Well I'm sure the thousands and thousands of sports (target) shooters out there disagree with you. Point is, firearm owners find it somewhat offensive to hear them refered to blatanly as weapons.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Marijuana Reform. (an interesting article.)
- Thread starter cassanova
- Start date
Well I'm sure the thousands and thousands of sports (target) shooters out there disagree with you. Point is, firearm owners find it somewhat offensive to hear them refered to blatanly as weapons.
This is true, but if they ASK you for permission to search they have already indicated to you that they DO NOT have probable cause or else they would simply tell you to step out of the car
. This is the sort of detail that will make or break a case in court, and being as clear about it as possible is very important. Trust me that most cops have little interest of spending an afternoon in court testifying about the small details of a small time drug bust... especially if they feel like they are on shaky ground in the first place.The best course of action is once they ASK you for permission to search your vehicle politely tell them that you do not consent to a search and then ask them if you are "free to go." If they tell you that you are not, just politely ask them under what circumstances they are detaining you for. In many cases, if you do this politely and intelligently, they will let you go. I HAVE DONE IT MYSELF. The trick is to not be too defensive and try to stay "cool" about it.
Fair enough, but I think that line of reasoning is intentionally misleading in the same way that using medicinal marijuana as the justification for legalization is. I can hold a "best tank gunner competition," but that's not going to negate the fact that a tank is obviously intended to be used as a weapon. Still, I'm not trying to argue with you about it... I will take your point into consideration.
thanks for that.
basically, the catch 22 being that believing in the validity of the fourth amendment cannot make the fourth amendment invalid.
i disagree.....and i'm a poster boy for the nra......a firearm is at all times a weapon....just ask any parris island boot who forgot that , and referred to one as a "gun"
+1.
I love guns, and am very much in favor of private citizens owning them (within reason). But anyone who owns a gun should understand that they are weapons. Their design is, at its root, for killing. They may be used for other things, but those aren't what they were originally designed for, and frankly, I don't care what you're using a gun for - it should ALWAYS be treated as a weapon. Same reason that, according to the NRA, you always treat a gun as a loaded gun, same reason you always have it pointed in a safe direction, etc. Taking any of these lightly is criminal negligence, if you ask me.
Lets not forget too that the government never intended on giving out any stamps either.
I was under the impression from information given to me by teachers and school employees that no probably cause is needed because a public school is public property they can have the cops come in and search the parking lots, lockers, etc, at the schools request. What they cannot do is open up your car. But since the lockers, parking lot, etc do not belong to you, its fair game. Or so I was told by previously mentioned sources, which mind you could also be biased and lying to promote fear and keep kids in line.
There's some gray area in the law here. Or at least could be. If they call a k-9 on scene and have it sniff around your car they are without a doubt searching for something, they're just using the dog instead of a human. So I can see where probablr cause should come into play if they are going to have a K-9 unit sniff you or around your vehicle.
I must be lucky then because as I said earlier I've almost always refused to be searched and they (the cops) usually never had a problem with it. More often than not they'd ask me why and I'd tell them and that was the end of it.
The dog hitting on your car gives them probable cause. Just like in a school parking lot as soon as that dog hits on a car they now have probable cause to search. I would say you are lucky, every time I have been asked and refused here comes the K9 unit. The thing is I never have had anything on me. I believe in the Constitution and my rights, so I do it to be a pain in ass to the cop.
Like another poster said all the cop needs to say is your eye's looked red, you were acting strange, you were sweating. It will all pass as probable cause. My understanding is they can only search whats in plan view. So you need to keep the glove box locked and the trunk closed. They will need a search warrant to open.
Firearms are weapons but not all weapons are firearms. A firearm is always a firearm. They're usually weapons, but try telling that to someone who has a vintage artesian made over-under shotgun that probably hasn't ever been loaded. I am pro-gun, but the term firearm is used for many specific reasons.
Are you sure you typed that correctly?
1.Firearms are weapons.
2.Not all weapons are firearms.
3.Firearms are always a firearm.
4.Firearms are usually weapons.
As I'm reading it, 1 invalidates 4.
