License need to exercise fundamental Right

Status
Not open for further replies.
It isn't helpful when one posts to the forum asking for help, but leaves important factors and information out of the story that others must go find.

It does make the community suspicious, and they often go looking for more inconsistencies or inaccuracies.


When that happens your message gets lost, and the focus becomes the lack of forthcoming information. Guess you two found that out.


Protesting licenses and registrations are one thing. Not coming out with that little bit of information in your initial request for help is what causes suspicion.

Best of luck in your legal battle.
 
It doesn't matter how you guys feel about Bill (reportedly) wearing kevlar or (reportedly) carrying illegally.

What REALLY MATTERS is that he was (reportedly) searched illegally. If you were illegally searched and guns were found, those guns (legally speaking) do not exist.

I am not sure a pat down during a traffic stop for a driver with a suspended license and a hinky passenger constitutes an illegal search.

And, just one more thing - isn't there already a discussion about "Everyday body armor" here? Why is it assumed we were about to execute some crime the police need to find out about simply because Bill was wearing a protective vest when others here are interested in everyday protective gear as well? Bill wears his vest regularly, and even posted so in that thread I linked above... it wasn't strange then, why is it suddenly strange now? If one is going to spend that much money on a vest, wouldn't it be prudent to, well, wear it?

You see, this is why y'all are having credibility problems, Ivy. Contrary to your statement, Bill did NOT post that he wears his vest regularly in the thread that you linked. The thread was about everyday wear, sure enough and Bill did post there, twice, but his posts pertain to issues of where vests are purchased, fit, concealment, cooling, his ideas for a new design to keep cool, and "hot gun magazine chicks to feed [him] grapes." In those two posts, he did not state that he wears a vest regularly. In fact, his comments don't seem to indicate that he wears a vest more than I do and I don't wear a vest regulary, but have experienced all that he described.

So even when YOU decide what information to present and provide a link to that information, you didn't get the facts straight. You said something existed when it did not. You posted the issue in order to try to attain credibility...which really seems to have backfired. If you don't have the facts straight on something we can absolutely verify (as could you before posting it), then why should we believe you on the elements of the arrest?
 
Last edited:
What REALLY MATTERS is that he was (reportedly) searched illegally. If you were illegally searched and guns were found, those guns (legally speaking) do not exist.

No, it isn't an illegal search. He was arrested for driving with a suspended license so it would be a search incident to arrest.
The permit laws in NH are a Fish and Game statute to prevent poaching. No loaded guns in a car, except handguns with a permit. Loaded long guns are not allowed even with the permit.

Sorry, accumulating charges in different states does not garner support. Manchester PD will give the guns back after the situation is resolved. From an officer safety standpoint, of course they are going to take the guns off you when being arrested. This is a mountain out of a mole hill.
 
This doesn't appear to be a case of law abiding citizens being harrassed by the police, but rather the police taking custody of someone who was in violation of several laws... which is what we pay them for, is it not? :confused:

Sorry, this just doesn't get much sympathy from me.
 
No, it isn't an illegal search. He was arrested for driving with a suspended license so it would be a search incident to arrest.

It seems to me that if you really want to be an effective RKBA activist,you might want to simplify your activism. It seems that you want to protest a lot of what you think are rights all at once:


  1. The right to drive with a suspended license.
  2. The right to operate a motor vehicle whose registration has been suspended.
  3. The right to misuse license tags.
  4. The right to give officers a false name in a traffic stop.
  5. The right to not appear when summoned to court.
  6. The right to refuse to pay fines imposed by a court when you deem them unconstitutional.
  7. The right to carry concealed without a CCW license.

Note that the first 6 on this list are unrelated to RKBA. In fact, it's not clear than any of them are rights, except in your head. The "Right to Travel" does not imply the right to operate a motor vehicle, an airplane, a train, or a supertanker without a license.

Be that as it may, my suggestion is that you avoid breaking other laws when engaging in RKBA activism. Like maybe driving a legally registered vehicle with a valid registration, and the right license tags and a valid drivers license when you are going to strike a great blow of CCW freedom for the rest of us. Is that too much to ask?

Mike
 
Look, y'all can put me down and make fun of me all you want to, much like you did mvpel. You can try and find inconsistencies and create your own out of your way of reading this or that.

Knowing Bill, his post in the "Everyday body armor" would mean that he was attesting to the fact that he does in fact wear it every day - that's just Bill, he doesn't specifically mention it if it seems inherently obvious, the thread title would make it obvious, therefore no need to specifically mention it - though DNS, you have a point. I read what I read to include that which I also seem to know for fact (Bill's way of posting) - it seems everyone else does too (reading their own 'fact' into inaccurate news reports and jumping to conclusions), so it's hardly accurate to say something like that goes towards my "credibility" solely... The thread title is "EVERYDAY body armor" which to the average individual would mean those posting in it wears 'everyday body armor'. (By the way, he found his "hot gun magazine chick" :D )

You all can try to tie old instances in my past to Bill's character. Not everyone believes in The Right to Travel; I wont argue that here. At BEST, they might have a few tickets they can issue, none of which should have lead to arrest. (Not here in NH anyway.) The fact of the matter is we've hired one of the best "gun lawyers" in the country (Attorney Evan Nappen) to represent Bill against the weapons charges and he says Bill has an excellent case.

In response to this last post here by Mike, yes you're right, there are many things we are charged with; I don't think Bill hid that in the original post, nor is everything you've deduced accurate since some of what you have deduced were from inaccurate news reporting. I must say though, there was no intent that day to engage in RKBA activism. There was no intent that day to get pulled over. And yes, you're probably right, if one is going to intentionally engage in activism, one should try and pick one thing at a given time... perhaps.

Or... when is it that each and every one of us is going to stand up and say "No More!"? There's hundreds of people on this board. There's hundreds more on other gun boards like it. There are thousands of gun boards, let alone other freedom oriented boards out there. If each and every person on them was to say "No More!" and simply not obey the unConstitutional "laws" in their every day lives, what leg would the government have to stand on?
 
At BEST, they might have a few tickets they can issue, none of which should have lead to arrest.

Driving after suspension is an arrestable offense. It sounds like to me, from yours and the news reports, that confiscating the guns was merely a standard officer safety issue after a search incident to arrest. The number of guns and the body armor did not seem to be that big a deal to the police, though you should be able to understand their concern. Considering, as RCPVY said, that the bulk of the charges are MV related, this whole RKBA "activism" angle is just a distraction to cloud the real issue here, which IS NOT about RKBA.
 
Or... when is it that each and every one of us is going to stand up and say "No More!"? There's hundreds of people on this board. There's hundreds more on other gun boards like it.

I think that if you are waiting for all of us to stand up and say "No More!" to vehicle registration and licensing drivers, you will have a long wait.

I am personally not opposed to CCW licensing (though some folks may be), as long as the licensing is done on a "shall issue" basis at a reasonable cost, time limitation, etc.

Mike
 
And if this question has been answered, I'm afraid I missed it, but why didn't Bill have a New Hampshire CCW? It doesn't appear to be hard to get. I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to get too excited about someone getting arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, when he could have easily gotten a permit.
 
Get a lawyer and fight it.

Sounds like an illegal stop, followed by an illegal search and seizure, and then unlawful imprisonment.

After you win the defense, sue for damages.
 
Considering, as RCPVY said, that the bulk of the charges are MV related, this whole RKBA "activism" angle is just a distraction to cloud the real issue here, which IS NOT about RKBA.

Yes, but how will they get $$ for legal fees to fight the MV charges from boards such as this one if they don't work the RKBA angle?

I still haven't figured out the RKBA angle. Are they actually suggesting we fund a Constitutional fight because guns were confiscated as a result of arrests?

In response to this last post here by Mike, yes you're right, there are many things we are charged with; I don't think Bill hid that in the original post, nor is everything you've deduced accurate since some of what you have deduced were from inaccurate news reporting.

Oh no, he didn't hide the other charges. He just failed to disclose them. I don't know why that would be called "hiding" when it is just a failure to disclose that which others would not know about circumstances for which you would like to have a funded defense.

Knowing Bill, his post in the "Everyday body armor" would mean that he was attesting to the fact that he does in fact wear it every day - that's just Bill, he doesn't specifically mention it if it seems inherently obvious,

You see, we don't know Bill. We don't know you. We don't know what you think is "obvious" or not when as strangers, you don't specifically state it. Ivy, you specifically stated that Bill posted in the cited thread that he wears his vest daily. When caught on it, you now claim that such information was obvious to the thread. It wasn't. The fact remains that you said it was stated when it wasn't.

Funny how the errors tend to be in favor of Ivy and Bill when it comes to their telling of the stories, but that Ivy doesn't see anything wrong with such errors. I have to wonder how many other errors are present in your version of the stories that we can't check, but that also favor your position.

You talk about inaccurate news reporting and it seems to me that y'all have bee can in some inaccuracies of your own when it comes to reporting this incident.
 
Ivy, you specifically stated that Bill posted in the cited thread that he wears his vest daily. When caught on it, you now claim that such information was obvious to the thread. It wasn't. The fact remains that you said it was stated when it wasn't.

Actually, when "caught" on it I said
DNS, you have a point.
and went on to explain how/why I made that mistake (i.e. that TO ME it was obvious to the thread). You're reading way too much into things.

Get a lawyer and fight it.

Sounds like an illegal stop, followed by an illegal search and seizure, and then unlawful imprisonment.

After you win the defense, sue for damages.

Thanks, leadcounsel. We are. We're getting much help in the form of advise and citations we could use from many places, as well as many well wishes. ArmedBear has given great links, and other people have lead us to 42 USC 1983 and other places. Hopefully those will help in the case.

And if this question has been answered, I'm afraid I missed it, but why didn't Bill have a New Hampshire CCW? It doesn't appear to be hard to get. I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to get too excited about someone getting arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, when he could have easily gotten a permit.
I agree that it is not hard to get a New Hampshire conceal carry license (it's a license not a permit here BTW) - if one is required to get one. I was required, so I have one. Bill may not have been required............... We just can't "give away our hand" so to speak before the trial, so I'm sorry to say but I guess everyone who is not supporting us because it "doesn't pass the sniff test" (whatever that means) will just have to wait and see. I'll keep folks posted.

Everyone else - thanks very much for the helpful information. Any/every little bit helps.
 
Last edited:
It is amazing just how DIVIDED we are as compared to those that would tear down the constitution and the bill of rights!!:banghead:First and foremost any violation of the constitution and or the bill of rights should be delt with seperately and swiftly!! If there are other SEPERATE issues that need to be delt with then those should be taken care of on their own merits,ie. traffic violation has NOTHING to do with our right to arm ourselves or go from point a to point b.It only deals with the manner with wich we were conducting our travel,ie. speeding.

I have my CCW and tho I "complied" it is still a violation of the 2A!!The reason I did "comply" is that I know all too well that no one would stand with me..."oh he MUST have been doing something evil and nasty to have not had a lisence for that weapon."No where does 2A stait anything about being armed unless of course that weapon is concealed!:fire:

They are picking away at us! Useing our differences against us with frightening effeciency! They are winning and will continue to win as long as we fail to support one another because of secoundary issues.:banghead::fire::cuss:

I for one hope to all the powers that be you kick their faciest butts!!

Wanta B
 
I was required, so I have one. Bill may not have been required...............

Can you explain why you were required to get a CCW license, and Bill may not have been?

Mike
 
Thank you, Wanta B. That's how we feel too.

No, Mike, I can't. I wish I could but I can't, however it seems to me that you are a very smart man and might be able to figure it out. As is said again and again, I can't tell you certain facts because it is still pending and "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"... funny how they first take away our rights, and then silence us so we can't even rally support.
 
however it seems to me that you are a very smart man and might be able to figure it out

The truth is that I am stumped. You believe


  1. You were required to have a CCW license.
  2. The police thought Bill was required to have a CCW license.
  3. You think Bill may not have been required to have a CCW license.

The first thing that comes to mind is that he's really Jason Bourne. But I can't see Jason Bourne driving around in a car with bad license tags and a suspended registration. So that can't be right.

I don't have a clue.

Mike
 
You were required to have a CCW license.
The police thought Bill was required to have a CCW license.
You think Bill may not have been required to have a CCW license.

Umm... Maybe Bill isn't a U.S. citizen? Or he's in a Militia? Or he dated a girl named Millisha?

My money says he's claiming to be a militia man... hence the bulletproof vest and enough ammo to repel the Brittish army.
 
My money says he's claiming to be a militia man

Now that you say that, there was group in Montana that claimed that its members could declare themselves as sovereign entities or something like that, and that after that declaration, they weren't subject to US State or Federal laws. The details are hazy.

Mike
 
Well, when I think of the kind of people that wear body armor, and may carry a pistol without the need for a permit, the obvious person that comes to mind is an officer of the law. Or a person in the military while on official duty.


None of the press reports linked so far identify Bill as an officer of the law, or a member of the military that was stopped on duty.


Too much of this leaves questions in my mind that need answered before I can get behind a movement to exonerate Bill.
 
Now that you say that, there was group in Montana that claimed that its members could declare themselves as sovereign entities or something like that,...

Actually, the movement I was thinking of was called "Sovereign Citizen", and it claimed that it's adherents were not subject any US Federal laws (unlike us wimpy Federal Citizens):

The sovereign citizen movement is a network of American litigants who claim to be "sovereign citizens"; that is, people who have certain rights under English common law and are not accountable to the federal government. The litigants advance this concept in opposition to "federal citizens" who, they believe, have unknowingly forfeited their rights by accepting some aspect of federal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement

Maybe that was what Bill was up to. But he wasn't arrested for violating a Federal law. Who knows?

Mike
 
I can't see that the people in question were actually hurting anybody.

That said, I'm an incrementalist, and, strategically speaking, I don't think that comingling various real or imagined rights and responsibilities under the law, in a court case where at least some of the charges will likely be upheld, is an effective way to fight for those rights.
 
Thanks to those who understand that activism sometimes includes civil disobedience through not submitting to their unConstitutional "laws" or regulations.
Next time, try marching, or sueing, or something that won't get you arrested. And don't use phony license plates or give out false names, if you must violate a law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top