Citizen Stopped for 2nd Amendment Bumper Stickers

[txinvestigator]

If you have not listened; this Mayor is out of his freaking mind!
As I suspected and stated in my earlier post - the mayor has a standing order to the LE to act in an unconstitutional manner.

The mayor cannot order the police to do anything. He can order the chief, perhaps depending on the type of local government, but the Chief would then have to enforce such an order on his troops.

Does ANYONE have an answer to the questions I posed, or is everyone's opinion based on whatever they choose to believe/imagine?

 

[Texas1911]

The mayor cannot order the police to do anything. He can order the chief, perhaps depending on the type of local government, but the Chief would then have to enforce such an order on his troops.

The Mayor retains strong influence... and in some instances it could be enough to control. I would not discredit that fact.

 

[hkusp1]

thats outrageous if it is true i hope he finds a darn good lawyer and sues the everliving bejesus out of the city of shreveport, someone need to straighten that mayor out to. i'm actually really angry about this and i don't get angry about anything, i would really like to see any mayor here in texas try to pull some bull like that and see where it gets them.

 

[TxEMTP69]

Does the state law there allow officers to temporarily disarm people during contacts? Is that state a must inform state?

[URL]http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chRuleBook08.pdf[/URL] page 5 I think as you scroll down

(2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or arrested under the provisions of R.S. 40:1382. Failure by the permittee to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit
__________
pg 21

2. A permittee armed with a handgun shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a handgun on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Failure to comply with this provision shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.

 

[txinvestigator]

Thank you EMT. So now do we have any facts to show that the person was not given their gun back, as the officer seems to have been in compliance with state law.

 

[MadMo44Mag]

whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun

2. A permittee armed with a handgun shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a handgun on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Failure to comply with this provision shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.

Per the article the reason for the stop -

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns:

Where is reasonable cause?
Alcohol or other substance was never an issue!
I further understand that LEO can as noted in the 2nd section disarm you at his discretion. Once the gun was brought to the LEO attention the traffic stop no longer had any relevance.
The issue was a gun and what appears to be profiling.
Further based on the attitude of the Mayor by his own admission he feels LEO have more power that the President of the USSA.
He freely admitted he teaches this attitude to mew officers, so that there tells me the Mayor and the chief are in agreement with this attitude.
So where does that leave you; with a LEO department that has been taught and reinforced by superiors actions they and only they have the right to suspend ones rights without just cause and due process.

 

[JKTex]

Wow, this one is tricky. There's just enough holding back, it's almost hard to tell who's on what side of the issue and if the 2 sides are even on the same issue.

I read through the article pretty quick but I didn't get what I expected. Even the Mayor didn't say anything I was expecting. Just from the picture and what was written that he said, based solely on that, I can picture a pompous arrogant politician, but the content of what he said wasn't really wrong.

Now, from the article, the stop is obviously highly suspicious.....based only on the article which I think may be the set up for the article by the writer. But we really don't know the facts of the stop. If in fact he did neglect to use his signal, then petty as it may be, the LEO wasn't in the wrong to pull him over. And "if" he acted based on fear that the guy may have been armed even if it was only because he had a bunch of stickers, he had every right to ask about a gun prior to the reason of the stop. He answered honestly when asked about the gun (in Texas he would not yet have satisfied the requirement to inform since he hadn't asked for ID yet but we know that issue) then the LEO disarmed him as the law allows.

We don't know how it went after that, if he was cited for the signal, if he got his gun back or not although I'd think if he didn't, they would have made that 90% of the article. The whole thing is about the initial actions of the LEO which would not have been out of line in a number of scenarios, even if he was pushing the line a little bit.

The fact is, they never talked about anything past the gun questions and disarming which make be wonder if the stop was obviously legit but they didn't want to taint the LEA/Mayor hate angle of the article. From the questions and general attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Baillio had a bit of an attitude and got the "special attention" he asked for.

The discussion with the Mayor in part, if anything, make Mr. Baillio look foolish. He's questioning the mayor about something he should know and understand of State law as a CHL holder. The Mayor simply reinforced what the law is and was what the LEO did. Maybe a little cocky, pompous rhetoric but that has nothing to do with Baillio's issue.

Did I miss something or was there some evil cool-aid I was supposed to drink first so I'd hate the Shreveport PD and Mayor? How many threads have there been discussing stops and LEO's taking someone gun, even unloading it and giving it back with ammo in a bag? Maybe I'm missing something in the article, but it's no way any comparison to Nagen ordering the collections of firearms in NO. I still didn't know why he wasn't hung over that.

 

[DCortez]

I still didn't know why he wasn't hung over that.

I'll say it has to do with his party affiliation among other things.

