Evil One
Member
Oh Boy...
Jim
Jim
Last edited by a moderator:
Shreveport cops confiscating guns.
- Thread starter Evil One
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Sue the bastards.
The Last Standing Knight
Member
No big suprise here. Remeber what happened to law abiding citizens with firearms in New Orleans after Katrina?
Gutpile Charlie
US Veteran
I'd like to know more about this. This is just so off the wall. If it is as stated, then this can not go unchallenged. This is obscene.
Give us more information.
Give us more information.
Crazy K38
Member
I am not surprised and I will tell you why, Our 'president', secretary of state, and possibly a supreme court judge, are all anti gun people from the depths of a fiery place, but I bet they change thier tune when the NRA cracks the whip, I think I need to send an email, do you have a link to reference?
GatorFarmer
Member
What it sounds like to me happened is that the officer, when executing a traffic stop, asked if there was a weapon present and then secured it during the stop. Beyond that, something happened and things have since taken on an "Internet gloss". The mayor is actually correct, a LEO would have the right to secure a firearm while investigating a situation, and this would not be a violation of anyone's rights.
Crazy K38
Member
exactly why I want that link
USAF385
US Veteran
I'm going undercover.
I'll slap some bumper stickers on my car that say things like "melt all guns" "guns don't kill people.. hydrashock ammunition does!" or "a gun will not give you freedom". (All of which are bumper stickers I have seen)
This story is absolutely outrageous!
I'll slap some bumper stickers on my car that say things like "melt all guns" "guns don't kill people.. hydrashock ammunition does!" or "a gun will not give you freedom". (All of which are bumper stickers I have seen)
This story is absolutely outrageous!
Crazy K38
Member
those bumperstickers alone are enough to get someone on my 'bleep' list
OP
Evil One
Member
safearm
US Veteran
I don't know the laws of Louisiana, and as has been repeatedly stated on this forum, the laws of every jurisdiction vary. However, in Mississippi, a law enforcement officer MUST make an arrest to seize a firearm, and a record of the seizure MUST be entered on a docket required to be maintained by the agency. Failure to either maintain the docket, or log the seizure, is a misdemeanor offense for the chief of the department and the officer making the seizure, respectively. This statute was passed due to a number of cases where a firearm was found in a vehicle, the officer asked who it belonged to, received a reply of, "It's not mine," the officer seized the firearm, and announced that the owner could claim it at the station. In some cases, the agency and/or the officer later obtained legal possession of the firearm as it remained unclaimed/owner could not be determined.
I don't consider the temporary custody of a firearm during a traffic stop to be a seizure. I have disarmed citizens during routine traffic stops when I have visually discovered a firearm. I returned the firearm, unloaded, at the end of the traffic stop (I also returned the ammunition).
The only time I have ever asked if the person(s) have a weapon in the car, is when I have determined that someone is going to be taken into custody. Then I want to insure that the weapon is under my control during the arrest, transport, and booking process. Since there is an arrest, there is a legal seizure of a firearm.
I don't consider the temporary custody of a firearm during a traffic stop to be a seizure. I have disarmed citizens during routine traffic stops when I have visually discovered a firearm. I returned the firearm, unloaded, at the end of the traffic stop (I also returned the ammunition).
The only time I have ever asked if the person(s) have a weapon in the car, is when I have determined that someone is going to be taken into custody. Then I want to insure that the weapon is under my control during the arrest, transport, and booking process. Since there is an arrest, there is a legal seizure of a firearm.
S. Hammer
Member
Story leaves more questions than answers. What happened to the "confiscated" gun? Was it in fact returned to the motorist after the stop was concluded? I'm betting it was, and this is a very slanted story written to outrage people. It's not unusual for the po-po to maintain control of a firearm during a stop (although I personally don't do it unless there are additional circumstances present.) I am as concerned as anyone about the future of our rights, but this just doesn't sound right to me.
"Story leaves more questions than answers. What happened to the "confiscated" gun? Was it in fact returned to the motorist after the stop was concluded?"
+1 If the gun was returned after the traffic stop was over, I don't see the big problem. I do not see any problem with an officer wanting to know where a weapon is while searching a vehicle and if it involves his putting it in the patrol car during the search, so what?
.........
I went back after first posting and read the blog that apparently started all this, and it states:
"Mr. Baillio had called to complain about a recent traffic stop in which an SPD officer, who-- before dealing with any other matter of business -- asked if Baillio had a firearm, then temporarily seized it from him."
