Gun ownership probable cause to for search and seizure?

[OODA_Loop]

Um...

This happened in Maryland, not New Jersey.

So? Fuck Chris Christie anyway. NJ is actually worse than MD on guns.

I'm no fan of Chris Christie, nor of the state of New Jersey.

But seriously, if you can't be bothered to even read the headline of the story before commenting...

Seriously man you got me on the most material aspect.

You are one super smart debater.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your fucktard view that a proviso which restricts our right to defend our lives is law is incomprehensible.

If it was up to people like you the war of independence would have never occurred and we would still be a British Colony.

An Unconstitutional law is no law.

.

You are not the arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional.

Bullshit.

We are not going to leave it to lily pads , such as yourself, to fight tyranny.

You come across as not having 1 milliliter of testosterone on board.


.

Does posting in a BIG FONT make you feel like a BIG MAN?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So? Fuck Chris Christie anyway. NJ is actually worse than MD on guns.

I'm no fan of Chris Christie, nor of the state of New Jersey.

But seriously, if you can't be bothered to even read the headline of the story before commenting...

Seriously man you got me on the most material aspect.

You are one super smart debater.

It just illustrates how little attention you pay to the actual situation, instead focusing all of your outrage on the ridiculous whiny-gun-nut rhetoric.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Wait. He didn't get a ticket. He didn't go to jail.

What the fuck is this baby crying about?

I thought gun owners were supposed to be tough.

Earth to jerk, you're missing the point.

 

[The Rabbi]

“I know the laws and I know the rules,” Filippidis says. There are, after all, ways gun owners can travel legally with firearms through hostile states. “But I just think it’s a better idea to leave it home.”

Face red, eyes shining, John pounds his knees. “And he wants to put me in jail. He wants to put me in jail. For no reason. He wants to take my wife and children away and put me in jail. In America, how does such a thing happen? ... And after all that, he didn’t even write me a ticket.”

I'm starting to think liberals are really setting themselves up badly. Gun ownership is going to be the next civil rights movement.


Jackson: Gun owner unarmed, unwelcome in Maryland

Gun ownership probable cause to for search and seizure?

how do they know if i or do not have a gun(s)

In his case he's got a permit and his DL will be flagged for it. TN has the same system. Every time my DL gets run they know I have a permit.
They do not know whether I have a gun or not (a certain number of permit holders do not own guns). Nor where the gun is.
The guy was trying to be Mr, Law Abiding and Cooperative. For his honesty and trouble he got treated like a scumbag. He should have told the officer to pound sand and it was none of his damn business where his gun was.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The wife stating that the gun was in the in car is what prompted, and justified, the search.

But it did NOT justify the fact that he was pulled over.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm starting to think liberals are really setting themselves up badly. Gun ownership is going to be the next civil rights movement.


Jackson: Gun owner unarmed, unwelcome in Maryland

Gun ownership probable cause to for search and seizure?

how do they know if i or do not have a gun(s)

In his case he's got a permit and his DL will be flagged for it. TN has the same system. Every time my DL gets run they know I have a permit.
They do not know whether I have a gun or not (a certain number of permit holders do not own guns). Nor where the gun is.
The guy was trying to be Mr, Law Abiding and Cooperative. For his honesty and trouble he got treated like a scumbag. He should have told the officer to pound sand and it was none of his damn business where his gun was.

so once again the "law" only tracks good guys with guns

but the bad guy who can not get a permit flies under the radar

of law enforcement

figures

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The wife stating that the gun was in the in car is what prompted, and justified, the search.

But it did NOT justify the fact that he was pulled over.

It didn't have anything to do with his being pulled over. We don't know what the cause for that was, it's not mentioned in the story.

The cop didn't know he had a gun until he ran the guy's license, so that's not why he was pulled over.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The wife stating that the gun was in the in car is what prompted, and justified, the search.

But it did NOT justify the fact that he was pulled over.

It didn't have anything to do with his being pulled over. We don't know what the cause for that was, it's not mentioned in the story.

The cop didn't know he had a gun until he ran the guy's license, so that's not why he was pulled over.

we will know once the FOIA information is sent

 

[OODA_Loop]

I'm no fan of Chris Christie, nor of the state of New Jersey.

But seriously, if you can't be bothered to even read the headline of the story before commenting...

Seriously man you got me on the most material aspect.

You are one super smart debater.

It just illustrates how little attention you pay to the actual situation, instead focusing all of your outrage on the ridiculous whiny-gun-nut rhetoric.

No it doesn't. I categorically listed the lengths the PD went to seize and dismantle the man's car from reading the article.

I misstated the state.

You can think you got one up about whiney gun-nut rhetoric.

But it is immaterial to the premise that a State can not use lawful gun ownership as a means of unwarranted probable cause.

There is law preventing LE from gathering and retaining gun purchase info.

As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for ninety days but is instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the official NICS response to the dealer.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But it did NOT justify the fact that he was pulled over.

It didn't have anything to do with his being pulled over. We don't know what the cause for that was, it's not mentioned in the story.

The cop didn't know he had a gun until he ran the guy's license, so that's not why he was pulled over.

we will know once the FOIA information is sent

The Freedom of Information Act applies only to the Executive branch of the Federal government, not to the West Bumblefuck, MD Police Dept.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It didn't have anything to do with his being pulled over. We don't know what the cause for that was, it's not mentioned in the story.

