Surrendering your Weapon to an Officer

[Guest clsutton21]

My new sig line!!!!!

You're welcome!

[Guest jth_3s]

THIS IS GEORGIA NOT TENNESSEE

THE STATE v. JONES, 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008)

FOURTH DIVISION

BARNES, C. J.,

SMITH, P. J., MILLER, J.

A07A2054

Court of Appeals of Georgia

January 11, 2008

SM-072C

Smith, Presiding Judge.

The State appeals from the trial court's grant of Dennis Alan Jones's motion to suppress. The trial court correctly found that the officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize a firearm in Jones's vehicle. We therefore affirm.

We must follow three principles when reviewing a trial court's order concerning a motion to suppress evidence:

First, the judge sits as the trier of facts. The trial judge hears the evidence, and his findings based upon conflicting evidence are analogous to the verdict of a jury and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support it. Second, the trial court's decision with regard to questions of fact and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. Third, the reviewing court must construe the evidence most favorably to the upholding of the trial court's findings and judgment.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 (602 SE2d 271) (2004). So viewed, the evidence shows that a City of Cedartown police officer stopped Jones's vehicle because its tag light was out. The officer later added on cross-examination that he observed Jones weaving, but he acknowledged that once he spoke with Jones he concluded he was not under the influence.(fn1) The officer asked for and received Jones's license, but he did not check it immediately because he saw a hunting rifle in the cab of Jones's pickup truck. Instead, for that reason, he asked Jones to step out of the vehicle.

Although the officer testified that Jones consented to a pat-down of his person, Jones testified that the officer did not ask permission but simply began to pat him down. The officer acknowledged that he found nothing in the pat-down search. The officer then told Jones he "had to look at the gun." Jones, feeling that he did not have "any choice at that point," told the officer, "Do what you've got to do." Although he did not need to do so to reach the firearm, the officer entered the truck and moved some clothes partially covering the rifle, exposing the contraband that forms the basis of Jones's motion to suppress.

The officer did not testify to any suspicious conduct or furtive movement on the part of Jones at any time, and he testified repeatedly that he was not in fear of any aggressive action. The officer candidly stated that he had a "standard procedure" of securing any firearm he saw in a vehicle during a traffic stop, because "several times" he had found a stolen gun in a vehicle. He had, however, no reason to believe that this particular hunting rifle was stolen.

The trial court granted the motion to suppress from the bench, explaining that the State had failed to show any legal justification for the officer's insistence on seizing Jones's firearm. We agree.

At least three types of police-citizen encounters exist: verbal communications involving no coercion or detention; brief "stops" or "seizures" that require reasonable suspicion; and "arrests," which can only be supported by probable cause. A first-tier encounter never intrudes upon any constitutionally protected interest, since the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between police and citizens, but simply to prevent arbitrary and oppressive police interference with the privacy and personal security of individual citizens. On the other hand, a second-tier encounter may violate the Fourth Amendment if the officer briefly "stops" or "seizes" a citizen without an articulable suspicion. Articulable suspicion requires a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that a citizen is involved in criminal activity.

(Citations omitted.) Brittian v. State, 257 Ga. App. 729, 731 (572 SE2d 76) (2002). Here, the officer had taken Jones's license and did not return it until after he had asked Jones to step out of the truck and completed the search. This therefore was a second-tier encounter. Ward v. State, 277 Ga. App. 790, 792 (627 SE2d 862) (2006). In such a case, the officer must have a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting the persons are involved in criminal activity. The officer's action must be justified by specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." (Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted.) Id.

Those facts are lacking here. The officer asserted that he stopped Jones because he suspected he might be DUI, but he quickly concluded that Jones was not intoxicated. The officer also testified that he did not fear for his safety, but asked to look at the rifle in the truck purely as a standard practice to see if it might be stolen. The officer therefore lacked justification to detain Jones, and his subsequent search was likewise unjustified. Id. at 793.

