Bend over, folks...

On Jun 19, 5:51 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
look suscpicious? Have fun!

Totally irrelevant, and childishly irrational.

FIrst you let the camel put his nose in the tent, then you wind up
with the entire camel...

In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...


Sorry, but no.

I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down" by
anyone.


Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be there,
you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.

I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...


So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
look suscpicious? Have fun!


Totally irrelevant, and childishly irrational.

Nope. Totally on point.


And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without question? I'm
glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.

I prefer *citizens* run free.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Jun 19, 10:16 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,

"Maxwell" wrote:
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but no.

I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down" by
anyone.

Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be there,
you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.

I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan,

Maxwell is the type that would say "thank you" to a rapist... don't
waste your breathe...

On Jun 19, 8:00 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Andy Asberry" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:15:02 -0700, jl wrote:

vehicular searches under certain circumstances.

I've spent the last little bit reading the arguments in that case.
Below is the Court's opinion.

"For the reasons stated, we conclude that the Government's authority
to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the
authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle's fuel
tank. While it may be true that some searches of property are so
destructive as to require a different result, this was not one of
them. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion."

This case is very limited. It does not address inland searches. First,
it only applies at border inspections and specifically addresses
disassembly of a container. In this case, a gas tank.

cites:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/02-1794.pdf

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...ranscripts/02-...

That's why I asked for a link. I didn't a quick search on Google, but didn't
readily pull up the specific case. I did see it mentioned in a border case
though, an figured it was about a border case as well. Searching vehicles
entering the country is a different story. I was trying to relate to the OP
statement, and I though it was an routine inland stop.

I guess that is where the world 'unreasonable' comes into play.
What is reasonable at the border is different from a parking lot
in Kansas.

--

FF

On Jun 20, 4:16 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,

"Maxwell" wrote:
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but no.

I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down" by
anyone.

Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be there,
you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.

I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.


And for good measure immediately afterwards smile, extend your
hand and add, pleased to meet you.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 20, 4:16 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,

"Maxwell" wrote:
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but no.

I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down"
by
anyone.

Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be
there,
you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.

I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.


And for good measure immediately afterwards smile, extend your
hand and add, pleased to meet you.

And preceded with "Good evening, officer."

On Jun 20, 4:12 pm, Bryan Martin
wrote:

...


Bull****, you just don't hear about such cases much in the popular
press. It contradicts their liberal political agenda. The fact is, the
crime rates are lowest in places where concealed carry is most
widespread. ...

How did you find out?

--

FF

"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...
Bull****, you just don't hear about such cases much in the popular
press. It contradicts their liberal political agenda. The fact is, the
crime rates are lowest in places where concealed carry is most
widespread. I. e. the more guns on the street, the less crime there is.
This indicate that citizens carrying guns does, in fact prevent violent
crime. The criminals aren't all completely stupid, they will move their
activities to areas where it is safer for them to operate. For example,
violent crime rates are very high in D.C. but much lower just outside
the city limits. Because of, not in site of the fact that D.C. has the
most draconian gun control laws in the country.

Guns are used millions of times a year to prevent crime as opposed to
thousands of times a year to commit crimes.


Quite the contrary, when the rare occasion strikes that an ordinary citizen
foils a crime, most especially with a firearm, it hits the press big time.
Also criminals, the violent type at least, are by and large pretty stupid
people. Finally if you want to find a very safe environment, look to police
states. In places where the gov't prohibits almost everything overt crime is
nearly non-existent. For verification, you don't need word of mouth or
folklore, look to the news. While you may perceive them as liberal pawns,
the liberals perceive them as very conservative and the truth is that their
product is rather balanced. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it
biased.

In the interest of truth, I am not from Kenya despite someones
determination. I have held positions that force me to deal with armed
individuals. I am usually unarmed and I feel pretty safe about it, even in
Florida. I'm going to go back to aviation related topics now.

wrote:
On Jun 20, 4:12 pm, Bryan Martin
wrote:

...


Bull****, you just don't hear about such cases much in the popular
press. It contradicts their liberal political agenda. The fact is,
the crime rates are lowest in places where concealed carry is most
widespread. ...

How did you find out?

FF

Here's one study.

John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and
Gun-Control Laws (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)(Studies in law
and economics)(ISBN: 0226493636). 232p