What the Hell?

[angsniper]

I understand why they feel safer if they TEMPORARILY remove the weapon but what I don't understand is the last statement!!!! He was a felon in possession of a firearm!


http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Court-expands-police-right-to-take-guns-from-cars-1391936.php

 

[1shot(bob)]

While I disagree that the gun should be taken from a law-abiding citizen in that scenario, the fact that he was a felon should have allowed them to arrest him and confiscate his weapon.

This is the statement that bothers me most:

We are pleased that the safety of police officers was held as being the most important issue in this case.

Of course, this was in NM so their laws may differ from those in OK. I thought the police were there to protect us, not themselves.

bob

 

[grizzly97]

Just more of the elitest attitude..."our safety is more important than yours"

 

[Werewolf]

We are pleased that the safety of police officers was held as being the most important issue in this case.

It will always be in the best interests of the state to prioritize the safety of its agents over and above the safety of its subjects.

 

[Michael Brown]

This is the statement that bothers me most:


Of course, this was in NM so their laws may differ from those in OK. I thought the police were there to protect us, not themselves.

bob

You can't protect anyone if you're dead.

Michael Brown

 

[Rod Snell]

TITLE 21 § 1289.7. Firearms in vehicles
FIREARMS IN VEHICLES
Any person, except a convicted felon, may transport in a motor vehicle a rifle, shotgun or pistol, open and unloaded, at any time. For purposes of this section “open” means the firearm is transported in plain view, in a case designed for carrying firearms, which case is wholly or partially visible, in a gun rack mounted in the vehicle, in an exterior locked compartment or a trunk of a vehicle.

Notwithstanding the provisions of 1272 or 1289.13 of this title, any person stopped pursuant to a moving traffic violation who is transporting a loaded pistol in the motor vehicle without a valid concealed handgun permit authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act or valid license from another state, whether the loaded firearm is concealed or open in the vehicle, shall be issued a traffic citation in the amount of Seventy Dollars ($70.00), plus court costs for transporting a firearm improperly. In addition to the traffic citation provided in this section, the person may also be arrested for any other violation of law.

IANAL. It looks like OK law opens the door to investigate whether the gun in question is legally owned, and a felon in possession of a handgun is clearly in violation of 1289.7 and subject to arrest in OK. So the same stop in OK could have ended the same, apparently.
I don't see the NM case as being much different than the Murphy case already decided by SCOTUS, wherein an officer is allowed to temporarily take custody of weapons and investigate whether a crime has been committed.
Presumably, had no crime been committed, the gun would have been returned; is there any reason to think otherwise in this case?

 

[Werewolf]

You can't protect anyone if you're dead.

Michael Brown

That statement would carry a whole lot more weight if the Supreme Court of the United States had not ruled on at least two occasions that police officers have neither a duty nor legal responsibility to protect individual citizens.

 

[Lurkerinthewoods]

The elitist (police) will never truly be happy until the society is disarmed. I have heard that the OHP is bad about doing this as well all though I haven't had the privilege of such an experience yet.

 

[dozerjoe]

personaly i prefer to be called and viewed as a citizen not a subject.

 

[1shot(bob)]

You can't protect anyone if you're dead.

Michael Brown

Yeah, I remember that from fire training, but when your job is 'to protect and serve', aren't you supposed to do that? If I never put my life on the line I wouldn't be saving very many people now would I?