Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > New Mexico - Court Expands police right to take guns from cars!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-24-2011, 09:09 PM   #11
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5731 Times on 3358 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Sorry guys but that's crap.
By handing over your firearm for no reason whatsoever establishes that government may disarm you at will and you're OK with that.
I hear & understand, but i don't want to get shot by mistake by a nervous trooper (no offense to the LEO's). It is a matter of practical survivability trumping my ideals. I am not principle-fast enough to bet my life on a stranger's nerve. If i had a gun in my vehicle (usually do) and was pulled over with it in reach, and the officer didn't ask for the piece, i would have my hands on the roof or out the window the entire stop; call me a chicken.

To be fair, i probably haven't been exposed to the most highly-trained or competent LEO's out here in small town MS.


__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 09:12 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cottonwood,Free State of Jefferson
Posts: 217
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

I'm sorry to hijack this for a pet peeve of mine but here goes. STOP CALLING THEM

"the PO-PO".
Thanks.



__________________
oldshooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 09:17 PM   #13
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 17,097
Liked 5244 Times on 2735 Posts
Likes Given: 330

Default

the officer is not taking away your property for keeps.

an officer of the law is not merely a dude with a gun. they are performing a role that society has defined as a neccessity and the officer goes out each day risking his/her safety so you can sleep better at nite. if the officer stops an individual for a violation that officer does indeed have the right to remove your right to travel, your right to property being the car, bicycle, unicycle, horse, boat, canoe etc. when he/she asks you to temporarily remove yourself from the conveyance on a temporary basis.

how is removing a firearm temporarily any different than the officer removing your other property from your immediate possession until the resolution is done??

i dont think you naysayers have fully thought it through.

__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 09:20 PM   #14
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 17,097
Liked 5244 Times on 2735 Posts
Likes Given: 330

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldshooter View Post
I'm sorry to hijack this for a pet peeve of mine but here goes. STOP CALLING THEM

"the PO-PO".
Thanks.
used to be one

cop and fuzz are just as bad.
__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 09:25 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
IGETEVEN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tornado \"Just Blow Me\" Alley,Oklahoma U.S.A.
Posts: 8,424
Liked 26 Times on 21 Posts

Default

Well, I don't agree with it at all either, but...if I am ever unlucky enough to be placed in that exact situation, and refuse the LEO to retain my firearm for his "safety" during this traffic stop, most likely the next "rights" you will be a hearing will be your "Miranda rights."

That's just the way it is. The best thing to do is try to get the hell out of that state, without causing any unwanted attention to get stopped, if one is travling through it....or avoid the state all together.

Hell, now my right to travel freely where I please, has now been violated.

__________________
Jack

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

"There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter." - Hemingway

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.”
IGETEVEN is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 10:40 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cottonwood,Free State of Jefferson
Posts: 217
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonM View Post
used to be one

cop and fuzz are just as bad.
So did I but that"po-po" just sounds like some punk gangster rapper trying to be cool.
I was called a lot of different things back in the late 60s and early 70s too.
( wife says Im just an old grump anyway.)
Heres what I do. As the oficer approaches I have my hands in plain sight and tell the man I have a permit and I am armed. NEVER MAKE A MOVE TO GET YOUR WALLET OR ID UNTIL HE TELLS YOU TO.
As far as him securing my weapon until the stop is over ??? Well that is on a case to case basis.
I want him to feel safe without surrendering my rights. But which is more important in that paticular sitituation?
Being right isnt always the most important thing. If the guy is a jerk, report his butt. Take the time to actually write his commander. Don't just bitch about it to your friends.
Rant over.
__________________

Last edited by oldshooter; 05-24-2011 at 11:15 PM.
oldshooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 11:33 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jesse17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,471
Liked 4 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonM View Post
the officer is not taking away your property for keeps.

an officer of the law is not merely a dude with a gun. they are performing a role that society has defined as a neccessity and the officer goes out each day risking his/her safety so you can sleep better at nite. if the officer stops an individual for a violation that officer does indeed have the right to remove your right to travel, your right to property being the car, bicycle, unicycle, horse, boat, canoe etc. when he/she asks you to temporarily remove yourself from the conveyance on a temporary basis.

how is removing a firearm temporarily any different than the officer removing your other property from your immediate possession until the resolution is done??

i dont think you naysayers have fully thought it through.
I agree and disagree. Like a lot of laws, I don't have a problem with what it's meant to do, but I have a problem with the power it gives them.

