Never, ever consent to a search of your vehicles folks…
Like most retirees, 72-year old Gordon Van Gilder passes his time engaging in unique hobbies. After working in the New Jersey school system for 34 years, he has earned the right to live the golden years of his life on his own terms.
However, the law may decide otherwise. Van Gilder collects 18th century memorabilia. Included in his collection is a genuine antique flintlock pistol. One day, Van Gilder was pulled over for a “minor traffic violation.” The antique pistol was in his glove compartment, unloaded and wrapped in a cloth. He consented to a search of his vehicle, alerting the officer beforehand about the pistol. At the conclusion of the search, Van Gilder went home without issue.
The next morning, Van Gilder awoke to the sound of several patrol cars around his home. As it turns out, possession of even an antique pistol like the one Van Gilder has is a felony offense. Van Gilder will be fortunate indeed if Nappen can win him a similar arrangement. Even if a plea agreement is reached in order to avoid jail time, the teacher’s pension could be jeopardized.
This case brings rise to numerous civil liberties and rights violations. First of all, we can see a clear Second Amendment issue at hand. New Jersey’s gun laws are so broad as to treat a centuries-old pistol, which is more of a collectible than an armament, as if it were capable of mass destruction. Because of the use of fear rather than reason in an effort to hinder the rights of gun-owners, innocent bystanders have gotten caught in the cross-fire of anti-gun legislation. Any argument that claims the need for such regulations because of safety can quickly be dispelled through a story like this one. This occurrence proves that gun laws are not about protection; they are explicitly about exhibiting power and control over the citizenry.
An additional issue is the expansive power of the police in searching vehicles (particularly in contrast to that same ability for homes). Police need only a traffic violation in order to pull a car over. This is problematic in that nearly every driver commits some kind of traffic violation, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Because of the ever-expanding Rolodex of laws created by federal and state legislatures (particularly laws applying to drivers), it has become almost impossible to avoid breaking the law. Officers can use such an advantage to target those drivers of whom they are suspicious, following them for as long as is necessary to catch them in the act of breaking traffic regulations.
[RELATED: 10 Rules for Dealing with Police]
A third issue is the ever-pervading feeling of soft compulsion by the police. When Mr. Van Gilder was pulled over, he was very likely nervous, as most Americans are in such interactions. Law enforcement so often takes advantage of this nervousness, whether they realize it or not. We have a general impulse to want to respect and obey authority, and we fear the repercussions if we do not. As much as Miranda rights, in conjunction with a few other developments in criminal procedure, have expanded our protections in police encounters, most do not fully know or understand such rights granted to them under the law.
Mr. Van Gilder should have just said “no” when asked if would consent to a search. However, I certainly do not blame him for either not knowing better or not thinking he had anything to hide. It speaks volumes when even a man who has taught for decades, and is no way “uneducated,” can be taken advantage of in such a way. It can happen to any one of us. For that reason, we must always stay vigilant and aware of our rights. [RELATED: Top 12 Videos Guaranteed to Make Someone a Libertarian]
Gordon Van Gilder is just one man. But his story shines light upon so many issues that we as libertarians care about. We can only hope that this case is resolved in Mr. Van Gilder’s favor, and furthermore, that our country can use this as a “teaching” moment on the dangers of such expansive government overreach.