The State argues that Megesi v. State, 277 Ga. App. 855 (627 SE2d 814) (2006) (physical precedent only), justifies the seizure of the rifle. But, as the trial court noted, that decision is physical precedent only. In fact, the special concurrence in Megesi explicitly disclaims the notion that the presence of a visible firearm in a vehicle, without more, justifies a search. Id. at 860. This comports with the United States Supreme Court's directive:

[T]he search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous

and

the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.

(Citations and footnote omitted; emphasis supplied.) Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049 (103 SC 3469, 77 LE2d 1201) (1983).(fn2)

Georgia decisions agree that in order to justify a search of a vehicle for weapons, some conduct on the part of the occupants such as furtive movements or other indications of danger to the officer must be shown, and the officer must have an "objectively reasonable" belief that the occupants of a vehicle are "potentially dangerous." Silva v. State, 278 Ga. 506, 508 (604 SE2d 171) (2004) (driver leaned under seat as if to conceal weapon and drove recklessly while in that position, then offered implausible explanation for his conduct.) Here, no evidence was presented of furtive movements or danger; in fact, the officer candidly acknowledged that the search was merely his standard procedure because any firearm might be stolen. On its face, as noted by Jones, this policy justifies the search of any vehicle occupied by hunters or sport shooters with their firearms, or any pickup truck with a rifle or shotgun on the rear window rack. This is precisely the danger of "carte blanche authority to `secure' all weapons during a routine traffic stop," noted by the special concurrence in Megesi, supra, 277 Ga. App. at 860.

The State also argues that Jones consented to the seizure of his rifle. But "t is well settled that acquiescence cannot substitute for free consent. [Cits.]" Corley v. State, 236 Ga. App. 302, 306-307 (1) ( (512 SE2d 41) (1999). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly granted Jones's motion to suppress.

Judgment affirmed. Barnes, C. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Edited October 29, 2009 by jth_3s

[TGO David]

Man I was able to carry in restaurants that serve booze in Kentucky for the past 15 years. Couldn't do that in Tennessee until just recently. So what happens in Georgia really doesn't have anything to do with what happens here.

[Guest jth_3s]

Man I was able to carry in restaurants that serve booze in Kentucky for the past 15 years. Couldn't do that in Tennessee until just recently. So what happens in Georgia really doesn't have anything to do with what happens here.

I know but it is possible a TN court could rule the same way. The way the judge ruled is similar to how our law reads. I thought it was worth sharing

[JayC]

Man I was able to carry in restaurants that serve booze in Kentucky for the past 15 years. Couldn't do that in Tennessee until just recently. So what happens in Georgia really doesn't have anything to do with what happens here.

While I agree, if you just didn't answer the officers question about whether you're armed or not, then RAS per current case law (which is virtually identical in TN as it is in GA) comes into play...

Keep in mind while TN state law does allow an officer to disarm you, it does not require you to provide your firearm to the officer or even tell the officer you are armed. The law also does not grant an exception to officer to search your person, your vehicle or house to disarm you.

So, it seems as if unless you inform the officer you're carrying or the officer has RAS that you have or will commit a crime, he can't search your car to find it (keeping in mind that the only way he'd find out that you're carrying is from the DL check which states you have a valid HCP).

Now obviously you can't lie to the officer because that would be a crime, but just refusing to answer the question or smartly sidestepping any questions regarding your carry status would be perfectly legal under current TN state law.

The key issue is that by informing an officer you are carrying you open him up to disarm you, and possible handle your firearm in a way that makes you uncomfortable. By following the law and refusing to answer any questions about whether you are armed or not, you basically remove the ability to be disarmed.

[Guest jth_3s]

While I agree, if you just didn't answer the officers question about whether you're armed or not, then RAS per current case law (which is virtually identical in TN as it is in GA) comes into play...

Keep in mind while TN state law does allow an officer to disarm you, it does not require you to provide your firearm to the officer or even tell the officer you are armed. The law also does not grant an exception to officer to search your person, your vehicle or house to disarm you.

