SOPMOD, on Jul 4 2009, 11:13 PM, said:
Krom, on Jul 2 2009, 09:18 PM, said:
I'll be as honest as I can,
I would not under any circumstance take a civilian's(American Citizen) weapons if no criminal law has been violated (IE the CG does enforce federal law) period.
I hope that my limited understanding of the constitution would prevent me from being a part of other actions that could be in violation of a Citizen's rights. As I am a LEO there is allot of 'grey' areas and procedure of how law is enforced. I am human so to say I would never make a mistake would be dishonest. I will however to do my job to the best ability I can always in keeping in mind it's our job to protect the innocent citizen from threats, not deprive them of their God given right to arm and defend themselves.
I would outright refuse to follow a confiscation order as it is blatantly an illegal order. If the 2nd Amd is abolished I would quit my responsibilities as a LEO.
The point I'm trying to make is my allegiance is to the constitution not my job security or the whims of politicians, and although I don't trust the govt some of us are trying to make it the best it can be. That's why I try to keep up and learn as much as I can about the law, and when the govt violates the rights of its Citizens so I won't find myself in position were I may have already helped violate some one's rights. So keep the information flowing so we(govt) can be held accountable to the people as per the constitution. And thanks for the replies.
That's a pretty good answer..
I agree, and i thank you for both what you are attempting to do, and your willingness to say so.
But,
What if something like the
new Lautenberg proposal, or
Peter Kings bill are passed and made federal law, and the whole lot of this rightwing extremist forum are placed on a "terrorist watch list" and labeled Prohibited Possessors? Is confiscation from those people fair game then? Not picking on you, i do very much appreciate the tone and content of your statement, but The supreme court states that the 2a is subject to "reasonable restrictions" and certain members of fedgov are only too happy to expand reasonable into anything they want. Federal law is a funny thing to enforce, even with good intentions, if the scales of justice begin to tip towards tyrany. What was once an "unlawful order" can be transformed into business as usual with naught but the stroke of a pen. Its hard to consider all the hypotheticals, but i think its important that everyone think what exactly constitutes there own personal line in the sand. Find that exact line, and tell yourself I might let it go this far, but no further.
Say the NFA is amended to include all cartridge firearms, and like the machineguns that were once protected by the second amendment, they are not illegal, persay, but they are now subject to "reasonable restriction" and must be registered, and no new arms may be produced for civilian sale. Then, if a weapon is observed at any time, without its tax stamp, or after a certain date of manufacture, it should be confiscated, as that person is a criminal, and any clandestine arms production that aims to supply the people with arms is a criminal enterprise that should be raided?
Even if that doesnt sound that likely, (though incrementally, it is exactly what happened in most countries that instituted total gun control) is there anyone who doesnt think that is almost exactly what is likely to happen in Montana if their nullification of federal firearms laws doesnt get tossed out in october? BATFE is going to pick out some poor manufacturer who is producing weapons without a Federal Firearms License, in violation of federal law, and is going to try and nail him to the wall, no matter what the state of Montana has to say. The rest will be cleared up in court, but the action of seizing (gun confiscation) the inventory of that manufacturer will already have been done.
There are thousands of scenarios you can play out in your head, where the letter of law can still go past the realm of decency, into tyrany. If its hard to conceive, just read european history, or how "political change" came to east asia. Its important to remember that, and think about what you might do, and what you are unwilling to do, for any reason, because when the government has a monopoly on declaring anyone a "criminal" its not as reasuring, as im sure it is intended, to hear a public servant state they would never victimize "the law abiding."
The fact is, there are some laws that no one should abide, and any law that violates the rights of an individual are unjust laws, as americans, we see examples of this, but we abide it, and we carry on in our adherence to the law for many reasons, with various ideas of what is right and what is not, but each one of us has a line drawn in the sand somewhere, a point at which we will not abide it any longer, and know that justice would best be served without any concern whatsoever for the law, or the consequences of breaking it, surivival, justice, freedom, liberty, by any means necessary. We should know both where that point is, and what we will do if we ever reach it.
Quote
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810.