|
Post by genesis273 on Feb 24, 2020 13:42:52 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. Well said. For what it's worth, I love my guns and it'd be a fight for anyone who tries to take them. I, of course, am not a criminal. I have no intentions of harming people with my firearms. Both past and current Sheriff's I have worked for have openly stated that they will not comply with taking people's firearms. That being said, if someone has intent and has expressed intent to harm someone with a firearm, they put a plan in motion, then I will continue to do my best to intervene and take their firearms. We, our agency at least, won't take firearms simply because of a Facebook post, a heated comment, or because they have a large quantity. We look for credible threats coupled with opportunity and plans that they have put in action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 21:32:15 GMT -5
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. Well said. For what it's worth, I love my guns and it'd be a fight for anyone who tries to take them. I, of course, am not a criminal. I have no intentions of harming people with my firearms. Both past and current Sheriff's I have worked for have openly stated that they will not comply with taking people's firearms. That being said, if someone has intent and has expressed intent to harm someone with a firearm, they put a plan in motion, then I will continue to do my best to intervene and take their firearms. We, our agency at least, won't take firearms simply because of a Facebook post, a heated comment, or because they have a large quantity. We look for credible threats coupled with opportunity and plans that they have put in action. But yet again, our Constitution guarantees us Due Process, and that requires determining the facts before a constitutional right is diminished. There's NO room for opinion here. The Constitution no where says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless... There will be a reckoning one day, hopefully, and these constitutional violations will be dealt with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 21:38:56 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"..... It's all pretty straightforward. It's illegal to thwart the security of our borders, and there's no provision in the Constitution that allows for us to interfere with the nation's security. Likewise, We the People are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, without infringement, and when government defies the Constitution and infringes upon that right, we have no legal or moral obligation to comply. I don't see any ambiguity in this at all.
|
|
|
Post by genesis273 on Feb 24, 2020 23:14:51 GMT -5
Well said. For what it's worth, I love my guns and it'd be a fight for anyone who tries to take them. I, of course, am not a criminal. I have no intentions of harming people with my firearms. Both past and current Sheriff's I have worked for have openly stated that they will not comply with taking people's firearms. That being said, if someone has intent and has expressed intent to harm someone with a firearm, they put a plan in motion, then I will continue to do my best to intervene and take their firearms. We, our agency at least, won't take firearms simply because of a Facebook post, a heated comment, or because they have a large quantity. We look for credible threats coupled with opportunity and plans that they have put in action. But yet again, our Constitution guarantees us Due Process, and that requires determining the facts before a constitutional right is diminished. There's NO room for opinion here. The Constitution no where says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless... There will be a reckoning one day, hopefully, and these constitutional violations will be dealt with. So what is your solution? Let them commit the crime? Shoot someone? Murder someone? Then will it be okay to disarm them? Or is that still a constitutional violation? Shall we let them keep their firearms while in jail until their verdict comes in? Due process is what happens when we arrest people. They go to jail, the see a judge and are determined guilty or not guilty. And that whole process can take months or even years. When we take the firearm, affidavits are immediately filed with the courts and THE hearing is held and decided within a matter of a couple of days. There isn't multiple hearings. There isn't continuances granted for this reason or that. There isn't pre-trials. It is one hearing within a matter of a couple of days to determine whether or not he/she gets to keep their firearms.
