gun confiscation in Shreveport

[hosker]

Shreveport Citizens Disarmed By Police For 2nd Amendment Bumper Stickers

Argue With Everyone

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

 

 

Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops “have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have”: His cops can take away your rights.

 

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

 

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got 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 the NRA. 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 resident 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?

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

 

Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of 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 morbidly obese “commander in chief” was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got “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. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. 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.

 

NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he’s in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.

So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

 

“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.”

 

What to do?

1. Read Luke’s commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.

2. Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.

3. Call Mayor Glover’s office to complain: (318) 673-5050.

 

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 citizens 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 Colorado citizens 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.

 

 

In liberty,

signature

Dudley Brown

Executive Director

National Association for Gun Rights

 

——————————————————————————————–

 

I concur, do not offer any information that is not pertenent to the traffic stop. What say you? What does your local/state laws say?

 

 

LINK

[AR Husker Fan]

To answer this, it’s necessary to provide some background. I apologize for the length of this post, but the only way to correctly and adequately address the issue is to go into detail…

 

First, this is not a 2nd Amendment case – it’s a 4th Amendment case; the right of search and seizure only through a warrant. As indicated below, over the years there have been exceptions to the warrant requirement – some of you might recall that the Bush administration became somewhat infamous for “suspending” that right…

 

For years, the general rule was that police could search the area a person being arrested might gain possession of a weapon. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969). This was a balancing act between the right of privacy and the protection of officers’ safety, and was an exception to the requirement of a warrant. If a weapon was found, it could be secured or confiscated until such time as the person being arrested was secured or not able to access the weapon. This is known as a “search incident to arrest”. And, it includes both those actually arrested and suspects regardless whether they were ever actually arrested. Under Chimel, this was limited to items in plain view.

 

The Chimel case was modified – and the right of warrantless searches extended – in the case of New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). Under Belton, the entire passenger compartment of an automobile was subject to search under the search incident doctrine even if the arrestee is out of the car. This included even “containers” in which evidence or a weapon could be located. Plain view was no longer required.

 

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an opinion - Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009) – in which it has modified the rule somewhat. Now, police may only search an arrestee’s vehicle when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment the time or the search.

 

All of this is predicated on a valid “arrest” or probable cause to stop.

 

Assuming there was a valid reason – probably cause – to stop the vehicle, the officer had the right to ask about weapons, and the right to either order the person away from the vehicle or to remove and secure the weapon during the traffic stop.

 

When you read the article, the officer said that the stop was due to a failure of the driver to use his turn signal – not due to any “profiling”. In other words, there was probable cause for the stop.

 

The article states, “Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.”

 

What it doesn’t state is precisely what those stickers said. It would not be unreasonable to assume from the article that there was a sticker that said something like, “You can take my gun when you can pry it from my cold hands”.

 

What we do know from the article is that:

 

1. The driver asked if everyone who was pulled over got the same treatment;

2. The officer said no; and,

3. Allegedly the officer pointed to the rear of the truck, where all the stickers were displayed.

 

Looking at it from the officer’s perspective – and since the article conveniently glossed over pertinent facts – it is further reasonable to assume that:

 

1. The stickers on the truck weren’t the reason for pulling the driver over – that was the failure to use the turn signal.

2. The officer, noting the stickers on the truck, had reason to believe it the driver might have a weapon in the truck – in fact, as the article noted, it’s legal in the state to carry loaded weapons.

3. The officer has the right to secure the area “incident to the arrest” (which does not have to include an actual arrest).

 

To summarize, the officer had probable cause – based on the failure to obey traffic laws – to stop the truck. Most likely, based on the stickers on the truck, the officer has reason to suspect that the driver may have had a weapon in the truck. The office has the right to both ask whether a weapon is present and to either secure the weapon or the suspect during the stop in the interest of safety. This doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment as the right to have the gun was never “suspended”; it was the right to a warrantless search and the subsequent right of the police to secure their safety during the pendency of the stop.

 

And don’t be thrown by the word “confiscate”. That’s a red herring; nothing more. As noted in the article, the driver stated when speaking to the Chief of Police, “Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.” Nothing more. The term “confiscate” leaves the impression that the weapon was taken and kept by the police, something that a careful reading of the article does not support.

 

So – it was legal and proper. And it was not an infringement on the driver’s 2nd Amendment rights.

[carlfense]

Hmmmm. Another article with a disturbingly misleading agenda. Where did you find this Oz Husker?

 

Edit:

Just found it . . . it's at some website called infowars.com.

[sarge87]

To answer this, it’s necessary to provide some background. I apologize for the length of this post, but the only way to correctly and adequately address the issue is to go into detail…

 

First, this is not a 2nd Amendment case – it’s a 4th Amendment case; the right of search and seizure only through a warrant. As indicated below, over the years there have been exceptions to the warrant requirement – some of you might recall that the Bush administration became somewhat infamous for “suspending” that right…

 

For years, the general rule was that police could search the area a person being arrested might gain possession of a weapon. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969). This was a balancing act between the right of privacy and the protection of officers’ safety, and was an exception to the requirement of a warrant. If a weapon was found, it could be secured or confiscated until such time as the person being arrested was secured or not able to access the weapon. This is known as a “search incident to arrest”. And, it includes both those actually arrested and suspects regardless whether they were ever actually arrested. Under Chimel, this was limited to items in plain view.

 

The Chimel case was modified – and the right of warrantless searches extended – in the case of New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). Under Belton, the entire passenger compartment of an automobile was subject to search under the search incident doctrine even if the arrestee is out of the car. This included even “containers” in which evidence or a weapon could be located. Plain view was no longer required.

 

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an opinion - Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009) – in which it has modified the rule somewhat. Now, police may only search an arrestee’s vehicle when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment the time or the search.

 

All of this is predicated on a valid “arrest” or probable cause to stop.

 

Assuming there was a valid reason – probably cause – to stop the vehicle, the officer had the right to ask about weapons, and the right to either order the person away from the vehicle or to remove and secure the weapon during the traffic stop.

 

When you read the article, the officer said that the stop was due to a failure of the driver to use his turn signal – not due to any “profiling”. In other words, there was probable cause for the stop.

 

The article states, “Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.”

 

What it doesn’t state is precisely what those stickers said. It would not be unreasonable to assume from the article that there was a sticker that said something like, “You can take my gun when you can pry it from my cold hands”.

 

What we do know from the article is that:

 

1. The driver asked if everyone who was pulled over got the same treatment;

2. The officer said no; and,

3. Allegedly the officer pointed to the rear of the truck, where all the stickers were displayed.

 

Looking at it from the officer’s perspective – and since the article conveniently glossed over pertinent facts – it is further reasonable to assume that:

 

1. The stickers on the truck weren’t the reason for pulling the driver over – that was the failure to use the turn signal.

2. The officer, noting the stickers on the truck, had reason to believe it the driver might have a weapon in the truck – in fact, as the article noted, it’s legal in the state to carry loaded weapons.

3. The officer has the right to secure the area “incident to the arrest” (which does not have to include an actual arrest).

 

To summarize, the officer had probable cause – based on the failure to obey traffic laws – to stop the truck. Most likely, based on the stickers on the truck, the officer has reason to suspect that the driver may have had a weapon in the truck. The office has the right to both ask whether a weapon is present and to either secure the weapon or the suspect during the stop in the interest of safety. This doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment as the right to have the gun was never “suspended”; it was the right to a warrantless search and the subsequent right of the police to secure their safety during the pendency of the stop.

 

And don’t be thrown by the word “confiscate”. That’s a red herring; nothing more. As noted in the article, the driver stated when speaking to the Chief of Police, “Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.” Nothing more. The term “confiscate” leaves the impression that the weapon was taken and kept by the police, something that a careful reading of the article does not support.

 

So – it was legal and proper. And it was not an infringement on the driver’s 2nd Amendment rights.

The only question I have here is what exact danger existed for the officer from a gun 10-15 feet away from the driver who had walked to the rear of the truck?

 

Since, in Louisiana, a vehicle is considered as inviolate as one's home. Wouldn't it be the same as an officer knocking on your front door and asking if you have a weapon on the premises?

[bennychico11]

The only question I have here is what exact danger existed for the officer from a gun 10-15 feet away from the driver who had walked to the rear of the truck?

 

 

maybe I missed it...but I didn't see where it stated the driver was removed from the truck and placed at the rear, nor how close to the driver the gun was at the time.

 

Personally, I'm 100% fine with officers searching someone's car and "confiscating" a gun for the time being while they are being questioned...especially if they openly state that they do have a gun with them. Not only for the safety of the officer but also to check if a) the gun IS licensed and to that owner and b ) if that owner actually should be allowed to have the gun....ie., he's not a former felon. If the officer stops and questions 500 people who have guns and finds just a single one who shouldn't....then I'm fine with those other 499 who were inconvenienced.