 

[JKTex]

I'll say it has to do with his party affiliation among other things.

But re-elected? Ok, ya I know, the warning thread. We'd have to say some mean, nasty and true things to explain that.

 

[bonehead1185]

Thank you EMT. So now do we have any facts to show that the person was not given their gun back, as the officer seems to have been in compliance with state law.

In the audio clip I just listened to the mayor asked him that exact question and his reply was that he did get it back after the traffic stop.

 

[DCortez]

But re-elected?

Here in Houston, we had some Elect Ray Nagin billboards. Not hard to figure out who they were targetting and who votes for him.

 

[MadMo44Mag]

I guess whats got me all wound up is the mayors attitude about LEO's are a GOD like entity.
They can for what ever reason disregard your rights. Basically your are guilty until proven innocent.
OK, he was pulled over for no signal. Now thats pretty chicken crap so was there another reason for the stop?
Why then once the gun was brought to light the traffic violation become a non-issue?
The written story is very slanted and the mayors audio is IMO that of a man that has the attitude the LOE's are GODS!
I'm not bashing LEO's my daughter is one.
It just seems to me there is a under lying thread of everyone is guilty until proven innocent with this mayor and LE department based on what limited insight we have between the article and the audio.

 

[DCortez]

I'm not bashing LEO's my daughter is one.

I like rules, people who follow the rules, and the rule of law.


I dislike those that do not follow the rules, abuse their power and authority, or, that treat the law as something that is variable or open to interpretation ... theirs

 

[MadMo44Mag]

I like rules, people who follow the rules, and the rule of law.


I dislike those that do not follow the rules, abuse their power and authority, or, that treat the law as something that is variable or open to interpretation ... theirs

+1

 

[Big country]

Just like every other profession there are good people and bad people. Politics is the only exception.

 

[DCortez]

Just like every other profession there are good people and bad people. Politics is the only exception.

That true. But, when the word of a cop holds so much water in court, they need to do the best that can be done. The average person will not question, or feel powerless against, a cop. Those of us that do, are called cop haters, trouble makers, or "that guy".


The average accountant, restaurant worker, or bus driver cannot affect my time and money the way a cop can. It would always be my word vs theirs.

 

[TriggerTime]

Just one more reason that, as in the words of Jim Goode, "You might want to give some serious thought to thanking your lucky stars you live in Texas."

 

[navyguy]

Is that not the same dude that,several months after Katrina, had the police go door to door and confiscate legally possessed fire arms leaving people completely unprotected. As I recall, most never got returned. Magically became lost.

 

[Big country]

That true. But, when the word of a cop holds so much water in court, they need to do the best that can be done. The average person will not question, or feel powerless against, a cop. Those of us that do, are called cop haters, trouble makers, or "that guy".


The average accountant, restaurant worker, or bus driver cannot affect my time and money the way a cop can. It would always be my word vs theirs.

You are right about that D. But the d-bag cops will get theirs and the good ones will still be appreciated by all (unless it is in Austin Texas Then appreciation level goes to about half) And despite what some people like to say, yes there are D-bag cops out there. But they are far and few between.

 

[JKTex]

I guess whats got me all wound up is the mayors attitude about LEO's are a GOD like entity.
They can for what ever reason disregard your rights. Basically your are guilty until proven innocent.
OK, he was pulled over for no signal. Now thats pretty chicken crap so was there another reason for the stop?
Why then once the gun was brought to light the traffic violation become a non-issue?
The written story is very slanted and the mayors audio is IMO that of a man that has the attitude the LOE's are GODS!
I'm not bashing LEO's my daughter is one.
It just seems to me there is a under lying thread of everyone is guilty until proven innocent with this mayor and LE department based on what limited insight we have between the article and the audio.

The Mayor can think whatever he wants to think about the PD. What matters is what they do. And in this case, the article leaves out a whole lot.

If the stop was for the lack of using a signal, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, no one else was there and the LEO made a legitimate traffic stop. The only part of the stop that was reported was the initial stop and the disarming. If he illegally searched the car, I'm sure the article would have eaten that up and the guy has ground for action against the LEO and PD. They never bothered to say whether "after" the disarming, he then addressed the traffic violation. He may have gotten a warning, or a citation. It's funny how they leave all that out, and even after the fact, all they focus on is this violation of rights which is nothing different than most anywhere you go. LEO's have that right to temporarily disarm a civilian.

If the entire stop was only a disarming and hassling, you can bet the article would have covered the whole thing.

I'm with TX on this, the article was meant for one reason, to incite anger and to paint the Mayor and PD as evil and bad. And it's working. The Mayor does not run the PD, he's a Politician and from the sounds of it, a pompous ass, but that's not against the law nor does it violate anyone rights.