According to Cedric Glover, Mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that the President of these United States does not have." Mayor Glover claimed his police officers had the power to take away certain rights. And would you like to guess which rights he had in mind? Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who was pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.
While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was and if he was a member of a pro-gun organization. No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal. Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun. However, not only does Louisiana law allow residents to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license! What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling -- going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less? Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations -- he proudly displayed an American flag and other pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield. In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said "No" and pointed to the back of his truck. Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's "commander in chief" was elated to hear about the story.
According to Glover, Baillio was "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."
Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:
Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me. Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer -- it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him or to anyone in the general public. [. . .] Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions. Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct? Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand[Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. - DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.
Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:
According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun -- willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question. From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.
"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation -- including dying -- and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop." I know this kind of harassment occurs frequently all across the country. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has on many occasions warned law enforcement officials to "look out for" folks like Mr. Baillio who have bumper stickers that promote ideas such as "liberty." There is danger in the Congress, as well. Right now there is active legislation that seeks to label gun owners like you and me as "terrorists." If you are interested in fighting that piece of legislation,please sign your petition to your Congressman and Senators demanding that you not be labeled a "terrorist." I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if indiiduals should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop. While different states have different laws, my answer for the state I live in, Colorado, is an emphatic "No." Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.
------------------------------------------------------
WOW!
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
*snore
The "power that the President doesn't have" is a reference to the police power which every petty county and municipality in this "fair land" claims that its armed thugs have.
And Louisiana law is irrelevant in the city limits of Shreveport. Most large cities have much more stringent gun regulations than the State-wide laws.
Clayton -
Clayton:And Louisiana law is irrelevant in the city limits of Shreveport. Most large cities have much more stringent gun regulations than the State-wide laws.
Really? I thought state law superseded municipal law.
Indeed, from the Wikipedia article:
In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of their inhabitants.[1] Under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers prohibited from or not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This implies that the states do not possess all possible powers, since some of these are reserved to the people. [...] Police powers are, from the point of view of state courts, also restricted by state constitutions.
[...]
Police powers are, from the point of view of state courts, also restricted by state constitutions.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I thought state law superseded municipal law.
If the state had a law that said "municipalities shall permit open-carry of firearms" then, yes, and perhaps there are some states like that. But otherwise, regulations are cumulative... municipal law adds to state/county law which adds to federal law, etc. Each level of government is free to make more restrictive rules than its superiors.
Clayton, I don't think that's necessarily the case. It would depend on the state constitution, wouldn't it?
On another note: was Baillio's gun confiscated only for the duration of the stop? That is, was it returned to him afterwards? If not, then I'd say his second-amendment right has indeed been violated.
Furthermore, on what grounds could the cop be said to have probable cause to search Baillio's vehicle without the latter's prior explicit consent?
The Second Amendment right to bear arms is a federal right that's been applied to the states.
I'm pretty sure state cops don't have the constitutional right to demand anyone to relinquish their firearm for no reason.
That cop was probably out of line. Assuming this actually happened. Where is the link for all this?
Well, I'll explain how they do it in Portland, OR. It's not illegal to carry a firearm in Portland. However, if you are pulled over and have concealed weapon (with permit) or are open carrying or legally transporting a firearm and the officer searches your vehicle, etc. then they will almost certainly confiscate the weapon. They can confiscate the weapon because - they claim - it is part of their public safety mandate.
If this happens to you, you need to be sure to get a full inventory from the officer of everything that was confiscated, including serial #'s because otherwise you will never see it again. Once you get home, you then have to take that inventory list and file a request for the property to be returned. After some months, you will get a letter saying you can come down to police headquarters and retrieve the firearm, etc. Just hope you don't get pulled over again on your way back out of town.
I'm sure many other borderline-gun-ban cities have similar kinds of police department policies meant to enact a de facto gun ban.
Did that happen to you?
A friend.
Clayton, I think that kind of thing could be open to a federal civil-rights lawsuit.