So, it seems as if unless you inform the officer you're carrying or the officer has RAS that you have or will commit a crime, he can't search your car to find it (keeping in mind that the only way he'd find out that you're carrying is from the DL check which states you have a valid HCP).

Now obviously you can't lie to the officer because that would be a crime, but just refusing to answer the question or smartly sidestepping any questions regarding your carry status would be perfectly legal under current TN state law.

The key issue is that by informing an officer you are carrying you open him up to disarm you, and possible handle your firearm in a way that makes you uncomfortable. By following the law and refusing to answer any questions about whether you are armed or not, you basically remove the ability to be disarmed.

I know but I had to tell him I was armed because the gun was in the glove box with my registration and insurance. I wont let that happen again.

[Fallguy]

Man I was able to carry in restaurants that serve booze in Kentucky for the past 15 years. Couldn't do that in Tennessee until just recently. So what happens in Georgia really doesn't have anything to do with what happens here.

True, but state courts do take notice of rulings in other states even if they are not bound by them.

[Guest grimel]

Still banging this ho, eh?

You still haven't pointed out where it says in the constitution that an officer of the law has no right to temporarily place your weapon in easy sight. Once you point this out to me, then I will accept that your 10th amendment argument. And before you do, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an officer of the law temporarily placing your weapon in easy sight.

You have a conceptual error. The US Constitution gives boundaries on government. IOW, it says what the government can do, not what it can do. So, it is your responsibility to show where it says he can do it.

[Guest jth_3s]

You have a conceptual error. The US Constitution gives boundaries on government. IOW, it says what the government can do, not what it can do. So, it is your responsibility to show where it says he can do it.

+1

[Guest clsutton21]

You have a conceptual error. The US Constitution gives boundaries on government. IOW, it says what the government can do, not what it can do. So, it is your responsibility to show where it says he can do it.

Then why does it say that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm pretty sure that is saying it can't do something.

[Guest jth_3s]

Then why does it say that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm pretty sure that is saying it can't do something.

The Constitution tells the Federal and State Governments what its limits are. It is telling the government that the people are entitled to certain rights and those rights shall not be violated. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The constitution never gives us the right to keep and bear arms, the founders believed this was a natural right and created the 2A the keep the government from passing a law to violate our natural right. The Constitution is a set of rules for the Federal and State Government nowhere does it makes laws against the people. Natural Rights are not granted by the government they come from God. If you are interested in this I would encourage you to read Constitutional Chaos by Andrew Napolitano I live in cookeville and would loan you the book if you are interested.

Edited October 30, 2009 by jth_3s

[USMCJG]

Then why does it say that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm pretty sure that is saying it can't do something.

The Constitution does both. It clearly enumerates the powers of the Federal government giving all other powers to the states. And in a select few very special cases(the Bill of Rights) it specifically spells out what the Federal government cannot do to what the founders considered to be our most important rights, our birthrights. I believe that the first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights are, at least in part, what the Constitution refers to in the Tenth Amendment when it says "...nor prohibited by it to the states...". It is my belief that the Second Amendment was always intended to be incorporated.

As for whether or not an officer should be able to temporarily take control of your weapon without RAS or PC, it seems to me that such an act should violate the Second('...to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...'), Fourth('...against unreasonable searches and seizures...'), and Fifth Amendments('...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law...'). None of the aforementioned amendments set a time limit on what constitutes an infringement, a seizure, or a deprivation of property. Having said all of that, the law is what it is. Obey it, whether it is Constitutional or not, or be prepared to face the consequences. If you don't like it and want to change it, you get a chance to make a difference every two years.

[Guest jth_3s]

The Constitution does both. It clearly enumerates the powers of the Federal government giving all other powers to the states. And in a select few very special cases(the Bill of Rights) it specifically spells out what the Federal government cannot do to what the founders considered to be our most important rights, our birthrights. I believe that the first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights are, at least in part, what the Constitution refers to in the Tenth Amendment when it says "...nor prohibited by it to the states...". It is my belief that the Second Amendment was always intended to be incorporated.

