Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alaska-carry legislation, be careful what you wish for
Cheyenne Gun Rights Examiner ^ | November 30, 2009 | Anthony Bouchard

Posted on 12/02/2009 4:27:18 PM PST by Still Thinking

Not only should we be careful in what we wish for, but we should be ever so diligent when drafting pro gun legislation. One of the greatest evils against the Bill of Rights is legislation that doesn't pass the constitutional test. This can happen even when the legislators have the best of intentions.

Alaska police officers regularly disarm law abiding citizens, taking their firearms and running the serial numbers through the system. This in itself is a violation of the “fourth amendment”. No surprise here, officers that have taken an oath to uphold the constitution are regularly breaking this same oath.

What's the big deal, you have nothing to hide, right?

Before you read anymore please watch this video. You will be shocked at what you witness.

A harmless traffic stop ending with a citizen being subjected to an illegal search and seizure, even worst absolutely no assurances that his firearms haven't been entered into a registration scheme. NCIC or National Crime Information Center by its own admission is a computerized index of criminal justice information and is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Most alarming once your firearms serial number makes it into NCIC, it's there forever.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: 2a; 4a; banglist; ccw; fourthamendment; police

1 posted on 12/02/2009 4:27:21 PM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Dont believe it happens?

Watch “Alaska State Troopers” on Nat Geo. A guy in last week’s episode was pulled over on suspicion of DUI. He had two single action sixguns in the car. The cop took the guns and ran a serial number check on the wheelguns before giving them back to the guy.

The motorist even put a cherry on it by making an anti-gun comment.


2 posted on 12/02/2009 4:31:04 PM PST by Armedanddangerous (I think youre so full of inconsolable rage you don't care who you hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

I’m wondering what former Governor Palin thinks about this in Alaska. I would like to hear her take on it. I mean, she had to know about it (I would think so) and should have had an opinion on it, as to whether that was okay or that it should go and not be required.

Does anyone know what former Governor Palin thinks or thought about it?


3 posted on 12/02/2009 4:34:02 PM PST by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Can someone please inform this dude that under Terry v. Ohio they can take your gun off of you everywhere else(in public) too? Once they have it, there is NO protection against the serial number being run, as it is now in “plain view”. If you’re in the car, under Carroll, they can search the area around you in the car as well. Gee, let’s all run around in circles with our hair on fire! At least the Alaska folks can CARRY their firearms, unlike so many other places. Note: any place that has a conventtional CCW scheme in place, when the cop runs your license, he’s going to know about the CCW and pull any weapons you are carrying.


4 posted on 12/02/2009 4:35:03 PM PST by Mr Inviso (ACORN=Arrogant Condescending Obama Ruining Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

It’s probably her brother-in-law the “rogue” trooper (wonder if that’s a good or bad thing now). She did her best to set him straight while she was in office.


5 posted on 12/02/2009 4:39:25 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The 4th amendment, as interpreted by the supreme judicial court, is a freaking joke. The jurisprudence begs the question. It says a search is only unreasonable if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy--and then they proceed to tell us where we should have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where we shouldn't. lol

The 4th amendment is another of the many glaring errors in our Constitution. Even the fixes to the Constitution couldn't fix it. The Bill of Rights is troublesome.

6 posted on 12/02/2009 4:39:35 PM PST by Huck (The Constitution--a big government boondoggle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Well, it's conceivable that he's right and SCOTUS is wrong, especially the way they've been ruling the last century or so. When they say something, it means that is the binding interpretation of the law till someone can get them to reverse themselves, but if they ruled that the moon was made of green cheese it would have no effect whatsoever on the chemical composition of the moon.

7 posted on 12/02/2009 4:43:29 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr Inviso

I think you need to re read Terry and Carroll again, maybe even do a search on some of the recent USSC case law where they have started to limit the scope of those searches because in their words, law enforcement has tortured and twisted them beyond their original meaning to the extent they justify improper and sometimes illegal searches with them.

The courts said that all the conditions of each ruling must be met for them to apply, that most of the time law enforcement wrongly applies them when only some of the conditions are present.

And they (thankfully) ruled passengers are no longer subject to the above when the driver is stopped for a traffic violation including a DUI.

Seems some enterprising cops were stopping folks for felony tag lights violations and launching into ID and searching everyone in the car, no can do anymore.


8 posted on 12/02/2009 4:45:43 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

My experience in Florida is that they’ve matured enough that they often do not bother with firearms held by citizens during MV stops.


9 posted on 12/02/2009 4:46:17 PM PST by sig226 (Bring back Jimmy Carter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Well, it's conceivable that he's right and SCOTUS is wrong, especially the way they've been ruling the last century or so. When they say something, it means that is the binding interpretation of the law till someone can get them to reverse themselves, but if they ruled that the moon was made of green cheese it would have no effect whatsoever on the chemical composition of the moon.

Carroll's not getting reversed. IIRC, Scalia and others held a similar ruling. It;s funny that the Carroll case was a prohibition case--prohibition agents searching a bootlegger's car. Modern cases that have upheld the same ideas mostly arise from drug war cases. That's why Scalia likes them. He's more anti-drug than he is originalist. I don't have time to look up the name of the case....a suitcase on a public bus? It's searchable. Heat recognizing technology looking for grow lights from the sky? Totally reasonable, say the drug warriors.

