LEO views on Firearm Removal

[lalakai]

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]

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

[A-Bear680]

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.

[Iraqgunz]

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.hin....2.921142.html

The thing I find disturbing about this raid is that I don't know what crime was committed with 250 weapons...

[Outlander Systems]

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?

[lalakai]

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]

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.

[bkb0000]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety...

...and will lose both.

[Outlander Systems]

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]

I knew there was a reason I don't live in Connecticut.

After reading some of those responces I wish I didn't.