TexasCHLforum.com

I see it a little differently.....I'd argue that the violations were of the 6th and 9th amendments:

6th

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Being funneled into a parking lot under the color of authority deprives me of my liberty; specifically in this case, my liberty to travel freely, and not be stopped or detained when I have not violated the law. I think we could also make the argument that such detention has a cost to us, in some specific cases, a direct cost (e.g. having to pay for being late to an appointment, or having to waste time waiting longer because you were stopped and made late), which was imposed without due process or compensation.

9th

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I have a right to go where I want when I want if I am not violating the law. I have the right to make such travel unimpeded by authority. I don't have to answer to any authority when I have not violated any law. All the ways the police violated the right of people, essentially, to be left alone, has already been described in detail by others posting and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

SewTexas wrote:

gigag04 wrote:The LEOs weren't administering any tests from what I read/watched.

They directed them into the parking lot. NHTSA folks spoke with them.

here's the problem (for example):

1. a teen is now late for school after lunch

2. a woman is now late for a doctor appt.

3. a man is late to work and is FIRED.

4. a mom out driving around to get her baby to sleep, now has a screaming baby in her back seat.

all because they didn't give any of these people a choice as to whether or not to go into the parking lot.

All valid problems, but not the worst problems by a long shot: every encounter with the police, while armed, especially in a vehicle, is a possible deadly encounter. We hear all the time on this forum about how some officers overreact to someone with a CHL. Some members recently expressed concerns about their ability to hear and respond properly to commands in potentially charged situations. I personally have been stopped several times and each time the officer has been professional and courteous, and apparently not particularly concerned about me being armed; however, that experience is apparently not universal.

gigag04 wrote:Any other articles on this?


I'm late to the party as all the "govt is out to get me" threads kind of run together so I passed over this one. The original link isn't working, and I haven't seen much else on the story.

I have to give you credit for being a smart guy and absolute master of diversion. You're wasting your talents in the private sector. Your disingenuous "out to get me" phrase is a masterpiece of prestidigitation. You should be writing speeches for The One; I think you could singlehandedly rescue him from the Obamacare debacle.

mojo84 wrote:This is bad on so many fronts. It's a shame cops would go long with such as this. If it was completely voluntary, why do they think people on drugs would voluntarily give samples.

What does DNA testing have to do with drugs and being under the influence while driving. It's a shame such as this is going on in our country.

In the scheme of things, this police conduct is worse than any of the recent shootings the police have been criticized for. In those cases a quick decision had to be made and mistakes are inevitable. Here we have the police knowingly participating in illegal action at the behest of the Feds --not even Federal law enforcement, but a bunch of bureaucrats with no law enforcement authority. When you read about local law enforcement arresting someone for having 8 rounds in a magazine, as in New York, and see the police cooperating in such a blatant disregard for the Constitution, it makes you wonder how far they'll go if the Feds decide to say, confiscate "assault rifles."