Bend over, folks...

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I said
they
were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so they
were
reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners.
Thats
extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets covered very
well. The same press often does not bother with bad news stories about
guns
unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news unless
there's some angle to it.

No, the claim was that the events were not given "national" coverage.

They are covered, and then repeated in a national publication, you want the
cover of the NYT?


most especially with a firearm, it hits the press big time."?

Some examples of this would be nice.

See the link from a previous post that takes you to a NRA publication.




The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a
church
worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings he
does
not appear willing to follow?

Your statements have me wondering. In what way does carrying a gun
indicate that he doesn't trust his god, and which teachings do you
believe it violates?


I have the greatest faith that you can figure that out for yourself.


Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Fargo wrote:
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I
said they
were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so
they were
reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners.
Thats
extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets
covered very well. The same press often does not bother with bad
news stories about guns
unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news
unless there's some angle to it.

No, the claim was that the events were not given "national" coverage.

They are covered, and then repeated in a national publication, you
want the cover of the NYT?


most especially with a firearm, it hits the press big time."?

Some examples of this would be nice.

See the link from a previous post that takes you to a NRA publication.


The NRA publishes the stories in their magazine specificly BECAUSE they do
not get national attention. And yes the NYT cover would be nice, thank you.

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
a traffic law.


Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.


He might be right. In Washington State, the State Constitution has a higher
expectation of privacy than the US Constitution, one of the results being
that me don't have sobriety checkpoints.

Actually, every couple of years some city or county sets them up, arrests a
bunch of people, and have all the convictions thrown out because they
violate the State Constitution.

On Jun 21, 5:00 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
a traffic law.

Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.

I believe *your* statement to be incorrect. In my state of North
Carolina (as well as the law in the other states I'm familiar with), a
vehicle may not be legally stopped without some reason, such as a
traffic violation. And you may read Terry v. Ohio on the question
whether a pedestrian may be stopped, but you can't just stop any
pedestrian without some reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment
applies to the states as well as to the federal government. It has
been incorporated into state law by the 14th Amendment.

For a while cops set up traffic stops and stopped every car coming
through. When they found the courts were throwing out their cases for
these dragnets in violation of the Fourth, they then began putting up
signs with "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" or "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead" and
nabbing the motorists who hung a "U" or turned off at the next
connector.

Now that's not to say that cops don't break the law because there are
few sanctions against them with any teeth. You're not ordinarily
going to get into the bad cop's pocketbook or get a lien on his house,
but you can file a motion to suppress evidence he has seized from you
in violation of your 4th Amendment rights and pursuant to the landmark
Scotus case known as Mapp vs. Ohio. And if the cop doesn't lie you'll
usually win.

"Fargo" wrote in message
...

The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a
church worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings
he does not appear willing to follow?

As I am not a biblical scholar, I would have to look up chapter, verse, and
precise wording for, "Let he who does not have a sword, sell his cloak and
buy one". I would be foolish to get into a religious discussion with a fool
such as yourself.

[PLONK]

Rich S.

On Jun 21, 3:00 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
a traffic law.

Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.

I have checked the laws of my state, and I stand by my statement. You
haven't told me which police state you live in...

"jl" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 21, 5:00 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
wrote in message

Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
a traffic law.

Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.

I believe *your* statement to be incorrect. In my state of North
Carolina (as well as the law in the other states I'm familiar with), a
vehicle may not be legally stopped without some reason, such as a
traffic violation. And you may read Terry v. Ohio on the question
whether a pedestrian may be stopped, but you can't just stop any
pedestrian without some reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment
applies to the states as well as to the federal government. It has
been incorporated into state law by the 14th Amendment.

Dean was stating a violation was required in both examples, and that's not
correct. In fact agree with your comments, on both the pedestrian or
vehicle stop, only resonable suspicion is required.

For a while cops set up traffic stops and stopped every car coming
through. When they found the courts were throwing out their cases for
these dragnets in violation of the Fourth, they then began putting up
signs with "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" or "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead" and
nabbing the motorists who hung a "U" or turned off at the next
connector.

We still have these in Oklahoma on a limited basis, an they are very
effective. Every time they do it, they kill their limit in less than a
shift. Drunks, expired licenses and registration, no insurance, you name it.
I'm not at all familuar with the case law in them, but I do know they
excercise some precautions. Announcing when and where to the media for
publication in advance, and moving them around the county to avoid being
accused of targeting a specific area, are two that I recall. I think the
reason you don't see more of them is more policy than constitutional. It
creates a real public relations nightmare. Unfortunitly, you have to greatly
inconvenience and sometimes even traumatize about 20 honest, hard working
citizens to catch one bad guy, and the loss of public support for the police
is just not worth it. If you no longer see them in your area, I would
speculate it more of a city, county or state policy. Policing agencies are
very aware of their need for public support, and when every old lady going
to church gets shook down in a roadblock out on the highway on the way in,
they will reassemble an return on you, or at least to city hall.


