MSP: TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS LEAD TO RECOVERY OF THREE GUNS ON I-81

[gabe72]

that stretch of 81 is notorious around here for dot enforcement, we try to avoid it when we can, nothing to hide but when you are going to tow a vehicle its nice to not get held up while your vehicle gets looked over. this case mentioned he was from pa,dont agree with him transporting the pistols the way he did but the ak in the trunk if he is a pa resident just seems like an absurd overreach, as far as brass knuckles and chemical spray, I see a lot of things in peoples cars on a regular basis, from the punch devices to break glass, small batts, flashlights with tasers in them to hairspray and lighters, they make a nice fireball, that can be construed as a dangerous substance by there logic,you cant conceal carry in this state so what do you think people are going to do?

 

[gabe72]

just wait till you try and explain your ar with no serial number that you built from an 80 percent receiver to the msp after they "recover" it.

 

[Ranchero50]

Wasn't me...

Black 'burbans with lots of antennas, set up all through there during the day.

 

[fabsroman]

Mr. not so Smartt won't get much sympathy from me expressed on this website. I am okay with the AK in the trunk, but brass knuckles, chemical spray, a loaded gun in the glove box, another in the driver's side door? I may sound a bit judgmental (fine), but I am not saying he shouldn't be allowed to exercise his 2A Rights. What I am trying to say is we beat ourselves to death on this website trying to help one another understand and abide by all of the firearm transport laws (in and out of the State), even if we disagree with them, and this guy could apparently careless. Maybe he just drifted across the State line from PA? Frankly, and not knowing more of the details or his background, and necessarily ignoring the law, I don't think he did anything wrong. So I do wish him well, but how many of us are carrying brass knuckles and pepper spray, and transporting multiple handguns (at least one loaded in the glove box) inside our vehicles without a permit, not to mention the AK? Any one of these individual facts - not so bad - but combine them all and it at least seems like he got the attention he deserves?

Don't forget driving on I-81 using a handheld cellphone while not wearing a seatbelt. The guy was just begging to get arrested.

With that said, there are so many people out there in the world that have no idea what the law actually is, and firearms laws are insane. I am trying to figure out 922(r) as it pertains to a Benelli M4 and M2, and it isn't simple, and I am an attorney. Most people would not think twice about slapping a different stock on either of those guns and leaving it at that. Plus, they would think 922 is just before 9:30 in the morning.

 

[tcc722]

I think driving with no seatbelt and talking on the phone would have just resulted in tickets. The problem really started when the handgun was visible in his glove box. Most of the people I know don't keep it there, probably for that reason. Living on the border, it is hard to remember all the time to remove firearms from your vehicle when driving into Md. I have forgot before. I always keep them hidden anyway, so even if I got pulled over in Md, which seems to happen often, a cop wouldn't see them. The chance of a random car search when pulled over for something minor like a seatbelt, or cell phone, is slim to none. The guy shouldn't have kept a handgun in his glove box anyway. How is he going to reach it if he needed it?

 

[fabsroman]

I think driving with no seatbelt and talking on the phone would have just resulted in tickets. The problem really started when the handgun was visible in his glove box. Most of the people I know don't keep it there, probably for that reason. Living on the border, it is hard to remember all the time to remove firearms from your vehicle when driving into Md. I have forgot before. I always keep them hidden anyway, so even if I got pulled over in Md, which seems to happen often, a cop wouldn't see them. The chance of a random car search when pulled over for something minor like a seatbelt, or cell phone, is slim to none. The guy shouldn't have kept a handgun in his glove box anyway. How is he going to reach it if he needed it?

Of course they would have just resulted in citations. Thing is, they are reasons to get pulled over. Then, how smart is it to be going through the glove box looking for your registration when you have a loaded handgun in there. Just tell the officer you don't have the registration card and get an additional citation for something like $20 and call it a day.

While driving I try my utmost best to be 100% legal with everything, because traffic stops can be bad.

 

[FIREHAWK]

The ak pistol is not on then banned assault pistol list.

I was just saying that it couldn't be HBAR if it was an ak platform

 

[Ab_Normal]

So let me get this straight.

There is a task force set up in that area to catch a suspected road rage driver.

The police pull this guy over for talking on the cell and not wearing a seatbelt even though officers have indicated that they wouldn't pull people over for those violations.

The driver who was stopped had the means to defend himself against the suspected road rage driver because the police can't be everywhere and then they have no duty to help.

Then they arrest him for 'keeping and bearing arms'.

Who did this guy harm again? I must have missed it.

 

[teratos]

So let me get this straight.

There is a task force set up in that area to catch a suspected road rage driver.

The police pull this guy over for talking on the cell and not wearing a seatbelt even though officers have indicated that they wouldn't pull people over for those violations.

The driver who was stopped had the means to defend himself against the suspected road rage driver because the police can't be everywhere and then they have no duty to help.

Then they arrest him for 'keeping and bearing arms'.

Who did this guy harm again? I must have missed it.

Driving down the road, talking on the phone with NO HANDS ON THE WHEEL. F him. My wife and kids share the road with this a-hole. It's not who he harmed, it's who he could have harmed. If you can't drive in a safe manner, you should not be on the road. The rest of the stuff just confirms what a moron he is.

 

[swinokur]

What officers indicated they won't pull people over for phone and seatbelt violations?

Talking on the phone is now a primary violation. As stated, F him. I don't want my family's safety put in jeopardy by some selfish jerk, hands or no hands.

he got exactly what he deserved IMHO.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Driving down the road, talking on the phone with NO HANDS ON THE WHEEL. F him. My wife and kids share the road with this a-hole. It's not who he harmed, it's who he could have harmed. If you can't drive in a safe manner, you should not be on the road. The rest of the stuff just confirms what a moron he is.

And that is the whole premise that has allowed our liberties to be infringed upon.

Fundamentally I agree with you but if we continue to beg our overlords to protect us from what could be it will not bode well.

 

[teratos]

And that is the whole premise that has allowed our liberties to be infringed upon.

Fundamentally I agree with you but if we continue to beg our overlords to protect us from what could be it will not bode well.

Driving is not a Right. It is a privilege. This has nothing to do with liberty. There is potential to do a huge amount of harm if you do not handle your vehicle in a safe manner. In this instance, I want these laws to be enforced. I don't want to bury my family in the name of "liberty".

Let me get this straight:
1. You are OK with a guy driving down the highway with no hands on the steering wheel while talking on the phone.
2. Any action by the authorities because of the actions described in #1 are an infringement on personal liberties and are just another power-grab by our "overlords".

Gotcha.

 

[Brooklyn]

Using a cell phone while driving should be fellony. Waive the gun charges. The fellony cell use will solve the problem -- no one left out of jail to pay the jailers... freedom at last.. QED.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Driving is not a Right. It is a privilege. This has nothing to do with liberty. There is potential to do a huge amount of harm if you do not handle your vehicle in a safe manner. In this instance, I want these laws to be enforced. I don't want to bury my family in the name of "liberty".

Let me get this straight:
1. You are OK with a guy driving down the highway with no hands on the steering wheel while talking on the phone.
2. Any action by the authorities because of the actions described in #1 are an infringement on personal liberties and are just another power-grab by our "overlords".

Gotcha.

I think your hair must have blocked your vision.

I said I agree with you on the fundamentals. It is the nanny state mentality which has allowed people to be less concerned with their well being because someone else is looking out for them. As a doctor you see it all the time with people who want the miracle pill cure for everything instead of putting forth the effort to try to take steps to mitigate issues on their own.

 

[Jim12]

My only issue with this scenario is the MSP's press release's use of the word, "recovery."

From the misleading title, I thought they had recovered some stolen firearms. Too bad that that they didn't.

 

[teratos]

I think your hair must have blocked your vision.

I said I agree with you on the fundamentals. It is the nanny state mentality which has allowed people to be less concerned with their well being because someone else is looking out for them. As a doctor you see it all the time with people who want the miracle pill cure for everything instead of putting forth the effort to try to take steps to mitigate issues on their own.

My hair is kind of a mess right now.

We will have to agree to disagree. I don't see this as a nanny state. I see this particular incident as the police doing what they are supposed to do. This guy is a moron. He is creating an unsafe environment for other drivers on the road. They pulled him over for that. I don't see that as a nanny state. He is a potential danger.

 

[Ab_Normal]

My hair is kind of a mess right now.

We will have to agree to disagree. I don't see this as a nanny state. I see this particular incident as the police doing what they are supposed to do. This guy is a moron. He is creating an unsafe environment for other drivers on the road. They pulled him over for that. I don't see that as a nanny state. He is a potential danger.

You don't see Md as a nanny state?

What did he do that was unsafe that caused someone to be injured? There is potential danger in EVERYTHING. Should the government be involved in everything we do with people to watch over us all the time?

Pure and simple a lot of these things are about $. If they wanted to have an impact on cell phone use and such then the penalties for causing injury to someone while using one would be much stiffer.

 

[teratos]

You don't see Md as a nanny state?

I was referring to this incident. This is what LEO should be doing. Certainly MD is a nanny State, this incident is not an example of that, however.

What did he do that was unsafe that caused someone to be injured?

We have to wait for someone to die before stopping the behavior? Driving down the highway with no hands on the steering wheel while talking on the phone isn't enough.

There is potential danger in EVERYTHING. Should the government be involved in everything we do with people to watch over us all the time?Pure and simple a lot of these things are about $. If they wanted to have an impact on cell phone use and such then the penalties for causing injury to someone while using one would be much stiffer.

So this guy never should have been pulled over. We should have waited for him to kill someone and then give him a stiffer penalty. Reckless drivers are only pulled over in a nanny state. Gotcha.

 

[Brooklyn]

My hair is kind of a mess right now.

We will have to agree to disagree. I don't see this as a nanny state. I see this particular incident as the police doing what they are supposed to do. This guy is a moron. He is creating an unsafe environment for other drivers on the road. They pulled him over for that. I don't see that as a nanny state. He is a potential danger.

See thats what a nanny state is. Real dangers are being ignored while potential dangers are being hunted to extinction. Police action on cell phone use has nothing whatsoever to do with cell phone or their hazards as can bee seen by the drop in incidents per mile driven.

All police work is numbers game. The more interactions the police have with the public the more crime they will find. Since the 4a requires that police not have random check points ( although drink checks appear to be just fine as long as everyone is checked -- i can tell you they are doing more than drunk checks at these ' checkpoints' ) the need a reason to stop as many folks as possible.

Did you know that a failure to check all our mirrors at least ever 5 seconds is unsafe? Dis you know that a police officer can stop you if he or she thinks you are unsafe. Do you think you never fail to check your mirrors every 5 seconds? I the current cell phone law does not leas to the required number of police - citizen iterations-- there will be a call to pass ' fail to check mirrors' as a primary stop.


You think i am nuts. Ok thats fair.. lets see what happens if folks stop using cell phones andthe police need another reason


You may think this is worth the cost. Maybe it is..

But that homicidal maniac that they are looking for-- the one we should be outraged about--- he may well have driven right but while this ' menace to society -- this ' potential danger ' was being dealt with. ( not likely more likely he is so far gone its not funny )

Me, I think the state should worry more about real danger than potential ones.. but since I know what the cell phone law is really about --we can see that's what they are doing. Only 2 questions -- is it effective? and is it worth the cost in liberty?

 

[teratos]

See thats what a nanny state is. Real dangers are being ignored while potential dangers are being hunted to extinction.

This is a very real danger. You are insane.

Your definition of what a nanny state is is incorrect. In a nanny state, rules interfere with personal choice. Do you propose that reckless driving, in and of itself is NOT a crime? Is it only a crime when someone gets hurt or killed? It is a choice? Then I suppose rape and murder are choices too, and the nanny state should not get involved.

No, this is someone on a public road with the potential, and high likelihood, of causing real harm. This is EXACTLY what the police should be doing.

When your efforts to be uber-libertarians result in excusing things like reckless driving, it is hard to have a good conversation about a topic.