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...reveports.html
So the gun was "temporarily seized" from him while the car was searched. It appears to me that the National Association for Gun Rights exercised a little editorial discretion in writing their account of the incident by implying that the police kept the gun. We are used to seeing that kind of creative journalism from the liberal media, but it does our cause no good when groups that supposedly support the Second Amendment engage in the same stretching of the truth!
+1 If the gun was returned after the traffic stop was over, I don't see the big problem. I do not see any problem with an officer wanting to know where a weapon is while searching a vehicle and if it involves his putting it in the patrol car during the search, so what?
.........
I went back after first posting and read the blog that apparently started all this, and it states:
"Mr. Baillio had called to complain about a recent traffic stop in which an SPD officer, who-- before dealing with any other matter of business -- asked if Baillio had a firearm, then temporarily seized it from him."
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...reveports.html
So the gun was "temporarily seized" from him while the car was searched. It appears to me that the National Association for Gun Rights exercised a little editorial discretion in writing their account of the incident by implying that the police kept the gun. We are used to seeing that kind of creative journalism from the liberal media, but it does our cause no good when groups that supposedly support the Second Amendment engage in the same stretching of the truth!
Last edited:
I was pulled over in Shreveport by local LEO with a handgun on the seat next to me in plan view of LEO. The only thing he had me do was exit my vehicle while he ran my license and wrote me a ticket. He didn't hassle me beyond that.
cshoff
Member
How about sending the mayor your thoughts and concerns regarding this issue? [email protected]
Amici
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 8
Because it's a transparent attempt to whip up hysteria over a NON-issue?
Or is flooding the mayor's office with letters from the rabidly ill-informed your idea of How To Win Friends and Influence People.
Remember, it was only a traffic stop and the gun was returned at the end of it. Hardly a "confiscation" campaign.
cshoff
Member
Slow down there, champ. I don't remember ever saying to send the guy snide remarks or other such nonsense, so don't pretend that I did. Having said that, there is nothing at all wrong with questioning their policies or procedures. And who are you to say that someone who would question those policies and procedures is "rabidly ill-informed"?
Furthermore, I do have a problem with a police officer harrassing an individual because of the kind of bumper stickers they choose to place on their vehicle. Quite frankly, it is none of their business as to why you choose to voice your opinion in that manner, and it is certainly a violation of your First Amendment rights to be harrassed because of it. What you call a "non-issue" is very much an issue to others. And no, a police officer does not have a right to take possession of your firearm simply because you have one in your possession. If this man broke a law, then lets see the ticket or the summons that was issued to him. If he didn't, then it sounds to me like this was nothing more than harrassment. Sorry, but pulling someone over because of a bumper sticker is hardly a "traffic stop".
bk43
Member
I'm not seeing a Constitutional crisis and certainly would not make a fool out of myself by sending the mayor an email. The guy copped a 'tude during a routine traffic stop. The cop figured rightfully that he was too stupid to be out by himself unsupervised, let alone armed. He secured the weapon for everybody's safety. Now bubba wants his two minutes of fame so he puts out a slanted, inflamatory version of the episode on the internet.
No sale here...Bob
No sale here...Bob
norad45
Member
So much for "rights"
It doesn't matter if the guy "copped a 'tude" during the stop or not. No crime was committed beyond the apparently dubious "failure to signal." If the citizen did not threaten the officer , then the officer had NO business taking his firearm. Next thing you know, we'll have people here arguing that anyone who "cops a 'tude" deserves a few whacks with a nightstick. Or maybe a few zaps with a taser just to make them more amenable to receiving a ticket. Yeah, that's the kind of law-enforcement we all need. That place sounds like a corrupt cesspool.
Oh, and before anybody puts me down as a cop-hater, my father is retired County Sheriff, 30 years on the job.
It doesn't matter if the guy "copped a 'tude" during the stop or not. No crime was committed beyond the apparently dubious "failure to signal." If the citizen did not threaten the officer , then the officer had NO business taking his firearm. Next thing you know, we'll have people here arguing that anyone who "cops a 'tude" deserves a few whacks with a nightstick. Or maybe a few zaps with a taser just to make them more amenable to receiving a ticket. Yeah, that's the kind of law-enforcement we all need. That place sounds like a corrupt cesspool.
Oh, and before anybody puts me down as a cop-hater, my father is retired County Sheriff, 30 years on the job.
Last edited:
Similar threads
