View Full Version : SF cop builds .50 cal AR, gets arrested
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sfpd-arrest-weapons-charges-ar15-customized-20160727-snap-story.html
A San Francisco police officer has been arrested on suspicion of assembling his own illegal AR-15-style assault rifle, officials announced Wednesday.
Officer Thomas Abrahamsen, an 18-year veteran of the department, surrendered to authorities Tuesday and was booked and will face two felony weapons charges, San Francisco police said in a statement.
Not a smart move in Kommifornia, but it still sucks. 18 year career gone...
Eurodriver
07-28-16, 10:50
Why did he surrender?
Why did he surrender?
Probably because he know that having the police come get you when your wanted on weapons charges isn't the easiest road. Plus in some places it can influence bail/bond as a sign of being cooperative.
Article also talks about a program to officers to turn in other officers "for the good of the department" so it leads me to believe another officer was responsible for him getting caught.
Fry 'em. Idiot knew the law. It wasn't like he was an individual citizen stuck behind enemy lines; he was one of the few people responsible for enforcing the (hypocritical) gun laws on the average man and he knew he couldn't own it, yet he went and built it anyway. As is typical with many elitist government job holders, especially in libtard states, they think they're above the law. NOPE.
I'm all for supporting individual rights and lessening gun control, but this is simply the perfect meeting of two kinds of stupid.
If he was motivated enough to build it, he should have been motivated enough to move out of state.
I saw this on FB earlier today. Stupid question; How do you make a .50 BMG AR15? I have seen bolt action uppers that will work on an AR lower, but once its a bolt action and no longer a semi-auto, who cares about the bullet button. No? I get the .50 BMG ban, but I don't get the other part. Are they saying that because the lower is a weapon and had a bullet button its a semi-auto assault rifle even without a semi-auto upper?
I saw this on FB earlier today. Stupid question; How do you make a .50 BMG AR15? I have seen bolt action uppers that will work on an AR lower, but once its a bolt action and no longer a semi-auto, who cares about the bullet button. No? I get the .50 BMG ban, but I don't get the other part. Are they saying that because the lower is a weapon and had a bullet button its a semi-auto assault rifle even without a semi-auto upper?
I didn't read the article but I assume it was a 50 Beowulf.
I'm of two minds here: One part of me wants to think he is a good guy hemmed up on some BS.
The other part of me thinks that had he caught someone else doing what he did; he'd soak up attaboys and act like he caught Dillinger.
Pretty sure he could've legally owned a non neutered AR w/ standard capacity mags while others couldn't.
The Governator signed it into law. It's been law for a while.
So, I'm at a crossroads here.
I saw this on FB earlier today. Stupid question; How do you make a .50 BMG AR15? I have seen bolt action uppers that will work on an AR lower, but once its a bolt action and no longer a semi-auto, who cares about the bullet button. No? I get the .50 BMG ban, but I don't get the other part. Are they saying that because the lower is a weapon and had a bullet button its a semi-auto assault rifle even without a semi-auto upper?
I always thought the 50 BMG was illegal in Cali, period. Didn't Barrett refuse to sell his rifle to the LAPD because their citizens were not allowed to own it?
Sure as shit I was right
The .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 is a law in the state of California that effectively banned all .50 BMG-caliber rifles from being sold in the state. The law took effect on January 1, 2005
The legislature of California declared that "proliferation and use" of .50 BMG rifles posed a terrorist threat, as well as a threat to the "health, safety, and security of all residents" of California. The act required existing .50 BMG rifles to be registered with the state and prohibited the sale of any rifle after the ban went into effect. To quote the state web site, the act "regulates the .50 BMG rifles in essentially the same manner as assault weapons." The law specifically allowed a registration period of one year, now passed, to register any such firearms, after which unregistered weapons would become illegal firearms.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I'm of two minds here: One part of me wants to think he is a good guy hemmed up on some BS.
The other part of me thinks that had he caught someone else doing what he did; he'd soak up attaboys and act like he caught Dillinger.
Pretty sure he could've legally owned a non neutered AR w/ standard capacity mags while others couldn't.
The Governator signed it into law. It's been law for a while.
So, I'm at a crossroads here.
It looks like the charges are entirely based on the caliber of the weapon. 50-caliber (.50) weapons are illegal across the board in CA, regardless of whether they are semi-auto, bolt action, rifle, pistol, etc.
50 BMG is illegal in CA, unless you owned before and registered it. 50 AI is too, along with any other chamberings that can accept the round. .510 DTAC is kosher though.
titsonritz
07-28-16, 12:00
50 BMG is illegal in CA, unless you owned before and registered it. 50 AI is too, along with any other chamberings that can accept the round. .510 DTAC is kosher though.
I don't believe it is, anything .50 cal and above as I understand it.
It looks like the charges are entirely based on the caliber of the weapon. 50-caliber (.50) weapons are illegal across the board in CA, regardless of whether they are semi-auto, bolt action, rifle, pistol, etc.
I know it was Caliber specific. I'm just saying he could've had something legally of his own that his non-frocked fellow citizens couldn't own but decided to go one bigger by getting a .50 upper.
But the Governator, who is not known for his romantic comedies, made that caliber illegal almost a decade ago.
I live in a free(ish) Confederate State. Technically I could go down to my local fun store and tell 'em "Yo man order me up a Barrett with three extra clips and some Rafouss rounds" and not a humbug would be uttered.
And I would do that right now if I had the money and wasn't too sissy to part with a kidney.
But he lives by Cali law and they don't exempt individuals so.....
There it is.
I could be wrong, I moved here after the law was signed, don't own anything larger than a .30-06 and don't have any interest in anything larger than a .338 LM, can't even afford that.
This has to be a 50 Beowulf AR that's all the trouble, and every idiot news agency is just repeating the same BMG story because the "bullet that can travel miles" sounds way scary!!!
That said, I'm willing to bet that he knew the law and somehow thought himself above it.
fallenromeo
07-28-16, 13:26
I don't believe it is, anything .50 cal and above as I understand it.
but the SW 500 magnum is legal here. As is the ammo to shoot it? However, a Desert eagle in .50AE is not legal for purchase, but the ammo is. You can buy a Desert Eagle in 44 magnum and a conversion kit to .50AE, and that is legal...So I am unclear on where the line is drawn. I just stay away from .50 so as not to wade into muddy water. Don't have any interest in a .50 handgun, and can't afford a BMG.
I'm of two minds here: One part of me wants to think he is a good guy hemmed up on some BS.
The other part of me thinks that had he caught someone else doing what he did; he'd soak up attaboys and act like he caught Dillinger.
Pretty sure he could've legally owned a non neutered AR w/ standard capacity mags while others couldn't.
The Governator signed it into law. It's been law for a while.
So, I'm at a crossroads here.
If you're at a crossroads and don't know where to go, but you have two minds, I don't see the problem.
This has to be a 50 Beowulf AR that's all the trouble, and every idiot news agency is just repeating the same BMG story because the "bullet that can travel miles" sounds way scary!!!
That said, I'm willing to bet that he knew the law and somehow thought himself above it.
I could be one of those .50BMG bolt action uppers that fits a standard lower.
If you're at a crossroads and don't know where to go, but you have two minds, I don't see the problem.
But I have only one body.
Anyways, if he wanted legal .50 anything, he should've voted early and often and gotten his friends to do the same.
Or not get caught
eightmillimeter
07-28-16, 14:00
After 7/1/2016 the 50 BMG and anything with a detachable magazine via "bullet button" are covered by the same law. He probably built a couple regular AR's.
Coal Dragger
07-28-16, 14:08
He was an enforcer for the totalitarian state of California, and got caught violating one of their many asinine laws. Too bad for him.
If you live in California and value the 2nd Amendment I feel sorry for you, but you have a choice. Leave. Never go back.
Otherwise short of armed insurrection California is lost. Get out if you can.