Now that's not to say that cops don't break the law because there are
few sanctions against them with any teeth. You're not ordinarily
going to get into the bad cop's pocketbook or get a lien on his house,
but you can file a motion to suppress evidence he has seized from you
in violation of your 4th Amendment rights and pursuant to the landmark
Scotus case known as Mapp vs. Ohio. And if the cop doesn't lie you'll
usually win.


I also agree that some cops often break the law, or at least push the
limits, and that reasonable suspicion creates an often abused gray area.
There have been at least three cop books written that I'm aware of, that
promote techniques on how to verbally swindle citizens out of their
constitutional rights to search their vehicle without a warrant. It's done
by playing word games to con you into giving consent. I think that both the
books and the techniques should be illegal, but unfortunately they are not.
But I can also honestly say that 95% of the cops I have known, don't play
those games. It's just not necessary to do a good job, and regardless of
what we hear in the sensationalized cases, cops often loose their jobs or
get passed over for promotion, if they establish a pattern of that kind of
behavior.

In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...


First of all, I can't speak for Canadian law, I have no insight there. All
my experience pertains to the US, and Oklahoma specifically.

Here's the thing: police don't get to stop someone who is doing nothing
suspicious on spec -- at least they shouldn't get to.

The OPs example was walking through the parking lot of a business, probably
closed, at 1 am. In the US it takes very little to meet the threshold of
reasonable suspicion to stop and question a pedestrian. Perhaps a little
more for a moving vehicle, but you don't have to be obviously breaking the
law.

Question, sure. They can ask questions, and I can answer them. No need
for ID.



I don't have to prove or even suggest that I have a right to exist.

That depends entirily on where and when you choose to exist, and anything
that might be under investigation in your proximity.

Incorrect. Simply incorrect.

My rights do not change in such circumstances.

The police have the authority to ask who I am, where I live, but even if
they have suspicions that I have committed a crime, that does *not* give
them the authority to require ID from me. What if I just haven't brought
my wallet along; what then?

In article ,
"Fargo" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I said
they
were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so they
were
reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners.
Thats
extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets covered very
well. The same press often does not bother with bad news stories about
guns
unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news unless
there's some angle to it.

No, the claim was that the events were not given "national" coverage.

They are covered, and then repeated in a national publication, you want the
cover of the NYT?


most especially with a firearm, it hits the press big time."?

Some examples of this would be nice.

See the link from a previous post that takes you to a NRA publication.

Nope. It was your claim and you claim the NRA doesn't count.

Where are *your* links that support *your* claim?





The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a
church
worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings he
does
not appear willing to follow?

Your statements have me wondering. In what way does carrying a gun
indicate that he doesn't trust his god, and which teachings do you
believe it violates?


I have the greatest faith that you can figure that out for yourself.

Assume for the sake of argument that I can't.

Because as far as I can see, you're just dodging the question.

"jl" wrote in message oups.com...
On Jun 21, 5:00 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
a traffic law.

Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.

I believe *your* statement to be incorrect. In my state of North
Carolina (as well as the law in the other states I'm familiar with), a
vehicle may not be legally stopped without some reason, such as a
traffic violation. And you may read Terry v. Ohio on the question
whether a pedestrian may be stopped, but you can't just stop any
pedestrian without some reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment
applies to the states as well as to the federal government. It has
been incorporated into state law by the 14th Amendment.


With all the convoluted and selectively enforced laws on the books, a cop can pretty much decide that he saw you spit
out the window, or stepped on a crack, or whatever, and use that as his reasonable suspicion argument...



For a while cops set up traffic stops and stopped every car coming
through. When they found the courts were throwing out their cases for
these dragnets in violation of the Fourth, they then began putting up
signs with "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" or "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead" and
nabbing the motorists who hung a "U" or turned off at the next
connector.

Now that's not to say that cops don't break the law because there are
few sanctions against them with any teeth. You're not ordinarily
going to get into the bad cop's pocketbook or get a lien on his house,
but you can file a motion to suppress evidence he has seized from you
in violation of your 4th Amendment rights and pursuant to the landmark
Scotus case known as Mapp vs. Ohio. And if the cop doesn't lie you'll
usually win.