• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Police seize legal gunowner

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
New Hampsire has some very gun friendly state gun laws. However in my opinion all state gun laws are unconstitutional due to the second amendment. Perhaps the police need a refresher course on the laws they are supposed to enforce, and perhaps the citizens should mind there own business if a gun is carried but not presented in a threating way. Thats my opinion whats yours?

Police seize legal gunowner
911 caller 'alarmed' by citizen carrying weapon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 5, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A gunowners group is protesting the seizure of a legally armed citizen in a bookstore by two police officers who responded to an anonymous caller alarmed by the weapon.

Michael Pelletier was browsing a Manchester, N.H., Barnes & Noble with his wife March 27 when a police officer, assisted by a colleague, suddenly grabbed him by the right shoulder and his holster and pushed him toward the corner of a bookcase, says Gunowners of America.

The Manchester Police Department officers, Chris Byron and David DuPont, ordered Pelletier to place his hands on his head, which he did at once, the group said.

Pelletier was carrying a pistol openly at the small of his back, which became apparent after he took off his jacket.

The officers then disarmed Pelletier and escorted him out of the store. Background checks revealed no record, but officers and detectives issued a barrage of questions about why he carries a gun and what kind of training he had, the gun group said.

Pelletier received back his firearm then reloaded it and put it on his belt, under his shirt. He then went back to the store to complete his purchases.

The group said the police were responding to an anonymous complaint from someone "alarmed by the sight of a private citizen possessing a gun."

Pelletier's attorney has been prohibited from learning the caller's identity, citing emergency services regulations.

The gun group said: "The cops assaulted Pelletier based on this flawed complaint in spite of what their own eyes revealed to them -- a family man wearing his gun openly and legally, peaceably browsing in a store."

The police, however, claimed it was reasonable for someone to feel alarmed and threatened.

But the gun group said "the reckless behavior of the cops resulted in a violation of Pelletier's Fourth Amendment rights and defamed his character, making a spectacle out of him in public."

The police department has offered no explanation for the actions of the officers, Gunowners of America said.

An internal investigation is underway, but police have not disclosed to the public any details.

"We believe the reason for Mr. Pelletier's complaint being classified as an internal investigation is to allow the police to keep the 911 call and other pertinent information secret from Mr. Pelletier's attorney," the group says.

It notes that "as long as the investigation is categorized as 'internal,' the RSA 91-A Right to Know law is said not to apply.

"To challenge that determination and interpretation of the law would require Mr. Pelletier to file an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit," the gunowners say.

Found at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38801
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
My first response:

What was the 911 call? What did they say? What was the complaint?

If the call had said that he had a gun and was using it in a threatening manner ... then the police have every right to 'search and siezure' because the threat of liability. Plus of course it's thier job to protect the public.

We do not know all the facts to come up with a biased opinion.

I do however support the right to bare arms to the fullest extent.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
141
Reaction score
6
Location
In a free country!
Right call!

The 911 caller made the right call, when you see someone with a gun you don't know what's goin' on through their mind and you don't know who's in danger. The police made the right call by taking control of the situation early, they approached the suspect and immediately contained him, isolated him thus, spare any civilian's life that might be in danger. But when his story checked out they let him go. If they had continue to harrass him after his story checked out, that would have been violation to his rights. I don't see what the gunowners are so sensitive about.
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
Re: Right call!

The Liberal Puke said:
The 911 caller made the right call, when you see someone with a gun you don't know what's goin' on through their mind and you don't know who's in danger. The police made the right call by taking control of the situation early, they approached the suspect and immediately contained him, isolated him thus, spare any civilian's life that might be in danger. But when his story checked out they let him go. If they had continue to harrass him after his story checked out, that would have been violation to his rights. I don't see what the gunowners are so sensitive about.
they did not make the right decission. they automaticly assumed that because he had a gun that he was breaking the law. this is like assuming the because you see a black guy driving a bmw that the bmw is stolen.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
141
Reaction score
6
Location
In a free country!
Assumption that could have saved somebody's life if it was in danger. That guy should thank the police for checking him out. His family could have been in danger and it takes one person to "assume" and call the police to make sure. People have been taken hostage w/o having a gun waved at them. Now the person we should question here may be the one who called 911. Why? maybe the guy was acting suspiscious, or maybe the people around him was kinda coersed. But for whatever reason(we will never know), the police had no choice but to check it out.
 

Attachments

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
yes the assumption could have saved someones life but whos to say the black guy driving the bmw wont run someone over? this liberal idea that anyone who owns a gun is breaking the law is complete bs. no where in the constitution dose it say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless out in public. your twisted logic is the problem with this country.
 

Attachments

Talon

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Garland, TX
Well if we are going to go by the ruling a man has a gun we should push him in the corner, and harass him. Then the same should be true for any person carrying a knife, baseball bat, screw driver, wrench, or anything else that could be used as a weapon.

Personally, I feel the cops did the wrong thing to begin with. The man was

A. Not holding the gun in his hand
B. Not pointing the said gun at people
C. The gun was obviously holstered

So how is that threating in anyway?

I think we should all carry sidearms openly and freely.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Talon said:
I think we should all carry sidearms openly and freely.
:shoot

The ONLY thing I miss about Arizona.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


To me that says it all. We all have the right to carry as we see fit. Open concealed any way you want and there should be no regulation or requirements to excersice this right. Unfortinatly the politicians and most of the liberal public want to ignore this right and infringe on it as they see fit. All gun laws are unconstitutional.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
141
Reaction score
6
Location
In a free country!
No not all guns laws are unconstitutional, like the one that says you can't be going around waiving your gun at people, it would be a madness if people were allowed to do that.
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
waiving a gun at someone is assault. in no way shape or form dose that fall under the classification of a gun law.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Location
BEAUTIFUL Ohio, BEAUTIFUL USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Right call!

The Liberal Puke said:
The 911 caller made the right call, when you see someone with a gun you don't know what's goin' on through their mind and you don't know who's in danger. The police made the right call by taking control of the situation early, they approached the suspect and immediately contained him, isolated him thus, spare any civilian's life that might be in danger. But when his story checked out they let him go. If they had continue to harrass him after his story checked out, that would have been violation to his rights. I don't see what the gunowners are so sensitive about.
The police did not make the right call. Not at all. Pinning him down taking his gun, which was holstered, and making him put his hands on his head because one person who called the police was scared. They took this completly the wrong way the should question first. I support the police and i support the right to bear arms to the fullest extent. Carrying a holstered weapon in public is perfectly legal. It is when they take it out of the holster that the police need to step in.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Unless the store had some sort of rules against having a firearm in their.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,809
Reaction score
8,099
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gandhi>Bush said:
Unless the store had some sort of rules against having a firearm in their.
Then the store had the responsibility to ask him to leave or disarm. If he refused to do either then the police would be needed.

As it is, if a citizen or national is minding his own business he should be free from police harassment. Period.

If the cops wanted to ask him a few questions there in the bookstore, then so be it. It's a free country. Cops and the rest of us're all free to strike up a conversation with most anybody as long as they aren't in the middle of performing brain surgery or some such. A few simple questions may well have been sufficient to resolve the situation.

Some people just freak out when they see a gun.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Right call!

The Liberal Puke said:
The 911 caller made the right call, when you see someone with a gun you don't know what's goin' on through their mind and you don't know who's in danger.
No, (s)he didn't, unless the person in question is acting in a suspicious manner there is absolutely no reason to mind that persons business, this was a family man browsing a bookstore with his family, not exactly someone who would probably put HIS FAMILY in danger by unholstering his gun in public. This was a call by a panicky idiot who has NO idea of how to assess a situation, period.
The police made the right call by taking control of the situation early, they approached the suspect and immediately contained him, isolated him thus, spare any civilian's life that might be in danger.
No, they didn't, the situation was aggravated when they put him in a corner and forcibly dragged him out of the store, like others have posted, a simple inquiry would have suffices.
But when his story checked out they let him go. If they had continue to harrass him after his story checked out, that would have been violation to his rights.
After he was humiliated in public, in front of his family, and for exercising his second amendment right. Yeah, that's great consolation, really makes up for all of that.
I don't see what the gunowners are so sensitive about.
And I don't see why liberals are so squeamish about seeing a gun, who is more sensitive, a gun owner standing up for other gun owners rights, or some little wimp who can't stand the sight of a legally owned and carried gun. Hint- pick option B.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Gandhi>Bush said:
Unless the store had some sort of rules against having a firearm in their.
The store has every right to prohibit firearms because it is private property, but, if it wasn't displayed as policy, then a reasonable person could assume that said policy didn't exist.
Happy belated B-Day btw. :smile:
 
L

lamaror


I too own guns and I support the 2nd amendmant. Somehow in day where people have the potential to be terrorists, either foreign or home grown, then it is ok for the police to protect the public from the unknown. I don't know why the police were called. If the man had been carrying a gun in the small of his back and was no potential threat, then how did others even know of the gun? I have a feeling we are not getting all the facts and a lot half truths.
 

ElGringo17

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The store as a place of public accomodation does not have a right to prohibit people from coming in while exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights anymore then it has a right to prohibit caucasians from coming in.

I suggest next time it might be prudent to do a little bit of legal researche before you speak.
 
Top Bottom