NJ Arrest for dropping friend off on way home from Range!!!

[Arthur Kill 0]

 

But keep this in mind.  In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled (very badly) that simply being silent is not the same as exercising your right to be silent.  The prosecution, in a criminal case, had told the jury that the defendant had refused to answer questions asked by the police.  The prosecution treated this as evidence of guilt - why would an innocent person not answer?  The defense took the case to the supreme court arguing that you can't use the exercising of a right as evidence of guilt.  Exercising a right can not have a penalty attached to it.   The Supreme Court screwed up badly and ruled that silence is not enough, you must invoke your right to remain silent by saying something like: "I am choosing to exercise my right to remain silent" or it can be used against you.

 

There are too many radical, right-wing sources these days whose only purpose appears to be attempting to angle the "less-sophisticated" among us against this administration -- and against the entity of government as a whole.  It's 3 years later and most of the focused hysteria concerning Salinas v. Texas has subsided -- but clearly, some remains.

 

I'm not a lawyer but IMO, the 2013 SCOTUS decision in Salinas v. Texas is really only applicable to the case at hand and has no bearing on any other situation unless the exact same ingredients are present.  The decision was based on the totality of the circumstances, a legal threshold, as it applies ONLY in this case.  It has zero bearing on your behavior during a routine car stop and anyone that tells you any different, is lying/trying to trick/incite you.

 

True or not, what good does a law like this do? How much safer does it make the state? Its harassment! This kinda stuff just pisses me off, and one reason I wont put my NRA sticker on my truck. 

 

NRA= Probable cause apparently 

 

This cop could have just told him (if true at all) to go straight home. Have a nice day. Do they get a gold star for being a prick? 

 

The law is ridiculous.

 

And it's ironic that you mention the NRA in the same breath.  In my opinion, the NRA and it's caveman-like, "pry-it-out-of-my-cold-dead-hand" approach is directly responsible for ALL of our nonsensical gun laws.  The NRA has cast us as the belligerent enemy who is impossible to negotiate with.  If gun rights groups were more approachable, we'd have a say in the writing of legislation and could educate the lawmakers which, in the end, would only result in a greater preservation of Second Amendment rights for all.

 

 

I'd also like to add that the anti-police sentiment by some in this forum is detestable.  You've minimally signed a form swearing your allegiance to your state and country and claim to have the character that makes you responsible enough to own and in many cases the desire to carry, firearms.  One would assume that you wouldn't have the same mindset as an immature, anti-establishment-type, hippie-radical.  And you wonder why police groups so often oppose putting more guns on the street via relaxed carry laws.

 

[njpilot 671]

 

 

  
The law is ridiculous.
 
And it's ironic that you mention the NRA in the same breath.  In my opinion, the NRA and it's caveman-like, "pry-it-out-of-my-cold-dead-hand" approach is directly responsible for ALL of our nonsensical gun laws.  The NRA has cast us as the belligerent enemy who is impossible to negotiate with.  If gun rights groups were more approachable, we'd have a say in the writing of legislation and could educate the lawmakers which, in the end, would only result in a greater preservation of Second Amendment rights for all.
 

 
I'd also like to add that the anti-police sentiment by some in this forum is detestable.  You've minimally signed a form swearing your allegiance to your state and country and claim to have the character that makes you responsible enough to own and in many cases the desire to carry, firearms.  One would assume that you wouldn't have the same mindset as an immature, anti-establishment-type, hippie-radical.  And you wonder why police groups so often oppose putting more guns on the street via relaxed carry laws.
 

Wow. So you're saying if the NRA just sat down with Greenwald and Weinberg and Corslime and said "how can we help", NJ wouldn't have all these ridiculous gun laws? Ms "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate" would say, "thank you gun rights groups for being nice to us, all NJ serfs can now exercise their Constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment rights"?

Dude, you may profess to not be an anti, but every time you post something so ridiculous, you show your true colors.

[Arthur Kill 0]

Wow. So you're saying if the NRA just sat down with Greenwald and Weinberg and Corslime and said "how can we help", NJ wouldn't have all these ridiculous gun laws? Ms "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate" would say, "thank you gun rights groups for being nice to us, all NJ serfs can now exercise their Constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment rights"?

 

Dude, you may profess to not be an anti, but every time you post something so ridiculous, you show your true colors.

 

Ridiculous flows downhill, I suppose.  If I'm "anti" then I must be a sadist - or you're simply resorting to BS name-calling because you can't make a valid point - I vote for the latter.