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Feb 24, 2020 23:28:17 GMT -5
But yet again, our Constitution guarantees us Due Process, and that requires determining the facts before a constitutional right is diminished. There's NO room for opinion here. The Constitution no where says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless... There will be a reckoning one day, hopefully, and these constitutional violations will be dealt with. So what is your solution? Let them commit the crime? Shoot someone? Murder someone? Then will it be okay to disarm them? Or is that still a constitutional violation? Shall we let them keep their firearms while in jail until their verdict comes in? Due process is what happens when we arrest people. They go to jail, the see a judge and are determined guilty or not guilty. And that whole process can take months or even years. When we take the firearm, affidavits are immediately filed with the courts and THE hearing is held and decided within a matter of a couple of days. There isn't multiple hearings. There isn't continuances granted for this reason or that. There isn't pre-trials. It is one hearing within a matter of a couple of days to determine whether or not he/she gets to keep their firearms. Oh if this were only the case. Please explain to me why, when a "Red Flag Law" is implemented and firearms are ILLEGALLY confiscated, it takes years for the LEGAL owner to be returned their rightful property, IF EVER! No, it is NOT a legal procedure. It is an illegal act deemed "necessary" by individuals who exceed their legal authority. I'm sorry if you don't like to hear the truth, but there it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 7:48:01 GMT -5
But yet again, our Constitution guarantees us Due Process, and that requires determining the facts before a constitutional right is diminished. There's NO room for opinion here. The Constitution no where says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless... There will be a reckoning one day, hopefully, and these constitutional violations will be dealt with. So what is your solution? Let them commit the crime? Shoot someone? Murder someone? Then will it be okay to disarm them? Or is that still a constitutional violation? Shall we let them keep their firearms while in jail until their verdict comes in? Due process is what happens when we arrest people. They go to jail, the see a judge and are determined guilty or not guilty. And that whole process can take months or even years. When we take the firearm, affidavits are immediately filed with the courts and THE hearing is held and decided within a matter of a couple of days. There isn't multiple hearings. There isn't continuances granted for this reason or that. There isn't pre-trials. It is one hearing within a matter of a couple of days to determine whether or not he/she gets to keep their firearms. All someone has to do is get a small group and maybe some "title" type person and put some social media about you and before your next breath the door is knocked down. Your house is ram-shacked and guns are gone. Nothing you can do and good luck getting your guns back. Guns has been around for hundreds of years and up to the last 50 years had no issues. Back in the old days the students would bring there rifles to class and placed in a corner or closet in that room. No issues. Look it up. Read and read some more.
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Feb 25, 2020 13:58:59 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"..... It's all pretty straightforward. It's illegal to thwart the security of our borders, and there's no provision in the Constitution that allows for us to interfere with the nation's security. Likewise, We the People are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, without infringement, and when government defies the Constitution and infringes upon that right, we have no legal or moral obligation to comply. I don't see any ambiguity in this at all. If it's so straight forward.....How then do states and cities ban certain rifles, accessories, magazine capacities, or even handguns altogether? I agree the constitution seems to be pretty black and white on the matter.....however....if that was true....the laws on the books that I mention would be deemed unconstitutional and thus not be a factor.....but yet they remain. So somebody is introducing some ambiguity somewhere!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 18:42:16 GMT -5
It's all pretty straightforward. It's illegal to thwart the security of our borders, and there's no provision in the Constitution that allows for us to interfere with the nation's security. Likewise, We the People are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, without infringement, and when government defies the Constitution and infringes upon that right, we have no legal or moral obligation to comply. I don't see any ambiguity in this at all. If it's so straight forward.....How then do states and cities ban certain rifles, accessories, magazine capacities, or even handguns altogether? I agree the constitution seems to be pretty black and white on the matter.....however....if that was true....the laws on the books that I mention would be deemed unconstitutional and thus not be a factor.....but yet they remain. So somebody is introducing some ambiguity somewhere! These things go on because We the People allow it to go on. The Constitution is crystal clear, but until we make enough of an outcry, our elected employees will continue to do whatever they want. It`s on us. We are responsible for not making tyrants accountable.
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Feb 25, 2020 20:04:26 GMT -5
If it's so straight forward.....How then do states and cities ban certain rifles, accessories, magazine capacities, or even handguns altogether? I agree the constitution seems to be pretty black and white on the matter.....however....if that was true....the laws on the books that I mention would be deemed unconstitutional and thus not be a factor.....but yet they remain. So somebody is introducing some ambiguity somewhere! These things go on because We the People allow it to go on. The Constitution is crystal clear, but until we make enough of an outcry, our elected employees will continue to do whatever they want. It`s on us. We are responsible for not making tyrants accountable. I'll agree with that...let the beatings begin!!!