The cop didn't know he had a gun until he ran the guy's license, so that's not why he was pulled over.

we will know once the FOIA information is sent

The Freedom of Information Act applies only to the Executive branch of the Federal government, not to the West Bumblefuck, MD Police Dept.

sorry try again

Maryland Public Information Act State Government Article §§10-611 to 630

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Seriously man you got me on the most material aspect.

You are one super smart debater.

It just illustrates how little attention you pay to the actual situation, instead focusing all of your outrage on the ridiculous whiny-gun-nut rhetoric.

No it doesn't. I categorically listed the lengths the PD went to seize and dismantle the man's car from reading the article.

I misstated the state.

You can think you got one up about whiney gun-nut rhetoric.

But it is immaterial to the premise that a State can not use lawful gun ownership as a means of unwarranted probable cause.

The "probable cause" was created when the wife's story contradicted the husband's.

There is law preventing LE from gathering and retaining gun purchase info.

As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for ninety days but is instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the official NICS response to the dealer.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything we're talking about.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I guess this is how I see it: I get stopped by cops fairly often, for no reason. It happens - police make mistakes, and I'm a very tall guy with long hair and large beard and I get "profiled" as a pothead all the time.

I don't whine about it on the internet, and if I did, you guys would justifiably mock me for it.

But as soon as you add guns to the mix, you guys start clutching your pearls and whining like bitches about a cop being mean to a guy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

we will know once the FOIA information is sent

The Freedom of Information Act applies only to the Executive branch of the Federal government, not to the West Bumblefuck, MD Police Dept.

sorry try again

Maryland Public Information Act State Government Article §§10-611 to 630

I know that it's possible (actually quite easy) to get the information.

But it's not from the FOIA.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It just illustrates how little attention you pay to the actual situation, instead focusing all of your outrage on the ridiculous whiny-gun-nut rhetoric.

No it doesn't. I categorically listed the lengths the PD went to seize and dismantle the man's car from reading the article.

I misstated the state.

You can think you got one up about whiney gun-nut rhetoric.

But it is immaterial to the premise that a State can not use lawful gun ownership as a means of unwarranted probable cause.

The "probable cause" was created when the wife's story contradicted the husband's.

There is law preventing LE from gathering and retaining gun purchase info.

As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for ninety days but is instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the official NICS response to the dealer.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything we're talking about.

But it didn't contradict, had you read the article she said I DON'T KNOW it could be in the glove box or center console.

It was in neither, so they seized control of his spouse, children and dismantled his vehicle with no probable cause of anything but lawful ownership and compliance (FOPA interstate travel provisions notwithstanding). But I said it was in NJ instead of Maryland. You homed in on the most salient point. Masterful.

Relevancy - There is law preventing LE from gathering this type of info on lawful purchasers and owners. Interstate reciprocity of CCW is not a means of probable cause absent criminality.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No it doesn't. I categorically listed the lengths the PD went to seize and dismantle the man's car from reading the article.

I misstated the state.

You can think you got one up about whiney gun-nut rhetoric.

But it is immaterial to the premise that a State can not use lawful gun ownership as a means of unwarranted probable cause.

The "probable cause" was created when the wife's story contradicted the husband's.

There is law preventing LE from gathering and retaining gun purchase info.

As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for ninety days but is instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the official NICS response to the dealer.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything we're talking about.

But it didn't contradict, had you read the article she said I DON'T KNOW it could be in the glove box or center console.

It was in neither, so they seized control of his spouse, children and dismantled his vehicle with no probable cause of anything but lawful ownership and compliance (FOPA interstate travel provisions notwithstanding). But I said it was in NJ instead of Maryland. You homed in on the most salient point. Masterful.

Relevancy - There is law preventing LE from gathering this type of info on lawful purchasers and owners. Interstate reciprocity of CCW is not a means of probable cause absent criminality.

He said that it wasn't in the car.

She said that it could be in the car.

The officer took that as a "contradiction".

The other information is entirely irrelevant, because no information about gun purchases was "gathered".

The fact that the man had a CC permit is public information, and most certainly linked to his Driver's License - which is how the officer knew he owned a gun.

 

[The Rabbi]

It just illustrates how little attention you pay to the actual situation, instead focusing all of your outrage on the ridiculous whiny-gun-nut rhetoric.

No it doesn't. I categorically listed the lengths the PD went to seize and dismantle the man's car from reading the article.

I misstated the state.

You can think you got one up about whiney gun-nut rhetoric.

But it is immaterial to the premise that a State can not use lawful gun ownership as a means of unwarranted probable cause.

The "probable cause" was created when the wife's story contradicted the husband's.

What crime is committed when a wife contradicts a husband? If that were the case we'd all be in jail.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No it doesn't. I categorically listed the lengths the PD went to seize and dismantle the man's car from reading the article.

I misstated the state.

You can think you got one up about whiney gun-nut rhetoric.

But it is immaterial to the premise that a State can not use lawful gun ownership as a means of unwarranted probable cause.

The "probable cause" was created when the wife's story contradicted the husband's.

What crime is committed when a wife contradicts a husband? If that were the case we'd all be in jail.

"Probable cause" and "Crime" are not synonyms.

 

[The Rabbi]

The "probable cause" was created when the wife's story contradicted the husband's.

What crime is committed when a wife contradicts a husband? If that were the case we'd all be in jail.

"Probable cause" and "Crime" are not synonyms.

Then what in your mind is "probable cause"?