Trump kept talking about "Stop and Frisk" as being effective. That may be true, but without reasonable suspicion, it's also unconstitutional. We might not like it, but if a cop wanted to search you without cause, you wouldn't like it either.

Now is not the time for stop and frisk with all the BLM and issues we are having. I believe shooting incidents would increase as folks being stopped would retaliate and escalate into more violence.

I agree with you 100%. The fact that people in places like New York are willing to tolerate it is proof that people are willing to trade Liberty for perceived increases in safety.

Of course they are! They'll trade away whatever it takes to get evil guns off the streets and out of the hands of conservatives who would defend themselves. Only then can they take their heads out of the sand so they won't have to deal with reality. Just make it all go away so I can live off the gov't.

Not to mention "no fly no buy." I thought we were supposed to be more liberty minded than our idiotic brethren on the other side of this debate

Not according to the debate last night! They both agreed they should take away our liberties.

Crazy. I didn't think I was supposed to hear "I agree with Sec Clinton on this issue" so much

Chip, chip, chip ...

"Oh, stop/question/frisk is just fine. It's just a momentary inconvenience and the ends justify the means, right?"

"Oh, searching your vehicle randomly because we can is fine. It's just a momentary inconvenience and the ends justify the means, right?"

"Oh, you don't need any kind of semi-automatic weapon at all. Pistol, shotgun, rifle. No one needs those for hunting and they're "military arms." You can use a bolt-action single shot or a bow. It's not really and inconvenience and the ends justify the means, right?"

""Oh, going through your child's backpack and purse/bag/car is fine because we can is fine. It's just a momentary inconvenience and they're teenagers and teenagers do stupid stuff, so the ends justify the means, right?"

"Oh, searching your home randomly just because we can is fine. We may find evidence of a crime. It's OK. Just stand aside. It's just a momentary inconvenience and the ends justify the means, right?"

"Gun? No one needs any guns, really. The new liberal Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment pertains to militia and military, not individual citizens, so no one needs a gun. For the limited hunting allowed now by private citizens on their lands, since public lands hunting is prohibited, you can use an air rifle or archery gear. It's going to save lives and no one should see this as any kind of inconvenience."

Wait, how did all this start? Oh, yeah. Stop, question and frisk.

Chip, chip, chip ...

Sorry guys stop and frisk is constitutional based on the Supreme Court. The case was cited this morning.You may mot like it but unfortunately the SC is the final determiner of these things.

The constitution is something most politicians never consider.
Lot of stuff thats been goin on for years is unconstitutional.

In 1968, and a federal judge just disagreed with that ruling. I guess it might make its way back to the SCOTUS

Guiliani explained it this morning, it is legal and Hitlary and Lester Holt were wrong.

Thats the problem we have with the activist judges. They ignore the constitution.
After WW1 Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt had a direction they wanted the courts to move...instead of referring to the constitution, start refeering to past cases.
Thats how we got what we have now, twisting it to how some panty waste judges wants it. There is suppose to be probable cause.

Says who?

An activist struck down the Frisk law. It was appealed to a higher court and was over turned and sent back with instructions it needed to be heard by another So as it stands now it is legal. New York had a case to Strike the appeal for all time and when the Liberal Gov came in he dropped that case. Blks are foolish to dislike that law ! It cut down murders in the hood by a very large percent.

I think it's legal the way Rudy did it. Why I don't know but he pulled it off.

Perch, you know as well as I do that the end doesn't always justify the means. If reducing crime was all that mattered, we wouldn't have ANY civil liberties.

I was wondering if I woke up in a parallel universe. Stop and frisk is still legal until the US Supreme Court says different.

So, how is it not illegal search and seizure?

Every dang one of y'all know we'd all be crying if we woke up one day and they were frisking white males just walking on the street.
And guess what....it will be happening soon.

They don't stop and frisk on Wall St. They do it in high crime areas ! DUH Wonder why the ones frisk are blks and hispanics ? Its because they are the ones killing each other.

But the point is clear. If they were stopping and frisking everyone, which IMO they should be doing if they're going to do it, then white folks would have a flippin' come-apart and be calling legislators, police buddies, whoever they could to demand that it stop because it's unfair and they ain't done nothing wrong.

If White folks are in the high crime area you can bet your azz they get the same. Most whites don't get searched because they are not in high crime areas. Do you want to waste the polices times in low crime areas just so they can say they are fair ? Blacks cry because too many young blk men are in prison. I guess they'd rather have those animals loose in their neighborhoods. You don't do stupid things just to appear fair. Clem you are too liberal, you have never been shot at or carried a gun with instructions to protect lives. Look at the whole picture not just"lets be fair"

Police patrols don't infringe on the civil rights of poor folks. Of course they should patrol the projects more than my neighborhood.
But you can't say that just because someone is poor they lose their civil rights and should get frisked all the time, that's not how this works. Should they search their homes too? That might lower crime even more.

