MSP: TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS LEAD TO RECOVERY OF THREE GUNS ON I-81

[swinokur]

Why bother to stop drunk drivers if they haven't killed anyone yet? Just numbers.

 

[Mr H]

General comments, directed at no one...

I'm not seeing a lot of attention being paid to the facts (as we know them), here.

1. This was a traffic stop, for observable and unsafe offenses.

2. This was NOT a firearms stop. The firearms were observed/discovered during the process.

3. The firearms charges may not be accurate, but from the description he was in violation of FOPA, at the very least.

The only thing in this IMO that smacks of "nanny state" is the rush to charge for things that may not actually be founded in law.

 

[joppaj]

I agree with the good Doc here.

 

[Brooklyn]

This is a very real danger. You are insane.

Your definition of what a nanny state is is incorrect. In a nanny state, rules interfere with personal choice. Do you propose that reckless driving, in and of itself is NOT a crime? Is it only a crime when someone gets hurt or killed? It is a choice? Then I suppose rape and murder are choices too, and the nanny state should not get involved.

No, this is someone on a public road with the potential, and high likelihood, of causing real harm. This is EXACTLY what the police should be doing.

When your efforts to be uber-libertarians result in excusing things like reckless driving, it is hard to have a good conversation about a topic.

If you have ever driven with young children in the rear seat, but did not have another adult to attend them, and if same ever caused you to turn you attention from the road you have committed felony child endangerment.

See how simple it is.


All we know is that he was on a cell phone. We go to ' reckless 'because we want to. Now the cell phone law does not change the police power to deal with reckless driving -- it does not add to it and it does not subtract from it.


It simple does away with any offer of proof that the action was reckless. Now you kown that a call to 911 is exempted from this law... so it would seem that the standard of reckless is a function of to whom you are speaking -- or maybe they figure its ok to be reckless in an emergency.


Frankly I can think of no more reckless act that to be dialing 911 while already distracted by an emergency nor can I think of an emergency that can occur while you are behind the wheel that does require an IAD to get the hell off the road before doing anything else..


I really do not care if the police stop cell phone users.. but I can tell you for a fact they do not-- not if they are pretty white girls in BMW's that wave at the police as they drive by. ( This did happen -- don't know if its a pattern or not )


I may find a legislator to propose the rule that no children under,say 5, may be driven in a car with at least one adult other than the driver to make sure attending to the children does not cost them their lives.


BTW how the devils advocate business doing --

 

[6-Pack]

Just my $0.02 here:

1. He was observed not following the law and rightfully pulled over. Rule #1 is to not do anything that could get you pulled over. This whole mess could have been a non-issue.

2. Dumbass had a gun in his glovebox. That charge will likely stick. This also pisses me off. I'm not privileged or threatened enough to get a CCW from the gubment, yet this guy just does it with total disregard. It doesn't matter if he "forgot" it was there either.

3. AK in the trunk is fine. You can be charged for crimes that factually don't pan out. I defended a client who was charged in Baltimore City for carrying a concealed handgun. He had a CCW and was on his own property, so two major exceptions applied, but he was still charged. I don't see the "assault weapons" charges sticking.

 

[MikeTF]

Both Ab_Normal and teratos have valid points.

Before cell phones and seat belts people could drive their cars while reading the paper and not get pulled over for violating any laws. If, however, they crossed over a yellow line, drove too fast (or slow), swerved within their lane, or exhibited other behavior that indicated that they were not in control of their car (or distracted), they could be pulled over. Times have changed. Laws now govern what you do in your car, rather than observe how your car is behaving. Does employer drug testing ring a bell?

Just across the river, here in VA, it is perfectly normal to have a loaded gun in your glove box or center console without a CCW permit. If you like, you can put it on your hip and carry it into the store with you.

Ab_Normal is not insane. I think he's just trying to point out how far the camel's nose (and other body parts) have entered the tent.

 

[Fox123]

Mike Mike Mike Mike Mike...

 

[swinokur]

 

[Brooklyn]

Why bother to stop drunk drivers if they haven't killed anyone yet? Just numbers.

Well What are you stooping them for? Pre murder? If so then no you should not.

Now the law says driving or attempting to drive while infer the influence-- of anything -- including OTC cough medicine. So now the question is what is a safe limit..


Funny thing---DWI laws worked-- folks got the message and DWI went way down-- great success---well no actually.

