usmcmustang
Regular Member
Let Me Entertain You…
Okay, so TigerLily (TL) is on her motorcycle this past weekend and she is open carrying her Springfield XD .45. She is traversing the expanses of the great city of North Las Vegas, NV, near the city police station on Lake Mead Blvd. Well, an NLV police cruiser with two officers aboard lights her up and pulls her over for a suspected helmet violation, NRS 486.231.2 (Nevada is a helmet mandatory state – one of 20 or so in the country). TL has “something” on her head but the officers don’t believe it is a helmet or that there’s a “helmet” under whatever she has on her head. So… one of the officers sets forth to perform all the protocol required of a traffic stop… you know… driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. And… since TL has a visible firearm holstered on her hip, the officer also asks for her “Blue Card.” So, without further ado, here are some quotes from the conversation that took place between the officer and TL (Oh, yeah, she had her recorder going):
[FONT="]Officer: “Do you have a permit for your license…. uh… for your firearm? You have a blue card? You have it registered and everything?[/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL: I’d like to plead the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] on that sir.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer: Okay, you can’t plead the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] on that one. I have to know that it’s registered or not. You have the right to legally have a firearm in public, and that’s perfectly fine. But it has to be registered in the State of Nevada. So is that your firearm or can I presume that it’s stolen?[/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL: I’m pleading the 5[SUP]th[/SUP].[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer: Okay, very good.[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]
Okay, at this point the “interrogation” about the weapon registration ceases without any further engagement. Please note that the officer is under the apparent impression that it is the “State of Nevada” that requires firearm registration. Keep that in mind, because it will come up later in my narrative here based upon one other thing the officer says... also contrary to "the law."[/FONT]
[FONT="]So… let’s continue…[/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL:[/FONT][FONT="] (Engaging the officer in a conversation about citizens’ rights vs. police authority.) One of the things is keeping an oath to the Constitution, sir.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer: I don’t make the law. I swore to serve the law.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="](This is an important statement by the officer at this point, because he’s already espoused his ignorance of the firearm registration “law.” He’ll continue with his ignorance of “the law” in at least one more statement… let’s listen)…[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer: The law also does say you have to wear some kind of eye protection while you’re riding. Do you have clear glasses or sun glasses?[/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL: …Well, first of all, I’ve got a (wind)screen there … on my motorcycle…[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer: I’m gonna let you read it. This is from the Nevada Revised Statutes. [/FONT][FONT="](The officer showed TL a “cheat sheet” NRS bullet point list showing that protective eye gear is required by a motorcycle driver and passenger, NRS 486.231.2). [/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL: I’m very familiar with the Nevada Revised Statute.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer[/FONT][FONT="]: (Showing TL his list) It says here, “headgear, helmet, eye protection.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL was eventually cited for not wearing a helmet in violation of NRS 486.231.2 and was given a verbal warning under the same statute for not wearing protective eye gear (glasses, goggles, or face shield) once she put a pair of sunglasses on. However, it is apparent that the officer was ignorant of the law found at NRS 486.231.3, which specifically states that when a “[/FONT]motorcycle … is equipped with a transparent windscreen (which TL’s was)…, the driver and passenger are not required to wear glasses, goggles or face shields.”
So, here we have a police officer that in response to a citizen’s contention that it he is duty bound to uphold the oath he took to the Constitution, states that he “swore to serve the law,” even though he is pretty much ignorant of at least two aspects of “the law” that came up during this traffic stop. How many more "laws" he is ignorant with respect to or has misinterpreted we can only surmise.
And who is this fine officer who “swore to serve the law?” Well it is none other than Officer S. Salkoff, #1686. If any of you happen to encounter him, please give a great big shout out from TL.[FONT="][/FONT]
Okay, so TigerLily (TL) is on her motorcycle this past weekend and she is open carrying her Springfield XD .45. She is traversing the expanses of the great city of North Las Vegas, NV, near the city police station on Lake Mead Blvd. Well, an NLV police cruiser with two officers aboard lights her up and pulls her over for a suspected helmet violation, NRS 486.231.2 (Nevada is a helmet mandatory state – one of 20 or so in the country). TL has “something” on her head but the officers don’t believe it is a helmet or that there’s a “helmet” under whatever she has on her head. So… one of the officers sets forth to perform all the protocol required of a traffic stop… you know… driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. And… since TL has a visible firearm holstered on her hip, the officer also asks for her “Blue Card.” So, without further ado, here are some quotes from the conversation that took place between the officer and TL (Oh, yeah, she had her recorder going):
[FONT="]Officer: “Do you have a permit for your license…. uh… for your firearm? You have a blue card? You have it registered and everything?[/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL: I’d like to plead the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] on that sir.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer: Okay, you can’t plead the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] on that one. I have to know that it’s registered or not. You have the right to legally have a firearm in public, and that’s perfectly fine. But it has to be registered in the State of Nevada. So is that your firearm or can I presume that it’s stolen?[/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL: I’m pleading the 5[SUP]th[/SUP].[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer: Okay, very good.[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]
Okay, at this point the “interrogation” about the weapon registration ceases without any further engagement. Please note that the officer is under the apparent impression that it is the “State of Nevada” that requires firearm registration. Keep that in mind, because it will come up later in my narrative here based upon one other thing the officer says... also contrary to "the law."[/FONT]
[FONT="]So… let’s continue…[/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL:[/FONT][FONT="] (Engaging the officer in a conversation about citizens’ rights vs. police authority.) One of the things is keeping an oath to the Constitution, sir.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer: I don’t make the law. I swore to serve the law.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="](This is an important statement by the officer at this point, because he’s already espoused his ignorance of the firearm registration “law.” He’ll continue with his ignorance of “the law” in at least one more statement… let’s listen)…[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer: The law also does say you have to wear some kind of eye protection while you’re riding. Do you have clear glasses or sun glasses?[/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL: …Well, first of all, I’ve got a (wind)screen there … on my motorcycle…[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer: I’m gonna let you read it. This is from the Nevada Revised Statutes. [/FONT][FONT="](The officer showed TL a “cheat sheet” NRS bullet point list showing that protective eye gear is required by a motorcycle driver and passenger, NRS 486.231.2). [/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL: I’m very familiar with the Nevada Revised Statute.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Officer[/FONT][FONT="]: (Showing TL his list) It says here, “headgear, helmet, eye protection.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]
TL was eventually cited for not wearing a helmet in violation of NRS 486.231.2 and was given a verbal warning under the same statute for not wearing protective eye gear (glasses, goggles, or face shield) once she put a pair of sunglasses on. However, it is apparent that the officer was ignorant of the law found at NRS 486.231.3, which specifically states that when a “[/FONT]motorcycle … is equipped with a transparent windscreen (which TL’s was)…, the driver and passenger are not required to wear glasses, goggles or face shields.”
So, here we have a police officer that in response to a citizen’s contention that it he is duty bound to uphold the oath he took to the Constitution, states that he “swore to serve the law,” even though he is pretty much ignorant of at least two aspects of “the law” that came up during this traffic stop. How many more "laws" he is ignorant with respect to or has misinterpreted we can only surmise.
And who is this fine officer who “swore to serve the law?” Well it is none other than Officer S. Salkoff, #1686. If any of you happen to encounter him, please give a great big shout out from TL.[FONT="][/FONT]