Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What was so difficult to understand? Is English not your first language?
...You gonna explain what you meant by "The Terry law is just a clarifying apparatus under the law", or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
If he's responding to a citizen's complaint, an on-duty officer acting under the law absolutely can stop the person in question, and he can ask to inspect his firearm for the purposes of determining whether it is a legal firearm, and whether he is allowed to own the firearm. If you try this stunt in any number of jurisdictions, you'll be arrested.
I'm not talking about "any number of jurisdictions"; I'm talking about Maine, where no "stop and identify" law exists, and thus no legal obligation to answer any questions asked by an officer who doesn't have reason to suspect a crime. A citizen complaining about a legal activity doesn't change anyone's rights. Sure, a police officer can ASK to verify if the firearm is legal. But the student was well within his rights to refuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
However, guns are a bit different. They're not just property; they're firearms and as such have tons of applicable federal and local laws that regulate their manufacture, distribution, and possession.
Makes absolutely no difference. Again, I'm required by law to have a valid driver's license to drive a car, which should be considered every bit a safety concern as a gun. But a police officer has to have probable cause or reason to suspect me of a specific crime to stop me. It can't be just to make sure my license is valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Moreover, rights against incrimination and seizure aside, you cannot interfere with his duties as an officer. Doing so will get you lawfully arrested.
Refusing to identify myself in Maine because some cop stopped me solely because I was carrying a firearm, would NOT get me lawfully arrested. If you wish to argue that point, yet again, I say "Prove it." I've given a source to back up what I'm saying. Show us what you've read that tells you otherwise.
Absolute b.s. If that were the case, why do states and cities have different laws? Rights aren't subject to change. New York City can't pass one free speech law while the state of New Jersey passes another, but they can do that with guns.
I suggest you read the Supreme Court's Heller decision. It went into great detail using period sources to explain this.
And to address your above comment, the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights originally applied to the feds only. The SCOTUS has since incorporated most of it and applied it to the states. Most recently they applied the Second Amendment. These state laws were passed before they incorporated it. As these laws are challenged many are falling. MD's restrictive carry law was recently tossed out by a judge, though it's being appealed to higher courts. The SCOTUS has left very narrow, very limited ability to regulate firearms now. The SCOTUS incorporated the first amendment decades ago, while the Second Amendment is only very recently. Give things time and there will be much more uniformity across the country on this.
I am curious. What is Maine's law about videotaping people, in this case policemen, without their knowledge? The law student could still be in trouble.
I am curious. What is Maine's law about videotaping people, in this case policemen, without their knowledge? The law student could still be in trouble.
We can't tell whether or not the officer is aware he's being taped from the video. But if you're lawfully present at the location you're recording from, and the subject you are recording is in plain public view, yes, it's legal. In every state.
I am curious. What is Maine's law about videotaping people, in this case policemen, without their knowledge? The law student could still be in trouble.
Courts have been consistantly ruling that citizens have a right to film law enforcements actions.
We can't tell whether or not the officer is aware he's being taped from the video. But if you're lawfully present at the location you're recording from, and the subject you are recording is in plain public view, yes, it's legal. In every state.
In certain states there are laws preventing the recording of people public/private. I read a little while back they were charging people with wire tap laws. If you live in one of those states you better have a ton of money and a good lawyer to win your case...
What law might prohibit filming police? In most cases, the citizen videographer is charged under state wiretapping laws that ban recording a conversation without the consent of both parties. These laws were intended to protect privacy in conversations. But it is absurd to apply these laws to police engaged in official business. Quite simply, police officers on the public payroll conducting public business in a public place have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Seventh Circuit agreed. In a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision, a majority of the panel (over a dissent by Judge Posner) applied common sense and rejected Illinois’ claim that police have a privacy right in their public actions. The court reasoned that, since filming is a first step in the creation of speech, laws restricting videography burden speech and press rights. The court ordered that Illinois’ wiretapping law can no longer be applied to the filming of police engaged in official duties in public places.
So there's at least a precedent here, and therefore hope that this nonsense of protecting police officers engaging the public with wiretapping laws will someday be at an end.
I agree with your observation that money is what one uses to purchase their constitutional rights, however.
We can't tell whether or not the officer is aware he's being taped from the video. But if you're lawfully present at the location you're recording from, and the subject you are recording is in plain public view, yes, it's legal. In every state.
So there's at least a precedent here, and therefore hope that this nonsense of protecting police officers engaging the public with wiretapping laws will someday be at an end.
I agree with your observation that money is what one purchases their constitutional rights with, however.
In many cases people will get trumped up charges and they will take a plea deal to avoid a lengthy prison sentence... I wonder how many people just settled instead of fighting...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
