So now New Mexico cops can confiscate firearms during routine stops

[Waitone]

According to New Mexico supreme court it is ok for cops to confiscate firearms during routine stops all in the name of officer safety.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3494.asp

The good news is we've moved past using children as an excuse for abridging constitutional right.  Now we use law enforcement types.

Do you ever get the impressions that constitutionally constrained Americans are slowly being backed into a corner?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

confiscate?  or hold for duration of the traffic stop?

[Jamisjockey]

confiscate?  or hold for duration of the traffic stop?

Already how it's done in Texas.  According to TPC, an officer has the right to disarm you during something even as routine as a traffic stop.  My understanding it it was the only way to get some of the big police department chiefs and DPS on board to get the CHL laws passed.  Something about sleeping with dogs comes to mind....

[TommyGunn]

A couple of years ago I went through a check here in Alabama.  The state police periodically pull these to assure people have car insurance.  The police officer took temporary possession of my revolver while the paperwork was shown.  It lasted only maybe a minute, tops.  No big deal.

[slacy]

confiscate?  or hold for duration of the traffic stop?

The SCOTUS et al have already ruled temporary confiscation of property is still a seizure under fourth amendment jurisprudence, so that argument is irrelevant.

The discussion is about whether a seat beat stop or other infraction-level detention is automatically worthy of such seizure. Is that "reasonable" within the meaning of the forth amendment.

In my opinion, It's absolutely NOT justifiable without an independent and articulable reason to suspect the driver/passenger is dangerous and a risk to themselves or others.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

didn't the courts rule on this already?

[slacy]

A couple of years ago I went through a check here in Alabama.  The state police periodically pull these to assure people have car insurance.  The police officer took temporary possession of my revolver while the paperwork was shown.  It lasted only maybe a minute, tops.  No big deal.

How the police justified random checkpoint style stops without RAS to check car insurance is beyond me. I have no idea how that passes constitutional muster.

You're okay with a police officer having removed your weapon(s) without any wrongdoing on your part?

[slacy]

didn't the courts rule on this already?

This case in New Mexico oddly goes against a very similar case in Indiana and some Supreme Court precedent requiring independent information to perform a "Terry Frisk".

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03041001jsk.pdf

[MechAg94]

Already how it's done in Texas.  According to TPC, an officer has the right to disarm you during something even as routine as a traffic stop.  My understanding it it was the only way to get some of the big police department chiefs and DPS on board to get the CHL laws passed.  Something about sleeping with dogs comes to mind....

One day I need to ask on TexasCHLforum.com if this has actually ever happened to any of the members.  I've had several interactions while armed and worst I had was a cop wanted to see how I was carrying (t-shirt and shorts). 

Certainly is something that needs to be changed, but I doubt it will be any decade soon.  Changes in state law move slow in Texas and there are probably too many other things in front of it.

[MechAg94]

I notice the ruling was justified based on "officer safety".  Hypocrites  IMO.  The same judges probably agree with past rulings on no-knock warrants and such that put officers and citizens in danger in order to preserve evidence. 

[mtnbkr]

Already how it's done in Texas.  According to TPC, an officer has the right to disarm you during something even as routine as a traffic stop.  My understanding it it was the only way to get some of the big police department chiefs and DPS on board to get the CHL laws passed.  Something about sleeping with dogs comes to mind....

I thought Texas was free.

Chris

[zahc]

Ha! Good one.

[sanglant]

free is a very scarce resource.

[HankB]

A couple of years ago I went through a check here in Alabama.  The state police periodically pull these to assure people have car insurance.  The police officer took temporary possession of my revolver while the paperwork was shown.  It lasted only maybe a minute, tops.  No big deal.

Do they phrase the request "Papieren, bitte?"

When he was a kid, my Dad had a friend who was immune to poison ivy . . . such an immunity would have . . . possibilities.   

[RoadKingLarry]

Do they phrase the request "Papieren, bitte?"

When he was a kid, my Dad had a friend who was immune to poison ivy . . . such an immunity would have . . . possibilities.   

I got banned from a local gun forum when I used that term during a discussion thread with a local LEO who had declared that even if Oklahoma passed open carry he would still prone out anyone he saw open carrying.

as to the poison ivy immunity being one of the lucky few that are immune you have put evil thoughts into my head.

[makattak]

as to the poison ivy immunity being one of the lucky few that are immune you have put evil thoughts into my head.

Wonder how common it is. I'm yet another that is immune.

[TommyGunn]

Do they phrase the request "Papieren, bitte?"

When he was a kid, my Dad had a friend who was immune to poison ivy . . . such an immunity would have . . . possibilities.  

Local police don't speak German.

How the police justified random checkpoint style stops without RAS to check car insurance is beyond me. I have no idea how that passes constitutional muster.

You're okay with a police officer having removed your weapon(s) without any wrongdoing on your part?

I have no idea how it (checking insurance papers here) is justified.  Probably because using the roads is a privelidge, not a "right."
I will make a federal case of it when I can afford to pay for a good lawyer.  
Uninsured motorists are a big problem here -- a point which I am sure will not dissuade the Constitutionalists
around here.  
FWIW, I do not really know what the specific law about telling a police officer you are armed is here; I did so because I thought it was possible that the officer might become aware I was armed given the circumstances of the situation, and I felt it wise to show my license & carry permit first so there would be no possibility he would misinterpret the situation.  He only held the gun briefly, and when the check was over, he thanked me for telling him about the gun so I think he appreciated the straightforward approach.

[roo_ster]

Wonder how common it is. I'm yet another that is immune.

I likely broke out just reading ya'll's posts.

[erictank]

Wonder how common it is. I'm yet another that is immune.

I was, as a teen.  Have not tested since then, but some jerks in football thought they were being cute by tossing a ball into a patch near me and asking me to get it - they scattered like roaches when I waded in, grabbed it, and threw it back at them.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Wonder how common it is. I'm yet another that is immune.

me too  its been the bane of those who i work with.  i wade into it with a weed whacker and they get the itch

[Jamisjockey]

One day I need to ask on TexasCHLforum.com if this has actually ever happened to any of the members.   I've had several interactions while armed and worst I had was a cop wanted to see how I was carrying (t-shirt and shorts). 

Certainly is something that needs to be changed, but I doubt it will be any decade soon.  Changes in state law move slow in Texas and there are probably too many other things in front of it.

Most instances it seems that the LEO's don't care, but there are several reports on texaschlforum of firearms being held.  
A good friend in Utah had his weapon pointed at him by a female state trooper, with her finger on the trigger, while she was trying to unload the weapon (1911).  She'd dropped the mag and couldn't figure out how to clear the round in the chamber.  He yelled at her for pointing it at him and she threatened to lock him up.  All this was over 8 mph over the limit on the freeway.

My arguement that requiring someone who is armed to get out of the car, and then putting hands on them to remove and hold their weapon decreases officer safety.  

And while shootings are spectacular, statistically speaking officers have very little chance of being shot and killed on the job.  About half of officer deaths on the job are by other happenings, such as car accidents. Despite what Glenn Beck says, there isn't an epidemic in police shootings.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/1228/Why-police-officer-deaths-rose-37-percent-in-2010

As the article points out, if you have a statistically low sampling, such as the roughly 600,000 officers of some kind in the country, and a death rate of around 60 shootings a year, make it 65 in one year and you suddenly have a huge % increase in the number of deaths that year, with no real causation for alarm.  

I thought Texas was free.

Chris

Giggle snort.  Fellow co worker said the "s" word the other day.  I laughed at him and asked him why he thinks the idiots in Austin would rule us any differently than the idiots in DC.  They are already running ramshod upon us.  

And our moron neocon governor made the Planned Parenthood legislation an emergency item, which was addressed before the budget?  

[Waitone]

Here's part that really bothers me

State prosecutors countered that anyone with a gun ought to be considered "armed and dangerous" and thus the gun could be seized at any time. The high court agreed with this line of reasoning.

  So you're exercising a constitutionally sanction right and because of that action you are considered armed and dangerous according to NM's courts.  Did the judges involved in the case ever work for DHS because the logic is the same in the profile handbook it published a few years back.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

which part do you think is untrue? armed?  dangerous?

[Regolith]

which part do you think is untrue? armed?  dangerous?

Dangerous, in that context, implies that the person has malevolent intent.  A person who is simply carrying can be armed but not a danger to anyone who doesn't try to harm them.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

some folks get real warped over tickets,