Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Member #
    3312
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lubbock, Tx
    Posts
    30,479
    Liked
    22582 times

    Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers

    Ok, most all our lives, we've heard that igrnorance of the law is not an excuse when we mear mortals do something against the law we were not aware of, and if we break a law we are not aware of, like speeding through a 45 mile an hour zone (sign partially obscured by a convenient low hanging tree branch), then we pay the fine or do the time. On the other hand, say a local yokel lawman arrests one of us for open carrying in a state or locale where it is legal, but the local yokel lawman is ignorant of said law and arrests us, me or you for doing so. We go to sue (after we have been released from jail) for false arrest only to find there is a law which protects law enforcement officials from said lawsuits for their ignorance of the law. How come lawmen can be ignorant and we can't? Something just seems a little wrong with this picture.
    "Color Me Proudly Deplorable!"

    "We the Government, By the Government, For the Government!"

    The Tree of Liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of socialists and tyrants, it's time to fertilize the tree....Jake

    Dead Squirrels flag no tails! Jake

    "Be Patriotic, Buy A Gun!" Jake

    I run around with the guy who built the Eiffel Tower....Top That!









  2. #2
    Administrator

    Member #
    2203
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    33,404
    Liked
    30950 times

    Re: Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers

    What complicates things is how fast some laws change, and how enforcement of said laws changes as well. I'm sure personal opinion enters into it at some level as well, some cops just don't think that citizens should carry a gun. Thankfully, I believe most of these are in the minority.
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" - Benjamin Franklin

    When Leonidas was preparing to make his stand, a Persian envoy arrived. The envoy explained to Leonidas the futility of trying to resist the advance of the huge Persian army and demanded that the Spartans lay down their arms. Leonidas told Xerxes "MOLON LABE", or "Come And Get Them."

    NRA and TSRA member, and proud Texas LTC holder

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Member #
    8756
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Upper Utah
    Posts
    844
    Liked
    2 times

    Re: Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers

    I agree with that. Laws do change quickly. And, I think in some cases, LEOs get pressure from anti-gun chiefs, police commissioners, city councils, and mayors to crack down on CCW carriers. This seems to happen most frequently after a rash of shootings like the ones that have taken place recently.
    NRA Member
    Taurus 24/7 Pro 9mm
    Taurus PT92AF
    Polish P64 9x18
    Springfield 87A .22LR semi-auto
    Phoenix Arms HP22A
    CZ 82 9x18
    Mauser 7x57 bolt action

  4. Remove Advertisements
    TaurusArmed.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Member #
    3312
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lubbock, Tx
    Posts
    30,479
    Liked
    22582 times

    Re: Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers

    So folks who enforce the law should not be held as accountable for knowing changes in the law as citizens who might unknowingly break a new law? I still have a little trouble with that double standard. Civilians are rarely given a break for the same lack of knowledge the LEOs are protected from. It just doesn't seem quite right to me. And this wouldn't just necessarily apply to just gun laws.
    "Color Me Proudly Deplorable!"

    "We the Government, By the Government, For the Government!"

    The Tree of Liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of socialists and tyrants, it's time to fertilize the tree....Jake

    Dead Squirrels flag no tails! Jake

    "Be Patriotic, Buy A Gun!" Jake

    I run around with the guy who built the Eiffel Tower....Top That!









  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Member #
    6090
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Marion,OH
    Posts
    846
    Liked
    61 times

    Re: Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers

    Come on Jake ,you know laws don't apply to LEO's
    "Power stems from the barrel of a gun" - Mao Tse-Tung
    "Ignorance can be corrected through education. Stupid is just permanent!!!" - Tslepebull
    "Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!" - Unknown

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Member #
    7434
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Livingston, TX
    Posts
    1,083
    Liked
    177 times

    Re: Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers

    Look at the situation in Shreveport, LA, where the mayor has commanded his leo's to profile vehicles with NRA/pro shooting decals and to disarm and confiscate firearms from the drivers. It matters not that these officers apparently do not know that open carry is legal, what matters is that the jackass in charge decides that HIS WILL is what will be enforced.
    NRA Range Safety Officer

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Member #
    6090
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Marion,OH
    Posts
    846
    Liked
    61 times

    Re: Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers

    Quote Originally Posted by SGR1971
    Come on Jake ,you know laws don't apply to LEO's
    Proof No charges before media coverage They lie saying there was.
    "Power stems from the barrel of a gun" - Mao Tse-Tung
    "Ignorance can be corrected through education. Stupid is just permanent!!!" - Tslepebull
    "Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!" - Unknown

  9. #8
    BANNED
    Member #
    7681
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    824
    Liked
    441 times

    Re: Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers

    must be a local ordinance. here are just a few cases on the subject -

    Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
    officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
    premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
    case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the
    officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
    accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
    very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
    to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
    may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
    in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
    committed.”

    “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
    affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
    and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
    arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
    be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111.
    491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
    Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
    241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

    “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
    to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
    force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
    his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
    Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

    “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
    arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
    the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
    individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State,
    26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
    43 Tex. 93, 903.

    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
    be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
    defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
    battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

    “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
    the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
    and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v.
    Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
    he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
    it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
    officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
    resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
    his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which
    the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
    branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be
    no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
    Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
    ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
    human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in
    extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
    injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
    University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
    case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

    As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
    and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
    the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
    peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
    v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)


  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Member #
    3312
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lubbock, Tx
    Posts
    30,479
    Liked
    22582 times

    Re: Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers

    Here is what brought me to make this post:

    The Federal Transportation Law

    Concerning the interstate transportation of firearms, federal law provides at 18 USCS § 926A:

    § 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

    Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq.] from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

    Under this law, to legally transport a firearm interstate all the following need apply:

    (1) You are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm
    (2) It is lawful to possess AND carry the firearm in the place of origin
    (3) It is lawful to possess AND carry the firearm in the place of destination
    (4) The firearm must be unloaded
    (5) The firearm and any ammunition are not readily accessible OR directly accessible from the passenger compartment (if not possible see below)

    Note: In vehicles without a trunk separate from the passenger compartment any firearms AND ammunition must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

    Before engaging in interstate travel, the gun owner should ensure that all the above criteria apply before transporting firearms. Before travel, the gun owner should verify that it is legal to both carry and possess the firearm in the jurisdiction of origins and destination. Immediately before beginning travel the gun owner should ensure the firearms are all unloaded, unloaded all magazines, and secure them separately. Although not required by law, unless in a vehicle without a compartment separate of the passenger compartment, it is advisable to secure the guns also in a locked case or with individual locks. This may make transport also lawful under state or local law as well as federal law which will provide an extra layer of protection.

    Documentation

    There is nothing explicit in the statute that requires a gun owner to carry any type of documentation, such as gun permits or registrations, but it is advisable to do so because this could prevent unneeded problems and even arrest.

    The case of Torraco v. Port Auth., 539 F. Supp. 2d 632 (E.D.N.Y. 200 aptly illustrates how carrying documentation can avoid potential legal trouble. In Torraco two gun owners travelling through a New York City airport, attempting to transport their firearms, were subject to detention and arrest despite claiming federal law preempted any local or state gun laws prohibiting possession. The gun owners asserted the protection of federal law, but could not provide any documentation of their claims. Because the local officers were unfamiliar with this federal law and the plaintiffs could not produce any further evidence of their legal claims, they arrested the plaintiffs for illegal possession.

    The plaintiffs later sued the officers, making several claims; one among them was unlawful arrest. In dismissing the lawsuit, a federal district court held that even though the plaintiffs claimed protection of the federal law, since they were unable to verify their verbal claims with any documentation and since the officer was unfamiliar with the federal law, probable cause existed to make an arrest.

    The court in Torraco reasoned that since probable cause, “is knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime” the officer was not required to engage in an exhaustive investigation of the purely verbal claims before making an arrest. This means that simply verbally stating federal law makes possession or transportation legal is most likely not enough to avoid arrest.

    Because probable cause to make an arrest is a lower standard of evidence and can be easily reached given the correct factual circumstances, it is advisable for a gun owner to have documentation of lawful possession ready and to fully cooperate in the event of a police encounter.
    "Color Me Proudly Deplorable!"

    "We the Government, By the Government, For the Government!"

    The Tree of Liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of socialists and tyrants, it's time to fertilize the tree....Jake

    Dead Squirrels flag no tails! Jake

    "Be Patriotic, Buy A Gun!" Jake

    I run around with the guy who built the Eiffel Tower....Top That!









  11. #10
    JR
    JR is offline
    Senior Member
    Member #
    3054
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    10,781
    Liked
    8672 times

    Re: Ignorance of the law does not apply to the law enforcers

    First, you're dealing from an experience in NYC, notably the home of whacko judges, on all levels. They had GUNs, and hadn't been anointed by the government of NYC, for heavens sake.

    In much of the remainder of America, such a suit would have resulted in the Department paying a compensation for lost monies, and returning the guns.

    As for Shreveport, I contacted the Mayor via email, and he's a real charlatan. The story, according to him, had to do with a "possible DUI", although, under Louisiana law, after the mandatory notification of a CCW to the officer, the officer was required to perform a DUI testing if he felt there was reason to confiscate the gun, even temporarily. Evidently, the latest way to perform questionable traffic stops is too use the "DUI-card", as it trumps all other proper behavior. Sort of like some other ethnic minorities use.

    "The past is another country, he did things differently there."

 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New | Subscribed Threads | My Threads | My Posts

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

marion ohio ccw classes

Click on a term to search for related topics.