Got a gun in your car?'
Under "certain circumstances" and in "some areas", you may be treated as if you were a felon if you're pulled over, and if a subsequent search of your car reveals that you are in possession of a gun.
Apparently, it doesn't matter that you don't have a criminal record, or that you are not a "fugitive", or that you have a Concealed Carry Permit.. All that matters is that you are someone who they don't know personally, and you are in possession of a firearm (see: Second Amendment).
I don't know more about the issue than you can learn from the link (below); but I know that it infringes on MY Constitutional Rights. If I can be disarmed ... or arrested ... by police simply because I have a gun in my car, then my Second Amendment rights have just been abridged. And the Constitution says that is "NOT OKAY!"
Curious ... I wonder if I can confiscate the firearms worn by the police who would search my automobile; certainly, if they can take my guns, why can't I take theirs? They have no more rights than I do, (Well, they have the force which they may impose upon me ... but is that American?)
Robinson v. US:
On July 24, Gun Owners and Gun Owners Foundation filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Robinson v. United States. Click -the link
above- to read the brief. This brief urges the High Court to review a court of appeals decision that authorizes the police to search and disarm a gun owner at a traffic stop — even if the firearm is being lawfully carried under state law. (emphasis added) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had ruled that the police are justified in treating anyone who may have a gun as if he were an armed and dangerous criminal — including drawing their guns, ordering him out of the car, and disarming him.
Our brief argued that lawful gun carriers actually are among the most trustworthy people in our society, and pose virtually no danger to the police. Not only did the Second Amendment’s framers trust gun owners, most state governments do as well, along with the overwhelming majority of police officers. It appears that it is only unelected, liberal federal judges distrust lawful gun owners. We explain that a citizen’s exercise of his Second Amendment rights to bear arms should not cause him to waive his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from searches and seizures of his property. Lastly, our brief dispelled the notion that firearms themselves are “inherently dangerous,” and that the lower court’s opinion will only serve to create problems between the police and gun owners during traffic stops.I suggest that I have had more rounds aimed at me .. by weight and count ... from "Friendly Fire" than nine out of ten police have cringed under. I have had mornings in Viet Nam when I had to shake out my bed-tarp to rid it of shrapnel, myself having spent my night in a tree.
It's not that policemen are wimps; it's just that they take incoming fire more personally.
But when the Democrats come after me because I have a gun in my car , even though I have a concealed carry permit (and even though I am protected by the Second Amendment), I begin to wonder just whose side they are on.
Certainly, they're not on MY side; they don't want me to have a gun because ... I don't know; they don't trust me to be armed and not a felon? (Considering the recent legislation, which seems to provide more rights to convicted felons, I wonder if the Democrats like them more than Registered Republicans~!)
femiistas more more Maacho?