View Full Version : LEO views on Firearm Removal
many people have indicated their reactions, if a weapons ban was implimented and the decision made, to confiscate weapons. This link is from LEO's discussing that potential; also emphasizes the moral dilema they are already considering.
if you feel the need to comment in their thread, pls respect the tone of the thread so far.......ie i don't want to be banned for linking to them. thanks.
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111515
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-06-09, 09:39
Some NRA guy was on some news show and he said something like, We never thought that police would follow the disarm order and we never thought that people wouldn't fight it.
NOLA aside, I just find it hard to believe that they are going to go door to door taking ARs and 50s, holy Molon Labe! I think it is a battle of a thousand cuts. We couldn't be so 'lucky' that it would be a one time good guy v. bad guy confrontation.
trigger locks, storage restrictions, transfer issues, ammo taxation, registration, 'certification' and a bunch of other "tions" will be the erosion of our liberties.
Interesting discussion going on there. IMO a lot have it right. They are sworn to uphold the CONSTITUTION, not the office of or the President, or the Congress. And the 2A states at the end "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Keep in mind, I believe the "people" to be law abiding citizens, not criminals.
trigger locks, storage restrictions, transfer issues, ammo taxation, registration, 'certification' and a bunch of other "tions" will be the erosion of our liberties.
And to me that is infringement. The way I see it, politicians, who also swear to uphold the Constitution, are the biggest violators of their oath.
Outlander Systems
02-06-09, 09:54
Awesome link.
I've always believed that the bulk of LEOs and .Mils were the last group of people left that had any honour whatsoever.
I personally hope, and pray, that those who've sworn to protect and defend will make the judgement call to do what's both honourable and decent.
I will promise LEOs this: Any proposed gun ban/confiscation is NOT being implemented to protect LEOs. It's legislation to protect the lawmakers from worrying about civilian unrest, or we could call it, "civilian proactive democratic policymaking".
A ban of arms, for the populace, is the last step before an internal coup d’état can occur.
I'm not in favour of revolution, insurrection, or anything like that; however, I am quite concerned that the removal of the 2A, or the severe restriction thereof, serves only to give the hordes of criminals, thugs, gangsters, and tax-dodgers in the District of Criminals, who are employed by the citizenry, to give themselves another free pass to do absolutely anything they wanted, with no fear whatsoever of public resistance. The 2A is the last speed bump or hurdle for a government to descend into a tyrannic state. I'd even settle for a ruling that stated all firearms must be stored in a glass case, clearly labeled: "In case of tyranny, break glass".
The LEOs, .Mil, etc. are the civilians friends and protectors. Their job is to "serve and protect", and despite the cliche nature of that statement, I personally feel that disarming us would be a violation of both of those; at that point we would be hapless, defenseless pawns of the government, and complete rewriting of sacred documents could occur: LEOs could be ordered to be the enforcers of tyrannic doctrines that would make most of the heroes in uniform ashamed. I'd foresee a lot of the honourable LEOs quitting, only to be replaced by goons who'd have no qualms about doing things that would make the Founders seek immediate reincarnation.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's definitely a very difficult moral decision to make on the part of the LEOs. One could argue the loss of income, but you guys aren't exactly receiving Angelo Mozillo's salary, hell, his last bonus could probably pay for your entire department's expenses for a decade. The point I'm trying to make is that the Police, Sheriff's Deputies, etc. aren't exactly in it for the paycheck. That's the little ray of sunshine that tells me:
1) There's hope, in that honourable men and women still stand on our behalf
2) There's people in this world who work for the duty itself, and not for the money
3) There's still a Constitution, there's still an elective process, and there's still a legitimate government.
Without the 2A, EVERY member of government would eventually become Rod Blagojevich. Within a short span of time, my flippant and obnoxious labels like "District of Corruption" would become an absolute fact, and the United States Government would soon resemble the Mexican Government, long known for it's "clean house" and lack of corruption.
In this country, absolutely NO ONE is above the law. When the politicians rewrite the law so that, they are, indeed, above it, we have entered the downfall of this great nation, and our republic has failed.
Then again, I could be completely wrong. Oh well, there's always this:
http://i41.tinypic.com/2dqsdxw.jpgg
HAMMERDROP
02-06-09, 10:13
Good Read ...Good Link its good to see, at least it appears the majority of LEO are not willing to throw into a such a plot against their neighbors under our pending socialist pressures. Sure the Law is the Law but 2A has to prevail. I didn't write 2A nor did any living person but it does seem to be a moral dilemna... I am glad I do not have to make such a decision against law abiding people.
Several years ago an elderly and long time gun shop owner in my area killed practically in his doorway two armed teen aged felons who were intent on robbing his shop...well it turned out he would sell guns to people without a 'permit to purchase' ...the plot thickened he was shut down and prosecuted and if memory serves me correct died before coming to trial...I began to check into the serial# on the gun he sold me. I checked with two LEO friends not on any 'hot list' so I called the Sheriffs office that issued the permit and asked the lady to run the permit# for validation that it was sent in ... she told me that there were so many boxes of 'Right to Purchase a Concealable Weapon Permits' which were unentered into the computer that it would take years to bring current she had no way of checking suggested I check back in 6 months. I sold that gun legally to a guy I worked with and was glad it was gone. There is a certain unsavory 'Mojo' about having a clean police record and owning a suspicious gun, but it was a legal transaction exactly as I have done before. I do not know what that old man did with my permit I had my copy ... better 'safe than sorry' ! Which should become lifes mantra then everybody would know ahead of time who is who. IMO
Michael
thopkins22
02-06-09, 10:45
I knew there was a reason I don't live in Connecticut.:D
telecustom
02-06-09, 11:05
Thank you for posting that link. It has been a very interesting read. As a Military Officer this is a very touchy subject and until the time comes, one I can not give my views. Let's just hope it never comes to this.
HolyRoller
02-06-09, 13:10
Hey TheLandlord, looks like you're the first to actually invent a phased plasma rifle in the 40W range.
geminidglocker
02-06-09, 14:08
Obamas Civilian Defense Force=The zombies I've been waiting for.
I would prefer defending my freedom against un-armed liberals going door to door trying to collect firearms than going up against armed LEO's or Gaurdsmen anyday.Either way,I win,but the unarmed liberal zombie squad require much less ammunition.Plus I don't have to put on my bulky body armor.
I wonder how many will sing a different tune knowing they will loose their protected 2A status for not following such an order and will actually do just what they said they wouldnt...
I had faith, unitl NO, that they wouldnt do such a thing...:(
Outlander Systems
02-06-09, 15:07
Hey TheLandlord, looks like you're the first to actually invent a phased plasma rifle in the 40W range.
Kyle Reese is my hero.
The more I think about this issue, the more I realise what a catch-22 it would place the LEOs in. I think it's easy to say "I won't do it", but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, LEOs are the pillars of our Republic.
If the LEOs begin to break/ignore laws, then we descend into lawlessness.
If LEOs were only to enforce laws they supported, then we descend into lawlessness.
It's an ethical infinite-loop.
I don't think I'd enforce anything that is a kick in the nuts to the Constitution, but, the more I think about it, the more I realise this would possibly be the most difficult decision to make in one's life, from the standpoint of honour.
It is honourable for an American Soldier or LEO to defend the principles of this country.
That being said, it is also honourable for the American Solider and LEO to uphold the duties of his/her office to include the enforcement of laws or duties that fall within his or her individual jurisdiction.
What a bummer, man. This issue walks a moral tightrope, that, frankly, I don't know if I can sort through to a comfortable conclusion, either way.
It's easy to just say, "Screw 'em, I won't do it!". But that attitude could be applied to any law the individual officer is, by nature, opposed to.
I think when or if the time comes, it will be an extremely difficult decision for LEOs to make, and I can't fault them for going along with it, nor can I fault them for disobeying it.
The UCMJ is a t-t-totally different ballgame, and I'm not even going to go there. That alone would instill the fear of Uncle Sam in anyone who'd disobey a direct order. From what I'd heard, Fort Leavenworth ain't ezzackly Disneyland...
I'm not sure I understand the "moral dilemma" everyone keeps talking about. This shouldn't even warrant 5 seconds of conversation let alone its own thread.
my father retired after 30 years in the State Police, and he often referred to the difference between following the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. This also applies the implimentation of those laws; spirit versus letter. Most of the LEO's here are speaking of the spirit of the law and their commitment to follow the spirit of the law (.......I perceive it that way at least). To follow an order that complies with the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law, puts the street LEO in a terrible situation.
Several of the LEO's at the other thread have mentioned how disobeying such a command would have severe impacts on their lives, their children, their careers. Not sure how I would act; hopefully in the honorable fashion. Good example of this is the man that went public on bush's illegal wiretapping. He got put through the wringer and is still in the pinchy part of the door, but he made the honorable decision about was the right thing to do, versus following orders.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98339231
my father retired after 30 years in the State Police, and he often referred to the difference between following the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. This also applies the implimentation of those laws; spirit versus letter. Most of the LEO's here are speaking of the spirit of the law and their commitment to follow the spirit of the law (.......I perceive it that way at least). To follow an order that complies with the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law, puts the street LEO in a terrible situation.
