Do police have the right to ask you if you OWN any guns not if you are in possession of one ??
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.Originally Posted by glock10mm
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Treo - the info Woody gave, while not "legal advice", was not taken (by me) to be such. I viewed it as "advisory behavior" that could have repercussions.
As someone who has lost a great deal of respect for LEOs over the last 35 years, much of it due to direct interaction, I would be inclined to tell a cop wanting to search my vehicle to "go fish", mostly on general principles.
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
So would I. What I WOULDN'T do is tell you that even if you consent to a search the evidence is inadmissible
It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder
It's obvious to me that what should be regarding searches and what is are not the same.
It's too bad that in order to challenge what is unconstitutional requires "standing."
I believe that if an unconstitutional search is conducted, regardless if evidence from that search is used against a person, the person(s) involved in executing said unconstitutional search should face charges for violating the rights of the searched. Right now, all that happens is the evidence is tossed out but the rights of the searched remain violated.
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
Key words being "I believe".
I believe in personal responsiblity. If you waive your rights your on the hook for whatever they find
It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder
They can ASK anything they want. Since it is none of their business what firearms you own, assume the officer is verbally challenged and that the question deals solely with firearms in your possession at the time and answer truthfully.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote