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

[Minuteman]

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. As an inanimate object, a rifle is incapable of assaulting anything. The PERSON yielding the rifle may be assaulting something/someone, but the rifle is simply the tool the PERSON is using. Rifles can't assault anything!

Absolutely, and well said! Many people have been brainwashed to think that a military looking rifle is automatically an 'assault rifle'; it's now even in the new Maryland law, making it so. Ridiculous.

It's true.

I'm an evidence guy. I don't believe in setting arbitrary limits on things. There should be no quotas in law enforcement. If numbers go down, that should be a good thing. Laws should be passed based on facts. More importantly, they should be Constitutional.

Agreed! The article is sensationalized for the readership. Every sentence crafted to make the driver Mr. Smartt (yep, that's funny right there), look like an idiot. I agree it's not a good idea to go driving around without a seatbelt, or visit Maryland without understanding at least in general Maryland laws, as it appears Mr. Smartt was clueless.

But.... What did he really do? Not trying to defend him, but provide a different perspective; these 'one thing COULD lead to another' laws are a slippery slope. Was he swerving? Did he get in an accident because he was distracted? When the no talking on the phone law first went into effect it was a secondary crime, now a person can be pulled over for it. It burns me up too when people are driving like idiots and I can see they are on the phone; but the jury is still out as to the effectiveness of this preemptive law. Did he get hurt or die because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt? Was he shooting or intimidating anyone with his brass knuckles? What was he actually doing wrong? Everything the article suggested had the potential to be a negative, but all those things - the phone, the pepper spray, the pistol(s), rifle; none of them actually do anything. And Mr. Smartt wasn't harming anyone driving down the road.

This will be a very interesting case for the reasons already being discussed, interstate transport, SB281, carry of a rifle in a vehicle. What we have here my friends is our first test case. Remember how many times we all say we don't want to be the test case, well now we have a volunteer. If he's not a real bad-guy, which he might actually be (brass knuckles - really?); he would be lucky if it ends like the last two similar cases.

 

[Inigoes]

Absolutely, and well said! Many people have been brainwashed to think that a military looking rifle is automatically an 'assault rifle'; it's now even in the new Maryland law, making it so. Ridiculous.

Agreed! The article is sensationalized for the readership. Every sentence crafted to make the driver Mr. Smartt (yep, that's funny right there), look like an idiot. I agree it's not a good idea to go driving around Maryland without understanding at least in general Maryland laws, as it appears Mr. Smartt was clueless.

But.... What did he really do? Not trying to defend him, but provide a different perspective; these 'one thing COULD lead to another' laws are a slippery slope. Was he swerving? Did he get in an accident because he was distracted? Did he get hurt or die because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt? Was he shooting or intimidating anyone with his brass knuckles? What was he actually doing wrong? Everything the article suggested had the potential to be a negative, but all those things - the phone, the pepper spray, the pistol(s), rifle; none of them actually do anything. And Mr. Smartt wasn't harming anyone driving down the road.

This will be a very interesting case for the reasons already being discussed, interstate transport, SB281, carry of a rifle in a vehicle. What we have here my friends is our first test case. Remember how many times we all say we don't want to be the test case, well now we have a volunteer. If he's not a real bad-guy, which he might actually be (brass knuckles - really?); he would be lucky if it ends like the last two similar cases.

Some of the best test cases have been criminal in nature. Miranda, ring a bell?

 

[dblas]

Then the charge should be reckless driving. And if they can make the case on the elements I have no issue. I am skeptical that that is exactly what happened. The net effect of the cell phone law is to create a non rebutanble presumption that cell phone use is reckless. The actual accident numbers do not bear that out.

Reckless driving is not a new charge and its not a new problem.. why is new law needed... my answer is part political and part pragmatic.. it weakens the standard of proof that the state need s to make. I expect that the evidence may support such a charge.

But I may very well not... make a charge of reckless and prove it.

I expect that by the time this gets to court the story will be even more grandiose...

But I do not know.. maybe we will have a solid offer of proof.. that's rare in tragic court.

How do we know that reckless driving isn't one of the charges, do you know for a fact it isn't or are you making the assumption that the cellphone use was the primary indicator? If you are assuming it was the cellphone then what are you basing that on? Because I read the same news release that you did (I hope you read it) and immediately went to the reckless driving, you immediately went to the cell phone.

 

[dblas]

This is the part I don't understand: He's not a resident of MD and his rifle is legal in his state.

His rifle is also legal in MD, if he owned it prior to 10/13.

 

[dblas]

Yes.

However, he was caught in MD post sb281, where maryland law applies.

And Maryland law states that if he owned it prior to 10/1/13, it is a legal item to have in the state.

This is why Del Kelly has introduced HB 122, to clean up and prevent issues like this one with regards to his AK.

 

[Inigoes]

And Maryland law states that if he owned it prior to 10/1/13, it is a legal item to have in the state.

This is why Del Kelly has introduced HB 122, to clean up and prevent issues like this one with regards to his AK.

I feel the dude was charged because the firearm was not in the MSP database.

An entirely different animal than SB281

 

[Fox123]

I feel the dude was charged because the firearm was not in the MSP database.

An entirely different animal than SB281

THIS!

Which is what I was eluding to quite a few pages back.

I could care less about this dumbass Mr Smartt, he does though provide our test case for non registered EBR's possessed in state that MSP does not have in their database.

 

[dblas]

I feel the dude was charged because the firearm was not in the MSP database.

An entirely different animal than SB281

That is a distinct possibility.

 

[Inigoes]

That is a distinct possibility.

That is the main reason, I notarized a copy of my collection prior to 10/1.

I do not want everything seized until the "authorities" sort out what they think the law says.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Crossing a certer line , following too closely, speeding , obstructing traffic, weaving , neglegent driving , etc are all potentially dangerous , and are each primary ofences. All of them are illegal regardless if the driver having a live human conversation , supervising children , eating a Big Mac , drinking coffee, tuning the radio, adjusting rear view mirror , lighting a cigarettee , or engaging in sexual activity.

Pragmatic reasons for passing cell phone/ primary :
1. Revenue from tickets 2. Easier of Ofc to meet monthly quota 3. Easier pretext

For those of us with understanding of history & context , refer back to the legislative history for Md's origional Seat Belt law. The nanny-ists had been trying for several sessions , but it always faced stiff opposition from all the urban legislators , and all with a background in Civil Rights. Because ...wait for it...it would be used as a pretext to pull over any car on the road , especially those driven by minorities . It was only by making it a seconday ofencse that it was able to get passed at all. [ Yes it is wise to comply with all current primary ofencses. And yes I wore seat belts before there was a law, but it should be because I felt it wise to do so , and not because Gubmen't made me.]

Yes , knucks are specifically enumerated as being a *Dangerous Weapon* inherently. But that still brings us back to * not concealed , not with Intent. But yes, as a practical matter they are widely percieved as evil , and would probably result in getting the book thrown at you. [ As trivia , I did know a private citizen who used brass knuckles in legit SD , against superior numbers with bigger dangerous weapon. But there are a cpl hundred wiser choices for SD aids.]

 

[Hollywood Ball]

Hop on a motorcycle and you will quickly realize how bad a problem distracted/reckless driving is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brooklyn]

How do we know that reckless driving isn't one of the charges, do you know for a fact it isn't or are you making the assumption that the cellphone use was the primary indicator? If you are assuming it was the cellphone then what are you basing that on? Because I read the same news release that you did (I hope you read it) and immediately went to the reckless driving, you immediately went to the cell phone.

Actually it was more of a hypothetical tangent to the actually case. Util we have a court transcript nothing we hear is evidence.. you know I can't stay on topic


Let see what we hear in court ...

 

[dblas]

Actually it was more of a hypothetical tangent to the actually case. Util we have a court transcript nothing we hear is evidence.. you know I can't stay on topic


Let see what we hear in court ...

Which is something you do in every thread you get into and it gets old and it mucks up the actual discussion. No offense, I understand what you are trying to do, but it takes the threads so far off topic and raises the noise floor of the thread to such a point that the original issue is lost entirely.

 

[Brooklyn]

There have been times when the gov't has had to step in & protect us from ourselves. For example, prior to the mandatory installation & use of seatbelts, & the installation of airbags & other safety features, there used to be 50k-60,000 automobile deaths a yr. However the number has almost been cut in half, but 12-15k deaths are still alcohol related.

So, our guy is talking on the cell phone, no seatbelt, no hands on the wheel. I call that pretty reckless behavior. Had he been in compliance with the law, there wouldn't have been a stop. With no stop there would've been no need to go into the glove compartment, etc. I disagree this was a pretext to search the car. Had his pistols been in the trunk & not in the passenger compartment, accessible to him, then I doubt we'd be having this discussion

Studies have shown that talking on a cellphone is equivalent to driving under the influence, with texting being even worse. Every time I drive puts me on the road with a bunch of distracted drivers. Virtually every time I'm in a parking lot, on my bicycle, or motorcycle, some knucklehead on a phone puts my life in danger.

Here's a pic of my very personal encounter with a distracted driver. A little luck, my seatbelt, & some defensive driver training helped me walk away from this with a cut over my ear & some bumps/bruises. The distracted driver didn't even slowdown or stop. I had to be cut out of the car.

http://www.mdshooters.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=107031&stc=1&d=1389478195

Glad you are ok .. i got run off the road a few times myself -- once today in fact.. shoulders are my best friend.

But Just to be clear my problem is elusively with the standard of evidence needed to make a stop and the fact that setting that low gives the police the power effectively negate the 4th amendment.


Elsewhere in this thread I suggested that one way to prevent this problem is not allow the 'public safety stop ' to allow the police to start a fishing expedition. This is what they do by policy in may jurisdictions including Terry stop for all NYC.


So Allow the stop but require that evidence seized based on that stop to be inadmissible unless prior reasonable suspicion for that evidence exists.



In NYC police can stop and fisk anyone -- look at the police thats RS -- look away from the police --RS look down at you shoes --RS -- the guy next to you --thats a gang sign - RS.

Fill in the banks. Now re cars there is much more in NY than in MD -- but I am not going to give out any ideas. In practice the police can stop any car for any reason if they have a 'good faith belief ' that there is a safety issue -- this could mean that they ' could not see' your inspection sticker-- a 4 in rectangle on the bottom of the left windshield at night in the rain...

The sticker is intended to be read while the car is parked -- but they can ask you to park so they can see it -- from then on its a traffic stop. Lic reg ... etc

Do most police do this -- of course not--- its never happened to me -- thing is rights are never needed until they are needed. And they are supposed to protect us from those who do not play fair -- the 'bad cops' not the 'good ones' .


If we must have a public safety exception for the 4a it had better be very narrow or 4a is doa.

 

[Brooklyn]

Which is something you do in every thread you get into and it gets old and it mucks up the actual discussion. No offense, I understand what you are trying to do, but it takes the threads so far off topic and raises the noise floor of the thread to such a point that the original issue is lost entirely.

By bad.. I don't single thread well.

 

[daNattyFatty]

Has anyone thought to go to the district court and request to see the Trooper's Statement of Probable Cause? That might clear up a lot of questions and speculation.

For those of you that may have done this before, can you go to any district court (perhaps there's an electronic copy already uploaded to the "system"?), or do you have to go to the district court where the charges have been filed?

 

[haoleboy]

Has anyone thought to go to the district court and request to see the Trooper's Statement of Probable Cause? That might clear up a lot of questions and speculation.

For those of you that may have done this before, can you go to any district court (perhaps there's an electronic copy already uploaded to the "system"?), or do you have to go to the district court where the charges have been filed?

Which would help you how? You can call BS on the LEO's PC till you are blue in the face. When you go to court, who's opinion will the judge consider?

 

[daNattyFatty]

Which would help you how? You can call BS on the LEO's PC till you are blue in the face. When you go to court, who's opinion will the judge consider?

Wow. Jump to conclusions much? What in my post led you to what my opinion is one way or the other?

All my post indicated was a possible solution to all of the back and forth in this thread. Seems to me we should get our information from the source. A press release does not a charging document make.

 

[MikeTF]

Agreed. The man was from PA. It appears from the story he was careless in transporting his guns. I legally conceal carry in MD and my loaded sidearm is often in my glove box while driving. He may have been in complete compliance with PA laws. As far as brass knuckles and chemical spray how many on MD shooters own the same? Some people collect vintage brass knuckles, hand cuffs etc...

MD's draconian cell phone laws, seat belt laws, head light laws, wiper laws... Give police ONE more reason to pull us over.

Not saying the guy wasn't careless, ignorant and irresponsible - report indicates he was.

Just not a fan of ALL THE WAYS police can target us.

I still own a home in MD (It's on the market and had been under contract). When I'm in MD I carry a Kimber Pepper Blaster II at all times. Before I cross the border into MD, I stop, unload my gun, secure it in a case, and secure the ammunition in a separate area, all inaccessible to me. When I CCW (Every day) and get into my car, I keep my firearm in my pocket. Sometimes I'll place it between the seat and the center console, in the center console, or in the glove box. When in MD the firearm(s) are put in safe if I leave the home for errands or other activities. I own no brass knuckles. I used to teach martial arts classes and would only bring other 'weapons' (bow, nunchaku, etc.) to and from classes (per MD statute).

 

[kgain673]

Marylands draconian laws on seatbelts, headlights, cellphones, the overall Traffic Article? Give me a brake!!!!!! Show me which states don't have the same laws or don't have them coming. More people die in car wrecks then by homicide every year. Also when you get a license and regester your vehicle you enter into an agreement with the MVA and State of Maryland you will follow the laws that govern the roadways. Every traffic stop is an investigation, the beltway sniper was apprehended because of a Deputy who investigated a suspicious vehicle. Many fugitives are apprehended while operating motor vehicles. And finally THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS QUOTAS!!!! this guy got popped because he was in the state, committed a traffic violation, and like a retard had his gun in the glove box.