—————
If Mr. Balioo thinks his stickers are the reason for his stop, he has the option to remove them, or he can deal with the response that comes with advertising his views.
—————-

There is that little thing called "freedom of speech" which means that you, as a citizen, can express your views, but public officials cannot harass you or punish you for those views. The only exceptions are the "yelling fire in a theater" scenarios for public disturbances.

————
Mr. Balioo
————

Funny how that same incorrect spelling is used each time on your posts. Your refusal to use correct names detracts from your point and removes credibility.

—————-
It didn't help that he was unavailable to defend his views when the news station called him, he must have been busy picking Chinese food.
—————-

Nice try, but neither KTBS 3 nor KSLA 12 tried to contact Robert (nor me for that matter). He is an easy person to find in the phone book and at his business.

Tom Gresham, Moon Griffon, and others have had no trouble contacting Robert. Neither did Cedric Glover himself.

Now, that being said, it is our further practice to request a perfunctory criminal history check based upon the picture ID presented by the citizen AND a stolen records check on the serial number of the firearm. Once those two things have come back with no red flags, the tension eases somewhat. We conduct our business, whether it be a verbal warning for whatever the traffic infraction was or a citation for that infraction. We then replace the weapon inside the vehicle (unloaded) and conclude our business.

I do believe that the Mayor of Shreveport badly misspoke. There is NEVER a suspension of rights, no matter how temporary and the Mayor is going to take some more heat over that. It is only during the temporary detention of a citizen and initial investigation that we may remove weapons from the immediate area. We do not confiscate them, as that implies taking permanent possession. I have confiscated weapons from citizens during traffic stops but only after that citizen has been arrested. I have not seized the weapon unless it was involved in a crime or was a stolen weapon. In the confiscation, the weapon is removed, tagged and identified and placed in property for return to the owner. In the event it is seized, it is placed into evidence and not released until after the trial or the charges have been dropped. In the event an owner cannot be identified, the weapon is destroyed.

Here in the South, there are many more firearms around than there are in other areas of our nation. We as police officers have to tread a very fine line and do our utmost not to violate the rights of citizens including the right to keep and bear arms. The writer of the story, Mr. Baillio, used what I believe to be an incorrect term when he stated the police officer 'confiscated' his weapon. I do not consider that a 'confiscation', but rather taking TEMPORARY possession of a firearm during an as yet unknown type of citizen encounter. Baillio stated the firearm was returned to him after the completion of the traffic stop, so in my mind, it was not 'confiscated'.

As far as advising a police officer that you have a firearm?? An emphatic YES is my answer. If you are a law abiding citizen and your firearm is legally in your possession, you have no issue whatsoever. ALWAYS tell a police officer you have a weapon inside your vehicle…as I described in the procedure above, you will have it returned to you before you leave the location.

I hope this somewhat answered your question. You are a law abiding citizen and you own a legal firearm…the police in Louisiana may not confiscate it unless it is involved in a crime or you have been arrested and the firearm needs to be secured. Have no worries…you are a citizen, not a criminal….

How can you exploit someone with something that is public record anyway? Also, Glove was stupid enough to make virtually the same argument to several other people – including KTBS and KSLA.

————
harm to our cause in regards to preservation of the 2nd amendment.
————

As stated repeatedly, take off the blinders and pay attention to Glover's comments. They are the issue. It would actually be the 4th Amendment that is under attack here.

Also, there are a few statements in that little thing called the "Declaration of Independence" that are called into play here. In case you need a refresher:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Change or dissolution in this case would be Glover's removal in 2010 at the next mayor election.