See responsible folks got the message quick and all the low hanging fruit got picked so all we had was hard core cases -- so we made the penalty stiffer and created criminals out of drunks so now we have unemployed drunks -- who are a true menace-- but they are to few to justify sweeps, and the implied consent law ( a selective waiver of 4a -- you know the rights you can waive except knowingly--- ha ha -- i promise there will be more such waivers based on this law in exchange of other privileges like the right to own real estate or rent an apartment-- the legal principle of lack there of ) so they had to lower the standard to get more DWI arrests to keep the funding.


DWI sweeps have been blessed by the courts as not a 4a issue -- the last one I went through had 'beer sniffing dogs'-- no wait that's not right --drug sniffing -- that's better ... see police work is about the number of contacts with the public that do not cause 4a issues.

Now I will step back from devils advocate-- I respect the opinion of those that feel its worth the trade off. I disagree based on my sense of the real statistical risk of these ' safety concerns' -- But there is a cost.. Implied consent law is model for doing to the 4a what the GCA acts have done to the 2a.


The use of a public safety argument, even if valid, is very dangerous because it effectively reverses the burden of proof from prove you must restrict rights to prove you should have rights at all. Given the pattern with DWI in particular it is clear that the program has succeed and its continuance at the same pace is not cost effective--- unless one factors in 4a issues and the states need to do an end run around it.


The pattern is allays the same, it was foretold by our founders. What price safety ( or security ) ? Nothing less than liberty. So lets at least acknowledge the trade off.

So we can make an informed choice which every way you decide.

Disclaimer :
I am not in favor of Drunk driving, nor reckless driving nor dumasses with guns doing stupid things. I just want to consider the trade off every time... while there is still liberty left to trade.

 

[teratos]

what are you stoping them for? Pre murder? I f so then no you should not.

Now the law says driving or attempting to drive while infer the influence-- of anything -- including OTC cough medicine. So now the question is what is a safe limit..


Funny thing DWI laws worked-- folks got the message and DWI went way down-- great success- well no actually.

See responsible folks got the message quick and all the low hanging fruit got picked so all we had was hard core cases -- so we made the penalty stiffer and created criminals out of drunks so no we have unemployed drunks -- who are a true menace-- but they are to few to justify sweeps, and the implied consent law ( a selective waiver of 4a -- you know the rights you can waive except knowingly--- ha ha -- i promise there will be more such waivers based on this law in exchange of other privileges like the right to own real estate or rent an apartment-- the legal principle of lack there of ) so they hand to lower the standard to get more DWI arrests to keep the funding.


DWI sweeps have been blessed by the courts as not a 4a issue -- that one I went through had 'beer sniffing dogs'-- no wait that's not right drug sniffing -- thats better ... see police work is about the number of contacts with the public that do not cause 4a issues.

Now step back from devils advocate-- I respect the opinion of those that feel its worth the trade off. I disagree based on my sense of the real statistical risk of these ' safety concerns' . But there is a cost.. Implied consent law is model for doing to the 4a what the GCA acts have done to the 2a.


The use of a public safety argument, even if valid, is very dangerous because it effectively reverses the burden of proof from prove you must restrict rights to prove you should have rights at all. Given the pattern with DWI in particular is is clear that the program has succeed and its continuance at the same pace is niot cost effective unless one factors in 4a issues and the states need to do an end run around it.


The pattern is allways the same, it was foretold by our founders. What price safety ( or security ) ? Nothing less than liberty. So lets at least acknowledge the trade off.

So we can make an informed choice which every way you decide.


I am not in favor of Drunk driving, nor reckless driving nor dumasses with guns doing stupid things. I just want to consider the trade off every time... while there is still liberty left to trade.

Wait until they kill someone. Good thinking.

That is as sad as it is irrational. I have no problem with personal liberty. What about the right to life of the person they will kill? Someone's wife, husband, son, daughter senselessly killed because Brooklyn thinks it infringes on personal liberty to call DWI a crime unless someone is killed or injured.

 

[teratos]

Both Ab_Normal and teratos have valid points.

Before cell phones and seat belts people could drive their cars while reading the paper and not get pulled over for violating any laws. If, however, they crossed over a yellow line, drove too fast (or slow), swerved within their lane, or exhibited other behavior that indicated that they were not in control of their car (or distracted), they could be pulled over. Times have changed. Laws now govern what you do in your car, rather than observe how your car is behaving. Does employer drug testing ring a bell?

Just across the river, here in VA, it is perfectly normal to have a loaded gun in your glove box or center console without a CCW permit. If you like, you can put it on your hip and carry it into the store with you.

Ab_Normal is not insane. I think he's just trying to point out how far the camel's nose (and other body parts) have entered the tent.

Brooklyn is insane.

I'm not even arguing the firearms aspect of this stop. People are saying the stop itself is unjustified because saying someone cannot drive with no hands on the wheel while talking on the phone is an infringement on personal liberty.