Because, next, they'll say that you're a risk because you're a white male. Point is, the government shouldn't get to decide who gets civil liberties, we should all get them.

Just so I'm clear, are we talking about Terry Stops? Supreme Court already ruled on that and they are fine or are we talking about just some random stop and frisk with not articulable reasonable suspicion? I've never heard of a court thinking that was OK and if it ever came up I think the Terry case pretty well lays it out.

don't be muddying up the legal waters there Mr. jawbone sir....

As long as there is reasonable suspicion, that changes everything.

Yep. We should never give up our freedoms because of what some folks have done,might do or could do.

The New York stop and frisk case was determined to be illegal. I don't care what Rudy said.

Stopping and frisking is not illegal in and of itself. But, the Terry standards must apply. Reasonable Suspicion that the individual is "armed and dangerous".

The court ruled that the baseless stop and frisk conducted by New York was no constitutional on two grounds. 1. It didn't require reasonable suspicion. 2. The evidence showed that the stops were conducted based on racial profiling.

Some of you may have no problem with racial profiling. But, just wait until it is Hitlery in charge and it is white males they are stopping and harassing.

doekiller, I agree. That same power can wind up bitin all of us in the butt.
Just because there is a statute or law doesn't mean that it's constitutionally legal.
Abe Lincoln did a lot of crap by the strong arm of the military/law but it was illegal.
Just showed the tyrant that he was.

No, this policy was requiring no reasonable suspicion.

Terry V. Ohio already covers this. That matter was asked and answered years ago and shouldn't be an issue unless The Supreme Court sees a reason to revisit it.

Does Alabama's Section 15-5-30 and 15-5-31 meet Terry standards? Is "reasonable suspicion" that a person MIGHT BE about to commit a public offense grounds for stop and frisk? That's Alabama law, not NY.

Pretty much except that Terry doesn't allow a "search". It only allows the LEO to "pat down" the subject. You can not conduct an invasive search unless a weapon is felt in the pat down.

How about DCNR rule 220-2-.12? Does it meet Terry standards?

I'm not familiar with DCNR regs except the ones I try to follow so I'll refer this question to Troy or one of our other wardens on here.

Ignorance is no excuse Jawbone.

Better not go hunting until you're familiar with all of 'em. Good luck with that.

220-2-12 calls for game and fish to be transported openly and allows fr the inspection of any car/boat/box/coat that carries game or fish to be inspected by officers of DCNR

not covered under Terry which covered looking for a weapon for officer safety.

Who says it's not covered by Terry?

Thanks for the advice, Eddie.

It's Earl.

I drove an 18 wheeler for 22 years. The laws are so complex that if a DOT officer does an inspection on your truck, they can write you a ticket for something if they really want to.
Lot of the laws are well known but it's the gray areas that most folks are not familiar with.
It would be better to just enforce the laws that make a real difference and don't violate individuals rights.
But, in today's world, to hell with the constitution and just do whatever we can get away with.

I've driven commercial vehicles as well. DOT rules have a "well regulated industry" exception.

Alabama courts ruled early on that hunting and fishing are not industries.

Using the public roadways is not a right either. It is a privilege afforded by the state to persons that get a DL.

No offense, but it sounds like Eddie. We've been down this road before and I don't know how DCNR explains it, especially since hunting in this state is now defined as a right. I'm hoping that one of the GWs will have the explanation.

I started driving in 1985 and sold my trucks in 2003. Went to work driving local after my daughter was born.
Left trucking altogether in 2007. We have more regulations than ever on the trucking industry and it's only gotten worse as far as safety goes. Federal Gov and states make a lot of revenue off trucks. Alabama was one of the most truck friendly states for the most part.
I'm all for real safety but the laws in this country have gotten way out of hand and common sense is thrown out the window.

It will be interesting to see what the game wardens have to say about it. I think someone mentioned earlier that a lot of people here believe the end justifies the means.

The rule goes beyond what the law requires and makes it a misdemeanor to refuse an inspection (search without warrant) on the condition that an officer identifies himself.

The rule dates back to the '80s. The right to hunt amendment was first ratified in '96, then we ratified another one a couple of years ago.

Good point.

I understand the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" worries,... but I can't start to understand why anyone would be against the no fly no buy thing. Are you worried about being on the no fly list yourself? I'm not, so it sounds like a good preventative measure to me

If you have nothing to hide then you really should never plead the 5th and you should always consent to a search, right? After all, nothing bad can happen if you're innocent.

People are worried because it's not that hard to get on the no fly list, and it's really hard to get off. They're worried that people will start putting their political enemies/people they don't like on the list.