As for whether or not an officer should be able to temporarily take control of your weapon without RAS or PC, it seems to me that such an act should violate the Second('...to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...'), Fourth('...against unreasonable searches and seizures...'), and Fifth Amendments('...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law...'). None of the aforementioned amendments set a time limit on what constitutes an infringement, a seizure, or a deprivation of property. Having said all of that, the law is what it is. Obey it, whether it is Constitutional or not, or be prepared to face the consequences. If you don't like it and want to change it, you get a chance to make a difference every two years.

You are correct I should have specified bill of rights. I just Hope I have a chance to make a difference in 2010. I thought about moving to KY so I could Vote for Rand Paul lol.

Edited October 30, 2009 by jth_3s

[Wingshooter]

As I was reading this thread I kept thinking one thing: Don't scratch the paint, don't scratch the paint, don't scratch the paint.... It only took 61 posts before someone touched on my main concern.

Call me silly, I guess.

That's what I've been thinking. I go nuts if somebody lays a heavy metal object on one of my cars (except for my truck - it already has a lot of "character marks" )

Was the gun in a holster?

Did he retrieve it from the glove box, or did you hand it to him?

[Guest jth_3s]

That's what I've been thinking. I go nuts if somebody lays a heavy metal object on one of my cars (except for my truck - it already has a lot of "character marks" )

Was the gun in a holster?

Did he retrieve it from the glove box, or did you hand it to him?

I handed it to his is the funniest part. He actually gave me a better opportunity to blast him if than if I had left it in there. But Like a guy earlier said he might have just wanted to see what I was packing. It was a S&W 642 in a Desantis Nemesis pocket holster. I doubt it had any chance of scratching my paint and I wouldn't have cared but someone else might have.

[Wingshooter]

You're right I should have, but like I said It is not worth the time or money to fight it in court. Had I refused I would have probably been arrested and as a college student I cant really afford to fight it right now. I was more ticketed off about the seatbelt than anything I did tell him my feelings on that at the scene.

Was this before or after he asked for your weapon? Just trying to gain some insight. If he took it after you questioned the seatbelt issue then maybe he thought there might be a confrontation at some point.

I don't like the idea of an officer disarming an HCP holder just because they know that a gun is present. It would make me uncomfortable for my gun to be moved around at all during a traffic stop. I would rather just keep it put and keep my hands in plain view. Maybe it had something to do with your gun's close proximity to the papers that you were going to be reaching for in the glove box. When I am driving, I keep my wallet out of my back pocket and on the seat in case I get pulled over. I wouldn't want it to look like I was reaching for my gun when I was going for my DL. I follow the same rule with the papers in the glove box (I don't put my gun in there).

It seems as if this officer just wanted the gun to remain within his sight while he went back to his car, but was he really concerned for his safety or just doing it because he can? Who knows...

I wouldn't take it too personal or care so much about other people seeing my gun, but that's just me. I do see your point, though.

[Guest jth_3s]

Was this before or after he asked for your weapon? Just trying to gain some insight. If he took it after you questioned the seatbelt issue then maybe he thought there might be a confrontation at some point.

I don't like the idea of an officer disarming an HCP holder just because they know that a gun is present. It would make me uncomfortable for my gun to be moved around at all during a traffic stop. I would rather just keep it put and keep my hands in plain view. Maybe it had something to do with your gun's close proximity to the papers that you were going to be reaching for in the glove box. When I am driving, I keep my wallet out of my back pocket and on the seat in case I get pulled over. I wouldn't want it to look like I was reaching for my gun when I was going for my DL. I follow the same rule with the papers in the glove box (I don't put my gun in there).

It seems as if this officer just wanted the gun to remain within his sight while he went back to his car, but was he really concerned for his safety or just doing it because he can? Who knows...

I wouldn't take it too personal or care so much about other people seeing my gun, but that's just me. I do see your point, though.