I get what you're saying about the dog. I don't think I was clear enough in what I was saying. If they use a dog to sniff around you or your car that is technically a search. They are usiing the dogs nose to search for something. Hence they should need probable cause in order to have it sniff around in the first place.
I don't have anything to hide in my vehicle but like you I tell them no to make sure my Constitutional rights keep from being violated. I did have one power control freak cop ask me what was in my 44 oz cup clearly marked with the "racetrack" logo, also keep in mind when he asked me where I was coming from I told him WalMart and you could see all the crap I had from there in their labeled bags.
The cop demanded I allow him to smell my drink and search my vehicle. He also got quite pissy with me when I told him "I'd rather not have your nose shoved in a cup I'm drinking from, and even asked if he smelled any sort of alcochol emitting from or if I even remotely appeared under the influence to him. I also pointed out that he could clearly see I was coming from WalMart as I said I was, so unless drinking a Diet Dr. Pepper is a crime you're not getting my cup or searching my vehicle.
Oh man he was pissed and I got ticketed for every little thing that was wrong with my car. Most of which I beat in court. But he didn't get my soda or search my vehicle.
Thanks cassanova and baalroo!
I'm pro-legalization for a myriad of reasons and want to learn more about the good and bad that's associated with marijuana. Regardless of legalization, there has to be better and un-biased education regarding the plant. I find it hard to believe that a plant that has been used throughout our history, up until it was criminalized in 1937, is really that harmful to society. There have been no known (to me) problems with it before it was criminalized. Please refute that if it isn't the case.
On another note, here's an interesting little read from the local news regarding driving under the influence of marijuana:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Here's another one of my favorites from Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron:
I'm pro-legalization for a myriad of reasons and want to learn more about the good and bad that's associated with marijuana. Regardless of legalization, there has to be better and un-biased education regarding the plant. I find it hard to believe that a plant that has been used throughout our history, up until it was criminalized in 1937, is really that harmful to society. There have been no known (to me) problems with it before it was criminalized. Please refute that if it isn't the case.
On another note, here's an interesting little read from the local news regarding driving under the influence of marijuana:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Here's another one of my favorites from Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron:
Maybe it is getting off topic, but that's thread evolution. One could argue that the 3 are in an odd way related. People are trying to outlaw guns, people 4th amendment rights are violated, and pot is illegal. I'll tie it all together by saying people's civil liberties are slowly being and there are far worse things out there that need to be fixed than smoking pot. Yeah, thats how I'm gonna rationalize it....lol
I call BS.
Key word is simulation. I think anyone who has been baked would agree that it's probably not a good idea to drive.
Doesn't sound like a strong vote of confidence.
I've heard on the news that texting while driving increases your chances of an accident by 33%.
That to me is scarier than someone driving while stoned. I'm not saying it's a good idea to drive stoned, but I do find it to be much safer than say driving after drinking and even while texting.
That to me is scarier than someone driving while stoned. I'm not saying it's a good idea to drive stoned, but I do find it to be much safer than say driving after drinking and even while texting.
^^^also, it shouldnt be illegal to prevent people from driving under the influence, because what would that be saying about drinking and driving??
Again, the weak argument is still "oh yeah?! other stuff is bad, too."
If you've ever been more than 1/2 baked, you'd know (and acknowledge) that it's not safe to drive. Drinking and driving as well as texting aren't safe, but this is about weed and how other stuff is bad.....
Well, sure, but juggling flaming chainsaws while driving is VERY dangerous and, while there are no statistics available on how often people wreck a vehicle while juggling flaming chainsaws, I'm betting it's even MORE dangerous than driving high. So it should be legal.
Mike
I've been beyond 1/2 baked and clearly said in my last post that it's NOT a good idea to drive stoned.
BTW, the concept behind the "oh yeah other stuff is bad too but still legal" is not a weak argument, if anything it's completely logical because it shows the hypocrisy behind the laws, especially when the government says how bad it is for you all the while, keeping products that are far worse completely legal.
Yeah, I agree. It's a completely valid point to make. If the justification for something being illegal is specifically about how "bad for you" it is, then it only makes since to compare it to other activities. If other legal activities are obviously worse than the thing in question then the "it's bad for you" argument is invalidated.
