NRA: Garland confirmation will lead to gun confiscation

[Spear Dane]

I understand INGO will be a 2A-centric place, but there are other important issues out there.

Yes there are other issues but I am not aware of anything else that threatens a fundamental underpinning of this country like the anti 2A movement does. If we start dismantling those, where does it stop? Yeah you can call that a slippery slope argument but that does not make the question less valid. It's not hard to come up with 'valid' reasons why most of BoR should not be done away with for the sake of 'protecting the people (i.e. The State).

 

[T.Lex]

Yes there are other issues but I am not aware of anything else that threatens a fundamental underpinning of this country like the anti 2A movement does.

Here's a few:
- 1A - Trump's rhetoric on "opening up the libel laws" smacks of suppression of political expression. Going to be hard to defend the 2A if we can't organize or satirize if we're paralyzed by the threat of a lawsuit for even talking about it.
- 4A - several of the candidates are "strong" on shutting down terrorism and "monitoring" for threats. That's spying. They are loose on the applicability to US citizens at home and abroad.
- 10A - because state's reyights. Government governs best that governs locally. Mostly. And yes, IMHO, that includes states' rights to regulate firearms within certain constraints.

Those are all more vulnerable IMHO than the 2A. I'm not talking about importance; the focus should be on what is most vulnerable.

 

[oldpink]

Here's a few:
- 1A - Trump's rhetoric on "opening up the libel laws" smacks of suppression of political expression. Going to be hard to defend the 2A if we can't organize or satirize if we're paralyzed by the threat of a lawsuit for even talking about it.
- 4A - several of the candidates are "strong" on shutting down terrorism and "monitoring" for threats. That's spying. They are loose on the applicability to US citizens at home and abroad.
- 10A - because state's reyights. Government governs best that governs locally. Mostly. And yes, IMHO, that includes states' rights to regulate firearms within certain constraints.

Those are all more vulnerable IMHO than the 2A. I'm not talking about importance; the focus should be on what is most vulnerable.

1A - While a stupid comment from Trump, that is mere bluster and has about as much seriousness and chance attached to it as a snowball in July.
If you want to see a far more serious and damning example of eviscerating the 2A, just look back two years ago, when a sizable chunk of Democrats actually voted to amend the 1A in far more restrictive direction.

4A - You're looking at the sensational rather than at a far more egregious and entrenched subversion of the 4A: asset forfeiture

10A - Sadly, the final amendment of the BOR has been so systematically whittled away that it's almost a dead letter. You can thank one FDR and a compliant SCOTUS for the genesis of that.

That being said, there is no other amendment under such concerted and dedicated assault by nearly an entire political party.
It's not even close.

 

[T.Lex]

Changing the order a bit:

4A - You're looking at the sensational rather than at a far more egregious and entrenched subversion of the 4A: asset forfeiture

That being said, there is no other amendment under such concerted and dedicated assault by nearly an entire political party.
It's not even close.

I will respectfully disagree. Out in the real world, the 4A is the subject of near-daily challenges. When it comes to protections from governmental actions, this one is perhaps the most important, too.

1A - While a stupid comment from Trump, that is mere bluster and has about as much seriousness and chance attached to it as a snowball in July.

Stupidity notwithstanding, it is a theme he has repeated multiple times. What's more, it might catch on. Like with The Wall and immigration, Trump is regarded as a thought leader on political issues. (Never thought I'd write THAT sentence.) Could you imagine a Clinton/Sanders FCC "opening up" libel laws?

If you want to see a far more serious and damning example of eviscerating the 2A, just look back two years ago, when a sizable chunk of Democrats actually voted to amend the 1A in far more restrictive direction.

I'm sorry - I'm drawing a blank on what you're referencing here. Can you elaborate?

10A - Sadly, the final amendment of the BOR has been so systematically whittled away that it's almost a dead letter. You can thank one FDR and a compliant SCOTUS for the genesis of that.

"Dead letter" is further than I would go, but "withering on the vine" I am comfortable with.

And look, make no mistake, I'm not saying the 2A isn't at risk - it always is. But, the NRA is "powerful" because huge numbers of Americans support gun ownership. Probably the majority. So, in terms of politics, the 2A is relatively safe. Doesn't mean to drop our guard or rest on our laurels or be complacent. Just means that while we're obsessing over keeping this part of the sky in the air, other parts might be dropping or falling.