Several of the LEO's at the other thread have mentioned how disobeying such a command would have severe impacts on their lives, their children, their careers. Not sure how I would act; hopefully in the honorable fashion. Good example of this is the man that went public on bush's illegal wiretapping. He got put through the wringer and is still in the pinchy part of the door, but he made the honorable decision about was the right thing to do, versus following orders.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98339231
The intent of the law is to keep order and therefor provide freedom. Because our court system follows the letter much to often, it is left to the boots to balance it with the intent. Sometimes split decision are needed on whether enforcing or not enforcing a particular law is following the intent.
If a law was passed that I felt (I don't speak for anyone else) encroached upon the intent of law, went against The Constitution, and would cause me to violate my oath I simply wouldn't enforce it. Plain as that. If it cost me my job... Oh well. Move on. Yes I have a wife, yes I have a kid and another one cooking, yes it would upset our lives, yes it would cause stress... I'm confident in my choice to not perpetuate the raping of our liberty. My feeling on the subject at any rate.
Guys like ZDL are a credit to LEOs, but really I don't have as much faith in the LEOs in this matter, (individual LEOs yes some, but LEOs as a whole, no). How many LEOs will enforce laws that are currently counter to the Constitution? Would an LEO make an arrest in a state for CCW without a permit, or arrest for brandishing when a citizen is openly carrying? Then as discussed in the thread; when you consider NOLA LEOs, and Mil confiscated weapons from law abiding citizens, without so much as a peep of complaint.
While a lot of LE and Mil are pro 2nd amendment, they will not be given orders to, "Go out and kick their doors in, and violate their God given rights!"
They will be given orders to, "Protect the innocent." or "implement a strategy for safety in these uncertain times." and the majority will follow them...
LEOs in nearly every state enforce laws that are counter to the protections enumerated in the constitution. The Clinton 1994 AWB, the DC gun ban, the Draconian gun laws in the liberal states, all are enforced by LEOs. The BATFE and the Feds will continue to enforce more and more restrictive laws, while States and Local municipalities do the same.
Try exercising your rights in most major cities and you will be cuffed, stuffed and have your property confiscated within minutes. The sad fact is that in the majority of the US you cannot freely "keep and bear arms" now, so what makes you think those that are enforcing unconstitutional laws now will stop at a line in the sand in the future.
My family is full of cops and mil so don't get me wrong. My sister was even a firearms officer for her jurisdiction and an avid shooter, she had a bumper sticker on her personal vehicle that said "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns..." Even she said she would have to cache and bury her own firearms to stop them being confiscated.
Cameron
HAMMERDROP
02-06-09, 16:49
I'm not sure I understand the "moral dilemma" everyone keeps talking about. This shouldn't even warrant 5 seconds of conversation let alone its own thread.
ZDL,
Maybe in your eyes there is little to justify this thinking this thread or morals. By my interpretation as a civvy and as example only would be an LEO getting a directive to go to his/her Brothers house his/her neighbors or best friends house knowing full well that they are law abiding citizens and stripping their property from them especially in rural areas. At the same time making those 'more' victimizable if there is such a word if not I just invented it, who live in larger cities
who are equally law abiding but more anonymous.
I guess they could just reassign LEO's to districts where they dont normally work or know or be related to anyone! To me thats a rough gig.
Be it more like 'lalakai's reponse 'spirit of the law' if the proposed action would only be targeting criminals exclusively, wherein I think the LEO's dilemna lies.
But law abiding civvys are easier to make an example of because they are 'law abiding' and would do as told and sit still for the most part. Which is what we are seeing: unrest in the civvy & LE populace over 2A but from an LEO's point of view. And their suspicion of just how compliant the average 'Joe' will respond, with a long face or long barrels??
But lets just hope it will not in our life come to that.
"After that it just dont matter much now does it?"
...Wyatt Earp to Gyp Clements with a sawed off 10 ga. in his loins !
Michael
we could only wish it will be this simple: confiscate or don't confiscate all guns.
it wont- and we need to open our eyes and realize the line was drawn a long time ago, and anyone wearing badge has already crossed it.
this area of 2A rights is so gray there is no way to draw another line- where do you draw it? do you draw it only at a law that bans all guns and forces officers to confiscate? there will never be any such law- it wont be necessary. the slow progression of rights erosion started a long time ago. it will never be black and white.
30 years from now- when "assault weapons" and hi-cap magazines and shotguns shorter than 86" have all been slowly regulated away into extinction and ammo is so hard to get that it's next to impossible to obtain after a loooong series of regulations and taxes, all being enforced by LEO and possible military- we'll still be having this same worthless debate. "as a LEO, what will you do if it ever comes down to it?"
it came down to it in 1934. then it came down to it with every single gun restriction since. and it will come down to it with every single piece of gun regulation/legislation that occures for the rest of this dying country's life. people will just continue to let it happen- unless something big happens.
pray for something big.
Guys like ZDL are a credit to LEOs, but really I don't have as much faith in the LEOs in this matter, (individual LEOs yes some, but LEOs as a whole, no). How many LEOs will enforce laws that are currently counter to the Constitution? Would an LEO make an arrest in a state for CCW without a permit, or arrest for brandishing when a citizen is openly carrying? Then as discussed in the thread; when you consider NOLA LEOs, and Mil confiscated weapons from law abiding citizens, without so much as a peep of complaint.
While a lot of LE and Mil are pro 2nd amendment, they will not be given orders to, "Go out and kick their doors in, and violate their God given rights!"
They will be given orders to, "Protect the innocent." or "implement a strategy for safety in these uncertain times." and the majority will follow them...
LEOs in nearly every state enforce laws that are counter to the protections enumerated in the constitution. The Clinton 1994 AWB, the DC gun ban, the Draconian gun laws in the liberal states, all are enforced by LEOs. The BATFE and the Feds will continue to enforce more and more restrictive laws, while States and Local municipalities do the same.
Try exercising your rights in most major cities and you will be cuffed, stuffed and have your property confiscated within minutes. The sad fact is that in the majority of the US you cannot freely "keep and bear arms" now, so what makes you think those that are enforcing unconstitutional laws now will stop at a line in the sand in the future.
My family is full of cops and mil so don't get me wrong. My sister was even a firearms officer for her jurisdiction and an avid shooter, she had a bumper sticker on her personal vehicle that said "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns..." Even she said she would have to cache and bury her own firearms to stop them being confiscated.
Cameron
There are over 300million citizens in America. What you are commenting on is not as widespread as the media would like you to believe. :cool:
I'm not sure I understand the "moral dilemma" everyone keeps talking about. This shouldn't even warrant 5 seconds of conversation let alone its own thread.
Unfortunately, it does. If you put 10 people in a room, you're more likely to get 12 opinions on a subject than consensus. Combine that with the vast numbers of LEOs, mil, etc and the wide spread of geosocial "climates" they come from, and you see the problem.
I've met officers like ZDL who would quit rather than violate the Constitution. I've even met one who told me to violate the AWB if I wanted as it was unconstitutional and wouldn't be enforced.
I've also met those who would scrap the Constitution if it would make their job easier (even if they otherwise supported citizen rights). I've met those who don't believe we have a RKBA. And, to take the cake, I've met one who supported the RKBA but would put you in an internment camp if ordered to do so, even if you were likely to never walk out the gates again. The strange thing is that everyone of them thought they had the moral high ground via their opinions.
It's differences like these that make civil wars possible rather than oxymorons.
Can someone please resize Landlords "plasma" rifle photo on page #1 so that we don't have to scroll back and forth to read this page?
Thanks
Buckaroo
we could only wish it will be this simple: confiscate or don't confiscate all guns.
it wont- and we need to open our eyes and realize the line was drawn a long time ago, and anyone wearing badge has already crossed it.
this area of 2A rights is so gray there is no way to draw another line- where do you draw it? do you draw it only at a law that bans all guns and forces officers to confiscate? there will never be any such law- it wont be necessary. the slow progression of rights erosion started a long time ago. it will never be black and white.
30 years from now- when "assault weapons" and hi-cap magazines and shotguns shorter than 86" have all been slowly regulated away into extinction and ammo is so hard to get that it's next to impossible to obtain after a loooong series of regulations and taxes, all being enforced by LEO and possible military- we'll still be having this same worthless debate. "as a LEO, what will you do if it ever comes down to it?"
it came down to it in 1934. then it came down to it with every single gun restriction since. and it will come down to it with every single piece of gun regulation/legislation that occures for the rest of this dying country's life. people will just continue to let it happen- unless something big happens.
pray for something big.
:rolleyes: You need education.
While the erosion of rights has been constant you look at it as LE fault. Give me a break. Even if every leo in the entire US voted for a particular person and/or proposition it still wouldn't outweigh the rest of the citizens. The civilians in this country are the ones who are responsible for voting dip shits into office over and over again. Sure LE are civilians and some vote retard themselves occasionally..... but we are employed to enforce the laws the PUBLIC has deemed proper (through your voting). You don't like it, change the civilian world first.
You have convinced yourself you have a firm grasp on liberty. Your posts prove over and over you're not even in the ballpark. Your posts imply anarchy is the key. Good luck with that.
Unfortunately, it does. If you put 10 people in a room, you're more likely to get 12 opinions on a subject than consensus. Combine that with the vast numbers of LEOs, mil, etc and the wide spread of geosocial "climates" they come from, and you see the problem.
I've met officers like ZDL who would quit rather than violate the Constitution. I've even met one who told me to violate the AWB if I wanted as it was unconstitutional and wouldn't be enforced.
I've also met those who would scrap the Constitution if it would make their job easier (even if they otherwise supported citizen rights). I've met those who don't believe we have a RKBA. And, to take the cake, I've met one who supported the RKBA but would put you in an internment camp if ordered to do so, even if you were likely to never walk out the gates again. The strange thing is that everyone of them thought they had the moral high ground via their opinions.
It's differences like these that make civil wars possible rather than oxymorons.
Are you telling me that the people you know in LE that would violate the your rights have a reasons that you would be willing to hear and consider as basis enough to do so?
:rolleyes: You need education.
While the erosion of rights has been constant you look at it as LE fault. Give me a break. Even if every leo in the entire US voted for a particular person and/or proposition it still wouldn't outweigh the rest of the citizens. The civilians in this country are the ones who are responsible for voting dip shits into office over and over again. Sure LE are civilians and some vote retard themselves occasionally..... but we are employed to enforce the laws the PUBLIC has deemed proper (through your voting). You don't like it, change the civilian world first.
You have convinced yourself you have a firm grasp on liberty. Your posts prove over and over you're not even in the ballpark. Your posts imply anarchy is the key. Good luck with that.
i dont see it as LE fault- where do you get that? my point was that it's not black and white- i wonder how LEOs can debate about where they stand on a gun ban that wont ever happen. i'm pointing out that if ever there was a time to draw the line and decide not to enforce an unconstitutional law it was in 1934, then again in 1968, and again in 1986, again in 1994, to name examples- but i'm not aware of any publicized resignations because a cop didn't want to enforce these laws.
i'm not going to let this turn into another pissing match between you and me- MY observation has been that you and I generally agree on topics, but that you get so fixated and defensive on my citicisms of LE that you totally miss my point.
in summary: cops are not to BLAME, but they certainly have no track record of standing against unconstitutional laws.
i dont see it as LE fault- where do you get that? my point was that it's not black and white- i wonder how LEOs can debate about where they stand on a gun ban that wont ever happen. i'm pointing out that if ever there was a time to draw the line and decide not to enforce an unconstitutional law it was in 1934, then again in 1968, and again in 1986, again in 1994, to name examples- but i'm not aware of any publicized resignations because a cop didn't want to enforce these laws.
i'm not going to let this turn into another pissing match between you and me- MY observation has been that you and I generally agree on topics, but that you get so fixated and defensive on my citicisms of LE that you totally miss my point.
in summary: cops are not to BLAME, but they certainly have no track record of standing against unconstitutional laws.
Do you read what you post?
Do you read what you post?
can you simply debate me if you dont agree? why bother making negative, personal comments at all if you're not even willing to show me the error of my ways?
I think this thread is beginning to look more and more like a duplicate "Official Obama Administration/Gun Control/AWB Discussion Thread," no? :D
can you simply debate me if you dont agree? why bother making negative, personal comments at all if you're not even willing to show me the error of my ways?
I'm not. It's a legitimate question. You start off saying one thing and in very few words you are 180 the other way. My question stands. Do you read what you write or do you get sidetracked?
If it isn't what I described above; you will make one post with criticisms and strong language then recant, change, or provide "clarity" in the following ones. I think it's a legitimate question given the pattern of your posts. It wasn't a dig.
I'm not. It's a legitimate question. You start off saying one thing and in very few words you are 180 the other way. My question stands. Do you read what you write or do you get sidetracked?
If it isn't what I described above; you will make one post with criticisms and strong language then recant, change, or provide "clarity" in the following ones. I think it's a legitimate question given the pattern of your posts. It wasn't a dig.
i read my posts.
They don't need cops to do it. If they wanted to they'd just hire Blackwater to confiscate and patrol like in New Orleans post-Katrina.
Did BW take part in the confiscation of NO?
thopkins22
02-06-09, 18:24
Did BW take part in the confiscation of NO?
No. People like buzzwords though. And these days anytime you can work Blackwater into a conversation where they don't belong you get hippie douchebag points.
No. People like buzzwords though. And these days anytime you can work Blackwater into a conversation where they don't belong you get hippie douchebag points.
LMAO, that's where I was going. HIPPIE DOUCHEBAG POINTS. I love it.
...hire Blackwater to confiscate and patrol...
Did someone say Blackwater? :)
Did someone say Blackwater? :)
bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahhaah i hadn't seen that before. That's great.
Outlander Systems
02-06-09, 18:42
Can someone please resize Landlords "plasma" rifle photo on page #1 so that we don't have to scroll back and forth to read this page?
Thanks
Buckaroo
Sorry Buck: I shot it with the Rick Moranis laser for ya.
Seriously folks, this needs to stay on-topic before this thread dives headfirst into ARF-territory. The Katar will bitch slap this'un faster than an Oly can FTE.
