+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Police Stop

  1. #1
    New Member  
    Join Date
    12-23-15
    Posts
    3

    Police Stop

    Do police have the right to ask you if you OWN any guns not if you are in possession of one ??

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by glock10mm View Post
    Do police have the right to ask you if you OWN any guns not if you are in possession of one ??
    First off, police officers have no rights beyond those we the people have. Police officers only have powers that are granted them.

    A police officer asking you a question beyond whatever powers that have been granted would require a warrant. It is no different than conducting a search which would require just cause that has been presented to a judge under oath or affirmation.

    A police officer cannot even ask you if he may search your vehicle. All searches require a warrant. Any such search without a warrant is a violation of your rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, even if you grant an officer permission to search your vehicle. You have neither the right nor the power to grant such permission. Your Fourth Amendment rights are inalienable, meaning even you cannot divest yourself of them.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  3. #3
    Moderator  
    Join Date
    11-30-07
    Location
    Co. Springs
    Posts
    7,458
    Quote Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy View Post
    First off, police officers have no rights beyond those we the people have. Police officers only have powers that are granted them.

    A police officer asking you a question beyond whatever powers that have been granted would require a warrant. It is no different than conducting a search which would require just cause that has been presented to a judge under oath or affirmation.

    A police officer cannot even ask you if he may search your vehicle. All searches require a warrant. Any such search without a warrant is a violation of your rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, even if you grant an officer permission to search your vehicle. You have neither the right nor the power to grant such permission. Your Fourth Amendment rights are inalienable, meaning even you cannot divest yourself of them.

    Woody
    Let me guess Article four free inhabitant right?

    So I am going to ask that you refrain from giving false legal advice on this board. If you consent to a search the search is legal and the evidence is admissible in court.
    It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder

  4. #4
    Moderator  
    Join Date
    11-30-07
    Location
    Co. Springs
    Posts
    7,458
    Quote Originally Posted by glock10mm View Post
    Do police have the right to ask you if you OWN any guns not if you are in possession of one ??
    The police can ask you anything they want. They can't demand an answer. I have never had a cop bother to ask me if I owned weapons. If I were asked if I owned weapons I'd simply decline to answer.
    It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    Let me guess Article four free inhabitant right?

    So I am going to ask that you refrain from giving false legal advice on this board. If you consent to a search the search is legal and the evidence is admissible in court.
    Show me in the Constitution where it says a search can be conducted without a warrant, and where it says a person can abdicate an inalienable right, and where it says evidence collected unconstitutionally is admissible in court.

    What does "Article four free inhabitant" mean?

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-28-09
    Location
    Just east of St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    1,045
    Quote Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy View Post
    A police officer cannot even ask you if he may search your vehicle. All searches require a warrant.

    Woody
    Woody, it may be different in your state but here in "Obamaland", they don't need a warrant unless you refuse. In any "traffic stop", police are "allowed" to conduct "safety checks". This is how many guns and drug stashes are found.
    In many cases, a suspect may be deliberately intimidated into "allowing" said search.
    Life Member of both NRA and North American Hunting Club
    “Crime is to be expected since humans are never perfect. But the failure of Justice may be more damaging to Society than the crime itself.” - - Clarence Darrow

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Woody, it may be different in your state but here in "Obamaland", they don't need a warrant unless you refuse. In any "traffic stop", police are "allowed" to conduct "safety checks". This is how many guns and drug stashes are found.
    In many cases, a suspect may be deliberately intimidated into "allowing" said search.
    I know. What you are talking about is a "Terry Stop". It's a Supreme Court edict and not part of the Constitution. In Terry v. Ohio, the Court specified that the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped "has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."" Those are a lot of caveats that must be met and the officer is not allowed to go further or take it upon his or her self to act when not all of the above caveats are met. Regardless, none of this is authorized by the Constitution.

    If there is any amount of verifiable suspicion along the lines of the above caveats, obtaining a warrant should not be difficult. As for someone having to refuse a warrantless search, the refusal has already been stated for all of us in the Constitution in the Fourth Amendment.

    My challenge still stands unaddressed to show where a warrantless search is authorized, or even an authorization for an officer to ask you to abdicate an inalienable right, is in the Constitution.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  8. #8
    Moderator  
    Join Date
    11-30-07
    Location
    Co. Springs
    Posts
    7,458
    Quote Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy View Post
    I know. What you are talking about is a "Terry Stop". It's a Supreme Court edict and not part of the Constitution. In Terry v. Ohio, the Court specified that the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped "has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."" Those are a lot of caveats that must be met and the officer is not allowed to go further or take it upon his or her self to act when not all of the above caveats are met. Regardless, none of this is authorized by the Constitution.

