Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 9:40:42 GMT -5
Many counties and cities across the nation have declared themselves to be "Gun Sanctuaries", where Sheriff`s departments have said they will refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws against law-abiding American citizens. Now the first county in Utah has climbed aboard. Although Indiana had historically been a fairly gun-friendly state, just recently some troubling gun restriction laws were introduced, but thankfully, didn`t go anywhere, this time. Personally, I would love to see all of Indiana become proactive, and declare the entire state, county by county, to be a gun sanctuary. Furthermore, I believe Indiana needs to get rid of our gun permit system and adopt constitutional carry. In reality, a licensing system is unconstitutional. Even though some states are much more restrictive on gun rights and mandate training and testing before issuing a permit, licensing is just as intrusive, because when government may mandate testing, training or licensing, the truth is, it`s no longer a right, but simply a privilege granted by the state. Additionally, Indiana`s so called "red flag" law must be struck down. It violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Due Process ensures that rights are protected unless and until someone is found to be guilty of a crime, or in this case, unsafe to have weapons. It is not Due Process to have those rights removed, then, have to prove you deserve them back. nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sanctuary-cities-guns-utah-county-trying-it-out-125661
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Feb 23, 2020 9:49:21 GMT -5
Many counties and cities across the nation have declared themselves to be "Gun Sanctuaries", where Sheriff`s departments have said they will refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws against law-abiding American citizens. Now the first county in Utah has climbed aboard. Although Indiana had historically been a fairly gun-friendly state, just recently some troubling gun restriction laws were introduced, but thankfully, didn`t go anywhere, this time. Personally, I would love to see all of Indiana become proactive, and declare the entire state, county by county, to be a gun sanctuary. Furthermore, I believe Indiana needs to get rid of our gun permit system and adopt constitutional carry. In reality, a licensing system is unconstitutional. Even though some states are much more restrictive on gun rights and mandate training and testing before issuing a permit, licensing is just as intrusive, because when government may mandate testing, training or licensing, the truth is, it`s no longer a right, but simply a privilege granted by the state. nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sanctuary-cities-guns-utah-county-trying-it-out-125661"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the state". Indiana State Constitution Article I Section 32
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 9:54:20 GMT -5
Many counties and cities across the nation have declared themselves to be "Gun Sanctuaries", where Sheriff`s departments have said they will refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws against law-abiding American citizens. Now the first county in Utah has climbed aboard. Although Indiana had historically been a fairly gun-friendly state, just recently some troubling gun restriction laws were introduced, but thankfully, didn`t go anywhere, this time. Personally, I would love to see all of Indiana become proactive, and declare the entire state, county by county, to be a gun sanctuary. Furthermore, I believe Indiana needs to get rid of our gun permit system and adopt constitutional carry. In reality, a licensing system is unconstitutional. Even though some states are much more restrictive on gun rights and mandate training and testing before issuing a permit, licensing is just as intrusive, because when government may mandate testing, training or licensing, the truth is, it`s no longer a right, but simply a privilege granted by the state. nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sanctuary-cities-guns-utah-county-trying-it-out-125661"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the state". Indiana State Constitution Article I Section 32 Absolutely, and it might appear to be a good thing that this right is enumerated in both the United States Constitution, and the Indiana State Constitution, but, this right is infringed upon daily in spite of the admonishment at the federal level where it says: shall not be infringed.
|
|
|
Post by genesis273 on Feb 23, 2020 19:02:36 GMT -5
I am in favor of Larid's law. We have used it on 2 occasions in my county to take firearms from individuals seeking to do harm to others. I feel the majority of law enforcement personnel will agree with me. Knowing, that the majority of the fears are strictly based upon conspiracy theories and unjustifiable belief's. I feel this law will be used properly.
As for getting rid of the permit system, I disagree with that as well. I am not a fan of the fees but, background checks are fine by me.
The fact if the matter is, there are wolves living amongst us. And when they start hunting and preying on the citizens then it is guys like me that are tasked with hunting them down. And to say anyone can just carry firearms is putting me at more risk. While it's true, criminals will get their hands on guns regardless. But, at least we can lock them up when they do.