This, thankfully, is all quite hypothetical at this point, but isn't terribly unrealistic a scenario. I personally don't believe the NG nor LEOs would be utilised in a confiscation scenario, nor, Oogeddy-Boogeddy Blackwater (Bringing contractors into this, in a demonised, condescending tone is monumentally ignorant, and very un-M4Carbine.net).
The most likely scenario would be this, because the Sheriff's Dept. isn't going to get orders for a door-to-door, "give us your guns or else" warrant.
If, *IF* our favourite blasters were criminalised at the stroke of the pen, we'd probably be given a grace period to turn 'em in. After the deadline for turn-in, or registration, I'd imagine the punishment to be the equivalent of possessing an SBR without having paid the tax, or something of the sort. Thusly, if you were returning from the range, with an evil black rifle that wasn't registered, or turned in, or in violation of whatever legislation was passed, and you were pulled over for the jacked-up tail light, and the Officer noticed you were in possession of:
1) An illegal item
2) An illegally (unregistered) possessed item
It would then fall under that particular Officer's discretion to either ignore it, or take it to the next level. Which means anything could happen.
Then again, I could be totally wrong, and there's a set of shackles for me at my designated relocation and detainment/reeducation facility. "Socialism is good!" "Capitalism is evil." "You're right, Ted Kennedy's car hasn't killed more people than my guns have." "Jane Fonda is the Mother Goddess!"
Sorry Buck: I shot it with the Rick Moranis laser for ya.
Seriously folks, this needs to stay on-topic before this thread dives headfirst into ARF-territory. The Katar will bitch slap this'un faster than an Oly can FTE.
Thanks! It took me a minute to catch onto "Rick Moranis laser" reference!
Buckaroo
This, thankfully, is all quite hypothetical at this point, but isn't terribly unrealistic a scenario. I personally don't believe the NG nor LEOs would be utilised in a confiscation scenario, nor, Oogeddy-Boogeddy Blackwater (Bringing contractors into this, in a demonised, condescending tone is monumentally ignorant, and very un-M4Carbine.net).
Don't you mean Ravenwood?
Outlander Systems
02-06-09, 19:13
http://remote.lohudblogs.com/files/2008/02/newflag.jpg
The more I think about this issue, the more I realise what a catch-22 it would place the LEOs in. I think it's easy to say "I won't do it", but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, LEOs are the pillars of our Republic.
I don't think I'd enforce anything that is a kick in the nuts to the Constitution, but, the more I think about it, the more I realise this would possibly be the most difficult decision to make in one's life, from the standpoint of honour.
It is honourable for an American Soldier or LEO to defend the principles of this country.
That being said, it is also honourable for the American Solider and LEO to uphold the duties of his/her office to include the enforcement of laws or duties that fall within his or her individual jurisdiction.
I think when or if the time comes, it will be an extremely difficult decision for LEOs to make, and I can't fault them for going along with it, nor can I fault them for disobeying it.
...
I'll give no argument that to uphold ones sworn duty and decide to disobey an order you know to be unlawful is the ultimate pledge of Life, Fortune, and sacred Honor. But some pretty respectable and otherwise law-abiding people have done it before... ;)
It wouldn't really matter what the law was changed or amended to; the inalienable right stands, enumerated or not. Some things are self evident regardless of moral relativity. Do we really NEED words on a paper to let us know that you should be able to vote for your democratic representative, regardless of gender or skin color? Or that someone not otherwise harming others should be able to say anything they wish? That nothing but your own conscience should compel you to practice or not practice a religion?
If the 28th Amendment said that the 1st Amd did not apply to Methodist practice, and now Methodist practice was subject to government restriction, would it be a legal Amendment? Perhaps the 29th Amd states that since most violence was born from a verbal disagreement, freedom of speech needs a commonsense restriction so you may now only disagree with another person's opinion in writing, submitted in triplicate to the person you disagree with, your local police dept, and the FBI Verbal Enforcement Division, and no sooner than 5 days after hearing the statement you disagree with.
Is that about the nuttiest thing you've ever read?
t wouldn't really matter what the law was changed or amended to; the inalienable right stands, enumerated or not. Some things are self evident regardless of moral relativity.
Amen, and some things must be addressed by force sooner rather than later.
I'm just saying......
Buckaroo
http://remote.lohudblogs.com/files/2008/02/newflag.jpg
:( I miss Jericho.
TheGhostRider
02-06-09, 20:43
How many of the incidents have we seen in the news where some person who owned guns was raided...
The news reports the person had an arsenal.
The law says the person had a large cache of weapons and ammunition, and makes the person out to be some crazy fool bent on killing kittens or something.
The news says the person was a threat because he had so much ammunition and so many "assault weapons".
The person of interest and the story disappears in short order.
We don't hear the outcome of the story or the results of the trial.
We eventually hear that the person had a Marlin model 60 and a 500 round brick of .22s, a 12 gauge shotgun and 100 rounds of birdshot...
This was the arsenal of weapons and ammunition.
Maybe the person didn't do anything wrong except espouse his opinion regarding the Gov't in a public place.
Maybe the person wrote something in a web forum about how he was tired of the gov't and the law stepping on his rights and how he'd take a stand.
And what happens when we see this take place? Do we question what we read, what we hear.
I think a lot of us set back and say "wow... crazy bastard... better him than me"!
So now lets say a law IS passed that bans the possession of "specific" firearms. You and your best friend make a vow to watch over each other and defend each other... "no matter what happens".
What happens when you see your neighbor (best friend) getting the "treatment" from the gov't? You look across the street to see the "raid" starting.
You know he's a standup guy, you know he's a straight person. You guys have known each other for years, you've played cards, drank beer, hunted together, and swore to each other that if anything ever happened you'd defend each other and watch each others backs.
Now....... what are you going to do?
There will NEVER be a mass confiscation. This will cause a revolt and Uncle suger knows it.
It will always be one "crazy guy with an arsenal" at a time, the news will always paint the person in a bad light, the person will always lose. Even if the only crime he ever committed was having an opinion and a couple of firearms.
Death by a thousand cuts... it's more effective when it looks like the gov't is playing savior. Saving society from another "crazy guy with an arsenal".
It beats an all out public show of force on a wide geographical area of people. This would actually be noticed for what it really is.
Now.... what are you going to do?
?
?
?
?
Incidentally, I am only trying to encourage thought here.
I see a lot of comments in various threads that involve "chest thumping".
So.... think about what you would really do.
Canonshooter
02-06-09, 21:03
Great thread.
IMO, confiscation is a very tough road. Even in the "death by a thousand cuts" scenario, the word gets out and a stink is made. If it is my neighbor, I'll be shooting alright - with a Canon DSLR and a telephoto lens, and posting it all over the Internet.
The most likely scenario IMO is the outright banning of manufacture/posession of "assault weapons" with long-term "soft enforcement." No kicking down doors, just taking them at traffic stops, "buy back programs" etc. Eventually - over a long period of time - most firearms are removed from society because our children or spouses may not want to be burdened with "illegal firearms" after we kick the bucket.
Education remains the key - educating young people on the Bill of Rights and how these essential rights still apply to modern society.
I know the_Katar is around here somewhere....
this thread wandered. i posted it so that we could get some different views of how LEO's feel regarding this issue, from LEO's who are not part of this forum (as far as i know.........rob_s may correct me on this one). No flaming or we might get locked.:eek:
randyman_ar
02-06-09, 22:08
There will NEVER be a mass confiscation. This will cause a revolt and Uncle suger knows it.
It will always be one "crazy guy with an arsenal" at a time, the news will always paint the person in a bad light, the person will always lose. Even if the only crime he ever committed was having an opinion and a couple of firearms.
BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!! BRAVO!! I've been telling my "it'll never happen" buddies this for years now.
Now........ can I quote you for my tag line?
Outlander Systems
02-06-09, 22:33
Speaking of caches...
"250 weapons...and nearly half a million rounds of ammunition"
http://cbs3.com/topstories/brian.hinkle.weapons.2.921142.html
The thing I find disturbing about this raid is that I don't know what crime was committed with 250 weapons...:confused:
Jefferson and the rest of America's founders rightly understood that the only legitimate purpose of government was "to secure these rights."
The only legitimate purpose of civil government is to secure or protect the freedoms and liberties that have been given to man by our Creator.
Jefferson went on to say that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
In other words, whenever government stops protecting liberty and starts destroying liberty, it is the right and duty of freedom-loving people to reform or replace such illegitimate government with a government that will fulfill its legitimate purpose
I think the US Govt would think these same questions through too. And read what is discussed about it on the error net by EVERYONE.
So a solution they might come up with would be to use some one from another Nation to do their dirty work. I've read where the UN has already set up years ago "IN THIS NATION" and are practicing doing these door to door searches. Its not their country so why should they care, and what were they told about us?
We have also signed an agreement with Canada to come down here if the Feds ask them too.
as we've seen time and again, the basic system is working. the problem arises when you have individuals in places of power, who think the system doesn't apply to them and that their way is better, even if it is outside the constitution.
GW with all the signing statements and illegal wiretaps.
now BO is interpreting the 2A in his own fashion as he believes best, which is not necessarily right.
It's similiar to the Patriot Act where they knowingly took away some of our rights in exchange for what they offered as more security.
