Unconstitutional Abuse of Power - Questioned by Police for Buying Ammo?, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

reply posted on 11-9-2012 @ 08:25 PM by seabag

reply to post by RottenBeauty

Incorrect. I provided facts on Terry Vs. Ohio, probable cause, and reasonable suspicion on the last page.

Incorrect…you provided your interpretation of those rulings. Your point is no more valid than any given in this thread so dismount your high horse, ma’am.

reply posted on 11-9-2012 @ 08:34 PM by OptimusSubprime

When one buys ammunition there is no background check and the State Police are not notified. How would the police know that he had purchased the ammo? Either he bought something out of the ordinary, or he is lying. I can go to Wal-Mart RIGHT NOW and buy every box of bullets they have on the shelf and no one would know except for the cashier that took my money. Regardless, the point of the OP remains, and I appreciate the sentiment.

reply posted on 11-9-2012 @ 08:40 PM by RottenBeauty

reply to post by seabag

Once again, no. I didn't need to interpret anything. The Supreme Court interpreted it for me in 1968, which s why I linked to it. You can simply read the ruling.

Everything else I linked to were just definitions of the terms reasonable suspicion and probable cause. I again, interpreted nothing as there are ample court cases for both where judges interpreted them for us; and their interpretations are the only ones that hold any weight in the United States.

The fact of the matter is you have provided no proof to back your claims.

I'm sorry if you think I'm on a high horse because I won't just agree with you.

And it's sir.

reply posted on 11-9-2012 @ 09:01 PM by seabag

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

Either he bought something out of the ordinary, or he is lying. I can go to Wal-Mart RIGHT NOW and buy every box of bullets they have on the shelf and no one would know except for the cashier that took my money.

If you watch the video he explains that someone from the store notified the police about his ammo purchase. They didn’t say he made crazy comments or looked disturbing; they called because of his “large” ammo purchase.

Regardless, the point of the OP remains, and I appreciate the sentiment.

Thank you!

It’s sad that people who exercise their 2nd amendment rights (or anything even close to it) are subject to scrutiny by TPTB.

edit on 11-9-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 06:23 AM by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by seabag
So many examples have been provided lately about people being subjected to unconstitutional treatment by local and federal government “officials”.

This seems to be a clear violation of his 4th amendment rights. There was no probable cause for such an inquiry. This guy wasn’t being investigated for a crime. The 4th amendment is very clear:

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.

Uhhhhh..... do you know what the words "search" and "seizure" mean? Hint: neither means "to question". There's nothing in the Constitution that says law enforcement officers can't ask questions of citizens.

Moreover, given the rash of shootings around the country lately, maybe it is a good idea for the police to check up on ammunition buyers to see what their stories are.

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 06:35 AM by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by seabag

It reminds me of Obama’s Attackwatch program that promotes ratting on your neighbors….

Thank you for clearly demonstrating you don't know what you are talking about.

The Obama campaign's Attackwatch program is/was to challenge negative statements about the President made by campaign opponents and conservatives. It is not about ratting on one's neighbors, family or friends for possible law violations or for being an enemy of the state.

It was George W Bush who wanted to instigate some sort of terrorist watch program that would have people snitching on their neighbors or customers. However, there was such an outcry against it, that it was scrapped.

Semper Stultus, dude.

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 06:36 AM by MmmPie

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by seabag

All a result of "See something say something."! Notice how a friend of the police chief, saw this guy purchase the ammo and turned the guy in?

I am old enough to have had to study the rise of Hitler and quite frankly what is happening to my country reminds me of a lot of things that happened during those times. The doubters need to study from history! If they can't see how Hitler came to power and the similarities that we are living in today in this country, they are absolutely blind to their surroundings........

I will be taking a WWII history class this semester for some random college credit, can't wait to see the similarities for myself!

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 06:53 AM by seabag

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Moreover, given the rash of shootings around the country lately, maybe it is a good idea for the police to check up on ammunition buyers to see what their stories are.

So now we're advocating for preemptive crime fighting?

So it's completely acceptable for cops to target law abiding citizens when they make a purchase of ammunition because of what they "might" do?

What's next? Maybe cops should pull over all sports cars and see what those drivers are up to. After all, they might speed. Given the rash of obesity in America maybe cops should question your purchase at the grocery store because you might buy fatty foods that are bad for your health?

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 07:04 AM by MmmPie

If this story is true. I can't wait to see what happens during hunting season! Maybe, I'll hangout at a sporting good store and call the cops on everyone that buys a large amount of ammo. Could be fun to cause a little mischief, make some cops heads roll. Hopefully, one of the people they question is well versed in the law, and they put on a clinic about the constitution.

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 07:14 AM by cosmicexplorer

reply to post by seabag

I buy ammo almost every month...This never happened to me...why is it that some people get targeted and others don't....Thats why I feel there is more to the story...as usual.

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 07:36 AM by MegaMind

Lets get one thing straight. GOVERNMENTS killed at least 100 million of their own citizens in the last century alone.

How does that stack against lone crazies and terrorists?

Governments are the most dangerous entities in existence.

My rights are mine by virtue of the fact that I am. No government grants us rights.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." — Samuel Adams

The people in this thread are a joke. Grow a pair.

