Second Amendment Issues
Quote: klimate10First of all...a declaratory judgment would do not any good here. Im not a Nevada lawyer, but based on what I know about most states and federal law, a declaratory judgment would probably be inapplicable here.
Secondly, there most definitely is reasonable suspicion. There may or may not be probable cause, but reasonable suspicion is most definitely arguable. The office must only justify something like this..."I, Mr. cop saw an empty holster, and guns usually are carried in holsters, therefore since there was no gun in the holster, I wanted to detain and search to make sure that the gun, that a person can assume goes with a holster, is not hidden on the person, and concealing a firearm on person is unlawful". I'm not saying that this logic is correct or incorrect. I'm saying that something like the above argument is all that is needed for reasonable suspicion, as reasonable suspicion is a very low standard.
Do not confuse reasonable suspicion with probable cause. The two are entirely judicially made up legal concepts, and are not defined by the common understanding of the English language. It is VERY hard to not have reasonable suspicion. There are a group of case law that states what can not be reasonable suspicion (ex. you can't use race, you can't use status, an example of a status that does not constitute reasonable suspicion would be, "I know that she is a known prostitute because she's been arrested before on prostitution, so I, Mr. Cop, am going to search her because she is standing on the corner". Now, if you add in the fact that she is dressed like a prostitute, that would probably be reasonable suspicion, and if you add the fact that she is talking to cars and drivers, as they stop, that's probable cause). Almost anything outside of those cases is reasonable suspicion.
Im not going to cite any case law to support the above argument. After all, I'm not giving legal advice here. Feel free to disagree.
These officers did an excellent job. They did not violate any protocol and did not violate any laws. Just because you don't agree with what the cops did, that doesn't mean that they did a bad job or that they did not know the law that they were enforcing.
They at least illegally sized his property. Your reasonable suspicion hypothetical is absurd and even if it was right they would be required to let him go the moment they realized he didn't have a gun. The problem with it is that having a gun is not itself illegal in Nevada. I can have a reasonable suspicion that somebody has a gun... but having a gun isn't illegal. This doesn't allow a Terry stop. Again, you have to have suspicion of a crime.
If the cops had a suspicion that the guy had a my little pony doll in his pocket, then they wouldn't be able to stop him either.
Quote: EvenBobThey only started hassling him after he started
acting like an ass. If he had just answered what
they asked, it would have been over in 2min. I
was parked in the fire zone next to Target a
couple years ago when a cop rolled up and told
me to move. I said my wife will be out any minute.
He said 'Are you refusing to move your vehicle?
I need to know before I impound it and call a tow
truck.' Don't mess with the police, they always
have the upper hand and they know it.
They shouldn't have stopped him in the first place. I am completely fine with bad attitudes toward bullshit stops.
Quote: MathExtremist
As far as I can tell, the OP lied to the police about carrying weapons (e.g. knife, taser), and he may also have violated state or federal laws regarding surreptitious recording and subsequent dissemination of oral communications. I think he got off easy.
Those laws only apply to federal investigating agents or officials. In Nevada it is only illegal to lie in reporting a crime, I believe.
Nor is it in many other states, which is why that isn't a terry stop.Quote: bbvk05They at least illegally sized his property. Your reasonable suspicion hypothetical is absurd and even if it was right they would be required to let him go the moment they realized he didn't have a gun. The problem with it is that having a gun is not itself illegal in Nevada.
Good way to sum it up.
There has been an explosion of OC in the last couple of years. California banning OC recently has really put a bug up peoples ass about OC and now you are seeing more and more people do it as a statement. It's one of those thing people believe if they don't use it they will lose it. And since almost no one ever OC in California the state thought they would just go ahead and ban it. But it has caused a lot of blow back around the country. The rest of us living in "free states" sure was hell don't want to end up like New York, Massachusetts and California were only the criminals have guns. I live in Washington state and worked as an economist for WAMU, when they went down and got bought by Chase from the FDIC. I had a chance to take a Job with Chase with a nice pay raise in NY. I turned it down, I love my guns to much to live in that messed up state LOL
We here in New York endorse your decision fully.Quote: vert1276I had a chance to take a Job with Chase with a nice pay raise in NY. I turned it down, I love my guns to much to live in that messed up state LOL
Quote: s2dbakerWe here in New York endorse your decision fully.
no problem :) didn't want to be bent over with no lube on state taxes either, that played into the decision as well...you can keep your ridiculously high taxes and nanny state gun laws. But I don't think its just me... every census, it seems more and more agree with me as you guys lose congressman and electoral college votes as people flee like rats on sinking ship
Quote: vert1276every census, it seems more and more agree with me as you guys lose congressman and electoral college votes as people flee like rats on sinking ship
Whats really hurting NYC is they're taxing the super
rich right out of the city in droves. Even Bloomberg
was on TV whining and wringing his hands about it.