B. Franklin said it best, and our ELECTED LEADERS should be reminded of this every day: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
TheGhostRider
02-07-09, 07:35
BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!! BRAVO!! I've been telling my "it'll never happen" buddies this for years now.
Now........ can I quote you for my tag line?
Heck yes! Tag line it...
The only other time someone wants to quote me it's usually my wife...
"but honey you said if I let you buy ammo I could have a new (insert something expensive here)"!LOL:D
Jefferson and the rest of America's founders rightly understood that the only legitimate purpose of government was "to secure these rights."
The only legitimate purpose of civil government is to secure or protect the freedoms and liberties that have been given to man by our Creator.
Jefferson went on to say that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
In other words, whenever government stops protecting liberty and starts destroying liberty, it is the right and duty of freedom-loving people to reform or replace such illegitimate government with a government that will fulfill its legitimate purpose
Details? How to go about this?
Just curious.
Who said that those weapon committed a crime? If you read the article police went to his property due to a tip that he may have had stolen property.
He then pointed a loaded weapon at the detectives. It is common under such circumstances that they confiscate the weapons and catalogue the items. There may be stolen/ illegal firearms in the mix. Additionally since he threatened a peace officer with said firearm he screwed up.
It is entirely possible that he will get his stuff back assuming that nothing is illegal, doesn't get convicted of a felony in the ensuing trial.
Speaking of caches...
"250 weapons...and nearly half a million rounds of ammunition"
http://cbs3.com/topstories/brian.hinkle.weapons.2.921142.html
The thing I find disturbing about this raid is that I don't know what crime was committed with 250 weapons...:confused:
Outlander Systems
02-07-09, 09:17
Who said that those weapon committed a crime? If you read the article police went to his property due to a tip that he may have had stolen property.
He then pointed a loaded weapon at the detectives. It is common under such circumstances that they confiscate the weapons and catalogue the items. There may be stolen/ illegal firearms in the mix. Additionally since he threatened a peace officer with said firearm he screwed up.
It is entirely possible that he will get his stuff back assuming that nothing is illegal, doesn't get convicted of a felony in the ensuing trial.
I figured that was the case; take the items as evidence, or to validate that they haven't been used in any prior crimes, and possibly return them, when he's done serving a life sentence for assault with a deadly weapon on a Police Officer.
Stuff like this gives me a small dash of the heebie jeebies. I'm hoping that story is 100% accurate, and that the individual wasn't being arrested for what would be a badass cache.
I don't know that I could really fire 250 weapons at the same time, and even if I could, would I want to clean all 250?
if you also read the story, it indicated the police responded after reports of stolen property being there. Who made the reportl? Can they verify the person? If it was an undercover sting operation, then i'm good with that. Or was an appropriate reason needed to justify a visit to the residence that would allow a search............such as "reported to have stolen property". We've seen recent reports of where police have used false information from "informants" to justify search warrants.
Outlander Systems
02-07-09, 10:42
lalakai has indicated what gives me the heebie jeebies about the story.
I'm cool with it, if the individual was under investigation, but I'm wondering if someone who didn't dig his weapons hoarding made an anonymous phone call.
Who knows, but something about this story smells like rat meat to me.
Pass the tobasco.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety...
...and will lose both.
Outlander Systems
02-07-09, 12:44
My fiance is a paralegal, and though neither a lawyer, nor an expert, she stated that it is possible, thought highly unlikely, that the SCOTUS would overrule a previous SCOTUS ruling.
From the "Heller Decision":
On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."[31] This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.[32]
The Court based its reasoning on the following grounds:
that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939);
that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited and the decision does not cast doubt on the longstanding legislative prohibitions against possession by felons and the mentally ill, carrying weapons in sensitive places and regulations regarding the sales of firearms;[33] and
that handguns are the most popular weapons chosen by Americans for self-defense.[34]
I'm not personally foreseeing a "round-up/turn-in" of our blasters, but I wouldn't be shocked if regualtory measures were tightened around us like a vice.
Sturmgewehr 44
02-07-09, 13:02
I knew there was a reason I don't live in Connecticut.:D
After reading some of those responces I wish I didn't. :eek:
Speaking of caches...
"250 weapons...and nearly half a million rounds of ammunition"
http://cbs3.com/topstories/brian.hinkle.weapons.2.921142.html
I'm jealous, I want a bunker like that.
I'm jealous, I want a bunker like that.
most of us would probably give a testicle for it
most of us would probably give a testicle for it
we should check the person who made the annonomous (sp??) report.....they might be missing one of the "brothers"; then we would know.:eek:
most of us would probably give a testicle for it
I'd give all 3 of mine..........
QuietShootr
02-07-09, 23:47
Holy cylindrical snake shit. How has this thread made it 4 pages?
hillmillenia
02-07-09, 23:50
Shades of Patrick Henry...:(
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.