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

[spd67]

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

My point is that the boarder patrol agent was following the law and it was the jack hole in video who wasn't....I am not saying that if a cop or other LEO breaks the law they should be given the Kings X, in fact I belive just the opposite. But in this case the girl did not break any laws or violate anyone's civil rights. Point in case she was acting in accordance with a SCOTUS ruling that said she could do exactly what she was doing.

What I was getting at by saying to give her a break because she had a hard job was that people need to do some research before they go off all half cocked yelling and screaming that she is in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rigts when she is not. People need to take some time to ask why things are done the way they are instead of assuming that big brother is out to get them. One poster even went as far as to say that nobody should wear the Boarder Patrol uniform if they were going to do things like this.

The OP of this thread came in here thinking the guys actions in the video were the best thing since sliced bread and wanted to get us fired up to do the same. I for one think this guys actions are deplorable and he needed to go to jail.

People that protest and rail against Law Enforcment need to understand that the people in these lines of work are not the ones making the laws, introducing the laws, or ruling on the laws...they just eforce what is found to be constitional by the courts and put into place by the legislative body. If these so called patriots want to really make a diffrence they need to devote their energy at the courts, and the legislature not Law Enforcment. Their actions in the name of revolution do nothing for their cause.

 

[spd67]

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

The individual rights guarunteed under the Constitution don't stop when one becomes a LEO. We are Citizens first and LEO's second. Every citizen has the right to their own safety and that does not stop when you become a cop.

 

[spd67]

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.

Then take that beef up with the courts and legislature if you don't like something.

 

[Dave70968]

The individual rights guarunteed under the Constitution don't stop when one becomes a LEO. We are Citizens first and LEO's second. Every citizen has the right to their own safety and that does not stop when you become a cop.

Not true. The Constitution imposes limits upon you when you become an agent of the state. Were it otherwise, you could do anything under the guise of officer safety. Go look up government agents (including police officers) who have been sued civilly, and even prosecuted criminally, for violating the rights of suspects, even dangerous suspects. You may not like the man in the video, but I don't see anything that suggests he's dangerous (except perhaps to the idea that people should bow down and do as their masters tell them). Still, without danger, you say he should be jailed. Why? As long as we're submitting to authority, where would you draw the line? Would you let the TSA screener grope your wife and daughter at the airport? A train station, as they're leaving? At a random checkpoint on the highway?

While you're pondering that, you might also keep in mind that you volunteered, even knowing the risk. I didn't. As somebody who goes out of his way to avoid getting into dangerous situations, I don't see why your right to "safety" (again, assuming there was any safety risk here) trumps mine. Tell me, if somebody came up to you, pointed a gun at you, and said to pick someone for him to kill, or else he'd shoot you, what would you do? If your right to safety trumps mine, you should point at me. So...what would you do? Sacrifice me in the name of your own safety?

Then take that beef up with the courts and legislature if you don't like something.

I do. That doesn't change the underlying premise, though: the fact that a violation occurs. The legislature or the court may permit the violation, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a violation, just that the law won't act in response. My rights come from my Creator, not anybody in Washington or Oklahoma City.

 

[vooduchikn]

If open carry ever passes in OK, you will be very familiar with "Am I being detained?" as well as "Am I free to go". If you OC, you will get stopped, detained, and questioned by everyone from a mall cop to FBI,

Take a look at Georgia and RAS, pretty well explained and mostly in line with civil rights.

This stop was BS IMHO. If citizenship was the reason for the stop, what made looking in the bed of the truck followed by a release necessary? Was there a sign in the bed of the truck that said "I live in (insert state here)?

 

[spd67]

Not true. The Constitution imposes limits upon you when you become an agent of the state. Were it otherwise, you could do anything under the guise of officer safety. Go look up government agents (including police officers) who have been sued civilly, and even prosecuted criminally, for violating the rights of suspects, even dangerous suspects. You may not like the man in the video, but I don't see anything that suggests he's dangerous (except perhaps to the idea that people should bow down and do as their masters tell them). Still, without danger, you say he should be jailed. Why? As long as we're submitting to authority, where would you draw the line? Would you let the TSA screener grope your wife and daughter at the airport? A train station, as they're leaving? At a random checkpoint on the highway?