That being said, I do disagree with a lot of the restrictions they're trying to impose. For they are really it restricting us law abiding citizens. I don't care how hard they look into my background as I have nothing to hide. But, just because I have purchased a few AR type weapon systems over the past year, I do not feel that they have the right to tell me I can't own anymore.
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Feb 23, 2020 19:12:18 GMT -5
Background checks are useless unless the bad guy tries to buy a weapon from a registered dealer. Joe citizen cannot run a background check on a potential buyer and most restricted persons do not go through a dealer, knowing they will be scrutinized.
Unless you're talking about outlawing private sales, then background checks are mostly a waste of time and money.
This is strictly my opinion. YMMV
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 19:20:34 GMT -5
I am in favor of Larid's law. We have used it on 2 occasions in my county to take firearms from individuals seeking to do harm to others. I feel the majority of law enforcement personnel will agree with me. Knowing, that the majority of the fears are strictly based upon conspiracy theories and unjustifiable belief's. I feel this law will be used properly. As for getting rid of the permit system, I disagree with that as well. I am not a fan of the fees but, background checks are fine by me. The fact if the matter is, there are wolves living amongst us. And when they start hunting and preying on the citizens then it is guys like me that are tasked with hunting them down. And to say anyone can just carry firearms is putting me at more risk. While it's true, criminals will get their hands on guns regardless. But, at least we can lock them up when they do. That being said, I do disagree with a lot of the restrictions they're trying to impose. For they are really it restricting us law abiding citizens. I don't care how hard they look into my background as I have nothing to hide. But, just because I have purchased a few AR type weapon systems over the past year, I do not feel that they have the right to tell me I can't own anymore. With constitutional carry, "prohibited persons" will still be prohibited. And we all know, those who will break the law, will break all laws. Infringements on the Second Amendment affect only law-abiding citizens. All due respect, but our constitutional rights are not subject to the rathers of law enforcement, and it`s not up to to personal whims either, but the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. Your preferences do not override constitutional protections. Never have. Never will. Predators prey upon innocents whether law-abiding citizens are hampered in the exercising of their rights or not, and once again, Due Process takes precedence over your, or anyone else's convenience, or preferences. The Fourth Amendment is not negotiable, anymore than any other constitutional right is.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 23, 2020 20:12:00 GMT -5
I absolutely agree, gregr! The effect of the well-intended but naive laws against people freely exercising their constitutional right under the second amendment, only applies to the law-abiding citizen who obeys the law.
The truth of the simple bumper sticker message that we've all seen many times is still as true today as it ever was....When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns.
Some of us in our golden years become especially sensitive to our vulnerability as our abilities to defend ourselves with our bare hands fades away, and that becomes obvious to any predators. If I need to defend myself and my wife against a younger, larger, and stronger predator who probably has much more fighting experience as well, the fight will be much more fair if we are both armed than if neither of us are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 20:23:55 GMT -5
Indiana needs to get rid of the red flag law. It's anti 2nd amendment and unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Feb 23, 2020 22:08:42 GMT -5
I am in favor of Larid's law. We have used it on 2 occasions in my county to take firearms from individuals seeking to do harm to others. I feel the majority of law enforcement personnel will agree with me. Knowing, that the majority of the fears are strictly based upon conspiracy theories and unjustifiable belief's. I feel this law will be used properly. As for getting rid of the permit system, I disagree with that as well. I am not a fan of the fees but, background checks are fine by me. The fact if the matter is, there are wolves living amongst us. And when they start hunting and preying on the citizens then it is guys like me that are tasked with hunting them down. And to say anyone can just carry firearms is putting me at more risk. While it's true, criminals will get their hands on guns regardless. But, at least we can lock them up when they do. That being said, I do disagree with a lot of the restrictions they're trying to impose. For they are really it restricting us law abiding citizens. I don't care how hard they look into my background as I have nothing to hide. But, just because I have purchased a few AR type weapon systems over the past year, I do not feel that they have the right to tell me I can't own anymore. With constitutional carry, "prohibited persons" will still be prohibited. And we all know, those who will break the law, will break all laws. Infringements on the Second Amendment affect only law-abiding citizens. All due respect, but our constitutional rights are not subject to the rathers of law enforcement, and it`s not up to to personal whims either, but the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. Your preferences do not override constitutional protections. Never have. Never will. Predators prey upon innocents whether law-abiding citizens are hampered in the exercising of their rights or not, and once again, Due Process takes precedence over your, or anyone else's convenience, or preferences. The Fourth Amendment is not negotiable, anymore than any other constitutional right is. I regret that I have but one like to give to this statement.