Just going by what the article said, "50 BMG" obviously the person writing the article knows nothing about guns, may have pulled that out of his ass, but maybe not. Maybe just repeating some crap the PD told 'em.
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2016.pdf?
The law specifically identifies just .50 BMG. Not all .50 cal.
We are short on details here and just speculating. There are exemptions for LE to own "assault weapons" and "Hi-capacity magazines". So just to build a .50 Beowulf AR doesn't wash... and he didn't have to have a bullet button.
On edit... it says he violated state law. Reading closely, it just says he was charged under the law that includes AR's and .50 BMG. Not that he built an AR that was .50 cal.
We're still guessing. I'm guessing he built this gun in the last couple of weeks and that is why it is illegal.
He was an enforcer for the totalitarian state of California, and got caught violating one of their many asinine laws. Too bad for him.
If you live in California and value the 2nd Amendment I feel sorry for you, but you have a choice. Leave. Never go back.
Otherwise short of armed insurrection California is lost. Get out if you can.
I'm sorry, but I get tired of hearing this.
This is my state. I was born and raised here... 5th generation. I may have an uphill fight, but you are better served to fight along side me. As California goes, so goes the nation. As you are fine with CA going away, understand that NY, NJ, CN, MD, MA are right there too... and coming your way soon at a federal level if not the state level.
WE as responsible gun owners owe it to all our fellow brethren, wherever they may reside, to stand up with one another and address the problem wherever it may occur.
Coal Dragger
07-28-16, 15:15
Well I can't vote in your state elections, and I'm not willing to move somewhere less free. So other than supporting the NRA, there's not much I can realistically do for you other than vote in my state elections for people that will try to counteract the California stupidity at the national level. You can rest assured that I will do that.
I'm sorry, but I get tired of hearing this.
This is my state. I was born and raised here... 5th generation. I may have an uphill fight, but you are better served to fight along side me. As California goes, so goes the nation. As you are fine with CA going away, understand that NY, NJ, CN, MD, MA are right there too... and coming your way soon at a federal level if not the state level.
WE as responsible gun owners owe it to all our fellow brethren, wherever they may reside, to stand up with one another and address the problem wherever it may occur.
Man has a point. Most of your Westerns with rugged cowboys and rootin' tootin' shoot em ups were set in California.
The Communists are the ones ruining it.
People could be pumping money and support for people to get laws changed. I remember a DEA guy telling me as a young lad that pot will just NEVER be legal. And it's almost easier to get dope in CA than Amsterdam. Hell, I wager people in Amsterdam probably come to California.
So buy off some politicians and relegalize the guns.
If you move away from somewhere it should be because you genuinely want to. Not because you're a political refugee in your own nation.
fallenromeo
07-28-16, 16:10
I'm sorry, but I get tired of hearing this.
This is my state. I was born and raised here... 5th generation. I may have an uphill fight, but you are better served to fight along side me. As California goes, so goes the nation. As you are fine with CA going away, understand that NY, NJ, CN, MD, MA are right there too... and coming your way soon at a federal level if not the state level.
WE as responsible gun owners owe it to all our fellow brethren, wherever they may reside, to stand up with one another and address the problem wherever it may occur.
Exactly. CA has the most electoral college votes in the nation. Advising people to leave the state doesn't help anything. Just handing over that many votes to the opposition and thinking it won't have any effect at a federal level is not going to end well.
Coal Dragger
07-28-16, 16:23
Exactly. CA has the most electoral college votes in the nation. Advising people to leave the state doesn't help anything. Just handing over that many votes to the opposition and thinking it won't have any effect at a federal level is not going to end well.
Well they lose electoral college votes as their population decreases and other states pick those electoral college votes up. There are so many libtards in California that all of their electoral college votes always go for the totalitarian candidates in national elections. In 2010 California, for the first time in the state's history, did not gain any electoral college seats as the population did not increase enough to gain any.
If you live in California and value the 2nd Amendment I feel sorry for you, but you have a choice. Leave. Never go back.
Otherwise short of armed insurrection California is lost. Get out if you can.
So when a bunch of dirty commies break into your house, tell you how things are going to be, and crap on your dining room table, you're going to run away to someone else's house that hasn't been invaded by commies yet?
Nope. This is MY house b*tch!!! I don't know when or how, but I'm taking it back. I am a patient man. I will win, and I've got LOTS of help.
Eurodriver
07-28-16, 17:01
Probably because he know that having the police come get you when your wanted on weapons charges isn't the easiest road. Plus in some places it can influence bail/bond as a sign of being cooperative.
Makes sense, but you're essentially telling the state that their illegal laws are valid to enforce against you and willingly giving up your freedom to tyrants.
So when a bunch of dirty commies break into your house, tell you how things are going to be, and crap on your dining room table, you're going to run away to someone else's house that hasn't been invaded by commies yet?
Nope. This is MY house b*tch!!! I don't know when or how, but I'm taking it back. I am a patient man. I will win, and I've got LOTS of help.
If a bunch of dirty commies broke into my house they would be dead before they could tell me how things are going to be.
Get 500,000 of your fellow Calguns guys (not the ones that turn in fellow gun owners with unregistered AWs - shoot those guys in the balls) and go march on Sacramento with loaded unregistered ARs and normal capacity magazines. Carry a big sign at the front that says,
"Arrest us. We dare you."
Hell, could you imagine even a thousand guys doing that? It would be a shit show of epic proportions. You could quite literally...well, nevermind. None of that belongs on the internet.
Did he potentially do it to challenge the law??
Fry 'em. Idiot knew the law. It wasn't like he was an individual citizen stuck behind enemy lines; he was one of the few people responsible for enforcing the (hypocritical) gun laws on the average man and he knew he couldn't own it, yet he went and built it anyway. As is typical with many elitist government job holders, especially in libtard states, they think they're above the law. NOPE.
I'm all for supporting individual rights and lessening gun control, but this is simply the perfect meeting of two kinds of stupid.
Who take it easy. We don't know if this guy was just a decent dude who liked guns and wouldn't go out of his way to hammer other gun guys who aren't violent criminals. And leaving the state ensures that it will never be free again.
He was an enforcer for the totalitarian state of California, and got caught violating one of their many asinine laws. Too bad for him.
If you live in California and value the 2nd Amendment I feel sorry for you, but you have a choice. Leave. Never go back.
Otherwise short of armed insurrection California is lost. Get out if you can.
Not everyone can just pack up and move. Some are tied down by all sorts of obligations, not to mention that abandoning formerly free states means they will never be free again.
I'm sorry, but I get tired of hearing this.
This is my state. I was born and raised here... 5th generation. I may have an uphill fight, but you are better served to fight along side me. As California goes, so goes the nation. As you are fine with CA going away, understand that NY, NJ, CN, MD, MA are right there too... and coming your way soon at a federal level if not the state level.
WE as responsible gun owners owe it to all our fellow brethren, wherever they may reside, to stand up with one another and address the problem wherever it may occur.
Agreed. Shit, America is basically becoming a formerly free country. Should all non-Commies just move to ..... Antarctica or something?
So when a bunch of dirty commies break into your house, tell you how things are going to be, and crap on your dining room table, you're going to run away to someone else's house that hasn't been invaded by commies yet?
Nope. This is MY house b*tch!!! I don't know when or how, but I'm taking it back. I am a patient man. I will win, and I've got LOTS of help.
Bingo
He probably should've just went to see some of Leland Yee's buddies instead of building his own. Just saying...
Eurodriver
07-29-16, 16:18
Bingo
Not quite.
Saying America is "unfree" might have some truth. But to compare Californian freedom to Wyoming freedom is impossible.
Can you even still buy 2 Strokes?
Not quite.
Saying America is "unfree" might have some truth. But to compare Californian freedom to Wyoming freedom is impossible.
Can you even still buy 2 Strokes?
You have a valid point... but yes to the 2 strokes. :-)
Can you even still buy 2 Strokes?
Two stroke what? Bikes? Chainsaws? Etc?
Yes.
Two stroke what? Bikes? Chainsaws? Etc?
Yes.
Yeah but do t they have their messed up carbs by some CA regulations? I know there was a Husky Chainsaw I didn't buy because it had a CA compliant carb.
Singlestack Wonder
07-30-16, 09:57
It's time for all Gun manufacturers to tell all California police and other government agencies there that they will no longer sell them any firearms, service any firearms, or supply any firearms accessories. Let them deal with criminals they same way civilians have to, unarmed.
JackFanToM
07-30-16, 10:06
Fry 'em. Idiot knew the law. It wasn't like he was an individual citizen stuck behind enemy lines; he was one of the few people responsible for enforcing the (hypocritical) gun laws on the average man and he knew he couldn't own it, yet he went and built it anyway. As is typical with many elitist government job holders, especially in libtard states, they think they're above the law. NOPE.
I'm all for supporting individual rights and lessening gun control, but this is simply the perfect meeting of two kinds of stupid.
Police and soldiers don't make laws, merely charged with enforcement, often enough they don't agree with the laws. I am very against calling them hypocritical due to their choice to serve. Are there hypocrites among them, sure, but that needs to be judged on a case by case basis. I agree this guy made an incredibly stupid judgement call, and really has no excuse, but I'm not judging all California police officers.
Averageman
07-30-16, 11:56
We are likely to enter a time very soon when through Executive Order we will all be Felons.
I can't judge him for the gun, but his choice of fiends suck.
Police and soldiers don't make laws, merely charged with enforcement, often enough they don't agree with the laws. I am very against calling them hypocritical due to their choice to serve. Are there hypocrites among them, sure, but that needs to be judged on a case by case basis. I agree this guy made an incredibly stupid judgement call, and really has no excuse, but I'm not judging all California police officers.
Fair enough, but will you agree there is a fine line here? It was ruled after WWII that "just following orders" did not excuse war crimes. Obviously this is different than escorting Jews to the gas chamber, but these police officers swore to uphold the constitution. If the law makers then make an unconstitutional law, it puts law enforcement into a very bad position. Uphold your sworn oath, or follow the laws that go against that oath that the current regime has decided to sign into "law". Which one wins out will depend on each individual and each situation, I'm sure. My LEO friends are very upset about this. It is a big moral dilemma. They acknowledge that these laws are unjust, unconstitutional, and will do nothing to even slow down criminal misuse of firearms, but its their job to enforce the laws of the land. What's a man to do?
I suspect that the officer who is the subject of this thread was engaging in the "non-compliance" that many of us here advocate. I applaud him. He was hurting no one, doing nothing wrong, and exercising his God given Constitutionally protected birthrights. I am surprised and disappointed at how many M4C members wish to throw him under a bus, or write him off because he lives in a commie controlled state, or condemn him for breaking a ridiculous, unjust, unfounded, illegal law. I support this man. I wish every LEO in the state would do the same thing. Are they going to arrest every LEO and citizen? What do they think will happen in Stockton or Oakland the day LEOs start getting charged with gun crimes and thrown in the slammer? It will make the atrocities in some of those African countries look mild in comparison.
When most of us were kids, it was easy to discern "right" from "wrong". Right and wrong were usually synonymous with "legal" and "illegal". Not so anymore. Sad, but true. I'm really trying to teach my child about how this new world works. I don't want her to grow up to be a scofflaw, but at the same time, many of our current laws deserve to be scoffed at. For example, laws banning the .50BMG in CA. ZERO crimes have ever been committed with a .50 cal in this state. The law is completely unfounded, unjust and illegal as it goes against the 2A.