While you're pondering that, you might also keep in mind that you volunteered, even knowing the risk. I didn't. As somebody who goes out of his way to avoid getting into dangerous situations, I don't see why your right to "safety" (again, assuming there was any safety risk here) trumps mine. Tell me, if somebody came up to you, pointed a gun at you, and said to pick someone for him to kill, or else he'd shoot you, what would you do? If your right to safety trumps mine, you should point at me. So...what would you do? Sacrifice me in the name of your own safety?


I do. That doesn't change the underlying premise, though: the fact that a violation occurs. The legislature or the court may permit the violation, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a violation, just that the law won't act in response. My rights come from my Creator, not anybody in Washington or Oklahoma City.

Becaue your so versed in Constitutional Law...then you should also agree and know that a private citizen can be sued for violations of civil rights not just LEO's. The fact that I voulunteered has no bering on this. I am still a citizen with all the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen.

He could very easily be arrested for Obstructing a Federal Officer by hindering and delaying their ofical duties. Any action taken that delays an officer during their duties is an arrestible offence. We have already established that her actions are not un-constitutional as outlined by SCOTUS and therefore under the scope of her duty and this jack-hole was delaying the boarder patrol agents stop ergo he could be arrested.

 

[Danny Tanner]

This guy is showing resistance to the unconstitutional process, not necessarily the officer. Good for him!

 

[Fyrtwuck]

If open carry ever passes in OK, you will be very familiar with "Am I being detained?" as well as "Am I free to go". If you OC, you will get stopped, detained, and questioned by everyone from a mall cop to FBI,

Take a look at Georgia and RAS, pretty well explained and mostly in line with civil rights.

This stop was BS IMHO. If citizenship was the reason for the stop, what made looking in the bed of the truck followed by a release necessary? Was there a sign in the bed of the truck that said "I live in (insert state here)?

No, but there is one on the back bumper called a license plate. But that just tells where the truck "supposedly" lives.

 

[338Shooter]

This guy is showing resistance to the unconstitutional process, not necessarily the officer. Good for him!

It's gotta be constitutional. At least 5 people in the US think so.

 

[Double Tap]

I didn’t think the questions are that hard….

Question 1. Which of the rights afforded to you Bill of Rights is it ok for Law Enforcement to take away from you “in the name of law” or in the “name of security” under the rule of government. If it’s OK for the government to step on the 4th amendment, why not the 1st?

Question 2. How many judges are sued for “their decisions” and how many cops are sued for theirs. Judges are not held responsible for the decisions they make, however cops are.

I aced the law block too, it wasn’t that big of a deal, in fact the questions on the test were beyond basic and a passing score on the test should have been 90% if you are going to be granted a gun, badge and the right to make decisions And the checkpoints that you are so sure the supreme court has upheld and you have case law to protect…

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/11/court-trinidad-barriers-not-legal/?page=all

“The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.”

WOW…that’s not a slippery slope is it? Well if that can say “we know we can impose on your right in the name of protecting you from yourself”.
“Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. Two other states (Alaska and Montana) do not use checkpoints even though they have not made them illegal.”
So…it’s not set in stone and it’s not over like you seem to feel it is.

Wait a min…..Texas doesn’t do DUI check points??? Hmmm could that be why when challenged by the driver of that vehicle, and after she, more than once, gave him what you say was a lawfull order to “pull over to secondary” when he didn’t back off (and because he did have a camera) he was let leave. Because they don’t have a right because there is no probable cause. It is a fishing trip, nothing more.

Now back to my original question. If the can step on the 4th amendment in the name of “protecting you from yourself”, when does it become ok to step on the 1st and tell you to keep your mouth shut for the good of the society or for the good of the government, or for the security of the people. Just because they are “the government” doesn’t make them right.