|
|
|
Post by genesis273 on Feb 23, 2020 22:16:15 GMT -5
I respect everyone's decision to disagree. However, I will gladly continue to take firearms, without a warrant, from people who try to lure me into an ambush while awaiting behind a wall with a loaded shotgun. True story. It happened to me. Thankfully my tactics and training over came.
I'm sorry that offends some of you.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Feb 24, 2020 1:29:55 GMT -5
With all the gun laws out there I just wish that the people that break those laws would get mandatory sentencing, and not give the prosecutor the option of whether to charge them with the crime or allow them to plea bargain it away. If the person broke 15 different gun laws, charge them with ALL of them. If not, strike them from the books.
|
|
|
Post by genesis273 on Feb 24, 2020 5:43:58 GMT -5
With all the gun laws out there I just wish that the people that break those laws would get mandatory sentencing, and not give the prosecutor the option of whether to charge them with the crime or allow them to plea bargain it away. If the person broke 15 different gun laws, charge them with ALL of them. If not, strike them from the books. I agree with you. For often times a plea bargain is made and no conviction for the actual gun offense is had. Therefore, it's like they've never committed the offense and we are not suppose to hold that against them. So when they do inevitably commit another gun offense, instead of any enhancements for previous convictions, it's really considered their first offense.
|
|
|
Post by bartiks on Feb 24, 2020 6:15:20 GMT -5
Plea bargain's save tax payer's dollars, or so they say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 6:46:02 GMT -5
I respect everyone's decision to disagree. However, I will gladly continue to take firearms, without a warrant, from people who try to lure me into an ambush while awaiting behind a wall with a loaded shotgun. True story. It happened to me. Thankfully my tactics and training over came. I'm sorry that offends some of you. Try not to become emotionally tangled up in this, emotions will keep us from seeing reason. No one is offended by your perspective on your work. Anyone who does dangerous work would want to do whatever they can to be able to do their work more safely. The tension begins however when constitutional rights are in the balance. No one, for any reason, has the legal authority to trample the Constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land in the United States. I don`t know for sure, but I would guess that law enforcement swears an oath to uphold and the defend the Constitution just like politicians do. It is a federal crime to breach that oath, and in fact, anyone, regardless of title, uniform, badge or office who tramples the Constitution of the United States, instantly becomes a criminal. Laws that are contrary to the Constitution have no weight of law, and as such, we are not obligated to comply. That is part of the reason so many Sheriffs` offices have stated they will refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. When law-abiding people in New Orleans were illegally disarmed after Hurricane Katrina, it prompted a great many localities to pass legislation stating that, that may never happen again. Many of the law enforcement and National Guard who participated in this dasterfly act in New Orleans said that, in the moment, they were simply following orders, and never thought about the impact of what they were doing, but, said that in hindsight, even without the laws prohibiting this illegal confiscation, they would never do that again. The only bad part of that was that it wasn`t 100% openly stating that. Nevertheless, neither government, nor law enforcement, nor a mob majority of people may trample freedoms or individual liberties. The Constitution is designed to protect our individual liberties from all, or any of these threats.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Feb 24, 2020 8:54:40 GMT -5
It is not just our gun rights. Our local state, county, and municipality governments violate our constitutional rights with impunity, all the time. Just pour through your local "zoning ordinance" or "subdivision control" ordinance. Mayors, commissioners, they all know it, but they also know no one will sue them. My county is currently stealing ground for county road right-of-way without compensation through "allowing people to subdivided their ground".
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Feb 24, 2020 8:59:00 GMT -5
I am in favor of Larid's law. We have used it on 2 occasions in my county to take firearms from individuals seeking to do harm to others. I feel the majority of law enforcement personnel will agree with me. Knowing, that the majority of the fears are strictly based upon conspiracy theories and unjustifiable belief's. I feel this law will be used properly. As for getting rid of the permit system, I disagree with that as well. I am not a fan of the fees but, background checks are fine by me. The fact if the matter is, there are wolves living amongst us. And when they start hunting and preying on the citizens then it is guys like me that are tasked with hunting them down. And to say anyone can just carry firearms is putting me at more risk. While it's true, criminals will get their hands on guns regardless. But, at least we can lock them up when they do. That being said, I do disagree with a lot of the restrictions they're trying to impose. For they are really it restricting us law abiding citizens. I don't care how hard they look into my background as I have nothing to hide. But, just because I have purchased a few AR type weapon systems over the past year, I do not feel that they have the right to tell me I can't own anymore. I had a cousin in Florida get is guns illegally confiscated and had a heck of a time getting them back. All because a bleeding-heart Liberal didn't like a Facebook post of his and then went looking through his photos and saw that he had pics of him enjoying his rights shooting. They called him in on a Red Flag without any repercussions. All Red Flag laws need overturned or ignored by our officials that took an oath to protect our Constitutional rights.
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Feb 24, 2020 9:01:42 GMT -5
It is not just our gun rights. Our local state, county, and municipality governments violate our constitutional rights with impunity, all the time. Just pour through your local "zoning ordinance" or "subdivision control" ordinance. Mayors, commissioners, they all know it, but they also know no one will sue them. My county is currently stealing ground for county road right-of-way without compensation through "allowing people to subdivided their ground". Most of those people gladly exchange any r/w compensation for the municipality taking over maintenance duties of the road/street. They can subdivide property all they want without designating any public r/w corridors on the subdivision plat.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Feb 24, 2020 9:10:30 GMT -5
It is not just our gun rights. Our local state, county, and municipality governments violate our constitutional rights with impunity, all the time. Just pour through your local "zoning ordinance" or "subdivision control" ordinance. Mayors, commissioners, they all know it, but they also know no one will sue them. My county is currently stealing ground for county road right-of-way without compensation through "allowing people to subdivided their ground". Most of those people gladly exchange any r/w compensation for the municipality taking over maintenance duties of the road/street. They can subdivide property all they want without designating any public r/w corridors on the subdivision plat. Yes, correct, but any new building permit will be held up until the ground is deeded to the county. You can divide all you want without platting, also. The permit is where the unconstitutional rules begin. I just helped someone get part of their ground back because they didn't need a permit on that tract, it was stolen from them. You won't win this one, I fight it all the time. Most of these rules wouldn't make it past superior court.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Feb 24, 2020 9:37:16 GMT -5
I absolutely agree, gregr! The effect of the well-intended but naive laws against people freely exercising their constitutional right under the second amendment, only applies to the law-abiding citizen who obeys the law. The truth of the simple bumper sticker message that we've all seen many times is still as true today as it ever was....When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns. Some of us in our golden years become especially sensitive to our vulnerability as our abilities to defend ourselves with our bare hands fades away, and that becomes obvious to any predators. If I need to defend myself and my wife against a younger, larger, and stronger predator who probably has much more fighting experience as well, the fight will be much more fair if we are both armed than if neither of us are.[/quote Absolutleu 100 percent only the law abiding in the uk dont carry knives and guns.(both are banned) And the law abiding are being stabbed on a regular basis and occasionally shot, and we are totally unable to defend ourselves or anyone else. That is how stupid our laws are. Regards Billy
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Feb 24, 2020 12:11:03 GMT -5
From what I have seen and read the "sanctuary" status is worthless legally. Just like sanctuary cities regarding immigration is concerned....they can choose NOT to enforce a particular law....but is that really legal???
Just because in the case of gun rights you agree with it - doesn't make it OK, but if it is about immigration or abortion or the like...your opinion could then be very different!
Until the actual law is changed....you can use whatever label you like....you have affected very little. Do you really want law enforcement, mayors or the like determining what is "constitutional" and what is not?!? We have the 3 branches of government (one to write the laws, one to enforce them and one to ensure their legality) and the division of powers for a reason.
"Sanctuary" is nothing more than a word....a promise from an elected official....let that sink in. Do NOT be satisfied with a "promise".....
|
|