    If there is any amount of verifiable suspicion along the lines of the above caveats, obtaining a warrant should not be difficult. As for someone having to refuse a warrantless search, the refusal has already been stated for all of us in the Constitution in the Fourth Amendment.

    My challenge still stands unaddressed to show where a warrantless search is authorized, or even an authorization for an officer to ask you to abdicate an inalienable right, is in the Constitution.

    Woody
    I don't care if Terry is part of the Constitution or not. It is settled case law. If you give the police permission to search anything they find is admissible evidence.


    But here's the bottom line

    You are not going to give other members bull**** legal advice. You are not going to tell them things that are liable to get them face planted.

    If you want to share your uneducated (in the legal sense) opinion that's fine but you need to make it clear that it IS your OPINION
    It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    I don't care if Terry is part of the Constitution or not. It is settled case law. If you give the police permission to search anything they find is admissible evidence.


    But here's the bottom line

    You are not going to give other members bull**** legal advice. You are not going to tell them things that are liable to get them face planted.

    If you want to share your uneducated (in the legal sense) opinion that's fine but you need to make it clear that it IS your OPINION
    It is my opinion that "case law" not in accord with the Constitution is no law at all, and as long as it goes unchallenged - or even unrecognized as not in accord with the Constitution - makes such law dictatorial in nature. We fought and won a war to put an end to dictatorship. I, for one, do not wish to have to fight another war to end dictatorship. I'd rather nip it in the bud.

    My opinion in this matter is, of course, based upon the Constitution being the supreme law of the land as specified in the Constitution itself in the second clause of Article VI. As to being uneducated in the legal sense, how else do you think I am able to form an opinion of deviations from the Constitution by the Court, Congress, and agencies of the Executive branch without study resulting in knowledge of these things? I am not clairvoyant, mystical, lucky, or a good guesser.

    Is your statement that you don't care what the Constitution says regarding Terry being settled case law an admission that warrantless searches are unconstitutional? In my opinion, if warrantless searches were constitutional, there would be no need for the Court to dictate such a law.

    I ask again, what is an "Article four free inhabitant" and how would it pertain to me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    I don't care if Terry is part of the Constitution or not. It is settled case law. ...
    In my opinion, this says all I need to know of where you stand. You have an apparent lack of reverence for the Constitution. I hope you never had to take an oath to support or defend it.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  10. #10
    Moderator  
    Join Date
    11-30-07
    Location
    Co. Springs
    Posts
    7,458
    Quote Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy View Post
    It is my opinion that "case law" not in accord with the Constitution is no law at all, and as long as it goes unchallenged - or even unrecognized as not in accord with the Constitution - makes such law dictatorial in nature. We fought and won a war to put an end to dictatorship. I, for one, do not wish to have to fight another war to end dictatorship. I'd rather nip it in the bud.

    My opinion in this matter is, of course, based upon the Constitution being the supreme law of the land as specified in the Constitution itself in the second clause of Article VI. As to being uneducated in the legal sense, how else do you think I am able to form an opinion of deviations from the Constitution by the Court, Congress, and agencies of the Executive branch without study resulting in knowledge of these things? I am not clairvoyant, mystical, lucky, or a good guesser.

    Is your statement that you don't care what the Constitution says regarding Terry being settled case law an admission that warrantless searches are unconstitutional? In my opinion, if warrantless searches were constitutional, there would be no need for the Court to dictate such a law.

    I ask again, what is an "Article four free inhabitant" and how would it pertain to me?



    In my opinion, this says all I need to know of where you stand. You have an apparent lack of reverence for the Constitution. I hope you never had to take an oath to support or defend it.

    Woody
    That's fine. You're welcome to your opinion. I just don't want you dispensing massively incorrect legal advice to other posters.
    It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    That's fine. You're welcome to your opinion. I just don't want you dispensing massively incorrect legal advice to other posters.
    Please inform the forum where I am incorrect. It will help save those other members from being 'face-planted' if they have chosen to adopt my views of the law verses the court verses the Constitution; and again I ask, what is an "Article four free inhabitant" and how would it pertain to me?

    Your considered opinion will be appreciated.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •