Soju

We had this discussion before. I repeatedly asked for the term "his place of business" to be defined in the law. Nobody could do so. If it is not explicitly defined, any interpretation of such is just that, a personal interpretation of it, and has no legal meaning. Unless "his place of business" is defined, then vlad's interpretation is no different than dan's. In fact, besides it saying it is a fixed location, here is the only other place I see the term. e. Applications. Applications for permits to purchase a handgun and for firearms purchaser identification cards shall be in the form prescribed by the superintendent and shall set forth the name, residence, place of business, age, date of birth, occupation, sex and physical description, including distinguishing physical characteristics, if any, of the applicant, and shall state whether the applicant is a citizen, whether he is an alcoholic, habitual drunkard, drug dependent person as defined in section 2 of P.L.1970, c.226 (C.24:21-2), whether he has ever been confined or committed to a mental institution or hospital for treatment. So if you list said place of business when you apply, why can't you carry there? Same term. Past thread in case anyone wants to read it. http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/23021-place-of-business/

Really? In Ortiz v. Commonwealth they said Here is the actual reciprocity agreement with Florida http://www.attorneyg...20Agreement.pdf Philadelphia has multiple times tried to say that various different PA statutes and regulations somehow don't apply to them. The court has ruled every time that this argument is without merit, as they apply to ALL places within the Commonwealth of PA INCLUDING Philadelphia.

II In case anyone needs to watch it? In case? Of course everyone needs to watch it!

Fair enough. I guess I misinterpreted your post. As for checkpoints, courts have ruled they are ONLY legal IF they consist of a brief stop for the SOLE purpose of checking for drunk drivers (when it comes to DUI checkpoints) or immigration status (when it comes to immigration checkpoints). If I am not mistaken (I might be), there also has to be some prior notification, via either posted signs before the checkpoint or an announcement in the newspaper. So yes, DUI checkpoints CAN be legal, if operated properly. As soon as you start looking for things other than DUI, they become illegal. And the courts have also shown that to be true.

Oops, I must have missed that. If that is in fact the case, then I can't possibly see how they are not lying. If there is nothing other than what is in the statues, then there is nothing sensitive, and it would legally have to be released. So either there is stuff in there that is sensitive, or there is stuff in there that is illegal that they don't want to be shown. So either way, something is going on that shouldn't be.

Great, more arbitrary violations that they leave up to a judge to determine if he wants to make more money for the state or not. That makes sense... Exactly. People are arrested and convicted based off of no evidence and just the subjective opinion of an officer who of course never makes mistakes or dare I say would never lie to obtain a conviction right? Free America or police state? You tell me. And people also get themselves in trouble for following the law when it gets the officers upset because their every word isn't being complied with. So what are you saying? Exactly the point. Where is the accountability? Is that your job? Great. Someone admitting they work to get convictions without any evidence or wrongdoing, or any victim, ALL THE TIME. We need more peace officers like you. Sorry, edit that. Peace officer is a misnomer I suppose... Yes they do. Yes they will. How so? This is suppose to happen, but does it actually? I can show videos of people being arrested simply because the officer got upset that the person wasn't giving in to his unlawful orders. There are tons of examples of police misconduct. You say "no cop", well that is a complete lie. So any officer can just say, hey, I need you to take a breathalyzer, and if you don't you are going to jail for DUI, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, at these checkpoints? Well there is a word for that. Illegal.

A couple things. 1. This doesn't mean anything, and in fact, is bad. It is bad because now, it is even more reason for the police to violate the law, because they are doing so in accordance with policy and procedure. Mind you that policy and procedure is not legally binding and is very often illegal. But since when has a state prosecutor ever prosecuted a state agency in front of a state judge for breaking the law? Probably never. And if they have, they certainly wouldn't get a conviction... 2. It won't stop anything. They will continue to do whatever they do. Guide, no guide, it doesn't matter. In fact, because this is still "law enforcement sensitive", or secret as it might as well mean, they can still do whatever the hell they want. What you have got to understand is that in this day and age, the police are not held accountable. They are in a system where they can usually do whatever they want without consequences. When they break the law, and are called out, they do "internal investigations" that nothing comes out of. When you have someone who breaks the law and works for the same people who prosecute and judge, do you really think anything comes out of it? You can tell based on just this lawsuit that it doesn't matter. It really isn't that they skirt any system as much as it is they outright don't play in it.