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Feb 25, 2020 20:38:06 GMT -5
If it's so straight forward.....How then do states and cities ban certain rifles, accessories, magazine capacities, or even handguns altogether? I agree the constitution seems to be pretty black and white on the matter.....however....if that was true....the laws on the books that I mention would be deemed unconstitutional and thus not be a factor.....but yet they remain. So somebody is introducing some ambiguity somewhere! These things go on because We the People allow it to go on. The Constitution is crystal clear, but until we make enough of an outcry, our elected employees will continue to do whatever they want. It`s on us. We are responsible for not making tyrants accountable. Church! It is because we have let happen. Our state and cities and counties will violate the constitution and reduce our rights as long as WE let it go on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 20:47:47 GMT -5
These things go on because We the People allow it to go on. The Constitution is crystal clear, but until we make enough of an outcry, our elected employees will continue to do whatever they want. It`s on us. We are responsible for not making tyrants accountable. Church! It is because we have let happen. Our state and cities and counties will violate the constitution and reduce our rights as long as WE let it go on. Indiana's "red flag" law has to be shot down, as do everyone of them across the country, even if it takes going all the to the Supreme Court. I'd love to know how to make that happen. Our rights are not negotiable, they're not subject to opinion or cultural whims, and they're certainly not vulnerable to government or law enforcement, or any other tyrants. Period.
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Feb 25, 2020 21:42:30 GMT -5
Church! It is because we have let happen. Our state and cities and counties will violate the constitution and reduce our rights as long as WE let it go on. Indiana's "red flag" law has to be shot down, as do everyone of them across the country, even if it takes going all the to the Supreme Court. I'd love to know how to make that happen. Our rights are not negotiable, they're not subject to opinion or cultural whims, and they're certainly not vulnerable to government or law enforcement, or any other tyrants. Period. I have a t-shirt that sums up the above very succinctly, "YOUR FEARS DON'T TRUMP MY RIGHTS"
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Feb 26, 2020 13:35:51 GMT -5
So does anybody know then how a city or the like can pass laws banning AR's, bump stocks, handgun and the like and it's NOT considered unconstitutional?
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Feb 26, 2020 16:38:10 GMT -5
So does anybody know then how a city or the like can pass laws banning AR's, bump stocks, handgun and the like and it's NOT considered unconstitutional? Because they always say something like, "We're not infringing on their Second Amendment rights. They can still keep their single-shot rifle or shotgun, etc. We're not disarming them."
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 26, 2020 17:59:46 GMT -5
I agree with gregr and mgderf above. That's one of the reasons why I joined the Libertarian Party last year.
Does that mean I will automatically vote for the L candidate in every election where one is running? No, not any more than a party membership in any other party would guarantee my vote for their candidates. But it does indicate my governmental preferences with more authority than answering some internet questionnaire that ends up being a marketing survey.
It's also an indication to any other party looking to include some more people into their base, that some might be found in a party with a similar position on some particular interests. Kind of a political position statement that can be made without wearing some Chinese made hat or t-shirt. 8^)
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Feb 26, 2020 19:12:17 GMT -5
I agree with gregr and mgderf above. That's one of the reasons why I joined the Libertarian Party last year. Does that mean I will automatically vote for the L candidate in every election where one is running? No, not any more than a party membership in any other party would guarantee my vote for their candidates. But it does indicate my governmental preferences with more authority than answering some internet questionnaire that ends up being a marketing survey. It's also an indication to any other party looking to include some more people into their base, that some might be found in a party with a similar position on some particular interests. Kind of a political position statement that can be made without wearing some Chinese made hat or t-shirt. 8^) Along these ^ lines. Today I received my "Executive Member" card from the Donald Trump for President campaign, which was also a solicitation for campaign donations. I wrote a letter to return, but did not include a contribution, even though I will likely vote for Trump. In my response I explained my distaste for President Trump's executive backing of the now instituted "Bump-Stock" ban. Let me be clear. I do not own a bump-stock, and have no desire to own one, but that's not the point. I explained that I see the bump-stock ban as a direct affront on my 2nd amendment liberties, and as such, I will not donate directly to any campaign who sees fit to infringe upon my constitutional rights. I further explained that if President Trump wants my political donations, he will need to get them from one of 3 entities. I told him to contact, NRA NRA-ILA (Institute for legislative action) NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund) While I fully understand that the NRA is far from a perfect organization, it does send a message that I am very disenchanted with the course the Trump administration has taken in this regard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2020 19:22:45 GMT -5