I've always asserted that law enforcement is the key to winning this battle. We have the citizens and we have the law makers. The legislators have seized power and are going against the will of "The People". The only way the suits in Sac can make these things happen is if LE backs them up and enforces their illegal laws. If LE simply says, "NO.", we the people win. It is also my assertion the LE is made of of "we the people". I share meals and special occasions with several LEO. I ate Christmas dinner at the table of a LEO that I consider a good friend. They are my friends and neighbors. I'm related to some of them. When enough is finally enough, they will lead the rebellion against this tyranny. I will happily follow their lead and support them any way I can. Without the support of "law enforcement", unjust illegal laws cannot be "enforced", even if the evil men in Sacramento write them down. Its just words on a piece of paper if LEOs won't back it up.
I get that the law should apply equally to all cops and civilians (and politicians too by the way) but crucifying a cop for the crime of possessing an AR while being a non-violent member of society doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. Yes, it would be great if all the cops were to say f*ck you to be unconstitutional laws they are asked to enforce, but this individual officer probably knows that he would simply be ending his career, be out of a job, and replaced by a fresh zombie body that would carry on enforcement of illegal laws.
I get that the law should apply equally to all cops and civilians (and politicians too by the way) but crucifying a cop for the crime of possessing an AR while being a non-violent member of society doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. Yes, it would be great if all the cops were to say f*ck you to be unconstitutional laws they are asked to enforce, but this individual officer probably knows that he would simply be ending his career, be out of a job, and replaced by a fresh zombie body that would carry on enforcement of illegal laws.
That is the defeated attitude "the man" wants us to have. No way. Not me. I've been rallying the troops with this speech for several years now. I have planted a lot of seeds in a lot of LE brains. Those seeds will come to fruition one day. You never know which officer is going to voice these ideas to other officers and start the tide turing against the lefties in power. One officer cannot do it alone. Neither can two. But get 10, 50, 100, 1000 within a single agency and all the fence sitters and followers will fall like dominoes onto our side. Most of them WANT to come to our side anyway... They just don't want to lose their jobs or go to prison. We need numbers. Get some big agencies going this way, let them learn that the higher ups cannot stop them when they are unified, get the public unified behind them, and we can't lose! We have the numbers, we just need some brave souls to take those first steps, and then we've got to immediately fall in behind them.
It sucks watching this lone officer swinging in the breeze all by himself. Sucks big time. Why don't his chief and fellow officers stand up for him? Stand up and tell the media and the prosecutors that these laws are unjust, unconstitutional, ineffective and pointless. He did nothing wrong, hurt nobody, and now an otherwise good man is charged with a crime? Its ridiculous.
Singlestack Wonder
07-30-16, 15:53
I get that the law should apply equally to all cops and civilians (and politicians too by the way) but crucifying a cop for the crime of possessing an AR while being a non-violent member of society doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. Yes, it would be great if all the cops were to say f*ck you to be unconstitutional laws they are asked to enforce, but this individual officer probably knows that he would simply be ending his career, be out of a job, and replaced by a fresh zombie body that would carry on enforcement of illegal laws.
Why should the cop receive any special privileges? Whether you like the laws or not, he should be procecuted to the same extent as a civilian who commits the same crime.
He was an enforcer for the totalitarian state of California, and got caught violating one of their many asinine laws. Too bad for him.
If you live in California and value the 2nd Amendment I feel sorry for you, but you have a choice. Leave. Never go back.
Otherwise short of armed insurrection California is lost. Get out if you can.
In California most of the gun owners vote for the anti gun politicians.
In CA, the anti-gun politicians pander to the law enforcement unions by writing in exemptions for law enforcement in exchange for their support in passing anti-gun laws.
This has has lead most CA LEOs to believe they are exempt from all CA gun laws. Which isn't the case.
If CA law enforcement officers/unions did not sell away their support and had decided to stand with law abiding citizens, then CA would not be the anti-gun bastion that it is today.
Why should the cop receive any special privileges? Whether you like the laws or not, he should be procecuted to the same extent as a civilian who commits the same crime.
And I vote that neither should be prosecuted for exercising their God given Constitutionally protected birth right. I say there was no crime committed by this officer. I say the crime of treason was committed by the treacherous legislators that wrote and passed these "laws".
