Your rights … have been suspended.
by CmdrFenix on Sep.17, 2009, under Political Discussion
Those ominous words come from Shreveport, Louisiana Mayor Cedric Glover. During a discussion with a motorist who was stopped for not using his directional, the motorist was polite and cooperative with the police officer, but ended up having his legally owned sidearm (with permit) secured by the officer and IMHO his rights violated. If this was just one incident, I would shrug it off as a bad day for that dept, but there is much more. Check out the article over at Pro Libertate, as he goes in depth about the incident and the part that caused me to write this article.
Any time a motorist is stopped by a police officer, insists Shreveport, Louisiana Mayor Cedric Glover, “Your rights … have been suspended.” This includes not only the freedom of movement, but also, in the event the officer inquires as to whether the driver is carrying a weapon, “Your right to be able to hold on to your weapon and say whether [you] have a weapon or not” — as well as the right to retain possession of that weapon, should the officer decide to confiscate it from you.
Yep, you just read that correctly, but the Mayor didn’t finish with that gem. He had much more to add.
Police officers, according to Glover, are invested with “a power that the President of the United States does not have … and that is the ability to be able to suspend your rights.”
This is “one of the things that I say to each and every one of the police officers who graduates from the Shreveport Police Academy since I’ve been mayor.” Fortunately for the public, one supposes, Mr. Glover remembers the lesson that Peter Parker learned from his kindly and sagacious uncle Ben — that is, with great power comes great responsibility. “You have to understand there is a great deal of power that is vested within … the law enforcement personnel of this country,” Glover insists. “It’s why there is a great deal of responsibility that has to go along with it.”
This wasn’t just a bad apple here, but a dept who was instructed in the misuse of their authority. There seems to be this myth going around that just being in possession of a gun is a danger to everyone around you, or that guns in the hands of police are the only way to stop gun violence. It doesn’t matter if you’ve had a safety course, practice on it regularly, or have never committed a crime in your life. As far as some of the anti-gun groups go, everyone should be disarmed for their own protection.
This Mayor Glover is also a member of the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”, which was supposed to be about getting rid of illegal weapons in major cities, but many of the policies this group supports seem to show a different agenda. It has been losing members rapidly for misrepresenting their positions and infringing on legal gun owners rights. Some of the resignations from this group include such remarks as:
Patricia Shontz (R) of Madeira Beach, Florida wrote,
“I am withdrawing because I believe the MAIG is attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns. Additionally, I have learned that the MAIG may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership.” She goes on to add, “It appears the MAIG has misrepresented itself to the Mayors of America and its citizens. This is gun control, not crime prevention.”
… and these statements come from both sides of the isle.
Mayor Josh Nowotarski (D) of Mount Penn, Pennsylvania, who wrote,
“I recently learned of the misrepresentations of the group and regret having joined in the first place.”
I am VERY glad to live here in NH where there is a very tolerant view of gun ownership. I have had a few encounters with Police for such things as traffic infringement, etc… At no point was I anything but respectful, and as a result they showed it back. I was also never searched and never had my sidearm confiscated. Now across the border in MA, that would be a different story, but that is why I also avoid going into that state if I can. If you live in Shreveport, Louisiana… write about this. Pass the word around, or feel free to move up to a cooler climate!
September 17th, 2009 on 9:32 am
I think you need some perspective. Before you use a title like “YOUR RIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED!” perhaps you should consider some context … what would have been a more accurate title is “A few cops and mayors are dipshits”.
Making a blanket statement like “YOUR RIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED” implies some wide-spread organized “official” action (not just effort) to directly, and bluntly, remove a few sections of the constitution by way of amendment.
Mountain from mole-hill, though the mole-hill admittedly stinks to holyhell and back. I’m on your site with everything you mentioned here, but mole-hill nontheless.
September 17th, 2009 on 12:48 pm
Well, the problem here is there IS a general stance that the media and police have been taking for sometime now, MA is prime example, that any firearm ownership is a danger to everyone. With what happened in New Orleans during Katrina, This instance in LA too, and many others as well; IMHO I see too many Police Depts violating peoples rights, never charging them after the fact as is the case here, and then saying “oh well it was for officer safety” or some other excuse. This mayor’s attitude just sounds too familure to me and that scares me the most.
September 17th, 2009 on 2:54 pm
Be careful in how you justify blatant fearmongering. This shift in verbage in the national conversation is unprecedented, and I really dont understand it.
Since when is a few isolated instances (like, what, less then 1% of all instances nation-wide per year of the police speaking with someone who has a firearm for some reason?) “Revokation of rights?”
Since when is a 6 month debate, and 4 rounds of compromise followed by a democratic vote “ramming through”?
Since when are -optional- and -voluntary- programs “forced socialism”?
I really dont know what people are thinking … of IF they are thinking at all before they open their mouths….
September 30th, 2009 on 9:47 am
If what I am talking about is really “fearmongering” then why are states rushing to enact updates to their emergency measures act to prevent what happened with Katrina?
My concern as I said in the comments is the prevalent attitude that I am seeing more and more instances of. In the end the gentle was let go with his firearm, but is the scrutiny, and the hard time he got raises my eye brow.
It’s not optional and voluntary if every tax payer including the ones ALREADY paying for health insurance have to pay a tax to fund other people. It’s like saying, “we’re adding a new transportation tax to pave people’s driveways. I’m sorry, but there are somethings that are a person’s responsibility.
September 30th, 2009 on 6:56 pm
You are right, there -are- things that are your responsiblity. You -made a choice- to be born with a “pre-existing condition” that can preclude you from future insurance, and justly so you should be responsible to cover your own medical bills. Dont treat on me because you dont want to be responsible if you lose your existing insurance (or they simply revoke it) for some maybe-even-legitimate reason. What, can’t afford it? Well just get 4 different jobs at 4 different mcdonalds to make up the difference. You dont need free time, peace of mind, or anything else. Fear will motivate you do “live up to your responsibility”, slowly drive you insane, stress you out to the max adding to your health problems thus increasing your costs – but hey, don’t tread on me bucko! I -EARNED- that extra $4/week it would cost to fund a public option, so F-U trying to take my money that I EARNED through HARD WORK sitting at a desk!
September 30th, 2009 on 8:40 pm
See that is where I will lean on the moderate side. I have said, right along, there needs to be regulation to eliminate such clauses for coverage that I already pay for. Like I have said, I am one of the 85% of American’s who is mostly happy with his coverage. They have never denied a claim, not paid one of my 3-4 hospital stays, and never denied payment for any of my many expensive prescriptions. Now having a safe guard (i.e. regulation) like guaranteeing coverage I have paid for is important to me and so is the stupid pre-existing condition clause. Fix that, and I am happy. I am not 100% against competition either.
Now again, if they have a public option that is completely funded by the participants, like any other insurance plan, make it COMPLETELY voluntary, and don’t take anymore of the 20% of my paychecks that Uncle Sam already takes for Medicare (broken system), Social Security (which is an even more broken system; let us not forget that), and FICA, I would reconsider my support for it. I have worked over 60+ hrs per week to EARN that income. I do work at a desk, but I have also helped build our data center, personally worked to win over all of the business that keeps us in business and keeps food on our tables, work late to win over business. I have paid and will keep paying my fair share…
They have also not said it would break out to $4/week for coverage; if they did, I might not baulk at it so much, but I already pay thousands and thousands of dollars into the system, which is unarguably broken in some major areas and I have to ask at this point where does it end?
… to quote a particular Vorlon (Babylon 5), “… in fire.”
September 30th, 2009 on 10:36 pm
I dont know why you think medicare and social security are “broken” .. you’re repeating bad information, and I’m not sure where you got it. Medicare is the most cost-effective health plan in the entire world, it operates at like 6% overhead (compared to over 65% for US private insurance providers) and never drops coverage suddenly or whatever else. Social Security does its job, and my grandmother gets her SS check -every- month, on the same day no less.
Perhaps you’d rather not have social security? You’re swimming upstream against all conventional wisdom (and BOTH sides of the current political spectrum) on that one … maybe YOU can afford to save for retirement, but the other 95% of us cant and will actually need those SS benefits when the time comes.
And can we PLEASE stop acting like the percentages we pay in taxes are unfair? Back in the 1950s the tax rates were in the high 40%s and low 50%s…. the taxes we pay are the “membership fee” for living in this society. As the conservatives always say, “love it or leave it!” so take the conservative advice on this one and go to nepal or sierra lione if you want to live in a magical land without taxes…
October 1st, 2009 on 7:06 am
Medicare is such a well run program? How about the large number of general doctors who are bailing on it because they are paid a fraction of amount by private insurance? I’m not saying private is better (I believe I said ENFORCED regulation is needed), but do you honestly think that loosing the large number of doctors who would start not accepting the gov’t insurance is a good thing? What about their flawed prescription plan? I have family members on Medicare who can tell you more horror stories, sure bottom line, maybe it does run at 6% of the overhead, but it doesn’t cover them completely now.
Of course I’m not advocating eliminating social security. There are a large portion of the population that is dependent on it. As usual you are throwing words around, making an exaggerated implication that I made such a statement. Saying health insurance is a personal responsibility does not equate to we need to eliminate all federal programs and throw them out. I have not advocated anarchy at any point that I am aware.
I have also not said I have a problem paying taxes or my fair share, but since I am paying that “membership” fee, then I have the right to an opinion about how it’s spent. Both programs are heading for bankruptcy, but we are once again waaaay off topic here.
To get back on topic… Firearms are good… Regulations against them are bad.
October 1st, 2009 on 11:12 am
“How about the large number of general doctors who are bailing on it because they are paid a fraction of amount by private insurance?” total BS. I’ve heard the exact opposite, that doctors love medicare for one primary reason: IT ALWAYS PAYS!