New Mexico - Court Expands police right to take guns from cars!

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Bigcountry02, May 24, 2011.

  1. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,232
    37
    48
    Never heard anything in the news and this pops up! NM AG Gary King (D) applauded the courts unanimous ruling. I wonder how many of the NM Supreme Court Justices were appointed by former Gov. Bill Richardson?

    Court expands police right to take guns from cars - NewsTimes

    SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Police can remove a gun from a car during a traffic stop to ensure their safety even when they have no specific suspicion that the occupants are dangerous and pose a threat, the state Supreme Court concluded in a ruling welcomed by law enforcement.

    Protecting the safety of law enforcement officers justifies removal of a gun that's in the plain sight of police, the justices said, and temporarily taking the gun does not violate an individual's constitutional protections against an unreasonable search and seizure.
     
  2. GunGal

    GunGal New Member

    20
    0
    0
    Think I will...

    Thankfully it is easy enough for me to steer clear of New Mexico!
     

  3. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    11
    38
    Actually i dont have a huge problem with a citizen having a firearm taken during a traffic stop then returned. Traffic stops can easily escalate through self rightousness of the officer or citizen. The citizen can complain and sue later the officer cant to get his/her life back.

    Ive done my share of traffic stops i was thankful the offender did not have a weapon.

    If the police are taking guns just to take em as a harrassment thats an issue. But reading the story it doesnt appear to be the case nor does the ruling appear to give the po-po that power.
     
  4. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    What is the problem with temporarily securing the firearm until the contact is over? That has been the law in Texas since the Concealed Carry Law took effect.
     
  5. gregs887

    gregs887 New Member

    1,534
    0
    0
    As long as it is returned at the conclusion of the traffic stop I don't see what the big deal is.
     
  6. mjkeat

    mjkeat New Member

    4,026
    0
    0
    I agree. As long as the firearm is returned at the conclusion of the traffic stop there shouldnt be a problem. I can see how someone w/ an illegal firearm (not registered properly, stolen, etc.) might not like this law.
     
  7. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    And there ya have it.
     
  8. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    As long as the firearm is returned in the same condition it was removed in, no problem. Also, this shouldn't apply to any firearm that isn't "readily accessable", IMO.
     
  9. PanBaccha

    PanBaccha New Member

    3,054
    0
    0
    Well, there you go.
    Round 1 has begun.
    And the reverberating effect will manifest a round 2 in some other state.
    Then the federal government will ban guns from ever being owned again.
    Thus will begin the erosion and finality of our 2nd ammendment rights. :eek:
    (If we allow it)
     
  10. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    There seems to be pretty widespread approval that an armed man (a cop) may disarm another man (you) for no other reason than the first armed man feels uncomfortable or threatened in some way because the other man is armed.

    Sorry guys but that's crap. It doesn't matter if the whole ticket-writing process is congenial and you get your firearm back promptly. By handing over your firearm for no reason whatsoever establishes that government may disarm you at will and you're OK with that. You can try to justify it any way you like. "Oh, it's not that. See, the cops just want to feel safe and I want to prove that I'm no threat, blah, blah, blah." That doesn't flush. No offense to any specific individual intended, but what some folks wrote in support of this is extremely disappointing.
     
  11. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    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.
     
  12. oldshooter

    oldshooter New Member

    215
    0
    0
    I'm sorry to hijack this for a pet peeve of mine but here goes. STOP CALLING THEM

    "the PO-PO".
    Thanks.
     
  13. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    11
    38
    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.
     
  14. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    11
    38
    :) used to be one

    cop and fuzz are just as bad.
     
  15. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    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." :eek:

    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. :mad:
     
  16. oldshooter

    oldshooter New Member

    215
    0
    0
    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: May 24, 2011
  17. Jesse17

    Jesse17 New Member

    1,471
    0
    0
    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. :mad:

    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 ---> [ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=009_1190698324]LiveLeak.com - NRA - The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Hurricane Katrina[/ame]
     
  18. 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.
     
  19. paganwolf

    paganwolf New Member

    176
    0
    0
    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!
     
  20. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,127
    111
    63

    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