I agree with gregr and mgderf above. That's one of the reasons why I joined the Libertarian Party last year. Does that mean I will automatically vote for the L candidate in every election where one is running? No, not any more than a party membership in any other party would guarantee my vote for their candidates. But it does indicate my governmental preferences with more authority than answering some internet questionnaire that ends up being a marketing survey. It's also an indication to any other party looking to include some more people into their base, that some might be found in a party with a similar position on some particular interests. Kind of a political position statement that can be made without wearing some Chinese made hat or t-shirt. 8^) Along these ^ lines. Today I received my "Executive Member" card from the Donald Trump for President campaign, which was also a solicitation for campaign donations. I wrote a letter to return, but did not include a contribution, even though I will likely vote for Trump. In my response I explained my distaste for President Trump's executive backing of the now instituted "Bump-Stock" ban. Let me be clear. I do not own a bump-stock, and have no desire to own one, but that's not the point. I explained that I see the bump-stock ban as a direct affront on my 2nd amendment liberties, and as such, I will not donate directly to any campaign who sees fit to infringe upon my constitutional rights. I further explained that if President Trump wants my political donations, he will need to get them from one of 3 entities. I told him to contact, NRA NRA-ILA (Institute for legislative action) NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund) While I fully understand that the NRA is far from a perfect organization, it does send a message that I am very disenchanted with the course the Trump administration has taken in this regard. As I`ve said before, I`m an NRA Life-Endowment Member, and a Gun Owners of America, (GOA) annual member. These days, I much prefer GOA to NRA. GOA will not support soft gun control as NRA has. I believe at least an annual membership with GOA is something every patriotic American needs to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 26, 2020 23:36:03 GMT -5
gregr, I've been meaning to join you in an annual membership in the GOA for some time, and just have no excuse for not doing so yet. I became a life member in the NRA about 45 years ago, and I guess that's been the only thing keeping me from joining another organization, as I have been disappointed in some of their decisions these last several years, although I still believe in their primary purpose.
I won't become a lifer in the GOA, but I'll be joining them as an annual member tomorrow. Only thing I see about their stand on the issues is I believe they still support the move for a national reciprocity bill, and I still feel that would be a mistake in that it would end up with the feds altering the provisions over time to make it another path for further regulation of our gun rights, as they have done with every other area of control they have been invited into over the years.
That stance has given me pause, but I see that it would be better to join and state my opposition as a member than to continue to let it keep me from joining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2020 6:22:14 GMT -5
gregr, I've been meaning to join you in an annual membership in the GOA for some time, and just have no excuse for not doing so yet. I became a life member in the NRA about 45 years ago, and I guess that's been the only thing keeping me from joining another organization, as I have been disappointed in some of their decisions these last several years, although I still believe in their primary purpose. I won't become a lifer in the GOA, but I'll be joining them as an annual member tomorrow. Only thing I see about their stand on the issues is I believe they still support the move for a national reciprocity bill, and I still feel that would be a mistake in that it would end up with the feds altering the provisions over time to make it another path for further regulation of our gun rights, as they have done with every other area of control they have been invited into over the years. That stance has given me pause, but I see that it would be better to join and state my opposition as a member than to continue to let it keep me from joining. I`ll just say: Welcome aboard Russ. I`ll always be an NRA member, but I believe I`ll always be an annual GOA member too. I think GOA fills a gap that NRA leaves, and honestly, I`ll do nearly anything I can to try to help preserve our Second Amendment rights from the blatant attacks we`re seeing these days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2020 8:08:19 GMT -5
I'm only a GOA member. I never liked the NRA. It's roots, plus some of their comments over the year. Came close to join some years ago. I hope GOA stays true.
|
|