Don't forget Katrina when the LEOs decided they were taking all the guns. They destroyed some on the spot and then claimed they didn't have the rest, or they couldn't match the owners with the guns so they weren't returning them.

I've got plenty of respect for the men and women who serve as LEOs but I'm very leery of giving their agencies more authority than they already have, especially when it's something that could be used as a president to 'temporarily' take weapons. "we'll give them back...we swear"

I wish I still had the full DVD that the NRA sent out on this ---> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=009_1190698324
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmszbi View Post
"Be polite to everyone you meet but have a plan to kill them".
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
G.O.A. LIFETIME MEMBER!
Sole owner of Random Thought # 5,000
Jesse17 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2011, 03:41 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hastings,Nebraska
Posts: 279
Liked 62 Times on 42 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default Did Anyone Notice the Inherent Dumb Concept Herein?

"Protecting the safety of law enforcement officers justifies removal of a gun that's in the plain sight of police..."

I was a Border Patrol Agent for six years and did a number of car stops. The guns that were in 'plain sight' didn't bother me; it was the ones that were hidden and quickly accessible that were my concern.

So the officer involved should say, "Sir or Ma'am, please carefully and without attempting to assault me remove any hidden firearms, knives, hand axes, fire extinguishers and any other devices that might be used as a weapon against me."

That's the silly part. The Court should also rule that every citizen bent on assaulting, injuring, maiming or killing an officer - or any other non aggressive person - much wear a red tag on their forehead imprinted with the word 'Attacker' in no less than two inch tall letters. It makes as much sense.

As far as the officer holding onto a firearm for the duration of the interview or stop, that's nothing new. SCOTUS has ruled on more than one occasion the officer gets to be in charge during such an encounter. (Those aren't the exact words, but that's the gist of it; Terry Vs Ohio comes to mind.) So, I'm sorry to deflate all the tough guys who don't have to take orders from anyone, you are in the wrong.

My cunning plan is to avoid being the subject of a traffic stop. Plan B is to be polite and have all my documents - license, registration and insurance card - ready for the officer.

One might also watch Chris Rock's Public Service Announcement "How Not to Get Your [ahem - Posterior] Kicked by the Police". It is excellent instruction.
__________________

Finally back in the United States!
OIIOHH
See my blog at:
http://oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com/

OldManMontgomery is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2011, 01:29 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
paganwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 175
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

When this story broke on the Conservitive radio show here, one caller complained of the officer removing his handgun , that was in a carry case, from the back seat of his car. At that point it becomes nore of a 4th Amendment issue. New Mexico reconizes your vehical as an extension of your home with all protection of "unreasonable search and seizures. This is just one more subtle way to reduce are rights. It may seem like "No Big Deal" but to give up your rights , however minor, for the sake of the common good is a slippery slope to loosing all of your rights . Like all the other " for the good of the public" rulings, this to will be abused. The Dems in this state have to appear to be pro gun, to keep there offices, but any chance to stiffle our rights they will jump on!!! I'm not saying, I'm just saying!

__________________
"I Don't Know Half Of You Half As Well As I Should Like; And I Like Less Than Half Of You Half As Well As You Deserve"

Article II: A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State, The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed.

Article IV: The Right Of The People To Be Secure In There Persons, Houses, Papers, And Effects, Against Unreasonable Search And Seizures, Shall Not Be Violated, And No Warants Shall Issue, But Upon Probable Cause, Supported By Oath Or Affirmation, And Particulary Describing The Place To Be Searched, And The Persons Or Things To Be Seized.
paganwolf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2011, 02:30 PM   #20
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,161
Liked 1945 Times on 1044 Posts
Likes Given: 2893

Default

Quote:
I wonder how many of the NM Supreme Court Justices were appointed by former Gov. Bill Richardson?

Two. Supreme court justices in NM are elected for a term of 8 years. The governor makes appointments to vacancies on the court. The appointed judge must then stand for a non-partisan election. Supreme court judges must receive at least 57 percent of the vote to continue in office. Both the judges appointed by Richardson have stood for election.

New Mexico Supreme Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


__________________
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court affirms police action in Kentucky drug case Bigcountry02 Legal and Activism 97 08-21-2011 12:20 PM
Obama, Calderon and US Guns in Mexico dunerunner The Club House 7 03-05-2011 05:16 PM
New Era police cars. cpttango30 The Club House 27 02-17-2011 12:07 AM
Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier jeffxc Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 35 01-09-2010 08:41 PM