On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 4:18:41 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:04:26 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 04:26:46 -0700, T wrote:
That was two really patient cops!
This was in N Las Vegas by NHP. Planned checkpoints are printed in
the local paper. They take place often around Holidays. Note the
driver was armed under Nevada law. (concealed or open carry).
Why should we note that he was armed? What does that have to do with
anything?
The stop took place in 2013. Go look at the law at that time when N
Las Vegas would put you in jail for a gun carry. A crow bar is still
considered a burglary tool after midnight just by entering the
jurisdiction. 
The laws have changed since then about guns. Nevada
passed a Preemption law to prevent local city or county ordinances
from superceding the state law; regarding gun carry, open or
concealed. Only the state makes gun laws.
Note that his car was legally registered under Nevada law. Note that
he was legally licensed under Nevada law. I'll bet that there was a whole
bunch of other irrelevant things that he was legally doing under Nevada
law. So what?
You point is what? A nit to pick?
My point was my question. You said "Note that the driver was armed under
Nevada law." I asked (more or less) "What does that have to do with the
situation?"
I'm just curious as to why you wanted us to note that the driver was armed.
This is a case where police and citizens exercise their rights under
the law.
This is a case where the driver was being a dick and wasting everybody's
time. What did he prove? That he could extend the time he spent at the DUI
checkpoint instead of just answering the question and moving on? I'll bet
he drove away happy with himself after wasting 6 minutes just to prove
that he knew the law. He could have been just as happy in under a minute
and still had time to thank the police for doing their best to protect *him*
from being killed or injured by a drunk driver.
Nevada law does not prevent any person from being a "dick".
Now, that we agree on. ;-)