Does anyone else find it both sad and pathetic that a case where carrying a gun might have saved his and other lives the media still made it seem as if it was a bad idea? I mean, they showed interviews of students who seemed like it was a bad thing. They showed "emergency call" boxes as if that would have helped. They mentioned that people were "surprised" implying that it should be surprising...because it is frowned upon. About the only thing they did show was how he did have a license to carry and his actions were legal.

Terrible idea, and here is why. While BAC might not be the best indication of being drunk at all times, it is has merit, and it is objective. Furthermore, it is defined. So if accurate, even if you are not drunk, you are in violation of the law. Now let me just caveat that with saying I may not even agree, but it is something that is clearly defined, and allows the individual the ability to follow. If you introduce the discretion of a human as the sole factor in determining if a crime has been committed, you are now relaying on no objective evidence. It is all entirely subjective based on the individual giving the test. Additionally, many field sobriety tests are designed to be failed. There have been studies in which officers were tasked with determining who was/wasn't drunk based on their sobriety test. The rate they got correct, 14%. They thought that 18/21 had been drinking. In fact, all 21 were completely sober. Deal! They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin So based on your agreement or disagreement it should supersede the rights of others? How disappointing to hear.

Just a wild guess, a blind stab at this one... Being awesome.

Apologize. My post wasn't clear. That comment wasn't directed at you, but rather was a generalization of the uninformed public who think the police are always all nice and everything they say and do is right. But anyways... Kettle meet pot.

Tinfoil hats? There is a ton of video evidence, criminal cases, civil suits, and what the heck, Supreme Court rulings and case law regarding the subject. Tinfoil hat not necessary. As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss. It is always easier and usually you remain happier if you stay in your little hole where you don't know what is going on...until it effects you. I can't blame anyone for that.

How many of them were convicted? Though not on this forum, but I have consistently advocated for MORE severe punishment for drunk drivers. With that said, I don't agree with DUI checkpoints a single bit. They are unconstitutional, and even even though legal, most are operated illegally. If instead of stopping everybody at these BS checkpoints, they just sat at the side of the road and pulled over those who looked like they were driving drunk, then nobody has rights violated, they still get those breaking the law and driving dangerously, and everybody wins. To clarify, when I say 'those who looked like they were driving drunk", I mean those actually driving in a manner that would make you think they are drunk, (or just a terrible driver) like swerving for example.

Edited for truth.

There are over three times as many DUI arrests made from routine patrols as there are from DUI checkpoints. They cost less, are more effective, and don't infringe on peoples liberties under the guise of public safety. So why are DUI checkpoints still done? For the exact reasons already stated. Revenue.

Later in the episode the brother-in-law (the one who took it and started pulling the trigger and pointing it) used it, with the side locked open, as a bong to get high from. The League is hilarious.

The last thing you should ever do is volunteer information.

You sure about that one?

Seriously? Edit: Watch the above video. I think you might change your opinion afterwards.

Well some people you know, support their rights. It is views like this why are rights are constantly eroded, over 'safety'. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin You need to take a look at the constitution then. Particularly the Bill of Rights, more specifically the 4th Amendment. Might as well take a look at the 5th Amendment while your at it. Heck, the whole thing would be nice. That is exactly what you should do. What bizarro world do you live in? That is hilarious! So it is okay to profile by age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and anything else one choices then?

I don't get it. I keep both a pen and pencil on my shoulder at work everyday. What is tactical about it?

Glad to hear you support violations to our 4th Amendment. Bravo for standing up for the oppression of our rights! Heil, mein Führer!

George Washington said it best. Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

The courts have upheld that DUI and Immigration checkpoints are allowed but ONLY under limited circumstances and ONLY related to DUI and Immigrations checks. As soon as they do anything other then that, they are operating outside the scope of their legality, and these become illegal. As I understand, they cannot even require you to produce a drivers license UNLESS they have REASONABLE suspicion that you are drunk. Regardless, I strongly doubt that any of these checkpoints follow the law as required at all times. Therefore they are likely ILLEGAL and have no business being done. You know where else that random suspicion less checkpoints took place? Nazi Germany. I strongly encourage anyone who goes through a checkpoint like this to both refuse to answer ANY questions, any I mean ANY and every, and to also record the encounter. The only one who is going to protect you, and your rights, is yourself. Basically, they are illegal revenue grabbers.

My head hurts.