 

[cbhausen]

Don't underestimate the intelligence of your adversaries. Know their plan so you can think of ways to overcome it.

The real question: You're LEO, right? If so, what would you do if ordered to raid the home of someone known to have what were legal firearms before a confiscation?

Hypothetical, I know but someday our LEOs may be in this position.

 

[T.Lex]

The real question: You're LEO, right? If so, what would you do if ordered to raid the home of someone known to have what were legal firearms before a confiscation?

Hypothetical, I know but someday our LEOs may be in this position.

So here's the real question, what would you do if officers were at your front door and were going to legally confiscate your firearms?

Hypothetical, I know, but someday you may be in that position if you believe what you write here at INGO.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The real question: You're LEO, right? If so, what would you do if ordered to raid the home of someone known to have what were legal firearms before a confiscation?

Hypothetical, I know but someday our LEOs may be in this position.

I'd ask what the crime listed on the warrant was.

 

[cbhausen]

I'd ask what the crime listed on the warrant was.

Owning illegal firearms, of course.

 

[cbhausen]

So here's the real question, what would you do if officers were at your front door and were going to legally confiscate your firearms?

Hypothetical, I know, but someday you may be in that position if you believe what you write here at INGO.

Come in, look around... I lost them in a boating accident.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Owning illegal firearms, of course.

Let me put it to you this way, I once almost got suspended for not arresting a guy who was burning a flag on his grill, as a sign or protest.

 

[T.Lex]

Come in, look around... I lost them in a boating accident.

Then what's the purpose of the question to Kut? You've got it all figured out.

Won't matter what the police do.

 

[cbhausen]

Then what's the purpose of the question to Kut? You've got it all figured out.

Won't matter what the police do.

Actually, it's not just for Kut but applies to anyone who might find himself out herself in that position. Not everyone would "lose" their guns in some unfortunate accident.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Actually, it's not just for Kut but applies to anyone who might find himself out herself in that position. Not everyone would "lose" their guns in some unfortunate accident.

You're probably on the wrong website if you expect any of the LEOs here to say the "wrong" answer.

 

[T.Lex]

Let me put it to you this way, I once almost got suspended for not arresting a guy who was burning a flag on his grill, as a sign or protest.

Thanks for that, by the way. A burger slipped through the grill and was getting burned, so I grabbed the first thing that came to hand to lift the grate, which just happened to be an old flag, then one thing led to another.

The curbstomping, while refreshing, was dulled by the use of the soft leather jackboots, so I appreciate that.

Tell the lieutenant with the small hands that he still owes me dinner after the body cavity search.

 

[cbhausen]

Let me put it to you this way, I once almost got suspended for not arresting a guy who was burning a flag on his grill, as a sign or protest.

What would that arrest have been for? Some ordinance prohibiting open burning?

And to everyone: I hope to be thought-provoking without being provocative here. I have much respect for LEOs.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What would that arrest have been for? Some ordinance prohibiting open burning?

And to everyone: I hope to be thought-provoking without being provocative here. I have much respect for LEOs.

I don't know if it's still on the books, but in Indiana there used to be (or is) an IC prohibiting the burning of the American flag.

 

[Kutnupe14]

IC 35-45-1-4
Flag desecration
Sec. 4. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally mutilates, defaces, burns, or tramples any United States flag, standard, or ensign commits flag desecration, a Class A misdemeanor.


Didn't check to see if it's still valid

 

[T.Lex]

What would that arrest have been for? Some ordinance prohibiting open burning?

And to everyone: I hope to be thought-provoking without being provocative here. I have much respect for LEOs.

My issue is more that the premise is kinda old.

By the time police are in the position to enforce a mass-confiscation type law, that law will have been:
- debated in a legislature for weeks
- signed by the executive (governor or president) and
- litigated for years

It will not be a surprise. By the end of it, likely the only officers who haven't resigned or been removed will be officers willing to enforce the laws.

The more likely scenario is incrementalism. More triggers created to declare someone an improper person legally, or reasons to disqualify administratively for the LTCH. That kind of thing.

An even more plausible scenario is that an attorney for the a mental health division of .gov goes in front of a judge and gets an order based on testimony from a mental health professional to "take temporary custody" of a person's firearms to protect himself and others. Isolated.

Who wants the mentally ill to have firearms?

 

[cbhausen]

Thanks for your responses, Kut and T.Lex... I kind of took this thread off-track but this could be an interesting discussion worthy of its own thread.