Thread: Your Rights Have Been Suspended

June 29, 2009

Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.
According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of the NRA. No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal.

Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

However, not only does Louisiana law allow resident to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!

What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling -- going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less?

Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.

In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.

Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."

Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:

Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.

Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer -- it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.

[. . .]

Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.

Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct?

Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. -- DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:

According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun -- willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.

From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.


NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.

So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation -- including dying -- and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop."

What to do?

1. Read Luke's commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.
2. Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.
3. Call Mayor Glover's office to complain: (318) 673-5050.



I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.



While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.

In liberty,
signature
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur, do not offer any information that is not pertenent to the traffic stop. What say you? What does your local/state laws say?

Originally Posted by 1wiseguy

I concur, do not offer any information that is not pertenent to the traffic stop. What say you? What does your local/state laws say?

wiseguy, what people really need to do is to know their Rights and what the LAW states in whatever State they're in.

Here in Massachusetts I DO NOT have to inform an officer that I am carrying a concealed firearm on my person unless I am under arrest and asked directly by the officer. Now for my and the officer's safety I'm going to tell him that I'm armed if I get pulled over, but I am not REQUIRED to.

HOWEVER, in Connecticut, I would be REQUIRED BY LAW to inform any law enforcement officer who I was stopped by (either on foot or in a vehicle) that I have a firearm on my person IMMEDIATELY and to follow any commands relative to the disposition of that firearm without resistance.

Originally Posted by The_Grinch

wiseguy, what people really need to do is to know their Rights and what the LAW states in whatever State they're in.

Here in Massachusetts I DO NOT have to inform an officer that I am carrying a concealed firearm on my person unless I am under arrest and asked directly by the officer. Now for my and the officer's safety I'm going to tell him that I'm armed if I get pulled over, but I am not REQUIRED to.

HOWEVER, in Connecticut, I would be REQUIRED BY LAW to inform any law enforcement officer who I was stopped by (either on foot or in a vehicle) that I have a firearm on my person IMMEDIATELY and to follow any commands relative to the disposition of that firearm without resistance.

I agree. If you don't know your rights some one some where will trample on them --usually to your own detriment. That is why I have a little card given to me by my lawyers that I have on retainer that in the event that I am stopped and the LEO asks me inappropriate questions regarding my firearms or their disposition I simply hand them the card and they are required to discuss any issues with my lawyer right then and there. Of course we are talking about a simple traffic stop. If it were a real criminal investigation then I am ready and willing to comply for the safety of all involved just as you pointed out... but to pull me over for failure to signal while turning and then go directly after me for being a firearms supporter of owner...no way...That LEO has just chosen to have one of the worst days of his career...and I'll be happy to oblige.

Originally Posted by 1wiseguy

June 29, 2009

Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.
According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of the NRA. No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal.

Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

However, not only does Louisiana law allow resident to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!

What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling -- going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less?

Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.

In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.

Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."

Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:

Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.

Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer -- it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.

[. . .]

Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.

Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct?

Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. -- DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:

According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun -- willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.

From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.


NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.

So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation -- including dying -- and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop."

What to do?

1. Read Luke's commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.
2. Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.
3. Call Mayor Glover's office to complain: (318) 673-5050.



I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.



While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.

In liberty,
signature
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur, do not offer any information that is not pertenent to the traffic stop. What say you? What does your local/state laws say?

Gotta shoot them Anti American Pigs...aim for the groin!

Originally Posted by JFC

Gotta shoot them Anti American Pigs...aim for the groin!

Can we classify that as a HEAD shot?

I just cannot believe this is happening in OUR U.S.A....ž�žit, we are becoming the USSR quick....

I received this posting in an email from a friend. He knows I am in the gun business so he asked me to look into it.

I spoke today with Assistant Police Chief Mark Holley of Shreveport PD. He tells a very different story. He assured me that 1) this is an isolated incident; and 2) Shreveport is not out confiscating guns or profiling people with pro gun stickers on their cars.

