Controversial gun activist arrested with 'silencer'

[David]

Yep, just because you make it difficult on law enforcement while following the law, that doesn't mean they can arrest you for giggles. If he had the papers, they should have immediately released him, apologized and wished him a pleasant evening.

And if he has the papers but refuses to show them because they're "tax" items?

[Forever_frost]

And if he has the papers but refuses to show them because they're "tax" items?

What was the reason for the initial stop to open the case? Once they opened it, did they ask if he had the paperwork for it? Once they found out he did, how long did it take to release him with his property?

[line-em-up]

oh ok, definitely sounds like one of "those guys" that tend to push the envelope too far just because they can.

Though "those guys" may assholes, they provide a service to the citizens by helping keep law enforcement honest and within the law. I think that is a good thing.

[David]

What was the reason for the initial stop to open the case? Once they opened it, did they ask if he had the paperwork for it? Once they found out he did, how long did it take to release him with his property?

Don't know why they stopped him, could have been calls from concerned citizens. Nor do I know any other details. Other than he refused to speak or cooperate with the police. If he's refusing to cooperate, odds are he's not providing legal proof of ownership at which time he gets to go to jail to let the courts settle it out.

Personally, the guys a complete fucking moron. That's just looking for a lawsuit and money.

[LANTIRN]

Don't know why they stopped him, could have been calls from concerned citizens. Nor do I know any other details. Other than he refused to speak or cooperate with the police. If he's refusing to cooperate, odds are he's not providing legal proof of ownership at which time he gets to go to jail to let the courts settle it out.

Personally, the guys a complete fucking moron. That's just looking for a lawsuit and money.

Last time I checked it is not illegal to refuse to speak to police.

[David]

Last time I checked it is not illegal to refuse to speak to police.

It's not but if there's public alarm and the cop established PC, how far you want to take your constitutional rights is up to you.

[LANTIRN]

It's not but if there's public alarm and the cop established PC, how far you want to take your constitutional rights is up to you.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how freedom died.

[YALE]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how freedom died.

At what point are you denied due process in that sequence of events?

[David]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how freedom died.

Do what?

[LANTIRN]

Do what?

People willing to give up freedom for safety is one of the major causes in the downfall of the Republic.

[Forever_frost]

Don't know why they stopped him, could have been calls from concerned citizens. Nor do I know any other details. Other than he refused to speak or cooperate with the police. If he's refusing to cooperate, odds are he's not providing legal proof of ownership at which time he gets to go to jail to let the courts settle it out.

Personally, the guys a complete fucking moron. That's just looking for a lawsuit and money.

Refusing to talk to an officer is not probably cause. It's exercising your rights.

[Forever_frost]

At what point are you denied due process in that sequence of events?

When you're stopped and, when you refuse to engage in conversation with an officer, they decide it's PC and take your property. Then they arrest you and take you down town despite not having a reason to open my property to inspect it. Let's count the constitutional rights violated:

Amendment II

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.

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Forever_frost]

In that one stop, they violated almost half of the Bill of Rights. Impressive

[YALE]

Refusing to talk to an officer is not probably cause. It's exercising your rights.

It also might just be him being a belligerent dickhead, when he could've taken the time to engage the officer in a civil discussion on the matter. The fact of the matter is he was trolling to be arrested and got arrested. They didn't come in his home and seize his NFA item, or anything else. He knowingly put himself in the situation to be arrested, and his wish was granted. Luckily, he STILL has legal recourse, so no, his rights aren't violated. If the state refused to recognize his rights in court, that would be one thing. An officer accusing him of something and arresting him for it is merely that: an accusation by arrest.

[David]

Refusing to talk to an officer is not probably cause. It's exercising your rights.

Never said it was. But an officer identifying a weapon that has a prohibited item or feature is.