About the author

Andre' Gabriel Esparza

A Pro Liberty, Pro Freedom, Human Rights Activist, very involved in a wide variety of Activism and Exposing the Truth at all costs.

Related Articles

  • Pingback: 3 Men Disarmed and Detained at Gun Point While Legally Open Carrying | DontComply.com()

  • James Michael

    By the way just for informations sake:

    No criminal act they witnessed personally, or no sworn warrant, they had
    absolutely NO lawful authority to use force and do Anything they did to
    you.

    They gave YOU a perfect cause of action with standing against them….

    Have you sued these freedom hating treasonous felon “sworn servants”
    yet?

    St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
    “…lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not,
    by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an
    investigatory detention.”

    US v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (2000)
    “…it is not a crime to possess a firearm… even when standing in a
    crowd. Second, the anonymous tipster who approached the authorities had
    said nothing that would indicate that Ubiles possessed the gun
    unlawfully (e.g., without registration); that he was committing or about
    to commit a crime; or that he posed a threat to the officers or anyone
    in the crowd. Therefore, the stop and subsequent search were unjustified
    because the precondition for a Terry stop was not present in this
    case.”

    “Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in
    response to a call from Theater manager… Mr. St. John’s lawful
    possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself,
    create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory
    detention.” SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)

    “More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry
    firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an
    investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would
    eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals
    in those states.” – Verbatim, US v Black

    US v. Deberry–legal firearms cannot be used as reason for stopping a
    person…

    Delaware v. Prouse—– cannot be detained without suspicion of criminal
    activity

    Terry v. Ohio—-leo’s cannot legally seize a weapon without reasonable
    suspicion…..

    Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
    “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
    duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
    contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v.
    Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644
    “Constitutional ‘rights’ would be of little value if they could be
    indirectly denied.”

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
    ‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his
    exercise of constitutional rights.”

    Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
    “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted
    into a crime”… “a denial of them would be a denial of due process of
    law”.

    “One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free
    press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may
    not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
    West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnett, (1943)

  • Renov8

    Going forward….always have a camera or some kind of recording device….never know when it could be the difference between a jail cell or a good night sleep at home.

  • ramrodd

    Drivers, Beware: The Costly, Deadly Dangers of Traffic Stops in the
    American Police State – –

    If you’re starting to feel somewhat overwhelmed,
    intimidated and fearful for your life and your property, you should be. Never
    before have “we the people” been so seemingly defenseless in the face of police
    misconduct, lacking advocates in the courts and in the legislatures.

    Technically, you have the right to remain
    silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your
    registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You
    have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask
    to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police
    officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put
    away your phone or stop recording them.

    However, as Bland learned the hard way, there is a
    price for asserting one’s rights. “Faced with an authority figure unwilling to
    de-escalate the situation, Bland refused to be bullied or intimidated,” writes
    Boston Globe contributor Renee Graham. “She understood her rights,
    but for African-Americans in encounters with police, the appalling price for
    asserting even the most basic rights can be their lives.”

    Clearly, the language of freedom is no longer the
    common tongue spoken by the citizenry and their government. With the government
    having shifted into a language of force, “we the people” have been reduced to
    suspects in a surveillance state, criminals in a police state, and enemy
    combatants in a military empire.
    http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/08/drivers-beware-the-costly-deadly-dangers-of-traffic-stops-in-the-american-police-state/

  • ramrodd

    This system is convenient for the government but contemptuous of our Fourth
    Amendment rights. If there is probable cause for a DUI arrest, there should also
    be probable cause for a blood or breath test warrant. Asking the government to
    take that additional step is hardly unreasonable, especially given how easily it
    can be accomplished nowadays. To the contrary, what’s unreasonable, and
    therefore unconstitutional, is demanding access to the contents of someone’s
    body without a warrant.

    https://reason.com/archives/2015/12/21/want-my-blood-get-a-warrant

  • youngju

    This is what happens when you elect Democrats.

    • HughJorgan69

      Obviously since Republicans couldn’t get elected for dog catcher!

2016 DONTCOMPLY.COM