After a long conversation with Chief Holley, I learned that most members of SPD are NRA members and very strong gun rights advocates. In fact, they encourage people to get a concealed carry permit and the training. They remind people that the police are rarely present when a crime is committed.

In this case, the person in question was stopped for a traffic violation. As required by LA law, the person having a CHL disclosed that he was carrying a firearm. For the safety of the officer and the driver, the officer took temporary custody of the firearm as he is allowed to do by LA law (statutes, not the tv show).

He said the "stop video" shows the officer and the driver actually had a very friendly conversation. No ticket was written and the firearm was returned to the driver before he left the scene.

I have asked for a copy of the stop tape and hope to get it in the next couple of weeks.

Not sure how this got so blown out of proportion but I am satisfied from talking to the Mayor's office and the PD that Shreveport LA is not out violating the gun rights of lawful citizens.

I will continue to follow up with SPD for more details and the video and will keep you posted.

What? No comments?

Originally Posted by BPNovum

I received this posting in an email from a friend. He knows I am in the gun business so he asked me to look into it.

I spoke today with Assistant Police Chief Mark Holley of Shreveport PD. He tells a very different story. He assured me that 1) this is an isolated incident; and 2) Shreveport is not out confiscating guns or profiling people with pro gun stickers on their cars.

After a long conversation with Chief Holley, I learned that most members of SPD are NRA members and very strong gun rights advocates. In fact, they encourage people to get a concealed carry permit and the training. They remind people that the police are rarely present when a crime is committed.

In this case, the person in question was stopped for a traffic violation. As required by LA law, the person having a CHL disclosed that he was carrying a firearm. For the safety of the officer and the driver, the officer took temporary custody of the firearm as he is allowed to do by LA law (statutes, not the tv show).

He said the "stop video" shows the officer and the driver actually had a very friendly conversation. No ticket was written and the firearm was returned to the driver before he left the scene.

I have asked for a copy of the stop tape and hope to get it in the next couple of weeks.

Not sure how this got so blown out of proportion but I am satisfied from talking to the Mayor's office and the PD that Shreveport LA is not out violating the gun rights of lawful citizens.

I will continue to follow up with SPD for more details and the video and will keep you posted.

Thanks. I'll look forward to seeing what you post..... But answer me this. If everything happened like you posted then why did the Chief say that this was an "isolated" incident? What is so isolated about it? Something is amiss here. Are you telling me that the description the Chief provided you is an exception and in fact they do profile and confiscate guns as a norm? Sounds fishy. Something isn't right here.

I don't want to be part of spreading a rumor but the source of my post is known to me and he is not a propagandist. If he wasn't known to me, I don't think I would have posted it. I have listened to Mayor Glover's phone call with Mr. Baillio but I did not hear it in its entirety. As best as I can tell the report in my post is an accurate depiction of what transpired. So this is interesting. I don't have a problem with what you posted if in fact it happened in that way, but like you said, it is a very different story.

For me, I judge by actions and deeds, not by what is said over a phone conversation. I don't trust this administration and I don't trust government in general--especially out of my area. Personally, I have 3 calls in to Mayor Glover's office and I have yet to talk with him in person. I left a message on the third call to register my concerns and complaint and relayed what my needs are and I asked for clarification in writing as to what is expected of me in a similar situation since I travel through that area from time to time. They now know what my needs are and how I expect them to respect my rights and how we can both work together to properly deal with me procedurally in such a situation so that the change of custody of any property will not be necessary... unless of course I have committed a real crime-- not just a traffic violation. But again, I'm looking forward to seeing the video you get on this matter and I'd like to know if you have any information as to what was so "isolated" about what should be SOP and not an incident? Something is wrong with what you posted here. Thanks for your post.

Gun confiscation after Katrina

YouTube ? NRA The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina Video

Imagine if the cops went after the gangster of the Federal Reserve and Bush crime family?