He took my gun after he told me about the seatbelt. All I said was OK and when he asked for license and registration I told him I had a permit and a gun in the glove box. He asked for it so I gave it to him. I dont normally put my gun in the glove box I usually keep it seperate. As for people seeing it, it happened in a small town where I live NOT COOKEVILLE so criminals know me and my truck.

[Wingshooter]

I handed it to his is the funniest part. He actually gave me a better opportunity to blast him if than if I had left it in there. But Like a guy earlier said he might have just wanted to see what I was packing. It was a S&W 642 in a Desantis Nemesis pocket holster. I doubt it had any chance of scratching my paint and I wouldn't have cared but someone else might have.

Wow. That seems like a bad position to be in. If a cop pulls me over, I don't want to have to touch my gun. I would be concerned that him or his partner might get the wrong impression or misjudge the situation. I can hear the backup now... "I just saw him getting a gun, so I shot." It sounds like there was only one officer there with your situation, but you never know.

I like the 642... nice gun.

[JayC]

Wow. That seems like a bad position to be in. If a cop pulls me over, I don't want to have to touch my gun. I would be concerned that him or his partner might get the wrong impression or misjudge the situation. I can hear the backup now... "I just saw him getting a gun, so I shot." It sounds like there was only one officer there with your situation, but you never know.

I like the 642... nice gun.

Which is the one reason some people will argue that you should not inform under the current law...

Worse case an officer disarms you, and while handling a weapon they are not trained on or familiar with has a ND and is killed, best of luck trying to explain to the responding officers he shot himself with your gun. Is it likely, maybe not, but probably more likely than a HCP shooting him over a ticket.

[Guest HexHead]

THIS IS GEORGIA NOT TENNESSEE

THE STATE v. JONES, 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008)

FOURTH DIVISION

BARNES, C. J.,

SMITH, P. J., MILLER, J.

A07A2054

Court of Appeals of Georgia

January 11, 2008

SM-072C

Smith, Presiding Judge.

The State appeals from the trial court's grant of Dennis Alan Jones's motion to suppress. The trial court correctly found that the officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize a firearm in Jones's vehicle. We therefore affirm.

We must follow three principles when reviewing a trial court's order concerning a motion to suppress evidence:

First, the judge sits as the trier of facts. The trial judge hears the evidence, and his findings based upon conflicting evidence are analogous to the verdict of a jury and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support it. Second, the trial court's decision with regard to questions of fact and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. Third, the reviewing court must construe the evidence most favorably to the upholding of the trial court's findings and judgment.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 (602 SE2d 271) (2004). So viewed, the evidence shows that a City of Cedartown police officer stopped Jones's vehicle because its tag light was out. The officer later added on cross-examination that he observed Jones weaving, but he acknowledged that once he spoke with Jones he concluded he was not under the influence.(fn1) The officer asked for and received Jones's license, but he did not check it immediately because he saw a hunting rifle in the cab of Jones's pickup truck. Instead, for that reason, he asked Jones to step out of the vehicle.

Although the officer testified that Jones consented to a pat-down of his person, Jones testified that the officer did not ask permission but simply began to pat him down. The officer acknowledged that he found nothing in the pat-down search. The officer then told Jones he "had to look at the gun." Jones, feeling that he did not have "any choice at that point," told the officer, "Do what you've got to do." Although he did not need to do so to reach the firearm, the officer entered the truck and moved some clothes partially covering the rifle, exposing the contraband that forms the basis of Jones's motion to suppress.

The officer did not testify to any suspicious conduct or furtive movement on the part of Jones at any time, and he testified repeatedly that he was not in fear of any aggressive action. The officer candidly stated that he had a "standard procedure" of securing any firearm he saw in a vehicle during a traffic stop, because "several times" he had found a stolen gun in a vehicle. He had, however, no reason to believe that this particular hunting rifle was stolen.

The trial court granted the motion to suppress from the bench, explaining that the State had failed to show any legal justification for the officer's insistence on seizing Jones's firearm. We agree.