In California most of the gun owners vote for the anti gun politicians.
Is that so? How many CA gun owners do you know? How many did you poll? I know a whole lotta gun people down here, and not one of them has ever expressed any hint of voting for any anti-gun laws or anti-gun politicians.
sevenhelmet
07-31-16, 12:18
And I vote that neither should be prosecuted for exercising their God given Constitutionally protected birth right. I say there was no crime committed by this officer. I say the crime of treason was committed by the treacherous legislators that wrote and passed these "laws".
Agree 100%. Unless he shot someone, no crime was committed.
Is that so? How many CA gun owners do you know? How many did you poll? I know a whole lotta gun people down here, and not one of them has ever expressed any hint of voting for any anti-gun laws or anti-gun politicians.
Exactly. It is distressing though, how many CA pro gun folks are completely ignorant of the new laws that just got passed. I'm educating people every day.
Is that so? How many CA gun owners do you know? How many did you poll? I know a whole lotta gun people down here, and not one of them has ever expressed any hint of voting for any anti-gun laws or anti-gun politicians.
Enough do so that Cali has been the tip of the spear of gun control for the entirety of my lifetime.
I feel for you bro, but you do not have the numbers. Haven't had the numbers for a long time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
07-31-16, 13:06
It was ruled after WWII that "just following orders" did not excuse war crimes. Obviously this is different than escorting Jews to the gas chamber, but these police officers swore to uphold the constitution. If the law makers then make an unconstitutional law, it puts law enforcement into a very bad position. Uphold your sworn oath, or follow the laws that go against that oath that the current regime has decided to sign into "law". Which one wins out will depend on each individual and each situation, I'm sure. My LEO friends are very upset about this. It is a big moral dilemma. They acknowledge that these laws are unjust, unconstitutional, and will do nothing to even slow down criminal misuse of firearms, but its their job to enforce the laws of the land. What's a man to do?
To be fair, the chief reason why, "Just following orders," isn't enough is because the most destructive conflict the world had ever seen had just come to an end and we had toppled a hate-filled government that had systematically destroyed 10 million people within its own borders and between 9 and 15 million Soviet civilians, so we needed to punish people, but we couldn't punish Germany as a whole and we weren't going to hang the people who had brains we (and the Soviets) could use, even if they were the ones handing out the orders. Plus Hitler was dead, so we couldn't hang him.
In any event, we had precious few we could hang who had been giving orders and we needed to hang somebody, so we said, "Just following orders," isn't a legal defense and hanged them anyway.
Of course, since then, we've had the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment which have shown that most human beings have a very, very powerful drive to ignore personal morality when a person of authority tells them to (and that's just when you're dealing with an authority figure, never mind what might happen when that authority figure can destroy your life if you don't follow their orders). It should be telling that in the war crimes trials since then, "Just following orders," has not come up once, to the best of my knowledge. Likely because a defense attorney with knowledge of these experiments (which every attorney involved in war crimes trials should be), could easily destroy the argument that, "'Just following orders,' isn't a valid defense."
Agree 100%. Unless he shot someone, no crime was committed.
As it turns out, between Prohibition and the War on Drugs, the US has made a shocking number of malum in se laws felonies, where 100 years ago, most felonies were malum prohibitum and were the sorts of things that you could be sentenced to death for. Frankly, society's obsession with, "being tough on crime," needs to end.
Exactly. It is distressing though, how many CA pro gun folks are completely ignorant of the new laws that just got passed. I'm educating people every day.
I have a buddy who I've told this forum about. When he lived in Montana, he was very knowledgeable about firearms and firearms laws. Was seriously thinking about getting silencers and SBRs. Moved to California a couple years ago (working for his brother's logistics firm, his brother and sister-in-law went to Redding, fell in love, and moved the business out there and he followed). Had no idea that California had just passed the gun laws they recently passed.
And most damning, he doesn't even really seem to care.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.