “feel the need” and why is it ok to violate one and not another? Serious question… If they can violate the 4th why not the 1st?

Your question does not make sense. Please rephrase it so that it does and I'll respond.

Point two… Officers have “qualified immunity” whereas the judges have “absolute immunity” meaning Officers can be tried and jailed and/or sewed for violating civil rights, however judges cannot.

Ok, I'm not sure just what you're getting at here???

Point three… are we at war here inside the US? IF we are, wouldn’t war time rules apply? IF we are, isn’t our president on the wrong side by wanting to grant the enemy (illegal immigrants) immunity? If we are why is there not more effort to close not only our southern border, but the border to the north? Did you know, you may cross any of the great lake and are only required to check in at a “border patrol” office as soon as you arrive? Did you know that the unguarded border of Canada is vastly larger than that of Mexico? Are they doing these check points with-in 100 miles from the border of Canada? What keeps people from getting on a boat and coming to this country illegally to our east and west cost? Oh nothing…happens in Florida come to think of it. So are they doing these checks in Florida? Of have the figured out, and didn’t tell us, that terrorists would only come across our border from Mexico? Or is there some other reason they are preforming these “check points” and only using the “reasons” they are publicly announcing to look for something else, and if that is what is happening then the line officers do know they are wrong and engaged in a sanctioned illegal and/or unconstitutional terry stop. And we all learned in the police academy (yes I am a full time certified police officer in OK) that the Officer is responsible for his actions should he follow an unlawfully order (just like the Nazi’s were) and that that “just following orders” is NOT a defense in a bill of rights case, legal or civil, against an officer.
Just saying…

Are you trying to infer that the Border Patrol not conducting these inspections along the Canadian border is evidence that their use is illegal? That would be a logical fallacy. Targeted law enforcement tactics have been in use since the dawn of law enforcement. Do you patrol every street in your jurisdiction with equal amounts of time and resources? Do you conduct DUI interdiction efforts with equal frequency on sleepy neighborhood streets as you do arterial streets near bars and nightclubs? Illegal immigration along the Canadian border and Florida coast are a tiny fraction compared to the Mexican border, not to mention the corresponding incidences of violent crime.

These checkpoints are not Terry stops and they are being upheld in courts. When you have SCOTUS decisions to back up their use, they are not illegal orders and the officer’s qualified immunity remains intact. FWIW, I was the honor graduate for my academy class, based in no small part on the fact that I aced the law block. I carry a pocket Constitution and I DO consider the rights of those I come into contact with, right behind my own safety. My point (and it is a valid one) is that you might want to look at the SCOTUS with your beef before taking it to the street level. If they’re following orders (which they are), that have been upheld by the highest court in the land (which they have), then how can you say they’re following illegal orders?

 

[Glocktogo]

A question for you who think our rights are given by government and can be granted and taken away by the rulings of the Supreme Court: do you feel the same way when your own personal beliefs DO NOT line up with the Court's decision? Let's say before Roe v. Wade, you believed that an unborn baby has the right to live. Would you change your mind on that issue just because the Supreme Court decided that they DON'T have that right? Will you henceforth be OK with doctors performing abortions, since the Supreme Court told them that it is OK?

And if you believe that Obamacare violates your rights by forcing you to buy health insurance, will you change your mind if the Court decides that you don't have any such right?

Whether you are actually for or against either of these things isn't the point -- the point is to give you an idea of how we natural rights advocates see things. Also, to see whether you truly believe the words you are saying, and think that we must accept whatever so-called "rights" the government and the courts, in their kind generosity, decide to bestow on us or take away from us. I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that this view is so widespread... even in the time of the Revolution, there were as many Torries as there were Patriots.

Thankfully the Patriots were willing to fight harder for their beliefs, and were able to found a nation based on the idea that rights are natural, inalienable, and God-given, regardless of what any government says to the contrary. And we who believe in that vision of the founders will go on speaking out and fighting for our rights whether the government recognizes them or not.

Glocktogo, your speculation that warrantless searches would have been acceptable to these men is 1) pure unsupported speculation, and 2) highly unlikely, since warrantless, suspicionless searches were one of the violations of liberty that the founders complained about when they committed treason against King and Country.

Our rights were not granted by the government, they were granted by God and codified by the Founding Fathers. THEY are the ones that set up our system of government. If you disagree with how it works, then are you not by extension disagreeing with them? I don’t have to like ANY of the SCOTUS decisions, but I have to abide by them regardless. I can’t decide to just ignore them and expect to get away with it. By the same token, were it my decision, I wouldn’t necessarily accept that what they tell me IS legal, is necessarily a good idea. I’ve said before that I disagree with the checkpoints, just not their premise or legality. I do not believe our borders should go unguarded (particularly where continual illegal activity is present), and I do not believe we should just give up if they get “X” number of miles inside our borders. Despite their legality, I think the DoJ should consider the will of the people and suspend the use of certain tactics if their use is detrimental to the community. I have the same issues with serving felony search warrants when the occupant can reasonably be assumed to be asleep. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

As for your last statement, these are not warrantless searches. Saying hello and asking a question is not a search by any legal definition. They are simply field contacts that may be used to develop reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop.

 

[spd67]

Thankfully the Patriots were willing to fight harder for their beliefs, and were able to found a nation based on the idea that rights are natural, inalienable, and God-given, regardless of what any government says to the contrary. And we who believe in that vision of the founders will go on speaking out and fighting for our rights whether the government recognizes them or not.
.

Timothy McVeigh, and Terry Nichols thought the same way.

 

[MLR]

Originally Posted by spd67

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.

How does any of this have anything to do with what is or isn't required during a stop? Should we give someone a pass on following the law if they have a difficult job?
I would hope that the only thing considered would be the law. Not some misguided idea that because someone has a difficult job they get a free pass to ignore the law if it makes their job easier.

Michael

 

[Glocktogo]

How does any of this have anything to do with what is or isn't required during a stop? Should we give someone a pass on following the law if they have a difficult job?
I would hope that the only thing considered would be the law. Not some misguided idea that because someone has a difficult job they get a free pass to ignore the law if it makes their job easier.

Michael

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!

 

[Dave70968]

And as far as saying that Boarder [sic] 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 [sic] Patrol is acting in accordance with that ruling. You may not like it, but it is the way it is.

Would that be the same High Court that ruled that blacks are property (Dred Scott), separate-but-equal is a-okay (Plessy), and it's perfectly acceptable to forcibly sterilize somebody based on his or her IQ (Buck v. Bell, a ruling which inspired Hitler's own eugenics program)?

You'll forgive me if I think for myself rather than blindly accepting what the robed ones hand down from on high.

 

[Dave70968]

I carry a pocket Constitution and I DO consider the rights of those I come into contact with, right behind my own safety.

That's all I need to know, wrapped up right there in one neat little package: "me first, your rights and the Constitution second."