 

Like AR said...the article never says whether or not the gun was returned after the traffic stop. In that case I'm guessing it was and the individual has nothing to complain about. I think people cry "harassment" too much when things like the second amendment are brought up. Sometimes I wonder if things would be different if we hadn't come up with that amendment...

or maybe the original authors really did misspell it:

 

[sarge87]

Hmmmm. Another article with a disturbingly misleading agenda. Where did you find this Oz Husker?

 

Edit:

Just found it . . . it's at some website called infowars.com.

How is it misleading? A citizen was questioning the right for the police to seize a weapon.

 

You have to admit, the mayor used a poor choice of words to address the situation in the first place, leading to the misunderstanding.

 

When someone in authority says you surrender your rights, I would question that also.

[carlfense]

Hmmmm. Another article with a disturbingly misleading agenda. Where did you find this Oz Husker?

 

Edit:

Just found it . . . it's at some website called infowars.com.

How is it misleading? A citizen was questioning the right for the police to seize a weapon.

 

You have to admit, the mayor used a poor choice of words to address the situation in the first place, leading to the misunderstanding.

 

When someone in authority says you surrender your rights, I would question that also.

 

Confiscate -To seize (private property) for the public treasury. (dictionary.com)

 

The police did not retain the man's weapon. When he was allowed to go his weapon went with him.

 

The article implies (and does nothing to dispel the existing ambiguity) that the police officer took the man's gun and did not return it. This is not true. It appears to me that the article is specifically written to drum up anger from extreme right-wingers.

[sarge87]

maybe I missed it...but I didn't see where it stated the driver was removed from the truck and placed at the rear, nor how close to the driver the gun was at the time.

I don't know what their procedures are for a traffic stop search. If it happened here, his partner or a backup officer is called and you are removed to either the front or the back of the vehicle.

 

What I don't understand is why the officer never asked for any form of identification. If he had, he could have run a simple NCIC check on the suspect to find any priors before the search. Also, he would have discovered the individual also had a conceal/carry permit, if he had asked.

 

Like AR said...the article never says whether or not the gun was returned after the traffic stop. In that case I'm guessing it was and the individual has nothing to complain about. I think people cry "harassment" too much when things like the second amendment are brought up. Sometimes I wonder if things would be different if we hadn't come up with that amendment...

or maybe the original authors really did misspell it:

Yes, his gun was returned.

[sarge87]

Hmmmm. Another article with a disturbingly misleading agenda. Where did you find this Oz Husker?

 

Edit:

Just found it . . . it's at some website called infowars.com.

How is it misleading? A citizen was questioning the right for the police to seize a weapon.

 

You have to admit, the mayor used a poor choice of words to address the situation in the first place, leading to the misunderstanding.

 

When someone in authority says you surrender your rights, I would question that also.

 

Confiscate -To seize (private property) for the public treasury. (dictionary.com)

 

The police did not retain the man's weapon. When he was allowed to go his weapon went with him.

 

The article implies (and does nothing to dispel the existing ambiguity) that the police officer took the man's gun and did not return it. This is not true. It appears to me that the article is specifically written to drum up anger from extreme right-wingers.

It was written to question the procedures used to detain this person and his property. Which goes to the question of why this officer did not ask for proper ID and/or permits for him and the weapon in question.

 

I have a conceal carry permit as part of my job and they are not easy to get. So I would also be a little PO'd if I was in this guys situation also.

[carlfense]

Hmmmm. Another article with a disturbingly misleading agenda. Where did you find this Oz Husker?

 

Edit:

Just found it . . . it's at some website called infowars.com.

How is it misleading? A citizen was questioning the right for the police to seize a weapon.

 

You have to admit, the mayor used a poor choice of words to address the situation in the first place, leading to the misunderstanding.

 

When someone in authority says you surrender your rights, I would question that also.

 

Confiscate -To seize (private property) for the public treasury. (dictionary.com)

 

The police did not retain the man's weapon. When he was allowed to go his weapon went with him.

 

The article implies (and does nothing to dispel the existing ambiguity) that the police officer took the man's gun and did not return it. This is not true. It appears to me that the article is specifically written to drum up anger from extreme right-wingers.

It was written to question the procedures used to detain this person and his property. Which goes to the question of why this officer did not ask for proper ID and/or permits for him and the weapon in question.

 

I have a conceal carry permit as part of my job and they are not easy to get. So I would also be a little PO'd if I was in this guys situation also.

 

Although it might have been written with a specific goal the author still should not manipulate the facts.

 

His (or yours or my) concealed carry permit has nothing to do with it. To quote AR's Arizona v. Gant description; "Now, police may only search an arrestee’s vehicle when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search." CC holders are apparently not exempt from this.