Can't say in my 32 years I've ever been asked for a search. Also can't imagine why I would care. Pretty sure I'm 100% legal

There are people that get turned down or delayed on buying a gun because their name is the same or similar to someone prohibited from buying a gun. Imagine if someone with a name matching yours was on the no fly list how difficult and what hoops you would have to jump through to get that straight. And that's not even considering the fact that your name could be purposely put on the list for some odd reason. People used to not worry about the irs knocking on their door just because of their political beliefs. Not so true anymore.

Makes sense, I didn't realize that

Here's a copy/paste explanation of the whole "driving is a right/privilege, not a privilege/right" thing as I've always understood it...
from http://www.begnopardon.com/driving-vs-traveling.html

Driving vs. Traveling

Brought to you kind sir by the Supreme Court and our beautiful U.S. Constitution.

My dear friends, since humans were created they were free to travel how they saw fit. Likewise, Americans have shared in that same right since the dawn of our beautiful country. Americans have always had the right to travel freely and unencumbered from laws, regulations, statues, and licensing.

HISTORY
From the use of horse and buggy, to the early Model 'T', Americans have never been required to get "permission" to travel on the public roads or highways when it was for personal reasons. Has anything changed now that you have zippy fast cars?

Soon there were a lot of people on the roads for commercial purposes. This resulted in people lumbering along transporting generous loads on the roads with trucks and trailers, because of this the government felt the need to make laws and regulations to protect the innocent citizens from the dangers of this commercial traffic.

Following this, the government began requiring commercial drivers to register and obtain "licenses", basically this meant they were getting permission from the government for use on the public roads and highways for commercial use.

This lead to a creative revenue stream requiring a registration to be paid by these divers for their vehicles to subsidize the extra wear and tear on the public highways.

Kindly, the government opened this up to the general public to become 'drivers' by "allowing" them to register their cars and get driver's license if they choose.

"Then, through police misapplication, ticket writing, and false slogans such as “Driving is not a right, it is a privilege”, they have been able to get the general public to believe they had to be licensed and registered. It's like an old wives' tale which has become widely accepted. Even most cops (whose duty it is to know the law) don't know and don't care to learn these laws...They just like to keep writing those tickets....Cha-Chingggg."

CURRENT PROBLEM
When you find yourself before a judge, more than likely they will pretend that cases against the driver's license does not even exist or they will say the cases for previous Supreme Court ruling are too old... don't fret, we have a bullet proof argument!

So what does the judges in the Supreme Court have to say about this... since they are the ones who judge law and who ALL other lower courts are inferior to?

This is not an easy struggle, but you can end up like several others before you, and go as you please without a license, registration, or insurance.

"All citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, and regulations..." SHAPIRO v. THOMPSON 394 US 618
"The RIGHT of the citizen TO TRAVEL UPON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS and to transport his property thereon, either by horse-drawn carriage OR BY AUTOMOBILE, IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE which the city may prohibit or permit at will, BUT IS A COMMON RIGHT." THOMPSON v. SMITH, 155 Va 367
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." CHICAGO MOTOR COACH v. CHICAGO, 169 NE 221
”If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.” SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 US 262


My car is NOT a "Motor Vehicle"

USC Title 18, § 31 9(6) - Definition of "Motor Vehicle":

"The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers and property, or property or cargo."

USC Title 18, § 31(10) - Definition of "Commercial Purposes":

"The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of the persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking for profit."


So your car, SUV, or motorcycle is only a "commercial vehicle" if you are getting paid to "drive" it. If you are only using it to travel around to go to work, school, groceries, or any other private reason then it IS NOT A "MOTOR VEHICLE".

Here is the dilemma, when the government started requiring the commercial vehicles to be registered and licensed it made that a regulable activity for that purpose. They made everyone else believe it was the same for the general public. The police, you and all your friends are taught that you are always 'operating' a 'motor vehicle' which are both commercial regulable activites.

May the state change the definition of a word or term (MOTOR VEHICLE) from the original meaning (USC Title 18, § 31 (6) to another definition to fit their own needs? NO:

The state cannot change the meaning of “motor vehicle” and “driver” to fit their own needs: "Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so.” […The State] cannot change the name of a thing to avoid the mandates of the Constitution.]" CRAIG v. MISSOURI, U S 29, 410

What the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, says here is that the state cannot change the meaning of “person traveling” to “driver”, and they cannot change the name or term of “private car,” “pickup” or “motorcycle” to “Motor Vehicle”. You declare original intent to prove your standing!

Another protection provided to you from the beautiful Constitution is the burden of jurisdiction is on them to prove that you were not traveling, but instead driving. This subject of Due Process is a powerful tool against the circus and revenue agents, aka police.

