The ALL Florida Online Corvette Club








Corvette Top Sites

Go Back   The ALL Florida Online Corvette Club > Florida Specific Forums > Firearms and Other Weapons

      Photo Gallery Screen Saver!      

Firearms and Other Weapons Had a request for this forum, so here it is. Guess it will give me some place to talk about guns myself after selling my ArmsLocker forum.

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 02-11-2011, 09:14 PM   #21
Shadow
Senior Member
 
Shadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: port of indecision
Posts: 5,604
Name :
Shadow will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob K View Post
OK, just a couple of comments:

1. Thanks for all of the research.

2. Didn't know it wasn't considered a "search".

3. I agree that everyone needs to be respectful.

4. I am going to carry regardless.
Then keep some grape jelly handy
(Actually, it's only a misdemeanor. You'll probably just get a notice to appear and lose your weapon(s)-Ever see what happens when FWC makes an arrest? Everything goes)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z View Post
If "patting down" is not considered a search, then what is the PURPOSE of it? Just some friendly hands on contact between one consenting adult and the other not so consenting?

I know it is claimed that it is for the safety of the officer(s), but seriously when does the concern for officer safety trump constitutionally guaranteed protections for us citizens? Sounds to me that "UP" is simply being redefined as "DOWN" just to conveniently bypass our legal rights concerning searches and seizures.
You answered your own question in the 1st line of the 2nd paragraph.
As to your second question, it doesn't.

As for the last section, you'd need to have a basic understanding of the elements that constitute a "search" vs. a "pat down."

Otherwise, youl'll continue to chase your tail for the exercise
__________________

Remember:
Artificial Intelligence is no replacement for Natural Stupidity!

Be Polite, Be Professional...and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-11-2011, 09:28 PM   #22
Bob K
Deceased
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sunshine State
Posts: 1,268
Name : Bob Korreck
Bob K has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
Then keep some grape jelly handy
(Actually, it's only a misdemeanor. You'll probably just get a notice to appear and lose your weapon(s)-Ever see what happens when FWC makes an arrest? Everything goes)

You answered your own question in the 1st line of the 2nd paragraph.
As to your second question, it doesn't.

As for the last section, you'd need to have a basic understanding of the elements that constitute a "search" vs. a "pat down."

Otherwise, youl'll continue to chase your tail for the exercise
A friend of mine is a retired cop in the NE. I can't say it's Jpee without his permission but this guy says he'll carry in NYC regardless. I have the right to be able to defend myself and if they ever pulled my license I'll renew my Mi license. This is kind of dumb so we must be bored cause this scenario isn't gonna happen anyway. It is a learning experience though regarding a "pat down". If I didn't know you I wouldn't believe it.

What was Rich's second question?

Never mind, I see it.
Bob K is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-11-2011, 09:42 PM   #23
85vette
Senior Member
 
85vette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: On the road
Posts: 2,112
Name :
85vette will become famous soon enough
Default

Cop Rule #1: I'm going home in one piece tonight, preferably without any extra holes in me.

Cop Rule #2: I am NOT dispensable.(If I go down, who's gonna save your a$$?)

Cop Rule #3: The bad guy gets it first, anything else moving after that is second. (When I say "Get Down!", get down and don't move)

Cop Rule #4: Any questions, see Cop Rule #1.

All joking aside, we take our safety(and our brothers in blue/green/tan) very seriously. Pat downs, Terry Frisk, are a part of our lives. I can articulate. And I know Gordon can.

I think this whole discussion comes down to: Rules is Rules. Just common sense guys. Is it worth walking on the Daisies to (possibly) lose your right to carry?
__________________
I Have Noticed That A Lot Of People Demanding Free Stuff Are Not Wearing Work Boots.
85vette is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-11-2011, 10:16 PM   #24
Bob K
Deceased
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sunshine State
Posts: 1,268
Name : Bob Korreck
Bob K has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 85vette View Post
Cop Rule #1: I'm going home in one piece tonight, preferably without any extra holes in me.

Cop Rule #2: I am NOT dispensable.(If I go down, who's gonna save your a$$?)

Cop Rule #3: The bad guy gets it first, anything else moving after that is second. (When I say "Get Down!", get down and don't move)

Cop Rule #4: Any questions, see Cop Rule #1.

All joking aside, we take our safety(and our brothers in blue/green/tan) very seriously. Pat downs, Terry Frisk, are a part of our lives. I can articulate. And I know Gordon can.

I think this whole discussion comes down to: Rules is Rules. Just common sense guys. Is it worth walking on the Daisies to (possibly) lose your right to carry?
All good points 85 but I'm looking at it differently. I did not know 'pat downs' were not searches and I do think an officer should have to justify the 'pat down'. Having said that I'm sure any officer that does a pat down has a valid reason.

I also agree that rules are rules but if I have a need to be there and I see that sign I am not going to give up my right to self defense. What if someone entered that property and never saw a sign? They would still be guilty but if I was a LEO, saw someone and there wasn't a problem I wouldn't hassle anyone that would be legal on the other side of the property line. A smart azz or trouble maker would be treated differently.

Who's Terry Frisk?
Bob K is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-11-2011, 10:45 PM   #25
Rich Z
Internet Sanitation Engineer
 
Rich Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Crawfordville, FL
Posts: 15,123
Name : Rich Zuchowski
Rich Z will become famous soon enoughRich Z will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
As for the last section, you'd need to have a basic understanding of the elements that constitute a "search" vs. a "pat down."

Otherwise, youl'll continue to chase your tail for the exercise
Major hair splitting, without even a legitimate hair to split. When you are doing a pat down, what the heck are you doing it for? You are SEARCHING for concealed weapons.

Seriously, how else can you define it?
__________________
Rich Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-12-2011, 10:51 AM   #26
Shadow
Senior Member
 
Shadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: port of indecision
Posts: 5,604
Name :
Shadow will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob K View Post
A friend of mine is a retired cop in the NE. I can't say it's Jpee without his permission but this guy says he'll carry in NYC regardless. I have the right to be able to defend myself and if they ever pulled my license I'll renew my Mi license. This is kind of dumb so we must be bored cause this scenario isn't gonna happen anyway. It is a learning experience though regarding a "pat down". If I didn't know you I wouldn't believe it.

What was Rich's second question?

Never mind, I see it.
Although the anti-firearms typse such as NYC's Bloomberg, and D.C.'a Adrian Fenty, and his puppet Chief Cathy Lanier, continue thier vigilence to keep weapons out of the hands of legal, law abgiding citizens,

http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/New-DC-Gun-Restrictions-Unveiled/1$42312 (not sure why this won't link? Cut and Paste for the story!)

the Feds did strike down the law that impacted the citizens of those to states as unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the state and local restrictions placed upon ownership, don't make it much better in those states.

Sometimes I wonder why God put most of the more beautiful off road, camping, sporting and 4 wheeling lands in the world, in some of the stuipidest politcal chitholes he could find?
Maybe he just needed to give the people some legitimate reason for living there?

Anyway, back to the discussion.
Your friend is in a different category than most here.
Retired LEO's carry under HR 218

http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html

Even then, many of the restrictions applied to CWP holders, apply to them as well.

That not withstanding, if your friend decides he want's to carrry in NYC, D.C., or anywhere else not authorized by law to do so, and get's caught, he too will deal with the consequences.
It's that simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 85vette View Post
Cop Rule #1: I'm going home in one piece tonight, preferably without any extra holes in me.

Cop Rule #2: I am NOT dispensable.(If I go down, who's gonna save your a$$?)

Cop Rule #3: The bad guy gets it first, anything else moving after that is second. (When I say "Get Down!", get down and don't move)

Cop Rule #4: Any questions, see Cop Rule #1.

All joking aside, we take our safety(and our brothers in blue/green/tan) very seriously. Pat downs, Terry Frisk, are a part of our lives. I can articulate. And I know Gordon can.

I think this whole discussion comes down to: Rules is Rules. Just common sense guys. Is it worth walking on the Daisies to (possibly) lose your right to carry?


, that was very well put!
It's exactly the point I've been trying to make.

Rules are rules.
So are traffic laws, and none of us violate those, right?
And you can eventually lose your prioviledge to drive as a result if such abuses continue.
The same is the case with the permit, only it's simpler to lose.

A lot of this boils down to "getting caught."
If you don't bring notice to yourself (ie: do something stupid, get involved in a shooting or act like an azz), most of us will have lkimited interactins with Law Enforcement.

Bottom line is, the OP's question was relative to the sign, it's legality, authority, jurisdiction and impact on CWP holders.
Those concerns have been researched and addressed..


From there, draw your own conclusions and do what you want
I know what I'll do, I won't share that opinion, and "if " my actions were to have any consequences, I'd be prepared to deal with them. That's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob K View Post
All good points 85 but I'm looking at it differently. I did not know 'pat downs' were not searches and I do think an officer should have to justify the 'pat down'. Having said that I'm sure any officer that does a pat down has a valid reason.
They do on both concerns. (I may have over simplified the issue in our prevopus conversation, sorry.

Quote:
I also agree that rules are rules but if I have a need to be there and I see that sign I am not going to give up my right to self defense.
Again, yopu're partially correct.
What would be the "need" to be there in the first place? You'd definately have to articulate that "need" in your defense.
Traversing from one one locatioon to another when no other route is available (then I think thier sign would be unenforceable based on some recent legislative changes), might be one.
An emergency would be another.
Othewise, why would one "need" to be on WMD land?

If you're just out for a walk, going camping, fishing, etc., you knwo where you're going and should have planned accordingly.

Your "right" to self defense has not been abridged.
Your "right" to possess a firearm may have (they're working on that as I previously stated), but not your right to defend yourself.
You simply have to find another means to do so.

I can show you a dozen different ways to do so that the average male of female can accomplish with moderate physcial abilities.
None of them involve firearms, unless it's the one you remove from the bad guy

And even your "rights" to carry concealed (it's actually a priviledge, not a "right") come with restrictions.
Hell, even HR 218 is not a "carte blanc to carry.
It too has restrictions on both active and retired LEO's.


It would serve us well to become intimately familiar with those restrictions if we intend to carry under a license.

Quote:
What if someone entered that property and never saw a sign?
This is similar to one of the questions I posed to the WMD personnel yesterday in my lengthy phone conversation.
How well are the properties marked and what's the signage like.

Most of the properties are marked only "so-so."
Not really many fences, gates, etc to keep you off/out.

Most are bordered by fire roads/lines, or some other natural boundry, but all are posted.

Frankly, it they're not posted every so many feet (there's a reg for it, but I don't have it available at the moment), they they're going to have problems enforcing the rule.
That said, you'll beat the rap, not the ride
If I were the LEO on scene, and realized this deficiency, I'd probably just ask you to leave.

Quote:
They would still be guilty but if I was a LEO, saw someone and there wasn't a problem I wouldn't hassle anyone that would be legal on the other side of the property line. A smart azz or trouble maker would be treated differently
And there's the common sense 85 was talking about...on both sides

The person's not causing a problem, "may not" have observed the sign, known they were on WMD property, and the officer is exercising good judgment in asking them to depart.

And you're absolutely correct sir on the last line!
More than one person in my career has "talked" themselves into an arrest

Quote:
Who's Terry Frisk?
Enjoy...
http://www.answers.com/topic/terry-v-ohio

...or...

The readers digest version:

Quote:
Under the search part of the Terry doctrine, policy may pat down the detained suspect on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and may then remove any object from the suspect's clothing that by its size or density might be a weapon. An object so discovered is admissible in evidence whether it turns out to be a gun or something else seizable as contraband or evidence; in Michigan v. Long (1983), the Court rejected the notion that to ensure against pretext frisks only weapons should be admissible. (Long also holds, by rather strained logic, that the protective search allowed by Terry may extend to the passenger compartment of a vehicle to which the suspect has access.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z View Post
Major hair splitting, without even a legitimate hair to split. When you are doing a pat down, what the heck are you doing it for? You are SEARCHING for concealed weapons.

Seriously, how else can you define it?

Refer to the above.
(You'd be better off addressing that question to the Supreme Court)

I really didn't want to take the time to address this since I thought most of us would be able to figure out the difference; however, reading some of the responses, I can see that there's a need for definition.

So here's the huge difference in a pat down (Terry Frisk) vs. a search:

Where you can go.....!

...That's pretty much it.

In a search based upon warrant/PC, I can go anywhere and as far as the warrant or PC allows.

I can go INTO your pants/shirt/jacket pockets, remove your hat and check the band, remove your shoes/socks, and as we know from experience, can go as far as a cavity search (in the property faciloity with the proper personnel! I'm not doing it!), and anywhere else necessary to discover evidence and/or contraband (limiting this to the person, nothing else at this time).

In a pat down, it's the outside of the clothing, with specific intent, and then into the clothning only if you the officer, can articulate PC that what you felt from the outside, may be a weapon.

Does that clarify the issue a bit for everyone?

I agree with 85.
As a LEO I've lived this and as a citizen I continue to.
I get up in the morning and go out, with every intention of coming home in the evening the same way I left
If that means you don't as a result of some flawed decision on your part to prevent that objective, so be it
__________________

Remember:
Artificial Intelligence is no replacement for Natural Stupidity!

Be Polite, Be Professional...and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-12-2011, 11:29 AM   #27
Bob K
Deceased
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sunshine State
Posts: 1,268
Name : Bob Korreck
Bob K has disabled reputation
Default

OK, first and foremost I respect you and 85 and at times I may seem argumentative but that's just me. I've learned a lot from both of you especially in this thread so although I still make my own decisions I do appreciate the knowledge you guys are willing to share.

The good friend of mine that is a retired LEO knows the consequences if he's caught carrying in NYC. He says he would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I have spent a lot of time in the city at Ground Zero, museums....... and I have talked to several officers on foot patrol. They're no different than us and unless you're some type of an azz they're not going to hassle you. Could they, hell ya. Ya gotta use some common sense and a little courtesy goes a looooong way.
Bob K is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-12-2011, 11:43 AM   #28
Rich Z
Internet Sanitation Engineer
 
Rich Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Crawfordville, FL
Posts: 15,123
Name : Rich Zuchowski
Rich Z will become famous soon enoughRich Z will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
Enjoy...
http://www.answers.com/topic/terry-v-ohio

...or...

The readers digest version:







Refer to the above.
(You'd be better off addressing that question to the Supreme Court)

I really didn't want to take the time to address this since I thought most of us would be able to figure out the difference; however, reading some of the responses, I can see that there's a need for definition.

So here's the huge difference in a pat down (Terry Frisk) vs. a search:

Where you can go.....!

...That's pretty much it.

In a search based upon warrant/PC, I can go anywhere and as far as the warrant or PC allows.

I can go INTO your pants/shirt/jacket pockets, remove your hat and check the band, remove your shoes/socks, and as we know from experience, can go as far as a cavity search (in the property faciloity with the proper personnel! I'm not doing it!), and anywhere else necessary to discover evidence and/or contraband (limiting this to the person, nothing else at this time).

In a pat down, it's the outside of the clothing, with specific intent, and then into the clothning only if you the officer, can articulate PC that what you felt from the outside, may be a weapon.

Does that clarify the issue a bit for everyone?
Yeah, it does. That it's pure BS. I'm sorry, but I don't believe any reasonably logical person can honestly delude themselves and attempt to delude others into believing that a frisk or pat down is NOT a search. "huge difference in a pat down (Terry Frisk) vs. a search" my ass....... Again, WHY does a LEO decide to do a pat down in the first place unless he or she feels weapons, or something else, may be present under the clothes and wants to engage in a SEARCH for those items? And seriously, just because the SCOTUS sided with the government doesn't mean that it is not blatantly unconstitutional. They very often decline to bite the hand that feeds them, and are as politically motivated as any other body of appointed government officials.
__________________
Rich Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-12-2011, 12:32 PM   #29
Shadow
Senior Member
 
Shadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: port of indecision
Posts: 5,604
Name :
Shadow will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob K View Post
OK, first and foremost I respect you and 85 and at times I may seem argumentative but that's just me. I've learned a lot from both of you especially in this thread so although I still make my own decisions I do appreciate the knowledge you guys are willing to share.
Eh, you're just a crotchety old fart, that's all
Heck, if someone didn't know me at times, they'd think I hated cops and the government.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but I love a good, well founded, and logical debate or discussion

Quote:
The good friend of mine that is a retired LEO knows the consequences if he's caught carrying in NYC. He says he would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
There is some validity to that statement.
My thought is, take the time to learn some alternative means of defense. A firearm isn't the cure all of cure alls

Quote:
I have spent a lot of time in the city at Ground Zero, museums....... and I have talked to several officers on foot patrol. They're no different than us and unless you're some type of an azz they're not going to hassle you. Could they, hell ya. Ya gotta use some common sense and a little courtesy goes a looooong way.
Amen on the common sense

As far as officers go, you have all types of personalities, just like you do in any other profession.
Some are very well grounded, take thier job for what it is, and do the best that can with it while not being pricks.
Others, see how big a prick they can be

It's just the luck of the draw.

We had members of out TACTICAL TEAM hassled by NYC's finest many year ago.
Thier weapons were confiscated, and they were threatened with arrest.

They were there for a SWAT Competition

Needless to say, that didn't go over well with anyone.
So again, it just depends


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z View Post
Yeah, it does. That it's pure BS. I'm sorry, but I don't believe any reasonably logical person can honestly delude themselves and attempt to delude others into believing that a frisk or pat down is NOT a search.
Uh, ok...if you say so?
But for the rest of us more delusional types, it's pretty simple and clear cut.

Quote:
"huge difference in a pat down (Terry Frisk) vs. a search" my ass....... Again, WHY does a LEO decide to do a pat down in the first place unless he or she feels weapons, or something else, may be present under the clothes and wants to engage in a SEARCH for those items?
Once again, reading is fundamental
Read the entire link from which the snippets came, and maybe you'll gain a better understanding of the two?

And you do have a point.
Even the SCOTUS even refers to it at points as a "search,"; however, they qualify it as not being a "search" in the traditional thought and application.
It's not an all inclusive, invasive search, not based upon probable cause, and not used to discover contraband other than weapons.

As for the Terry Frisk, Don't add to it..."weapons"...not "something else.":

This very succinctly describes the "Terry Frisk":

Quote:
patting down of the clothing of the suspect to ensure that the person was not armed.
And the rest are what it's designed to discover:

Quote:
he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him
Quote:
Under the search part of the Terry doctrine, policy may pat down the detained suspect on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed
A little more substance as to Terry and it's restrictions and application:

Quote:
Terry did settle two fundamental points: stop and frisk neither falls outside the Fourth Amendment nor is subject to the usual Fourth Amendment restraints. In rejecting “the notions that the Fourth Amendment does not come into play at all as a limitation upon police conduct if the officers stop short of something called a ‘technical arrest’ or a ‘full‐blown search’” (p. 19), the Court wisely concluded that the protections of the Fourth Amendment are not subject to verbal manipulation. It is the reasonableness of the officer's conduct, not what the state chooses to call it, that counts.
Quote:
In concluding that a stop and frisk does not require probable cause, the Court in Terry explained that because the policeman had acted without a warrant his conduct was not to be judged by the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause (which contains an express “probable cause” requirement) but rather “by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures
By understanding the legal differences between a full "search" in the eyes of the court, and a frisk, pat down, Terry Frisk, call it what you will, you'll have a better understanding of the differences.
All you've provided is a semantics debage.
I really dont' care to debate semantics. It does no good in getting to the meat and potatoes of the problem, and that's whats going to help you in a bind.

Quote:
And seriously, just because the SCOTUS sided with the government doesn't mean that it is not blatantly unconstitutional. They very often decline to bite the hand that feeds them, and are as politically motivated as any other body of appointed government officials.
Bruddah...you need a few days at the beach
Get away from all this for a while.

While a personal agenda on the part of the SCOTUS and it's members has definately been the impetus for many court decisions, and while many of those decision make little sense, I don't think it's necessarily "politics" that motivate them.

After all, they are appointed for life.
Why would they necessarily G.A.S. what you and I think?
__________________

Remember:
Artificial Intelligence is no replacement for Natural Stupidity!

Be Polite, Be Professional...and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-12-2011, 01:18 PM   #30
Rich Z
Internet Sanitation Engineer
 
Rich Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Crawfordville, FL
Posts: 15,123
Name : Rich Zuchowski
Rich Z will become famous soon enoughRich Z will become famous soon enough
Default

Seriously, bud, WHO is it that writes their paychecks and gives them raises? And do you think they didn't incur favors to get that job in the first place? Get real, please. The "job for life" didn't make them untouchable if they screw their handlers.

A search is a search, black and white. The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not give law enforcement exceptions to violate what it states. Matter of fact those documents were written SPECIFICALLY to try to protect the people from exactly these kinds of abuses. Not to say that I don't understand that the SCOTUS and the government in general have pretty nearly gutted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but I'm STILL calling a "spade" a "spade" when I see it.

Dance around it all you want, but a pat down IS a search. What in the world else COULD it be except for a SEARCH for weapons? Just a casual friendly roadside groping by a VERY friendly LEO? OOh, whats that there in your pants, big guy? If it's not a hands on caressing in the way of greeting, then what the heck is someone doing running their hands up and down another's body?

Yeah, I can certainly understand why a LEO would want to have this power and appreciate their position concerning their safety (but NOT to the extent that it gives them carte blanche to override all other considerations), however this sort of thing is just another brick in the paving of that good intentioned road to hell you are pointedly turning a blind eye to. I am sorry that your involvement in that career field has evidently affected your ability to see this objectively.
__________________
Rich Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Central Florida Business Owner Launches Bucket List Hiking Club for Stressed-Out Exec RSS Feed Florida News Feeds 0 01-06-2011 07:12 AM
Boy Scout dies while on hiking the Florida Trail RSS Feed Florida News Feeds 0 05-11-2009 12:00 PM
Florida Governor Declares February Hiking Trails Month RSS Feed Florida News Feeds 0 02-06-2009 11:54 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.08987403 seconds with 11 queries
All material copyrighted by CorvetteFlorida.com and
the respective owners of the material posted.