Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Open Carry
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 2055458" data-attributes="member: 5183"><p>Yikes! Double yikes! NO NO NO NO NO!</p><p>GlockCop and Copeje, I would like you both to elaborate on the constitutionality of your position. Now you are both advocating shredding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments along with the Second!</p><p></p><p>Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."</p><p></p><p>Fifth Amendment (excerpted): "nor shall (any person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"</p><p></p><p>And, of course, the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."</p><p></p><p>A weapon ("arms") carried on a citizen's person, in addition to being explicitly protected by the Second Amendment, may not be taken as a cause to search his "person" (whereon he "bears" the weapon); may not be taken as a cause to search his "papers" (any license to carry same, which in itself already impermissibly "infringes" his right to keep and bear arms); may not be taken as a cause to search his "effects" (which would include the weapon itself); may not be taken as cause to deprive him of "liberty" (detain him from going about his business); may not be taken as cause to deprive him of "property" (the weapon itself); and the search itself cannot take place without a warrant issued upon probable cause particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized! None of the requirements above is satisfied, and all are explicitly violated, when a law enforcement officer, upon no cause other than spotting a constitutionally protected weapon, demands that a citizen show proof that he is not a criminal!</p><p></p><p>GlockCop, I would expect a law enforcement officer at any level to be familiar with and abide by and uphold the highest law of the land. Copeje, explain to me how the needs of officer safety can - ever! - render null the protections of the individual citizen under the Constitution. It is the duty of the law enforcement officer (or the government official at any level, for that matter!) to protect the rights and safety of the citizen, not the other way around. In performing any of his duties, a law enforcement officer (or any other government official at any level, for that matter!) is bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He may not baldly ignore the Constitution to protect his own safety.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tweetr, post: 2055458, member: 5183"] Yikes! Double yikes! NO NO NO NO NO! GlockCop and Copeje, I would like you both to elaborate on the constitutionality of your position. Now you are both advocating shredding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments along with the Second! Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fifth Amendment (excerpted): "nor shall (any person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" And, of course, the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." A weapon ("arms") carried on a citizen's person, in addition to being explicitly protected by the Second Amendment, may not be taken as a cause to search his "person" (whereon he "bears" the weapon); may not be taken as a cause to search his "papers" (any license to carry same, which in itself already impermissibly "infringes" his right to keep and bear arms); may not be taken as a cause to search his "effects" (which would include the weapon itself); may not be taken as cause to deprive him of "liberty" (detain him from going about his business); may not be taken as cause to deprive him of "property" (the weapon itself); and the search itself cannot take place without a warrant issued upon probable cause particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized! None of the requirements above is satisfied, and all are explicitly violated, when a law enforcement officer, upon no cause other than spotting a constitutionally protected weapon, demands that a citizen show proof that he is not a criminal! GlockCop, I would expect a law enforcement officer at any level to be familiar with and abide by and uphold the highest law of the land. Copeje, explain to me how the needs of officer safety can - ever! - render null the protections of the individual citizen under the Constitution. It is the duty of the law enforcement officer (or the government official at any level, for that matter!) to protect the rights and safety of the citizen, not the other way around. In performing any of his duties, a law enforcement officer (or any other government official at any level, for that matter!) is bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He may not baldly ignore the Constitution to protect his own safety. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Open Carry
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom