Mobile X-Ray Vans and CHL?

[TexasGal]

If you do get stopped by the x ray van, be sure to request a physical search instead because i heard on the grapevine that these x ray devices are harmful to people and of high radiation output. someone in the know please verify this for me thanks.

Generally speaking, the more the typical xrays have to penetrate, the stronger they have to be so if you are in a car being xrayed with enough power to penetrate it that much, then you got way more than I'd appreciate getting. However, this technology uses a different technique. It is supposed to be very low exposure according to what I have been able to find. It is the same as the new full body scans the airports are using. I personally am still not comfortable with it. I still see it as an invasion of privacy without cause.

The problem is when the government starts throwing out the constitution to catch bad guys, it leaves the door open for the government to become the bad guys. No one wears a halo and power corrupts.

[terryg]

The problem is when the government starts throwing out the constitution to catch bad guys, it leaves the door open for the government to become the bad guys. No one wears a halo and power corrupts.

Ding ding ding ding ding - Tell her what she's won Bob!

The story infuriates me to no end. It medically unethical and a legal and constitutional abomination.

[sjfcontrol]

I just can not understand why some people are so worried about what might happen if they get caught not breaking the law.

Not breaking the law according to who.. You? What makes you think you get a vote

First a Law Enforcement officer gets a vote, ..... you will never be asked to vote prior to seeing your lawyer if you think you should have been arrested for what someone else voted you did wrong.

It is naive to not understand this happens every day. most times by honest officers who make a mistake, misjudge, mis understand...,, other times by LEO's or a DA with an agenda, Legality at the arrest site has no bearing on your arrest or trial date... Your vote comes MUCH later in the cycle... after much time and money.

The fact is that in this state, having a gun in your vehicle is NOT illegal (with some exceptions not really relevant here). ANY officer that doesn't know that shouldn't be an officer. If you're arrested for something that isn't illegal, you have a case for false arrest. I believe Charles addressed this in a different thread. You CAN be accused of breaking a law. Then you're arrested and get a chance to work it out in court. But this is not a case of being accused of a crime you didn't commit -- it's a case of being arrested for something that IS NOT ILLEGAL. That's false arrest. Likely somebody would realize that (officer's superiors, DA, etc.) and you'd be released. It doesn't make sense to me to get all twisted out of shape worrying about being arrested for doing something that is not illegal. That attitude just keeps you hiding under your bed for fear ANYTHING you do might cause you to be arrested.

[ScottDLS]

I just can not understand why some people are so worried about what might happen if they get caught not breaking the law.

Not breaking the law according to who.. You? What makes you think you get a vote

First a Law Enforcement officer gets a vote, ..... you will never be asked to vote prior to seeing your lawyer if you think you should have been arrested for what someone else voted you did wrong.

It is naive to not understand this happens every day. most times by honest officers who make a mistake, misjudge, mis understand...,, other times by LEO's or a DA with an agenda, Legality at the arrest site has no bearing on your arrest or trial date... Your vote comes MUCH later in the cycle... after much time and money.

The fact is that in this state, having a gun in your vehicle is NOT illegal (with some exceptions not really relevant here). ANY officer that doesn't know that shouldn't be an officer. If you're arrested for something that isn't illegal, you have a case for false arrest. I believe Charles addressed this in a different thread. You CAN be accused of breaking a law. Then you're arrested and get a chance to work it out in court. But this is not a case of being accused of a crime you didn't commit -- it's a case of being arrested for something that IS NOT ILLEGAL. That's false arrest. Likely somebody would realize that (officer's superiors, DA, etc.) and you'd be released. It doesn't make sense to me to get all twisted out of shape worrying about being arrested for doing something that is not illegal. That attitude just keeps you hiding under your bed for fear ANYTHING you do might cause you to be arrested.

I've said this a number of times as well. Why even carry your handgun if you're so worried about being arrested.

[terryg]

The problem is when the government starts throwing out the constitution to catch bad guys, it leaves the door open for the government to become the bad guys. No one wears a halo and power corrupts.

Ding ding ding ding ding - Tell her what she's won Bob!

The story infuriates me to no end. It medically unethical and a legal and constitutional abomination.

In reading my reply, in hindsight, I realize it may have sounded sarcastic toward TexasGal. I am sorry - I didn't not mean it to be. I agree completely with her sentiment. I was (and am) frustrated by this whole story and the obvious 4th amendment violations.

[E.Marquez]

Seeing this tool used in a reactive mode, after PC has been established is no issue IMHO (no opinion on legality, as IANAL)

Seeing this tool set up on a intersection is window dressing and a false flag operation,,, ineffective at best.

Seeing this tool set up at a stationary point at some place or location that is optional, a place you can chose to not go to or through if you object to the scan,, I do not see an issue to.. Much like an airport screening.. You’re not required to submit to that search,,, of course you’re not flying if you don’t..

Seeing this scanner set up in a manner to randomly scan folks on a public through way... I'm not happy with that at all.

[Lonest4r]

All pregnant mothers should sue the government for the health hazard it would present to their developing fetus. The dangers of focused radiation on unborn children is incredibly strong. They will not allow women who even think they might be pregnant to get X-rays in a hospital setting. I see this as a danger to public health.

[Bart]

The problem is when the government starts throwing out the constitution to catch bad guys, it leaves the door open for the government to become the bad guys. No one wears a halo and power corrupts.

I disagree. When a public servant intentionally or knowingly violates the constutional rights of citizens, they have kicked down the door and rushed through. The becoming is over. They are bad guys.

[VMI77]

I just can not understand why some people are so worried about what might happen if they get caught not breaking the law.

Not breaking the law according to who.. You? What makes you think you get a vote

First a Law Enforcement officer gets a vote, ..... you will never be asked to vote prior to seeing your lawyer if you think you should have been arrested for what someone else voted you did wrong.

It is naive to not understand this happens every day. most times by honest officers who make a mistake, misjudge, mis understand...,, other times by LEO's or a DA with an agenda, Legality at the arrest site has no bearing on your arrest or trial date... Your vote comes MUCH later in the cycle... after much time and money.

The fact is that in this state, having a gun in your vehicle is NOT illegal (with some exceptions not really relevant here). ANY officer that doesn't know that shouldn't be an officer. If you're arrested for something that isn't illegal, you have a case for false arrest. I believe Charles addressed this in a different thread. You CAN be accused of breaking a law. Then you're arrested and get a chance to work it out in court. But this is not a case of being accused of a crime you didn't commit -- it's a case of being arrested for something that IS NOT ILLEGAL. That's false arrest. Likely somebody would realize that (officer's superiors, DA, etc.) and you'd be released. It doesn't make sense to me to get all twisted out of shape worrying about being arrested for doing something that is not illegal. That attitude just keeps you hiding under your bed for fear ANYTHING you do might cause you to be arrested.

That's not the issue as I see it, whether or not the gun is legal. The issue is the potential police response. I submit that an encounter with police who don't know you're carrying, or an encounter like a traffic stop, where you've advised an officer that you're legally carrying before he sees a weapon, is fundamentally different than having a gun in your possession revealed inside your vehicle or on your person. At that point, the police don't know you're carrying legally, all they see is a gun --you could be a guy who just robbed a convenience store. It's potentially the difference between walking away and being shot down like Erik Scott because with guns pointed at you, you make the wrong move. Especially problematic in a car, as I see it, where you may be with a passenger who makes an unpredictable move or a move that seems furtive because police can't see everything going on inside the vehicle. And we're also not talking about Texas police or the DPS --we're talking about the Feds, who may not have the same appreciation for carry laws.

That said, I think encounters like the Erik Scott encounter are rare. However, if searches like this become routine at places like BP checkpoints, or other places, there may be more of them. Instead of pulling up to be asked if you're an American citizen, you may pull up to someone poised and ready to shoot you if you make the wrong move. While this isn't going to stop me from carrying, and while I"m not going to spend much time worrying about it, I do think it may be a good idea to consider the possibility at certain checkpoints and be careful about where you put your hands and how you move around in your vehicle.

[VMI77]

In the latter case I have a hard time seeing how it will be politically possible for the feds to ignore someone with a weapon.

The same way they ignore someone whose only "crime" is possessing a Koran or a laptop computer.

We're not talking about a gun locked in a trunk, we're talking about a gun in possession of, or accessible to, a person --a person that is a stranger to the police. You think the police respond to people with accessible books and computers they same way they respond to people with guns? The police won't know you're legally carrying until after you've demonstrated that fact. I think Erik Scott got all of about two seconds to not get shot. But if you think there is no difference, good luck to you.

[TexasGal]

The problem is when the government starts throwing out the constitution to catch bad guys, it leaves the door open for the government to become the bad guys. No one wears a halo and power corrupts.

Ding ding ding ding ding - Tell her what she's won Bob!

The story infuriates me to no end. It medically unethical and a legal and constitutional abomination.

In reading my reply, in hindsight, I realize it may have sounded sarcastic toward TexasGal. I am sorry - I didn't not mean it to be. I agree completely with her sentiment. I was (and am) frustrated by this whole story and the obvious 4th amendment violations.

No problem. I didn't take it that way
But thanks for apologizing anyway.

[Dave2]

The problem is when the government starts throwing out the constitution to catch bad guys, it leaves the door open for the government to become the bad guys. No one wears a halo and power corrupts.

Ding ding ding ding ding - Tell her what she's won Bob!

The story infuriates me to no end. It medically unethical and a legal and constitutional abomination.

In reading my reply, in hindsight, I realize it may have sounded sarcastic toward TexasGal. I am sorry - I didn't not mean it to be. I agree completely with her sentiment. I was (and am) frustrated by this whole story and the obvious 4th amendment violations.

No problem. I didn't take it that way
But thanks for apologizing anyway.

Does that mean he's got an extra apology laying around for when he hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't know why you're mad at him? If so, can I borrow it? I think I might need one soon...

[lrb111]

Z Backscatter Vans as stated in that linked article…have been in use overseas for several years now. I worked with them on our patrol base and joint bases as well as working with the Iraqi units that had them on loan. The type of situation and use, trained crew required to detect a single weapon not something you need to be concerned with. We also use them for CONUS on base security.. scanning commercial trucks as they enter….in a static, dedicated secondary search protocol they work well…

So like that truck in the article shown with a drug stash,, Great use,,, Pulled over or otherwise suspected with PC.. Like a drug dog team brought in to verify a suspicion,, so could a Z Backscatter Van be called in… I’m all for that.

Setting one up on a road intersection, bridge entrance? Not going to see it happen if the leadership listens to the experienced operators.

Seems like something that could be set up at a Border Patrol checkpoint, both legally and practically. I have to pass through a BP checkpoint every time I visit family in the Valley. It's not a problem now, but if they x-ray my car and see a gun, or more than one, I just have a hard time imagining they're going to wave me on.

They do have machines at the border entrances. But you have to be pulled out of the line, and sent through it. It is set up for large trucks. I cannot speak to the exact technology, but there was a news story about them when they were put into use.

They also have them at the checkpoint about 100 miles from El Paso on I-20. Again, a truck must be taken out of the line and routed through it. I can only assume there are others. I have been under the impression that they are basically looking for hidden compartments, or stuff looking like hay bales in gas tanks.

[bdickens]

I just can not understand why some people are so worried about what might happen if they get caught not breaking the law.

Not breaking the law according to who.. You? What makes you think you get a vote

First a Law Enforcement officer gets a vote, ..... you will never be asked to vote prior to seeing your lawyer if you think you should have been arrested for what someone else voted you did wrong.

It is naive to not understand this happens every day. most times by honest officers who make a mistake, misjudge, mis understand...,, other times by LEO's or a DA with an agenda, Legality at the arrest site has no bearing on your arrest or trial date... Your vote comes MUCH later in the cycle... after much time and money.

According to the law, that's who. And the law is not up for a vote. It is what it is.

We're not talking about a gun locked in a trunk, we're talking about a gun in possession of, or accessible to, a person ....

Which is not against the law.

Seriously, why do some of you people even get a CHL and start carrying a gun in the first place?

[bdickens]

Maybe you should read the thread on Erik Scott.

Maybe you should do a little reading up on Erik Scott yourself.