 

[joppaj]

I'm not even arguing the firearms aspect of this stop. People are saying the stop itself is unjustified because saying someone cannot drive with no hands on the wheel while talking on the phone is an infringement on personal liberty.

I think we should go shooting in our neighborhood. I mean it's only a problem after someone gets shot, right?

 

[Brooklyn]

Wait until they kill someone. Good thinking.

That is as sad as it is irrational. I have no problem with personal liberty. What about the right to life of the person they will kill? Someone's wife, husband, son, daughter senselessly killed because Brooklyn thinks it infringes on personal liberty to call DWI a crime unless someone is killed or injured.

I know it infringes the 4a. What I don't know is if does any good.

No matter ... not my call. And DWI is a crime. What it is not is pre-murder. And like all crimes it can be prosecuted-- when you have evidence collected in a manner that does not violate the 4a.


There is a law proposed to have cars retrofitted with breathalyzers.. assuming they work ( not likely ) can't be bypassed ( not likely ) and are cheep enough ( getting there ) do you support such a law?

If not why ?

DWI goes to 0. done.

 

[MikeTF]

Brooklyn is insane.

It's a pleasure to discuss things with you. The points you make are valid and serious, but at the same time you're able to add levity and humor. Well done!

 

[haoleboy]

Wait until they kill someone. Good thinking.

That is as sad as it is irrational. I have no problem with personal liberty. What about the right to life of the person they will kill? Someone's wife, husband, son, daughter senselessly killed because Brooklyn thinks it infringes on personal liberty to call DWI a crime unless someone is killed or injured.

Women applying make up while driving with their knees is just as dangerous.

The OP said the guy was observed driving with no hands. How did the LEO observe this? Was the LEO in a lifted truck, cause I have been known to lay my arm on my thigh and hold the wheel with my hand, All below the window sill. Was it possible this was the case?
It's kind of "insane" to think that there was any extended time where the guy wasn't touching the wheel at all. Was the guy using 1 hand to hold the cell phone and the other hand was flailing about? How long exactly were "both" hands not on the wheel?

 

[Ab_Normal]

Just my $0.02 here:

1. He was observed not following the law and rightfully pulled over. Rule #1 is to not do anything that could get you pulled over. This whole mess could have been a non-issue.

2. Dumbass had a gun in his glovebox. That charge will likely stick. This also pisses me off. I'm not privileged or threatened enough to get a CCW from the gubment, yet this guy just does it with total disregard. It doesn't matter if he "forgot" it was there either.

3. AK in the trunk is fine. You can be charged for crimes that factually don't pan out. I defended a client who was charged in Baltimore City for carrying a concealed handgun. He had a CCW and was on his own property, so two major exceptions applied, but he was still charged. I don't see the "assault weapons" charges sticking.

1 - You do realize that driving without a seat belt and talking on the cell phone were not illegal in the recent past? Both started out as secondary offenses and quickly got legislated to primary offenses. Don't have enough revenue crime then create some.

2+3 - What part of 'shall not be infringed' is so difficult to comprehend?

It is no wonder this state and country have the problems they do.

OOPS...RIF on my part. You like the job security.

 

[MikeTF]

I think we should go shooting in our neighborhood. I mean it's only a problem after someone gets shot, right?

I'm up for that if it's safe (a good back stop, responsible people, etc.). However, if there are ordinances and laws against it, I say 'No', even though suppressors would greatly reduce the risk of anyone discovering that we were doing it or disturbing others (creating noise). Is there an indoor range in your neighborhood or home?

 

[whistlersmother]

Ugh, reading some of these responses makes my head hurt.

On one hand you're okay with a little infringement on a personal
liberty in the name of safety (cell phone/driving law) and yet you
scream to the high heavens when the SAME argument is used
to justify magazine limits and assault weapon bans.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Ugh, reading some of these responses makes my head hurt.

On one hand you're okay with a little infringement on a personal
liberty in the name of safety (cell phone/driving law) and yet you
scream to the high heavens when the SAME argument is used
to justify magazine limits and assault weapon bans.

AMEN sister.

 

[teratos]

Ugh, reading some of these responses makes my head hurt.

On one hand you're okay with a little infringement on a personal
liberty in the name of safety (cell phone/driving law) and yet you
scream to the high heavens when the SAME argument is used
to justify magazine limits and assault weapon bans.

Privilege vs. Right.

There is a big difference. YOU are thinking like a liberal. If you can regulate a privilege, you can regulate a Right. That is not the case at all. One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just isn't the same. One of these things is in the Bill of Rights.......

I just skimmed through. The Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about being a dangerous driver.