Army Sergeant's hunting weapon confiscated by police in Ft. Hood

reply to post by bg_socalif

had you read the story, you would realize the cameraman was likely his son, who was with him working on the requirements for Eagle Scout, at the time of the forced inquisition/confiscation.

reply to post by projectvxn


With respect, I don't think we have the full story here. if the gobby fat bag of lard had been polite towards the officers, he might have achieved more sympathy!

The police officers seemed calm and professional.

Originally posted by freedomSlave
reply to post by projectvxn

 

With the mass of gun violence over that last few years it probably wasn't the smartest thing he could of done walking around with a rifle . How is anyone to know if he is of sound mind ,or some freak about to go on another rampage . people just see some dude walking around with a rifle who knows what his intentions are , this isn't the wild west anymore we do live in civilized communities , people don't feel safe with some goof walking around with his rifle what about that do you not understand?

ETA there really just any room for commonsense laws down there regarding fire arms

edit on 14/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)

Jeebus! ead the link!
He was hiking with his son who was doing his eagle scouts qualifications in the woods outside of town......duh....
Some people saw them from a distance and called the cops.....

Originally posted by WaterBottle

Of course it is. These open carry people are all over youtube making videos hoping to have some sort of confrontation with the police. They love the attention, the self righteousness because this makes them feel like some sort of "freedom fighter", and potential financial gain.

I agree to a point that they are many times "over the top" but it is also very revealing that those that are professionals, paid to up hold the law, do not also know it.

Whether it is an open carry situation or an ID scenario most cops feel that it is their right to demand something from you and when that one person, whether a setup or not, bulks at these demands in a legal way the cops do not know how to handle the situation of dealing with your rights... Sad really...

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Honor93

 

Are you really that dense?

He's crying about the Constitution being violated, then suggests handling it by violating the Constitution. HYPOCRISY.Just thought I'd point it out. Would you like to borrow my nephew's Richard Scarry books so you can learn how to read?

How does the townspeople (non government) tarring and feathering a prosecutor go against the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution? Apparently, you do not understand that the U.S. Constitution does not have jurisdiction in these matters. Now, if government officials were to tar and feather the prosecutor, then it would be a different situation. Would the townspeople commiting this type of act be against the law? Yes. Would it be against the Constitution, specifically the 8th Amendment? No.

"The cruel and unusual punishments clause restricts the severity of punishments that state and federal governments may impose upon persons who have been convicted of a criminal offense. "

Just like in the last thread, where I had to check your decpetive use of statistics, whereby you stated that only 9 percent of gun violence is performed with a stolen weapon: You know not that which you speak. Stop belittling other posters and read a book on the United States Constitution.

Originally posted by freedomSlave

Originally posted by projectvxn

I can tell you right now there's very few people in the country as fervently pro-gun as those of us who swear to abide by and protect the Constitution.

that comment makes me laugh every time

Well that is a fail seeing how much the constitution has been butchered since 2001

I await the day when the defenders of the 2nd amendment, take up the cause of the destroyed 4th.

reply to post by mbkennel


Unlike some, the Constitution isn't a menu to me.

I find it interesting how guns are supposed to be hidden from sight.... if you are a 'civilian'.

The public is being so sensitized to weapons, they feel that they must report one if they see it. When I was a child, my father had a rifle rack in his pickup to keep the guns from flopping around the seat and floorboards of the truck. We never gave it a thought that someone would steal the guns. Today, you can't do that, someone will probably steal them.
When I was a child, we looked upon a concealed weapon as something 'sneaky'. Now, if you are an honest person wearing a firearm on the outside, you are viewed as some kind of nutcase.

People that do videotape cops stepping on their rights are seen as the 'enemy' today.

The government has done a fine job of mucking things up.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Reply to post by Miracula

 

If he displayed a weapon in a threatening way then he would have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bg_socalif

 

had you read the story, you would realize the cameraman was likely his son, who was with him working on the requirements for Eagle Scout, at the time of the forced inquisition/confiscation.

I did read the story (a long day, tired and 3 beers makes for less than stellar comprehension..lol), it does make sense that it might've been his son. If it was, i'm surprised the police let him record them as sensitive as they are about it these days.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Honor93

 

Are you really that dense?

He's crying about the Constitution being violated, then suggests handling it by violating the Constitution. HYPOCRISY.Just thought I'd point it out. Would you like to borrow my nephew's Richard Scarry books so you can learn how to read?

no, but apparently you are.
the govt agent WAS violating the Constitution.
his suggestion wouldn't be unless ordered and performed by a govt agent.
so, are you volunteering or what ??

as for reading skills, by all means, improve, improve, improve, you have sooooo very far to go.