At least three types of police-citizen encounters exist: verbal communications involving no coercion or detention; brief "stops" or "seizures" that require reasonable suspicion; and "arrests," which can only be supported by probable cause. A first-tier encounter never intrudes upon any constitutionally protected interest, since the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between police and citizens, but simply to prevent arbitrary and oppressive police interference with the privacy and personal security of individual citizens. On the other hand, a second-tier encounter may violate the Fourth Amendment if the officer briefly "stops" or "seizes" a citizen without an articulable suspicion. Articulable suspicion requires a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that a citizen is involved in criminal activity.

(Citations omitted.) Brittian v. State, 257 Ga. App. 729, 731 (572 SE2d 76) (2002). Here, the officer had taken Jones's license and did not return it until after he had asked Jones to step out of the truck and completed the search. This therefore was a second-tier encounter. Ward v. State, 277 Ga. App. 790, 792 (627 SE2d 862) (2006). In such a case, the officer must have a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting the persons are involved in criminal activity. The officer's action must be justified by specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." (Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted.) Id.

Those facts are lacking here. The officer asserted that he stopped Jones because he suspected he might be DUI, but he quickly concluded that Jones was not intoxicated. The officer also testified that he did not fear for his safety, but asked to look at the rifle in the truck purely as a standard practice to see if it might be stolen. The officer therefore lacked justification to detain Jones, and his subsequent search was likewise unjustified. Id. at 793.

The State argues that Megesi v. State, 277 Ga. App. 855 (627 SE2d 814) (2006) (physical precedent only), justifies the seizure of the rifle. But, as the trial court noted, that decision is physical precedent only. In fact, the special concurrence in Megesi explicitly disclaims the notion that the presence of a visible firearm in a vehicle, without more, justifies a search. Id. at 860. This comports with the United States Supreme Court's directive:

[T]he search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous

and

the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.

(Citations and footnote omitted; emphasis supplied.) Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049 (103 SC 3469, 77 LE2d 1201) (1983).(fn2)

Georgia decisions agree that in order to justify a search of a vehicle for weapons, some conduct on the part of the occupants such as furtive movements or other indications of danger to the officer must be shown, and the officer must have an "objectively reasonable" belief that the occupants of a vehicle are "potentially dangerous." Silva v. State, 278 Ga. 506, 508 (604 SE2d 171) (2004) (driver leaned under seat as if to conceal weapon and drove recklessly while in that position, then offered implausible explanation for his conduct.) Here, no evidence was presented of furtive movements or danger; in fact, the officer candidly acknowledged that the search was merely his standard procedure because any firearm might be stolen. On its face, as noted by Jones, this policy justifies the search of any vehicle occupied by hunters or sport shooters with their firearms, or any pickup truck with a rifle or shotgun on the rear window rack. This is precisely the danger of "carte blanche authority to `secure' all weapons during a routine traffic stop," noted by the special concurrence in Megesi, supra, 277 Ga. App. at 860.

The State also argues that Jones consented to the seizure of his rifle. But "t is well settled that acquiescence cannot substitute for free consent. [Cits.]" Corley v. State, 236 Ga. App. 302, 306-307 (1) ( (512 SE2d 41) (1999). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly granted Jones's motion to suppress.

Judgment affirmed. Barnes, C. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Seems like all this could have been avoided had Jones locked the truck upon exiting it.

[Guest HexHead]

The Constitution tells the Federal and State Governments what its limits are. It is telling the government that the people are entitled to certain rights and those rights shall not be violated. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The constitution never gives us the right to keep and bear arms, the founders believed this was a natural right and created the 2A the keep the government from passing a law to violate our natural right. The Constitution is a set of rules for the Federal and State Government nowhere does it makes laws against the people. Natural Rights are not granted by the government they come from God.

Explains why the secular-progressives are trying to eliminate all references to God from our society. If there are no God given rights, it's easier to strip them away from us, basically bypassing the Constitution. And we know liberals would love that opportunity.