A lot of bad things happen in times of war and strife. Look at the Patriot Act. If I pay cash for a pickup truck that cost $11.000, I will have to show where I got the money from, this is not right.
Just because the Federal government or the State passes a law doesn't mean it's right.
The law may be legal but the question should be is it lawful according to the constitution.
Our founders believed our rights are given to us by God, our humanity, not by the state.
Our founders would be shocked if they could see us now.
Charlie has a point,the government is way out of control.

So if you have done absolutely nothing wrong and are stopped randomly by a law enforcement officer for a pat-down and checking your ID, you would not care one iota and would not ask why or be mad about it?

I know I have been randomly pulled over while driving equipment down the road.

Understood. Innocent people are never set up and there are no innocent people in jail. I know you know that isn't true so I'm assuming you are just playing the odds and are good with complying knowing that most likely nothing bad will happen. I think you're right that you'd likely be fine and nothing bad would happen. I'm also sure their are people entangled in legal chaos right now who thought the same thing.

I guess if it happened multiple times it would be annoying. I've never considered it being a scenario that would effect me

How about sitting in a boat fishing ... or a shooting house or a tree stand hunting ... legally?

What's the standard there?

It has everything to do with how the selection is based. I'm fine if there are public due process proceedings and a time limit is given so it can't be drug out. The fact is, how trump and Hillary want it, a group of non elected people, in a back room somewhere can put anyone they want on the list.

I guess you are missing the point. As you say, it's already outlined as unconstitutional. Yet, wrap your head around this, trump is a proponent of trampling your constitutional rights, and Hillary wasn't............he wants the stop and frisk that was ruled unconstitutional in New York. Maybe it's going to be readdressed in his term if he wins....

Of coarse, Hillary is a woman of her word. Her word is whatever she thinks you want to hear. Trump just says whatever the first thing is to pop in his mind.

Truth is the president doesn't decide this issue one way or the other.

Unfortunately for us, they probably do in this election since they can nominate sc justices.

It takes two to tango on the thin blue line.

The 2nd amendment is a right protected by the Constitution. No right can be revoked without due process. No fly no buy bypasses due process. What if they said no fly no vote? Or no fly no freedom of speech/religion?

I got the point. He is pissing in the wind to claim it is constitutional, per se. Guiliani's argument is that some parts of New York are so crime infested that just being there and fitting a certain profile makes you reasonably suspicious. Personally, I think he's probably correct in his assertion, but it doesn't pass constitutional muster and it shouldn't be legal. Like I said, this question was answered years ago under Terry so what is new about it to make it reviewable?

BTW, Guiliani wrote a book awhile back titled Leadership in which he discusses these issues and crime in New York. It is my opinion that he was a good mayor for New York, especially considering the times, but he tries to take too much credit for Bill Bratton's work. Bratton was his Police Commissioner. Really an interesting book that discusses profiling issues in a post 9/11 America.

For the record, while I think Trump is wrong on this issue, it is far from being enough to pull me into the Hillary camp.

Interesting column in today's Wall Street Journal by Giuliani about SaF, and he says Trump was right:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-right-about-stop-and-frisk-1475018152

I didn't see the debate, so how did the topic come up? It sounded like to me that Hillary was suggesting that Trump wants to expand Stop and Frisk beyond the Terry decision.

There hasn't been an issue with the constitutionality of a Terry Stop since the decision. The only issues that are generally involved are if there was "reasonable suspicion" and whether or not the pat down was too invasive.

I guess that explains why Hillary couldn't pass the D.C. bar exam.

No, the topic got around to gun control/crime/etc. she gave her normal spiel. Trump brought up the stop and frisk model that was implemented in New York, said he liked that etc. she hammered him on it being ruled a. Unconstitutional b. Racially discriminating. That was the ruling in court. He the. Guffawed about how it wasn't unconstitutional, discriminatory, etc.

Very disturbing ideas he has, to go along with the social programs he advocates.

I havent figure out where he stands for sure on healthcare.
Hope he wont be another Socialist/ Light if he's elected.

For it to be unconstitutional, Fox News and their pundits are adamant that it is legal.

It is if there is reasonable suspicion. That is the key element that they keep leaving out of the equations.

Yep, that pesky reasonable suspicion...like stray was suspiciously checking the oil in his truck the other day.

Perzactly

With a gun showing in an iffy area known for robberies, that is going to fly in any court as reasonably suspicious. Like I first said on that matter, I'm not familiar with the area, so I don't know how bad it is.

Your right , it can be abused. It s been used to disperse crowds off the street and a lazy way to make a drug case.

Bad news, his views on healthcare don't differ much from the left

This is a perfect example of why we want the constitution followed. It's easy to view this stuff as acceptable when it isn't happening to you. It's another thing when it is happening to you. An easy example is no further away from Lois Lerner.