Mass Detention in search for bank robber

[Jack Burton]

You stated earlier that LE is not a "group", and no group is entitled to such.

I would argue that it is an entire profession. A profession that I might add, that has frequent contact with individuals with nefarious intentions, who also have access to firearms and intent to use the same upon LE. Not to mention a profession with a job description that firearms possession and use are requisite.

The bump on your rump, is apparently the one you took for the team....if you are able to discern my meaning.

Again... cops are not a "group" such as Latinos, left handed people, midgets, and red-heads are. Yes, you can refer to a "group of doctors, hotel clerks, dishwashers and cops". But in the context of the orginal post with the question, a group implied a collection of folk who shared an inherent quality that made them similar.


The "job description" is the responsibility of the community that hires the cop. Again, they can write that job description anyway they choose as long as they don't break certain discrimination and EEOC laws. If THEY choose not to make the firearms "requisite" they have full right to do so. For example, there are many state universities in the country where the university police do not carry firearms.

Universities rethink unarmed police - USATODAY.com

Why don't you try getting a job as a campus law enforcement at one of these colleges and then demand your "right" to carry a gun in spite of the campus regulations.

This is not rocket science.

 

[Jack Burton]

I understand what you are trying to say, but allow me to play Devil's Advocate. Yes, a private employer may restrict a persons behavior, but can a govt entity restrict a Constitutionally protected right due to their employment within the govt? Are not those employees still citizens capable of the militia qualification? The Constitution does not read, "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.... Unless you work for the govt, then we can make our our rules," it simply states "shall not be infringed."
One must keep in mind that the BoRs is a restriction on govt, not private parties.

Kut... please find me where any individual working for the government has a "Constitutionally protected right" to carry a firearm AS PART OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.

We are not talking about what you have tucked away under your pillow, or in the gun safe, or even what a cop carries when he is off duty. The discussion is about ON DUTY law enforcement and if the hiring authority has the ability to decide if those people are going to carry a firearm as part of their duty or not.

As noted with the link above and using college campuses as an example, of course they do. I realize that such things as collective bargaining may enter into the picture but we are discussing the broader powers of the government in this case. And the government certainly has the ability and the power to determine how it is going to structure and manage the law enforcement operations.

Can the governing community demand that Glocks be used by all LEOs under its authority? Of course. Can it demand that SIGS be used? Still of course? Can it demand that no back-up guns be allowed? Most certainly. Can it demand that back-ups only from a certain list be used. Still yes.

In every case concerning the firearms, even including none at all, the police department dances to the tune of the governing authority.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I understand what you are trying to say, but allow me to play Devil's Advocate. Yes, a private employer may restrict a persons behavior, but can a govt entity restrict a Constitutionally protected right due to their employment within the govt? Are not those employees still citizens capable of the militia qualification? The Constitution does not read, "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.... Unless you work for the govt, then we can make our our rules," it simply states "shall not be infringed."
One must keep in mind that the BoRs is a restriction on govt, not private parties.

I would point out that the Second Amendment is frequently not recognized within .gov-owned properties. I will agree that 'shall not be infringed' means 'shall not be infringed' but when within the lives of any living citizen has the .gov gone by the Constitution?

 

[Libertarian01]

I would point out that the Second Amendment is frequently not recognized within .gov-owned properties...

IndyDave1776,

Yeah, but it should be!

Regards,

Doug

PS - Not picking on you directly Sir, just mad that 2A doesn't apply EVERYWHERE, especially taxpayer funded locations.

 

[Bunnykid68]

IndyDave1776,

Yeah, but it should be!

Regards,

Doug

PS - Not picking on you directly Sir, just mad that 2A doesn't apply EVERYWHERE, especially taxpayer funded locations.

It does apply everywhere, but are you willing to accept the repercussions for those that say it is not.

 

[Lex Concord]

Yes, a private employer may restrict a persons behavior, but can a govt entity restrict a Constitutionally protected right due to their employment within the govt? parties.

Name one non-"LEO" federal employer that ALLOWS firearms to be carried on duty.

USPS - only Postal Inspectors carry guns (technically LEO...but really)

Yes, it seems that a government employer most certainly can and does restrict firearms possession on the job.

Unless of course you were assuming we would someday squeeze out enough unicorn tears to mix with a jar of distilled rainbow juice for those in Rome on the Potomac to drink, thus enabling them to see the light of an inviolable right in the second amendment in which case no, no they couldn't.

 

[CarmelHP]

Way back, before 1934, FBI agents were prohibited from carrying firearms without the permission of local law enforcement in the jurisdiction in which they were operating.

 

[Jack Burton]

Name one non-"LEO" federal employer that ALLOWS firearms to be carried on duty.

USPS - only Postal Inspectors carry guns (technically LEO...but really)

Yes, it seems that a government employer most certainly can and does restrict firearms possession on the job.

Unless of course you were assuming we would someday squeeze out enough unicorn tears to mix with a jar of distilled rainbow juice for those in Rome on the Potomac to drink, thus enabling them to see the light of an inviolable right in the second amendment in which case no, no they couldn't.

Again... a JOB DESCRIPTION has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, which was the point of the original question.

If someone's federal job was to "fix computers" and they had a 2nd Amendment right to carry on the job that would have nothing to do with their job description of fixing computers. If their job description specifically called for them to do their job without the presence of a firearm on the job that has everything to do with their job description and nothing to do with their 2nd Amendment rights.

We all have 1st Amendment rights but a job description could very well say -- and many do -- that you have no freedom to discuss your job with anyone else outside of the company.

A governing jurisdiction can adopt a policy that a LEO cannot officially carry a firearm WHILE ON DUTY as part of the job description without having a single thing to do with the inviolable right of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[rambone]

UPDATE (Jan. 2013)

The citizens who were treated like criminals are suing the police.

Citizens caught in chaos of unusual bank robbery ‘dragnet’ take police to court

 

[TaunTaun]

Good update. I like it when necroposts bring a real update to a story we should be all interested in.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sounds like the chief flunked out of constitutional law class:

At the time, Aurora police chief Dan Oates came out defending his officers saying he did not believe anyone’s constitutional rights were violated. “The law is clear that investigative detentions are lawful for a reasonable period of time, determined by facts and circumstances. [The] suspect was in one of 19 cars. No question we inconvenienced citizens. We feel badly about that and we apologize again to them today. But we made a tough choice here and we arrested a very dangerous bank robber.”

First, one wonders about the detention of everyone in the general area in which a suspect is thought to be with no particular RAS applied to any of them, and second, if he actually believes that treatment sufficiently rough to cause injuries to bystanders is appropriate, he needs stripped of his law enforcement credentials under conditions that he would never be able to wear a badge again.

 

[Liberty1911]

Thanks for the update.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

Agreed. They were only handcuffed and held for 2 hours or so. None of those people probably had jobs or families or anything like that that results in obligations to be places and do stuff.

Police State Suspension of Fourth Amendment!


Wonder what would have happened it the criminal statrted shooting and the handcuffed citizens couldn't seek cover?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Police State Suspension of Fourth Amendment!


Wonder what would have happened it the criminal statrted shooting and the handcuffed citizens couldn't seek cover?

We would be having 24/7 media coverage of how they were murdered by the diabolical gunman in spite of the valiant police doing everything humanly possible to stop it, fact notwithstanding that the police manufactured the problem in the first place.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

The other people who had been held at the intersection were allowed to leave once the suspect was apprehended.

This is also an odd statement, it is almost like it was discretionary permission to be allowed to leave!

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

It appears to me that incidents such as these are authorities showboating power under the guise of protecting the sheep.... almost like everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise.

After the police violated law-abiding citizens rights under the 4th Amendment, and allowed them to leave after proof of their innocence by the capture of the real criminal!

Something is horribly wrong with this mindset of our government!

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is also an odd statement, it is almost like it was discretionary permission to be allowed to leave!

Absolutely! This is the police state in action. Rather than having rights which represent the limits on the police, the police have the power and you should be thankful for anything they graciously allow you to do. Those people should be thankful that the police let them leave rather than further scrutinizing them. After all, they may being doing something wrong themselves, and if you have nothing to hide...

Apply purple as needed.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

Absolutely! This is the police state in action. Rather than having rights which represent the limits on the police, the police have the power and you should be thankful for anything they graciously allow you to do. Those people should be thankful that the police let them leave rather than further scrutinizing them. After all, they may being doing something wrong themselves, and if you have nothing to hide...

Apply purple as needed.

Granted permission to leave only after proof of innocence which was the capture of the real criminal....... being handcuffed against their will as far as I am concerned is being arrested or detained even though the police had no reason to suspect everyone.

I wonder if these kind of police actions are justified under the NDAA or numerous other police state laws passed recently?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Granted permission to leave only after proof of innocence which was the capture of the real criminal....... being handcuffed against their will as far as I am concerned is being arrested or detained even though the police had no reason to suspect everyone.

I wonder if these kind of police actions are justified under the NDAA or numerous other police state laws passed recently?

If nothing else, I am sure the 'secret' portions of the PATRIOT Act which some legislators acknowledge to exist but of course are not available to us have something to say about this, not that it rightly supersedes the Constitution.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

If nothing else, I am sure the 'secret' portions of the PATRIOT Act which some legislators acknowledge to exist but of course are not available to us have something to say about this, not that it rightly supersedes the Constitution.

This is definitely a major problem for citizens, all these closed door secret legislation affecting the free movement and rights of people. This federal government is way out of control and become bolder by the day.....

We are treated as criminals and potential terrorists by proclamation of law supposedly for our own protection.

Try and get on plane, bus or train and have government officials molesting you.

Many different types of abuses go on and on... until you get to Obama's declaration that he has a right under law to kill anyone that he deems a threat to the security of the United States or is it the security of his political agenda! I forget which.......

I don't even know how we can begin to push this monster back!