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 07:45 AM by MegaMind

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Uhhhhh..... do you know what the words "search" and "seizure" mean? Hint: neither means "to question". There's nothing in the Constitution that says law enforcement officers can't ask questions of citizens.

There is nothing that says we have to answer them ...

edit on 12-9-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 08:10 AM by drmeola

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not that many will see this response as it’s not on the first page but until individuals start to learn the truth about law they will always ask why. Why this or that, or I thought we were free, or I took an oath to, problem people have no clue what the words mean, they assume such things as our common learning of language is the same as a document of law or contract as the Constitution is a contract of law so you must learn the law language and definitions of the words to understand exactly what you are taken an oath to, these lessons will answer all those questions of why, what if, I thought ext………..

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 08:17 AM by rival

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by seabag

And what about the people who used their "rights" to harm other people? Freedom of speech has caused how many lawsuits? Ruined how many lives?

Freedom to bear arms has caused how many deaths? How many families have suffered?

We keep wanting our rights, but how mature are we? How much have we SHOWN we deserve these rights? The problem with people is this: we think about ourselves far more than we think about others.

150,000 deaths per year due to medical malpractice in the US
30,000 deaths per year due to firearms...50 percent from suicide

SO.......

You are TEN TIMES more likely to die by doctor's negligence than by a gun.

This has been an educational public service announcement

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 08:17 AM by RedParrotHead

reply to post by seabag

You know what - and hold on to your hats ATSers because this might be a first here - but you've convinced me, I'm changing my opinion. At first I was thinking it wasn't a big deal but after reading more and thinking on this I'm of the opinion that the police (and store employee or whoever) over stepped their bounds in this case.

Also, why can't I buy two bottles of Motrin at once anymore? Are that many people making meth or whatever? Sorry off topic there - but also an example of restrictions on buying legal products.

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 02:53 PM by SeattleMike

reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway

You just nailed it right on the head. It is not a violation of rights taking place. Does it suck that this guy had to even answer to anyone? Sure. But as you said it appears that the police were simply following up on a lead and decided, with good cause, to let it go.

Now, if they got a warrant based on this lead and barged into his house and took the ammo and guns...well, then we will be talking about something else entirely.

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 03:04 PM by AngryAlien

Blame the citizen that reported this, not the police. The police have an obligation to investigate the report. The man had the right to refuse to answer any questions and was not forced to do anything. There was no search or seizure, the man still has his ammo and is not in jail.

No rights were violated in this instance...

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 03:07 PM by AngryAlien

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MrInquisitive

Moreover, given the rash of shootings around the country lately, maybe it is a good idea for the police to check up on ammunition buyers to see what their stories are.

So now we're advocating for preemptive crime fighting?

So it's completely acceptable for cops to target law abiding citizens when they make a purchase of ammunition because of what they "might" do?

What's next? Maybe cops should pull over all sports cars and see what those drivers are up to. After all, they might speed. Given the rash of obesity in America maybe cops should question your purchase at the grocery store because you might buy fatty foods that are bad for your health?

No, the police are simply following up on a citizen report, that's it. If I call the cops and say I think you are driving drunk, they will pull you over and question you. This is also legal, and you should blame the reporting party if you are innocent.

No one is being prosecuted because they "may" commit a crime. However, they can be briefly detained if an officer has reasonable suspicion that they MAY commit a crime.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 03:33 PM by kozmo

It happened to me awhile back... ordered about 2,000 rounds online. It took about 1 week longer to receive the shipment than the estimate. I called the company and questioned where my order was. They taold me it had to clear DHS due to the size of the order. The day I received the order I received a visit by the local PD running a "Courtesy check" on my abnormally large order of ammo.

My first instinct was to tell them to "pound salt". Deciding I didn't want the hassle, I explained that I was going to a friend's hunting cabin for a week and we do alot of target shooting. Lickily for me the cop was cool. He admitted that some police would have continued to needlessly probe simply to "Scare the s**t out of me in order to prevent [me] from ever trying to order that much ammo again." As he left he suggested that maybe next time it would be "Wiser" to purchase my ammo in person at a sportin goods store, with cash.

I've taken his advice ever since.

reply posted on 12-9-2012 @ 06:48 PM by 46ACE

Originally posted by JustSlowlyBackAway
reply to post by seabag

I'm confused. Where were his rights violated? Was he searched without a warrant? Did they seize his property or the ammo? Was he accused of any crime?

I think that in this case, he was only questioned, right? The police were simply following up on a tip. How would they know unless they asked? It sounds like they dropped it after speaking with him, and that they were polite.

Maybe the person who called them was paranoid and made up a crazy story about this guy. Who knows? I'm just not seeing any violations of his rights in this particular case.

This will be an unpopular opinion, I know. But I can't reach any other based on the facts given.

He was"officially" contacted by law enforcement. I'd think this was documented somewhere. They have to account for their time. Did it go into a file opened on the buyer? a generic "time keeping" file? How else would they prove they"did their job" if something bad actually happened. This guy did nothing questionable; the over hyped fear of guns and gun owners has gotten out of hand..

edit on 12-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^