 

"Confiscate?"  Show me where any sitting governmental authority legitimately expressed a desire to confiscate America's firearms?  Any?  And yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm telling you -- if the NRA "just sat down" in a genuine way, we the people, would have less of our second amendment rights eroded today.

 

 

Do you subscribe to the ideology that there is no other way that 2 opposing sides can achieve resolution other than to say, "you're gonna have to kill me first?"  'Cause that's the NRA's tactic and it's idiotic.

 

 

Do you even think a little bit before you type or are you really THAT narrow minded when it comes to this issue?  I welcome the dialogue but pointing your finger and saying, "you're anti" takes no skill or intelligence.

 

:

[njpilot 671]

Ridiculous flows downhill. I suppose.  If I'm "anti" then I must be a sadist - or you're simply resorting because you can't make a valid point - I vote for the latter.

 

 

Do you subscribe to the ideology that there is no other way that 2 opposing sides can achieve resolution other than to say, "you're gonna have to kill me first?"

 

 

Do you even think a little bit before you type or are you really THAT narrow minded when it comes to this issue?  I welcome the dialogue but pointing your finger and saying, "you're anti" takes no skill or intelligence.

 

:

You have to have two sides willing to honestly and reasonably. Do you think NJ gun laws are reasonable? Do you think the democrats in NJ would ever repeal these laws? Most would say anyone believing that would be delusional.

 

You pass yourself off here as someone smarter than everyone else. Telling us what the 2nd Amendment really means and that we're all stupid to believe what the SCOTUS said in Heller and McDonald. That we're stupid tobelieve what the Founders wrote in their letters to one another on the People being armed.

 

I do apologize, I guess since you own over 100 guns and are such a "professional gun handler" as you've stated, you're not anti-gun. You're just against the Right of the People To Keep and Bear Arms, unless they pass your requirements. Thank you for giving us your requirements Mr. Madison. I thought he said something about "Shall Not Be Infringed", didn't realize there was an * that clarified if we meet Arthur Kills requirements.

[Arthur Kill 0]

 

It is not an anti-police sentiment as you say from what I can see, or a detestation of law enforcement officers.  What is detested is the overreach of the aforementioned establishment into areas where they have no business, or to embark on, IMO.

 

Expanding on this, it is no business where I am going to or coming from at anytime of day or night, that I perceive that *I* need to answer to anyone in a free and open society.  Until such time as transit papers are issued, a la Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia and the like, I am free to move about my business as I see fit.

 

That being said if I am at a vehicular traffic stop and I have been pulled over for speeding, broken tail light etc. let the questioning be germane to said issue warranting the stop.  Not where I am going to or coming from - non of your business.  Also if there are extenuating circumstance that warrant an additional Q&A, such as an open beverage container, smell of marijuana etc. then by all means have at it as it is relevant to the questioning.  The fishing expedition?  Not so much.

 

Last I checked and has been argued - the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence.  So without other mitigating circumstances you have no business asking where I am coming from or going to.

 

Further, I have the highest regard for those in law enforcement, I wouldn't do it and would not risk my life daily for some others in this nation as they do.  Also I have the highest allegiance to the US CONN and this nation as a whole.

However, those that are in government and in law enforcement are nothing but human and when you deal with humans you deal with those that can use that position to try to push their perceived will onto others when they should not.  Carrying a badge does not make you lord and master over the common folk

 

99.99999% of those that I have met in law enforcement are decent hard working honest human beings that are doing nothing but trying to help those around them, earn a living and go home each night.  It is that .000001% that think they are Judge Dredd and those are the ones we need to worry about.

 

Do not be so ready to give up your liberties that so many have fought and died for........so easily.

 

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined - Patrick Henry

 

 

It's a simple question and no one has said you're obligated to answer it. 

 

You're rightfully defending our freedoms but you instantly want to take the same freedom from a police officer that is just doing his job. 

 

Certainly you'd accuse the same cop of NOT doing his job if he didn't open a dialogue with a driver that he stopped for being reckless.  The cop followed your desired protocol and with the exception of the exchange of "pedigree" information, all parties remained silent during the stop.  But simply talking to this driver would have revealed the fact that he was drunk-off-his-ass. 

 

So, the driver is issued a summons and released but only a block down the road, he drives up on the curb and kills your kid walking home from school.  Think you'd be the first one complaining that the cop should have conducted a dialogue with this driver?  I do.

 

You're no dummy, but are you really thinking this through?

 

[67gtonut 847]

Nothing good is coming from this at this point.....