Police officer discretion

[free]

Most likely you will be shot if you dont turn your firearm over.

Follow instructions, don't volunteer any information, or risk being shot. Pretty much. I agree with this poster.

[free]

Take a look at the case of shileen allen. She was legal to carry in pa, wasnt a prohibited person, but made the mistake of carrying across state lines, and was arrested for it. If there was any chance of discretion, that would have been the time to give it and tell her to go back to pa and don't bring a firearm into nj.

If she had kept her gun concealed and her mouth shut, she would likely have avoided further issues.

[free]

Police discretion almost never works outnin the citizens favor

What incentive is there to cut anyone a break? Seriously?

[free]

That*s just simply not true. Many are forbidden from ltcf without due process

Whether that is true is really irrelevant. A roadside stop is not the place to argue your case.

I don't believe any cop really wants to hear your life story on the side of the road subsequent to pulling you over for suspected wrongdoing, other than to collect evidence against you. Sadly, some people are way too eager to provide that evidence.

[JohnSmith33]

[QUOTE=esh21167;4555428]The extremes at each end of the continuum makes easy choices. As soon as you move away from those absolutes, it's gray. An LTCF is a constitutional infringement, yet I'll bet 99.9% of members here have one.

Agree or disagree with the LTCF, if you're prohibited, you already have a record.

The vast majority of the 'from my cold dead hands' and 'die on my feet' crowd are NOT walking around Washington D.C. with suppressed SBR's to show their commitment to constitutionality. They're not carrying handguns openly in NYC.[/QUOTE

First point is simply not true- many are deprived of their 2nd amendment “rights” without due process

That said, it seems you recognize that ltcf is an infringement- suppose one can’t get one because of further unconstitutional laws- do you support their right to carry and protect, or do you always err in favor of the law?

[JohnSmith33]

Whether that is true is really irrelevant. A roadside stop is not the place to argue your case.

I don't believe any cop really wants to hear your life story on the side of the road subsequent to pulling you over for suspected wrongdoing, other than to collect evidence against you. Sadly, some people are way too eager to provide that evidence.

Im inclined to agree, but failure to discuss/compromise means violence is the only alternative- from either side. No?

[free]

Im inclined to agree, but failure to discuss/compromise means violence is the only alternative- from either side. No?

You will have all the time to discuss once you have complied with LEO's demands, in whatever lawsuit you feel inclined to file.

Taking it up on the side of the road is kinda ridiculous. You really think the cop is going to say, "ooooooooh, I get it now. You're committing some felonies but I understand your perspective. Thanks for explaining it to me. You seem like a nice guy, so you have a nice day and watch yourself out there. I'm really sorry for this inconvenience." ?

You're more likely to get "taser, taser, taser", and if you're lucky, it will actually BE a taser.

[esh21167]

[QUOTE=JohnSmith33;4555443]

The extremes at each end of the continuum makes easy choices. As soon as you move away from those absolutes, it's gray. An LTCF is a constitutional infringement, yet I'll bet 99.9% of members here have one.

Agree or disagree with the LTCF, if you're prohibited, you already have a record.

The vast majority of the 'from my cold dead hands' and 'die on my feet' crowd are NOT walking around Washington D.C. with suppressed SBR's to show their commitment to constitutionality. They're not carrying handguns openly in NYC.[/QUOTE

First point is simply not true- many are deprived of their 2nd amendment *rights* without due process

That said, it seems you recognize that ltcf is an infringement- suppose one can*t get one because of further unconstitutional laws- do you support their right to carry and protect, or do you always err in favor of the law?

My mistake on the revoking of that right. I understand PFA's, etc. can harm that without due process.

Otherwise, I would err on the side of liberty, sorry if it didn't sound I would. I only meant that if you're prohibited, for whatever reason, expect a problem with a loaded firearm in a vehicle. You're definitely gambling.

[JohnSmith33]

You will have all the time to discuss once you have complied with LEO's demands, in whatever lawsuit you feel inclined to file.

Taking it up on the side of the road is kinda ridiculous. You really think the cop I going to say, "ooooooooh, I get it now. You're committing some felonies but I understand your perfect. Have a nice day and watch yourself out there. I'm really sorry for this inconvenience." ?

Of course not, but if I can pin you to some of your opinions…

#1: you will have all the time to discuss *from prison and if you can afford it*. This of course depends on the offense and the location, but should it? Having 11 rounds in NJ gives you mandatory minimum 5-10 years in prison whereas is Missouri it’s a regular day- despite both being in America. Do you defer to the law of the state or the law of the constitution? Do you expect an otherwise free man to “suck it up” and hope for the best from a legal system that’s already passed the same laws you (presumably) consider unconstitutional?

#2: “side of the road argument”. Where it occurs is largely irrelevant. I find that to merely be a ploy to disarm whoever they’re arguing with (under threat of force, no?). It’s not a menial argument like “the light was yellow” but rather one that strikes at the core of America- is one allowed to defend himself and his family? One sends you a fine and on your way- another deprives you of your freedom immediately

#3 further to the point of the previous, there are many people that have died because they failed to discuss or compromise- do you find it more important that they had followed/enforced the law or suspended the rule of law for the sake of their lives?

[free]

Of course not, but if I can pin you to some of your opinions*

#1: you will have all the time to discuss *from prison and if you can afford it*. This of course depends on the offense and the location, but should it? Having 11 rounds in NJ gives you mandatory minimum 5-10 years in prison whereas is Missouri it*s a regular day- despite both being in America. Do you defer to the law of the state or the law of the constitution? Do you expect an otherwise free man to *suck it up* and hope for the best from a legal system that*s already passed the same laws you (presumably) consider unconstitutional?

I am not a child. I don't expect the world to work the way it should or the way I would like. I try to act accordingly. Usually successfully. I recommend this approach to others. If you want to engage in illegal activity (by the practical standards of society), because you feel you should be allowed to, for ANY reason, better to do it when you're a lot less likely to suffer negative consequences.

#2: *side of the road argument*. Where it occurs is largely irrelevant. I find that to merely be a ploy to disarm whoever they*re arguing with (under threat of force, no?). It*s not a menial argument like *the light was yellow* but rather one that strikes at the core of America- is one allowed to defend himself and his family? One sends you a fine and on your way- another deprives you of your freedom immediately

Not really sure what your point is. But I live in the real world, not the one I would like to live in. I accept that reality.

#3 further to the point of the previous, there are many people that have died because they failed to discuss or compromise- do you find it more important that they had followed/enforced the law or suspended the rule of law for the sake of their lives?

If they end up dead, I find it irrelevant to their personal situation what happened on the side of the road, or who was in the right, either theoretically or in practicality. "Well, he is dead, but he was right" is of little condolence to the dead.

To wit, when I go to Maryland or Washington DC, I leave my gun at home. Why? Because if I am found with it in those locations, I am ALMOST CERTAINLY going to be arrested and suffer serious negative consequences. Do I like it? No. I'd like prison and losing everything I own a lot less. I'll also add that I find it an extraordinarily easy decision to make.