Originally posted by bg_socalif

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bg_socalif

 

had you read the story, you would realize the cameraman was likely his son, who was with him working on the requirements for Eagle Scout, at the time of the forced inquisition/confiscation.

I did read the story (a long day, tired and 3 beers makes for less than stellar comprehension..lol), it does make sense that it might've been his son. If it was, i'm surprised the police let him record them as sensitive as they are about it these days.

except that neither their 'sensitivity' or objections are lawful and that has been proven over and over again.
it is not illegal to video them performing their public duty.

it is not a 'set-up' just because someone is video recording them doing their jobs.
problem here is that they were not doing their "jobs", rather they were intentionally harrassing a law-abiding citizen.
they forcibly assaulted and disarmed him (without cause), they stole his property and commenced to threaten him with further action unless he complied with their unreasonable demands.

i hope the video is enough to remove them from any "authoritative" position of which they clearly cannot perform lawfully.

The officers followed the law when this guy refused to hand over the weapon he broke state law.

In Sec. 411.207, state law says, "A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."

This might be a bit off topic, but I moved to Temple about 7-8 years ago, from Michigan, My wife and I were walking down the street one day enjoying a sunny warm day in March, an officer in a patrol car rolled up to us and stopped, rolled the window down and ask us for ID, I asked the office what was the purpose of the request? he looked at me oddly and asked again to see our ID. I replied have we been accused of a crime or do we fit the description of someone that committed a crime? he said "this is the last time I am gonna ask you, show me your ID". I said "Sir, I am walking down a public sidewalk , new to this town , how ever I am not required to carry an ID if I am not driving car or making a purchase that requires one". He stared at me for about 15 seconds, then drove away.

I will also say I was pulled over be another officer a few days later while driving my Michigan car, and that Officer could have wrote me a ticket because the bulb was broken on my license plate (it was the first time I had driven my car at night) he said I must have had mud on the bulb and should clean it off ( wink wink ) so it depends on the officer, both times I was respectful to the Officer.

reply to post by freedomSlave

Well that is a fail seeing how much the constitution has been butchered since 2001

Others are failing to see that butchery started long before 2001 in fact the second amendment has been butchered going on near 80 years.

First I am a pro gun supporter.

Second I have 15 years in the Army

This Sergeant is an idiot. Military bases are federal land. They follow federal laws and are seperate from local state laws. Additionally they have seperate rules governing them.

Military installations have a policy that weapons must be secured while on base, and locked in a compartment seperate from the interior such as the trunk. Some instalations have hunting, but you are allowed to have your weapon out only in the hunting area, and have to have a permit signed by the provost marshall/ land management prior to hunting.

He is an idiot, I hope he loses his court case just because hes such an idiot.

reply to post by buster2010

yet another ambiguous law

the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual.

carrying in the open in a non-threating manner provides -0- reasonable belief of impending danger to anyone.

perhaps you interpret that to mean "anytime he feels like it" but it sure doesn't state such a thing.

and, considering the property was not rightfully returned, the citizen should sue the dept and the officers involved.

reply to post by cavscout11cav

first, what makes you think this occurred on a military base ?
didn't read the story did ya ?

secondly, if he was ON the military base, why was he being hassled/arrested by local police ?

Originally posted by freedomSlave

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

What I do not understand is why you think its ok for the police to harass people who are legally within their rights and are not causing harm. Guns in Texas are a common sight. This was the result of politically motivated individuals harassing a law abiding citizen. Not some random goof, but a member of the Army with no criminal history.

well do you really think people walking down down the way knows who he is regardless of being a member of the army. well the police were actually doing their job of serving and protecting imo , hell for all the cops could of known he was off to go on a rampage in some public gathering place .

it just blows my mind how one can think it is acceptable to walk down the street with a rifle because some law from centuries ago is somehow still applicable in today's world that we all live in . There are tons of stupid and irrelevant law still in effect all over the world . I think to be able to walk down a street with a rifle falls in this kind of category.

edit on 14/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)

Yes and until that law is repealed or another law is put onto the books then the law is the law. Police officers are only responsible for enforcing laws that already exist..

I don't care how you feel or if you feel it's right or wrong.. That is irreverent.. As long as the law is what it is then that man is legally allowed to carry a rifle around and there is nothing you can say or argue that will change that.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
I'm confused as to why him being in the military is relevant?

Because you expect people in the military to have better self-control and familiarization with laws regarding weapons handling.