Recent Posts
The media can call them DWI or DUI Checkpoints but in fact they are illegal under Texas Law. They will as a rule increase their Document checks for License and Insurance around the Holidays as a cover for their true intent of finding drunk drivers but it can be a thin Ice situation. There are several things can be considered if someone is arrested for DUI at a supposed License check. Some of these are that in order to be leagl 100% of the cars passing that point must be stopped, the proximity to a bar or other establishment where alcohol is consumed is another. A Lawyer can rip many of these arrests apart if the PD isn't very careful. Another thing to keep in mind is that DUI/DWI Checkpoints are legal under New Mexico Law so the Media will announce these around the Holidays. There are many facets to this issue and I am not that knowledeable about all of them, that is why I contact my friends in Law Enforcement to verify. I figure it this way. I don't drink and drive so they can ask me whatever they like and look at my eyes if they want to. What they can not do is detain me unreasonably, or search my car without probable cause. I will normally give the LEO about 2 minutes after he has seen my License and insurance and then I will start to question him. I will ask if I am being detained, then when he says no as they always do I will make the comment, "Then I am free to go correct?' It has never failed yet to get me away from an LEO that is in a bad mood and wanting to screw with someone. Luckily I don't need to do it often as the vast majority of LEOs I have met and interacted with are professionals. (Mar 26, 2013 | post #57)
One other thing there Pam. A bright light will cause the eye to constrict not dilate. The Pupil Dilates in order to allow more light in not to keep light out. (Mar 26, 2013 | post #52)
Sorry but you are wrong. Look at the first line of the article. It states that the man and his wife were going through the Border Patrol Checkpoint. Then look at Post #5 and see where that poster stated that at the Border Patrol Checkpoint if they search your car and find nothing that YOU must put it back together. That was a wrong statement so I provided what is the actual procedure. No one is arrested based simply on an EYEBALL Check. They may use that to justify further examination but that is not the only evidence used. By the way just for clarity sake, in Texas DUI Checkpoints are illegal. What is not illegal is License and insurance checkpoints. At these places if they detect other things, like drunkenness, or maybe weed they can then investigate but they can not set up a roadblock specifically to check for DUI. So Sorry but your statement is wrong on multiple grounds. (Mar 26, 2013 | post #51)
Now in the name of clarity. I asked a good friend of mine about the Checkpoints and the procedures there. He gave me this information. When at a Border Patrol Checkpoint the Agent will ask general questions at the initial stop. That is all they are allowed to do. Should they have a suspicion of something illegal in the vehicle, note the word suspicion, then they can legally direct that vehicle to the secondary check point. At the secondary checkpoint they can conduct a search of the vehicle. When the search is complete, if they have found nothing, they must return the vehicle to its previouos state. The owner of the vehicle is only responsible to make sure that they put his vehicle back together right. If they damage anything during the search or while reassemling it the owner should aske for a supervisor and file a claim. PProbable Cause is not required, just reasonable suspicion. By the way my friend that gave me this info is an active Border Patrol Agent in Texas. (Mar 26, 2013 | post #48)
That limp excuse is Old, Lame, and useless just like you. I lways find it amazing that when no refererence whatsoever is made to race that you use it as a crutch to try and hide from yur own shortcommings. I don't give a rats backside what race you are. Anyone that sends a 13 year old kid to buy beer illegally should be arrested and charged. (Mar 26, 2013 | post #47)
By sending a 13 year old to buy beer mavis should have been arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. (Mar 25, 2013 | post #40)
Sorry but you lose again. You do not have to pay for your right to own a gun. The only thing you have to pay for is the possible right to carry it concealed which is an entirely different matter. The cases were listed so look them up if you dounbt the decision. The States and munmicipalities have passed laws that may not have been challenged in court yet. An example is New York that will be challenged and in all probablility be overturned. As to pay to pursue happiness depends what you want to do to pursue happiness. By the way New York and Nashville have not outlawed guns that is pur fabrication on your part. The case in Washington DC that was decided by the SCOTUS overturned a ban on handguns that was put in place by the City of Washington DC. You know if you are going to lie you should at least attempt to make it somewhat believable. (Jan 22, 2013 | post #60)
WRONG as usual. The second spells it out very clearly and it is a right to every citizen to own guns. Carrying concealed is a different issue and has nothing to do with owning a gun. I would think that someone that uses a moniker such as your would be at least up to date enough to know that the SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Ammendment adresses the individual right to have guns and does not require membership in any militia. "The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1] In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government" (Jan 22, 2013 | post #55)
A clash over gun shows on public property nears in Texas
What I see is you taking the standard antigun libtard stance. I provided multiple sources, all of which you opted to ignore. (Jan 21, 2013 | post #29)
A clash over gun shows on public property nears in Texas
Sorry but you were the one that quoted 90% not me. When I rebuked that number you stood by it so sorry but you are the one that picks and chooses what facts you want to look at. As to the entire Fox news thing, well prove any of the data that I presented from Fox News was false! You dismiss the data out of hand because it does not fit your antigun and anti second ammendment stance. You show your true colors with your last staement. You do not even understand the issue so how could you ever hope to argue with any semblance of reason on the subject? It is all about rights. It is about the rights that are promised under the constitution. It is about those rights that, "Shall not be infringed". (Jan 21, 2013 | post #28)
A clash over gun shows on public property nears in Texas
Your agenda is evident by your posts and it goes way beyond backgrouond checks. If it were only the background checks then why all the BS about guns in Mexico? You are antigun and anti second ammendment. You want the us public to be disarmed just like the rest of your libtard friends. Your posts speak volumes about your agenda and it is not what you stated in that post. (Jan 21, 2013 | post #27)
A clash over gun shows on public property nears in Texas
A little more updated data for you here. "Mexico has provided the ATF with information on 99,691 guns. The ATF determined that the source for 68,161 of the weapons was the United States — 68 percent of the total. The agency couldn’t determine a U.S. source or was unable to trace the request to a country of origin for the other guns. The 68 percent figure is down from estimates of 90 percent in years past when Mexico was sharing less information with the United States." So again your 90% figure is shown to be false. http://articles.wa shingtonpost.com/2 012-04-27/politics /35454066_1_operat ion-fast-and-furio us-assault-weapons -gun-traffic "The Mexican military recently reported nearly 9,000 police weapons "missing. " "One weapon - an AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle - tells the story. In 2006, this same kind of rifle - tracked by serial number - is legally sold by a U.S. manufacturer to the Mexican military. Three years later - it's found in a criminal stash in a region wracked by Mexican drug cartel violence." "That prompted a "sensitive " cable, uncovered by WikiLeaks, dated June 4, 2009, in which the U.S. State Department asked Mexico "how the AR-15" - meant only for the military or police - was "diverted " into criminal hands. And, more importantly, where the other rifles from the same shipment went: "Please account for the current location of the 1,030 AR-15 type rifles," reads the cable." " 2,476 guns to be sold to Mexico in 2006. In 2009, that number was up nearly 10 times, to 18,709. The State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves, and wouldn't give CBS News figures for 2010 or 2011." http://www.cbsnews .com/8301-500202_1 62-57337289/legal- u.s-gun-sales-to-m exico-arming-carte ls/ Provided tha link previously but as ususal you ignored it because it didn't match your agenda. (Jan 20, 2013 | post #25)
A clash over gun shows on public property nears in Texas
As usual with your type. Well here's a news flash or ya there genius. I did read that link long before you ever posted it. You see I, unlike you, gather information from multiple sources. You see while you pick and choose what references you will look at I look at al of them. You do have one thing right though as strange as that may seem. Just because a weapon can not be traced does not mean it didnt come from the US as it desn't mean that it did come from the US either. So what exactly is your point? As I stated and refereneced he source those supposed 68000 weaons reflect only 17% of the weapons found so why have the others not been presented? Why is there only reference to the ones they can trace to the US? It is very simple really. It is a propoganda campaign plain and simple. The Mexicans are trying to get aid from the US and the libtards are trying to paint the US as evil. (Jan 20, 2013 | post #22)
A clash over gun shows on public property nears in Texas
As is typial with you and your ilk if the facts do not match our agenda then just ignore them. You can not dispute any of the facts presented so you just disregar them. Here is a news flash for you. Many weapons manufactured n coun tries like China, or what used to be the eastern block of Europe do not place serial numbers on the weapons. Your flippant comment about manfactured on mars just goes to show hw ignorant you are. (Jan 20, 2013 | post #21)
A clash over gun shows on public property nears in Texas
By the way that 90% claim has been shown to be false. It is as I said a talking point for the libs. In fact only 17% of the gns found at Mexian crime scenes are traceable to the US. The vas majority of weapons found at Mexican Crime Scenes are never even submitted to the US for possible tracing because it is evident that hey do not come from the US. There are a number of reasons for this but one of the biggest is that the vast majority of guns found have no sera number. Not a removed serial number but never have had ne and that is a clear ndication that they were never manufactured in the US. The 90% comes from the guns submitted to the US for tracing. That is he guns that the Mexicans think ame from the US and are looking for confirmation f their beliefs. That is where the 90% comes from. So your 90% claim is false. Shoould you like to educate yourself a bit more here is the link to the facts. http://www.foxnews .com/politics/2009 /04/02/myth-percen t-small-fraction-g uns-mexico-come/ (Jan 20, 2013 | post #18)
Copyright ©2013 Topix LLC
