It's not a stretch at all. Show me a case where asking for a gun permit is considered uncons utional, counselor.
No, I can see why having every bag in Philly carrying heat on his hip with impunity could be a problem for law enforcement. Folks use these things for more than penis compensation.So I assume you agree with police slowing down the movement of citizens for any reason they can rationalize?
The cons ution is plain enough to interpret in most cases.
Yeah, that's why there's a court permanently dedicated to interpreting it.
Asking is one thing. Having to produce it? It is a search that requires probable cause.
The cons ution indicates otherwise, so I suggest you show a case that requires it without probable case.
Are you suggesting the cops are pussies? Afraid of their own shadows?
Wow...
Sorry you relate to the situation like that.
I pity you.
Do you have a ruling up your sleeve?
You made the assertion.Asking is one thing. Having to produce it? It is a search that requires probable cause.
Prove it.
Should be easy for you, what with your Westlaw account.Quite the contrary. Seems the open carry Dirty Harrys are more that type, if they are claiming the only way they can protect themselves is to openly carry a firearm.Are you suggesting the cops are pussies? Afraid of their own shadows?I don't use anything for penis compensation. That's the point.Wow...
Sorry you relate to the situation like that.
I pity you.You were already asked for one, counselor.Do you have a ruling up your sleeve?
You are asking me to validate the cons ution?
My God...
You really are lame. You are suggesting the courts ruled against the 2nd and 4th. You need to prove that.
I am asking you to show a court ruling supporting your assertion that merely asking for a government issued gun permit is uncons utional.
You do know this is how things work, don't you?
A lawyer doesn't just walk into the Supreme Court, reads a clause from the Cons ution and then rests his case.
Asking is one thing. Having to produce it...
It's on record.
Why are you OK with authoritarianism?
I showed you two clearly portions of two amendments. How you can skew such things is real troublesome.
I'm not going to waste my time looking for a case that has both reasons I listed. That would be a next to impossible search, especially if such a case was never presented to the courts.
I'm sincerely asking for this. I don't know what the actual law is on this. "Because I said the Cons ution says so" isn't a compelling argument.
OK, you're just a lazy simpleton.
I understand.
Wow...
You sure are stupid.
You're the one who said there could never be a court case involving the inspection of a gun permit in the history of American jurisprudence "because I said so."
Where did I say never?
I'm just no good at searching for the criteria I listed.
We've established your shortcomings previously.
I'm done with your stupidity for the night. Have better things to do.
It should never be illegal to be a to a cop. Especially one who doesn't even know his ing job. I understand your thoughts, but for them to incorrectly harass the man then proceed with charges is a ing waste of taxpayer money and a travesty.
Jesus Christ WC you've got to be the dumbest person I've ever come across.
I think they are trying to set a precedent for behavior of open carriers and they'll be open to a plea bargain. I'm sure there will be a lot of officer training regarding this, as I think the number of Dirty Harrys in Philly will only increase after this.
either side could have resolved the issue in under two minutes if either side would give up on being a prick, but you can't trust cops to stop being pricks. unfortunately, that means that we average joes have to swallow our prides when confronted by cops. sucks, but tis truth. cops are s and they can make our lives a living if they feel like it.
And the fact that you said that with reference to the Fourth Amendment makes it even funnier...
The "papers" in the Fourth Amendment refer to personal papers. "Probable cause" has nothing to do with requesting proper do entation for open carry, because there is nothing inherently unreasonable about asking a man openly carrying a handgun to show his papers. Simply asking, without more, would not establish a Fourth Amendment violation.
Since the Supreme Court has deemed that a person must at least give an officer their name at a stop, I wouldn't be surprised if the same held true with asking for an open-carry permit.
That aside, this officer was still an idiot. At the very least, he was not professional at all.
I do approve of Arizona improving enforcement against illegal immigration. That doesn't mean I would approve of the police asking anyone for their "papers" simply because of skin color or language. There would have to be probable cause, and skin color isn't adequate for that.
If he looks Mexican and has a gun on his hip, that will be enough, right?
What probable cause of a crime is there to allow a search of papers when a person exercises a right protected by cons ution? Are a persons "person, papers, and effects" protected against "unreasonable search?"
Why is it reasonable to assume probable cause for a clearly legal act?
Why do you people wish for a police state worse than the "minority report?"
Doesn't a legal stop still require a legal violation or probable cause?
no.
There are legal Mexicans who are and are not citizens here.
Is that in your KKK or SS world fantasy?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote