Recently, Senator Jim DeMint stated, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

Is that a personal attack as some, such as Shreveport Councilman Calvin Lester, have suggested? Why of course not. If you read any of the history of Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo, you can immediately see several similarities.

First, if the BO Train were stopped, it would be a decisive defeat for the tactics used - primarily sweeping through legislation in a blitzkrieg manner. Second, it BO is attempting to push this health care "reform" through before the public becomes fully mobilized - much like Napoleon tried to attack before his opposition was mobilized.

"No one wants to tell the speaker (Nancy Pelosi) that she's moving too fast, and they damn sure don't want to tell the president," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

Let's face it - if Charlie Rangel thinks spending legislation is being rushed, then BO has a BIG problem.

I don't trust the government, especially the Feds, to get anything right except complicating our lives and freedoms and squandering our tax dollars. How can we trust them to get health care right?

By the way, why do people think that health care is a right? I agree that the health insurance system needs some oversight and reform of some sort, but I pay for my health care - and don't expect anyone else to pay for mine.

---------------
NRA Stickers
---------------
In my previous blog post, I mentioned that I thought Robert Baillio was profiled rather than just pulled over for failure to use his turn signals. Well, let me offer some clarification and some proof.

First, the complete police video does show Robert failing to use his turn signal while changing lanes and making a right-hand turn on Milam Street - so that is not debatable anymore. I would like to mention that most police officers constantly fail to use their turn signals during non-emergency driving too, but that is another discussion. However, if you actually read my article, I said this:

Then the officer marched over Robert's truck, removed the weapon, unloaded it, and temporarily seized it. This just smacks of both profiling and unreasonable search and seizure.

I did not say that the officer profiled him for the traffic stop. The officer profiled him for the search and seizure. Still don't believe me?



Baillio: When you said "have i got a handgun?" - you ask everybody that?
Officer: No. Not everybody. Its just, you know, you've got some stickers. Especially when you've got an NRA sticker. Anybody that has an NRA sticker needs to have a gun. If they don't have a gun they'd better get one.

Do what? I'm glad that according to Mayor Cedric Glover the officer is a member of the NRA. I'm also glad that he apparently thinks anyone with an NRA sticker should have a gun.

What concerns me (and a lot of other people) is that he illegally searched and temporarily seized the weapon because of the NRA sticker!

------------------
Arizona v. Gant
------------------

Now Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover can try to continue and spin this anyway that he wants. After all, he is a politician. I don't care if he thinks this is a mark on the "next great city of the south". It is a mark and a bad one - that was caused by Cedric Glover's remarks after the fact. Then you interview Ed Jones, the city attorney, and he cites a legitimate reason for the officer to ask about a weapon in the vehicle. Ok, I agree with that too, but the problem is that the officer searched the vehicle without probably cause, an arrest, or a warrant.

Robert had the legitimate and legal right to refuse a vehicle search, but the officer did not give him the opportunity. That put Robert in the odd predicament of trying to prevent the officer from searching or arguing with the officer. Guess where that would have probably led?

According to KSLA 12's story, an officer can search a person if he believes a crime has been committed. For an officer's own protection, they can also frisk the outer clothing if they believe the suspect is armed. This is known as a "Terry Stop". In the case of Robert Baillio, the traffic stop was for a civil infraction, which is not considered a crime, and thus excludes searching of the vehicle.

Maybe KSLA should have done a little better homework and read up on Arizona v. Gant. In the 2008 SCOTUS made a decision that requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

So let's look at the common thread between a Terry Stop, Arizona v. Gant, and even Atwater v. City of Lago Vista - you must have an ARRESTEE to search beyond a pat-down. What part of that doesn't Cedric Glover, the Shreveport Police Department, and their city attorney seem to understand? You must have an arrest to search beyond a pat-down.

More References:
Brendlin v. California

Search Incident to Arrest


United States v. Robinson

From the Mouths of Officers - Think they are on our side as citizens?
Arrest: to deprive someone of their liberty....Short and sweet
An arrest is a state of mind in the eyes of the detainee.

------------------
Open Mouth - Insert 3rd Foot
------------------

Mayor Cedric Glover: ...I'm personally comfortable with what I said and how I said it...

Hey Mayor - why don't you admit the policy mistake and take efforts to correct it? We don't care about your personal comfort. We care about your understanding of the law, the Louisiana State Constitution, and the US Constitution. How about standing up for the citizens of Shreveport who elected you - and even those that didn't vote for you?

This continues to roll on, and Glover keeps putting his foot further in his mouth.

Video Link - Click Here

KSLA Channel 12 covered the story (finally after I emailed them), and Glover contends he is "proud" of the statements he made. Now how does that square with his statement to KTBS 3 that he was "taken out of context"? Which is it Cedric Glover - are you proud or out of context?

KSLA also spun it as a "knock on the next great city of south". Right. This is a knock on Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover. I bet the reporter got that quote right out of Glover's mouth. Great job on originality and in-depth reporting.

And one more thing - what is the deal with both KTBS and KSLA claiming they tried to contact Robert, and he didn't return the calls? I just spoke to Robert and neither station has tried to call him at home, work, or mobile. Come on guys.

Also, it is funny that Glover is trying to spin this as a negative to the Shreveport Police Department. It doesn't take an attorney or Constitutional scholar to figure out this statement:

To be absolutely clear: This issue is about the SPD Policies and about your erroneous statements, Mayor Cedric Glover.

KSLA got it partially right that you are not allowed to keep a weapon on your person or in close proximity; however, as the video clearly shows, Robert was not in close proximity to the weapon at all. Again, the officer allowed Robert to return to his vehicle and travel on to Nan-King Restaurant. If the officer was interested in his safety, why would he let Robert back in the vehicle where there possibly could have been another weapon? Again - those are red herrings to distract from the bigger picture which Glover made crystal clear.

As a matter of fact, I would argue that it is stupid for an officer to even ask the question. If I'm an armed criminal, I'm not going to be willing to divulge that information. I'm going to keep the gun hidden and out of sight. That's as dumb as the "Gun Free Zone" stickers on schools. Think armed criminals are going to follow those stickers?

Well the situation with Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover's comments about "your rights are suspended" has continued from a simmer to a slow boil. There are several blogs and forums that have now caught on, and it was even on the Moon Griffon Radio Show (about 1 hr 5 mins into mp3).

KTBS Channel 3 ran a story on it including a sort-of retraction from Mayor Glover. The funny thing is that Glover tries to say he was taken out of context. That's absurd! You can read the full text and watch the full conversation for yourself.

One of the problems is that Shreveport Mayor Glover assumes that Robert Baillio's weapon was on his person. We all know what happens when we "assume" something right?

Glover: I also know that my right to continue to holster my pistol or otherwise have it within my reach and control has been suspended in the interest of my safety, the officers and the public.

Source: http://www.votetherecord.com/?p=1577

If you read Glover's response to Matt with VoteTheRecord.com, you can see that Mayor Cedric Glover is also very arrogant. "Flair for the dramatic..."? Give me a break. That is borderline elitism.


As you can see in the police video, the officer went to Robert's truck, performed an illegal search and seizure and confiscated a weapon that was not easily within Robert's reach nor on his person. The officer's politeness and demeanor are not the issue, although his handling of discharging live ammo on the street should be. The issue is the Shreveport Mayor's policy - one that Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover states repeatedly is explained to each and every officer.

I was in Academy Sports a few days ago buying some .223 ammo and started discussing the issue with one of the gun counter guys. We had a nice discussion, but this guy stated "I'm kinda comfortable with seizing weapons in the interest of getting the drug dealers." I almost went into shock. Do what? That is a very dangerous path to travel!

Many of the posts and comments on this issue are missing the bigger point - INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

As a glaring example, you can see in this highlight of the Shreveport Police Procedure SPD 602.03 - officers are required to "Immediately identify yourself and advise the driver of the reason for the stop."

The officer clearly did not do this as the video shows. He first asked about weapons, for no apparent reason other than some pro-gun bumper stickers, then approached the truck, and illegally searched and seized the weapon. As much as I hate to say it, sounds like Robert needs to contact the ACLU on this one.

In the end, Glover is starting to get a lot of heat on this issue, and I hope it continues to increase. We simply cannot have a mayor of any city whose line of thinking is so flawed, and he won't admit his mistake.

The next Shreveport Mayoral Election is in 2010. Time to make Cedric Glover a one-term mayor. Time for citizens to stand up for our rights.

Labels: gun rights, mayor cedric glover, robert baillio

WATCH THE VIDEO ----- Watch/listen to this first!

Police Video of Weapon Seizure

GunTalk Magazine Podcast - Robert's 1st Interview

What Happened - by Robert Baillio

KTBS Channel 3 Story - Video 

Full Text of the Glover Interview  - Corresponds to the Video

MP3 File - Glover Interview (same audio track as video - corresponds to full text)

YouTube Video - Part 1 (for iPhone users)
YouTube Video - Part 2 (for iPhone users)

This situation almost defies sanity. Fortunately, we have audio to go along with this post and a transcript of the audio. Please read on and then listen to the audio at the end. You just won't believe what is said by the Mayor of a major southern U.S. city.

According to Mayor Cedric Glover of Shreveport, LA, when you are stopped by the police department, your "rights are suspended." That's right - even if the stop is a traffic violation - your rights as a citizen have been suspended. Huh?

Recently, a friend of mine was stopped for allegedly failing to use a turn signal. Sounds simple enough. Here is where it gets interesting.

One of the first things out of the officer's mouth: "Do you have any weapons in your vehicle?"

He did not initially ask for a name, registration, or proof of insurance. He asked if Robert Baillio was armed. If that isn't a case of profiling, then I don't know what is. The picture clearly shows the bumper stickers on Robert's truck windows. Failure to use a turn signal? Sure it was.


Robert was trying to be polite and cooperative and responded, "sure I do."

Then the officer marched over Robert's truck, removed the weapon, unloaded it, and temporarily seized it.

This just smacks of both profiling and unreasonable search and seizure. It is debatable whether Robert actually used his turn signal or not which is a traffic violation at worst. There was zero probable cause for a search and seizure. There was zero indication that Robert Baillio had been involved in any sort of crime. It is legal in the state of Louisiana to carry a loaded weapon in a vehicle. Robert's gun is registered. He has a concealed weapons permit. Robert made no attempt to hide anything, and was courteous to the officer.

The officer asked Robert if he was a member of the NRA. 

Do what? What does that have to do with a failure to use a turn signal violation? Why would a Shreveport Police Officer need to know that?

The officer never issued Robert a ticket. As a matter of fact, he even followed Robert to travel 2 blocks to Nan King Chinese Restaurant so Robert's could get his take-out Chinese food before they closed. The officer followed him there and finished the traffic stop in the parking lot!

If Robert was so much a threat with his weapon, why was he even allowed to get back into his vehicle?

See the point?

-------------------
It's Glover's Policy - and it needs to be rejected by citizens
------------------

Here is where it gets more interesting. This problem is a systemic one that starts at the highest level of the Shreveport city government. No, I'm not a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist either. Mayor Cedric Glover states very clearly and repeatedly that the policy is in place.

Mayor Cedric Glover: Your rights have been suspended.

He stated that fact 11 times in the 19 minute phone conversation. This was not a slip of the tongue, and he did not mis-speak. Mayor Cedric Glover meant what he said.

----------------------
Anti-Gun Group
----------------------

Did you know that Glover is a member of the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" group - headed by Michael Bloomberg from New York? Can someone define exactly what an illegal gun looks like? Maybe a true fully-automatic weapon is illegal as defined by law; however this group is obviously against any gun.

The polarizing rhetoric of gun politics on all sides only obscures the tragic reality we see every day on our streets: violent criminals with easy access to firearms.

Well if they can see the violent criminals, why aren't they arresting them? It is all semantics - the guns aren't illegal at all. The "violent criminals" who use them are acting illegally. If these mayors think they can find the guns, then they can certainly find the owners - the violent criminals.

Read Part 2 Here

**Edited 6-15-09:
Removed text transcript -  made thread to long
Full Text of the Glover Interview  - Corresponds to the Video

http://mybossier.blogspot.com/2009/06/shreveport-mayor-says-that-when-police.html

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/06/totalitarianism-in-one-city-shreveports.html

http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=95&cpage=3#comment-422

http://www.talk540.com/shows/moon/moonwed.mp3

Labels: gun rights, mayor cedric glover, robert baillio

There is a bill making it's way through the Senate that should alarm everyone who uses technology and the Internet - even if it is just for email.  Thank goodness the EFF is tracking this one too.

Here's a scenario:

There is a national emergency - say a multiple terrorist strike - and you are attempting to connect to your friends and family through any means necessary. In todays age, that means email, Twitter, and Facebook. You are trying to get the latest in information, and the most efficient route is via the various RSS feeds for news. The only problem - you can't. The President has shut it down.

Think I'm kidding? Well, the "guardians of civil liberties" (aka Liberals) are trying to push through a bill that would allow that to happen. The President would basically have the authority to pull the plug and seriously invade our civil liberties - all in one fell swoop.

The Secretary of Commerce— shall have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access…

Without regard to any law? Give me a break.

Read up and contact your legislators - NOW!

S. 773: 111th Congress
A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-773

Yesterday, I did some "family time" by taking Genia and the twins to see "Race to Witch Mountain" at the Regal Boardwalk movie theater. Watching DVD's is fine, but there is just something about seeing a movie on the big screen that is better. Of course the boys wanted some snacks - specifically some chocolate dots.

They cost me $4.25 each for some ice cream dipped in chocolate. Ouch! But they were good! Here is the funny thing. There were 2 teenagers working the counter - a young white girl and a young black gentleman. The girl commented that the price of the dots had gone up.

The young guy responded, "Yeah, the minimum wage is going up so the cost of snacks is too."

My jaw almost hit the floor! I congratulated him for knowing the basics of economics: when the cost of goods sold is increased, the selling price will typically be increased to close the gap on margins.

The young man responded again, "Yeah, I know. It just drives costs up for everyone so we don't really get a raise."

Now, if a young black teenage guy gets it (who is not the typical demographic to respond negatively to minimum wage increases), then why can't everyone else?

Note: I only mention race because it is relevant to demographics, voting preferences, etc.