10 posted on 12/02/2009 4:48:22 PM PST by Huck (The Constitution--a big government boondoggle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I am from Alaska and I never understood this law to apply to motor vehicle stops. I knew you had to declare you were carrying a concealed weapon, but I was not aware that carrying a weapon in your vehicle was considered concealed. I have not read the law, because I didn’t think it applied to me do to the fact I do not carry a concealed weapon. I have a feeling that law enforcement is taking a law that was designed to allow every citizen to conceal carry and expand its meaning to allow them to conduct unlawful searches, but there is one thing more. If someone willingly declares they have guns and willingly submits to a search then the officer is within his or her rights to conduct the search. I personally opposed this law because I think people should read the rules that apply to concealed carry, but when the law was passes it was widely considered pro-gun. Alaska and Palin are pro-gun and if you don’t believe that support Mitt.


11 posted on 12/02/2009 5:00:21 PM PST by Sarah-bot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
How about this your guns were stolen.

The cops stops a vehicle with them in doesn't run the serial numbers.

You don't get your guns back the bad guy gets to keep them.

12 posted on 12/02/2009 5:00:38 PM PST by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The 4th amendment is another of the many glaring errors in our Constitution.

An error? You think the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects . . . " is an error?

What would you replace the Constitution with?

13 posted on 12/02/2009 5:00:47 PM PST by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr Inviso

Talking about Terry, Carroll or Miranda around here is a waste of time. Let the ignorant suffer their own pain for their refusal to learn.


14 posted on 12/02/2009 5:06:12 PM PST by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sarah-bot
You were saying ...

Alaska and Palin are pro-gun and if you don’t believe that support Mitt.

Well, Alaska and Palin being pro-gun is precisely why I was wondering what Palin thought of this law that allows this to happen. Apparently some others who are also pro-gun don't think this is really pro-gun (at least not in terms of Constitutional rights, anyway). So, that's why I was wondering if Sarah Palin was against it because it wasn't really "pro-gun" after all...

But, in regards to Mitt, I didn't realize he was an Alaskan... LOL... Are there actually any of the Mormon cult group up in Alaska?

15 posted on 12/02/2009 5:15:34 PM PST by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner
Trade the fourth amendment for a couple guns? Um....thinking....thinking....NO. What if it was my digital camera, or cell phone, or car stereo? Are you saying the cop is derelict if he doesn't trace every single serialized item during an unrelated vehicle stop? What makes guns special?

And, even from a pragmatic vs. principled point of view, it's STILL not worth it. Let's say you get pulled over 25 times in your driving life, and it takes two hours to inventory and check every serialized thing in your car at the time in addition to the loss of privacy. I'll bet the average person doesn't lose 50 man-hours worth of goods to theft in a lifetime.

Plus, if merely stopping a car for 10 over or whatever constitutes reasonable cause to assume random stuff in the guy's possession might be stolen, why not just go door to door and run the serials on peoples' TV's and other stuff?

16 posted on 12/02/2009 5:37:31 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner

I can buy more guns; where do I go to buy more Fourth Amendment?


17 posted on 12/02/2009 5:38:05 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; Eric Blair 2084; ForGod'sSake

Though you freedom minded folk might like to put in your two cents.


18 posted on 12/02/2009 5:42:27 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

No, I think thermal imaging is out. We FINALLY found something that violates 4A (until the technology is in general use by the public). The analogy used was that a cop wearing glasses and looking at your house doesn’t constitute an intrusion because lots of people wear glasses; thermal imaging isn’t that widespread. Isn’t it nice to know that the BOR comes with an expiration date?


19 posted on 12/02/2009 5:48:02 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sig226
They sure do in VA.

I got stopped for running my radar detector one late night on the way back to NC.

Four hours from home. Horse and 25 hounds on the trailer. Hunted all day and walked until after dark to find a lost young hound, worn out and with that long ride ahead of me and that @$$hole held me up while he ran the serial on the radar detector and on my gun.

I was not speeding. I was in my lane. In fact, he was meeting me and did a U turn to stop me so there was no questions about how I was driving.

Add to it that at the time I was 73 years old.

It takes a real hard ass cop in my opinion to treat a guy twice his age that way.

It certainly did not make my trip any more safe because it made the night a lot longer.

Point is, cops in more than one state do it.

They ask first and my question has always been what happens if you do not give them permission?

I chose not to test them that night. Horse and hounds turned over to some idiot who would charge an arm and a leg to get them back, plus in VA they vaccinate them for every thing ever heard of in the vet school and run a huge huge bill up on you before you get them back.

But traveling just in my truck, I may test them on it next time.

20 posted on 12/02/2009 6:03:34 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The 4th amendment is another of the many glaring errors in our Constitution.

Its one of them technicalities Liberal Judges use to let criminals out of jail.

21 posted on 12/02/2009 6:15:37 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Not to worry.

"Thermal Imaging" cannot see through walls. Or even windows for that matter.

They'll just see where your house needs better insulation.

22 posted on 12/02/2009 6:57:06 PM PST by Jotmo (Has 0bama fixed my soul yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner
You don't get your guns back the bad guy gets to keep them.

Someone once said that it is better to let a hundred criminals go free than to wrongly prosecute one innocent man.

23 posted on 12/02/2009 7:44:02 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jotmo

Exactly. And if you were growing pot and didn’t want them to know about it you just insulate above the ceiling and the bottom of the roof and ventilate the air space in between and they’d never be able to see a gradient. I’d have zero problems defeating it if I had the need to, I just don’t like it on the principle of the thing.


24 posted on 12/02/2009 7:54:45 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
Its one of them technicalities Liberal Judges use to let criminals out of jail.

Dad?

25 posted on 12/02/2009 7:57:30 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon

Did you have any of those “good ole brindle dogs” in there?


26 posted on 12/02/2009 8:34:39 PM PST by UbonGhostrider ( Fire for effect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: UbonGhostrider

No.

They were foxhounds.


27 posted on 12/02/2009 9:23:12 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson