In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
lt496
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
One of our members emailed me a question for you:
If you want to see how far the good Lt496 will go with the 2nd amendment ask him
this.
Are you a Police Officer
If you stopped me for a traffic violation and I stepped outside my vehicle and
you found me to be carrying a handgun, and I dont have a concealed permit, would
you arrest me?
If yes, then he is a Bull poopter, if no then he is a derilict cop..
If you want to see how far the good Lt496 will go with the 2nd amendment ask him
this.
Are you a Police Officer
If you stopped me for a traffic violation and I stepped outside my vehicle and
you found me to be carrying a handgun, and I dont have a concealed permit, would
you arrest me?
If yes, then he is a Bull poopter, if no then he is a derilict cop..
Comments
If it was me (I'm not a cop), I'd use my discretion....If the guy wasn't doing anything wrong, I'd cut him loose......but if I found a kilo of cocaine in his car, I'd be hitting with charges for the gun and the drugs.
Then again, that kind of policy may be difficult in the era of dashboard cameras.....
One of our members emailed me a question for you:
If you want to see how far the good Lt496 will go with the 2nd amendment ask him
this.
Are you a Police Officer
If you stopped me for a traffic violation and I stepped outside my vehicle and
you found me to be carrying a handgun, and I dont have a concealed permit, would
you arrest me?
If yes, then he is a Bull poopter, if no then he is a derilict cop..
I would not arrest the mystery man for the simple act of carrying a firearm.
Neither the mystery man's opinion, or yours, reference whether I would be a 'derelict' cop, is at all relevant to me.
Lame question, no insight to be gained from it. Most here in the policing business(LEO or peace officer, as we have both) would not arrest for the simple act of being armed. Simple enough to find out, post same query in General Discussion.
Your turn, in the same situation would you arrest the traffic law violator?
Fox, how does the simple act of carrying a gun expose one to arrest in Arizona?
Lame question, no insight to be gained from it. Most here in the policing business(LEO or peace officer, as we have both) would not arrest for the simple act of being armed. Simple enough to find out, post same query in General Discussion.
Your turn, in the same situation would you arrest the traffic law violator?
You call the question "lame?" What is actually "lame" is that lt496 is actually in a position of arresting people (well, he claims he is, I don't think anybody knows for sure) for breaking laws and I myself am not. So why bother to ask me a question about a situation I will never face? And what about those states, like N.J., where the police WILL arrest you if you are carrying a firearm. So would the "good" capt. arrest or not? After all, I am quite sure he swore an oath to enforce laws in his state and in EVERY state it is illegal for a convicted felon to carry a firearm. So, would lt496 arrest or not?
This is not a trick question and should be quite easy to answer.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing."
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Fox, how does the simple act of carrying a gun expose one to arrest in Arizona?
Lame question, no insight to be gained from it. Most here in the policing business(LEO or peace officer, as we have both) would not arrest for the simple act of being armed. Simple enough to find out, post same query in General Discussion.
Your turn, in the same situation would you arrest the traffic law violator?
You call the question "lame?" What is actually "lame" is that lt496 is actually in a position of arresting people (well, he claims he is, I don't think anybody knows for sure) for breaking laws and I myself am not. So why bother to ask me a question about a situation I will never face? And what about those states, like N.J., where the police WILL arrest you if you are carrying a firearm. So would the "good" capt. arrest or not? After all, I am quite sure he swore an oath to enforce laws in his state and in EVERY state it is illegal for a convicted felon to carry a firearm. So, would lt496 arrest or not?
This is not a trick question and should be quite easy to answer.
Nice dodge. lt answered the question. You did not.
I seriously doubt lt will be making any traffic stops outside Arizona, so the implication that arrest may be mandated by state law is also lame.
No response to the challenge to post same hypothetical question in General Discussion?
LT is a Captain. When was the last time you saw a Captain make a traffic stop?
Good one.[:D]
I make them now and then when somebody does something egregious. Gotta be something that is a danger to others though.[;)]
I drive a black & white, jump calls when I am in the area and even unshuck my rifle on hot calls now and then.
Whoda thunk it. [:0]
With that in mind fox is just trolling for one little thing to label lt496 a hypocrite ect. When the truth is fox has a guilty conscience for blindly supporting the NRA when there's solid proof brought to his eyes that the NRA willingly supports unconstitutional laws as does fox. How many unconstitutional laws does the NRA/fox support? Yet it's completely unacceptable when anyone abides by them.
Who's the hypocrite now?
Reminds me of the threads fox starts claiming a true constitutionalist is doing nothing unless he takes up arms in the streets against anyone who suports anti 2A laws.
Yes fox I've filled out a 4473 so I'm an anticonstitutionalist too.
Let the insanity continue....
lt496 as well as all of us have done unethical things in our life not to mention have broken the laws more times than one. Simply because there's too many laws not to break.
With that in mind fox is just trolling for one little thing to label lt496 a hypocrite ect. When the truth is fox has a guilty conscience for blindly supporting the NRA when there's solid proof brought to his eyes that the NRA willingly supports unconstitutional laws as does fox. How many unconstitutional laws does the NRA/fox support? Yet it's completely unacceptable when anyone abides by them.
Who's the hypocrite now?
Reminds me of the threads fox starts claiming a true constitutionalist is doing nothing unless he takes up arms in the streets against anyone who suports anti 2A laws.
Yes fox I've filled out a 4473 so I'm an anticonstitutionalist too.
Let the insanity continue....
Whether fox agrees or not, his avoidance speaks volumes about his principles, which, as already observed by others do not pass constitutional muster.
He cannot honestly answer the the hypothetical scenario he put forth without exposing his lack of support for the constitution.