Info for The NRA Apologists
New U.S. Senator opposing H.R. 2640, and a detailed rebuttal of the NRA's defense of gun control.
National Association for Gun Rights ^ | 10/10/2007 | NA
Posted on 10/17/2007 7:01:18 PM PDT by neverdem
U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) is now publicly telling constituents he is opposed to HR2640, which means steam is gathering against this gun control scheme.
This is terrible news for the anti-gun forces in Congress -- including House Sponsor Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) -- and good news for the NRA, as they are now starting to realize that this gun control bill will be seen largely as their creation.
One of the problems with trying to understand what H.R. 2640 really means is that the whole truth is not always being told. So, here are some important points to consider.
The NRA claims:
H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons."
What Section 3 Definitions of H.R. 2640 states:
"(2) Mental health terms.--The terms ``adjudicated as a mental defective'', ``committed to a mental institution'', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act."
The Truth:
Existing law states a prohibited person has to be "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution". These terms have not yet been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). But, pro-gun forces and most lower court precedents say "adjudicated" means a ruling by a court of law where due process rights are protected. However, the BATFE has written regulations defining "adjudicated" to be a ruling by "a court, board, or other lawful authority", not just a court of law where due process rights must be protected. The BATFE regulations include more people than does the plain wording of the law because the words "board or other lawful authority" could include school psychologists who determine your child has ADD, VA psychiatrists who diagnose returning veterans with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which almost invariably includes some element of possible danger to ones self or others), or a psychologist appointed by the court to evaluate a child custody dispute. The validity of the BATFE regulations have not yet been decided by the SCOTUS. H.R. 2640 would turn the BATFE regulations into law, which is a loss for the pro-gun side. Thus, more people would be prohibited from possessing firearms under H.R. 2640 than would be prohibited under existing law if the BATFE regulations were found to be an improper interpretation of the law - which is likely. So, who do you think is telling the truth on this point?
Also, Section 102(b)(3) of H.R. 2640 states:
"(3) Clarification.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), States shall endeavor to provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."
As it currently stands, most of the records for misdemeanor criminal domestic violence from many years ago are not in the system. Many years ago, "no fault" divorces could not be gotten. So, many times a husband and wife who wanted a quicker divorce would claim there was spousal abuse just to qualify for a divorce. Then, years or decades later, the Lautenburg amendment was passed that imposed a lifetime firearms disability retroactively to include these people. H.R. 2640 will catch these people when they go to apply for a hunter's license or to buy a gun, and it will turn them into felons. Thus, the practical effect is that more people will be denied the right to keep and bear arms because of H.R. 2640 than were being denied the right before. So, who do you think is telling the truth on this point?
The NRA claims:
"H.R. 2640-for the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill."
The Truth:
Under the law, reports are to be made upon conviction. Expungement is a process that occurs long after conviction. So, this claim from the NRA rings hollow because most people would still need to seek a relief from disabilities determination since the expungement comes at a much later date than the adjudication.
Also, the NRA is not being accurate when it infers the ability to get relief from the adjudication is something that is new to H.R. 2640. Such relief has been available since 1986, as described by Joseph R. Simpson, MD, PhD in the J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 35:3:330-338 (2007).
Dr. Simpson is a Staff Psychiatrist at the VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, and a Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Southern California (USC) Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. Dr. Simpson wrote:
"In contrast to provisions for other prohibited categories such as felons, the 1968 laws made no provision for an individual who is prohibited from owning a firearm based on a history of mental illness to regain the privilege. The discrepancy was eliminated by a section of the Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986, which granted the same right to petition for relief that had been afforded convicted felons."
The NRA claims:
"Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek "relief from disabilities" through either state or federal programs. Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person "adjudicated" incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm."
The Truth:
The McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 has provided veterans a way to have their rights restored for almost twenty years. The procedure for doing so is contained in 18 USC 925(c). The problem is that Congress has refused to fund the department responsible for processing restoration of rights applications since 1992, which - not coincidentally - is the 15 year time period that the NRA refers to in their claim above. So, the problem is Congress' failure to fund the restoration of rights, not the non existence of a procedure to have rights restored.
The NRA claims:
"FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an "adjudication" or "commitment." Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an "adjudication" to include a decision by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority." They claim any doctor could potentially be a "lawful authority." They are wrong. Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position."
The Truth:
In U.S. v. Waters, U.S. v. Waters, 786 F.Supp. 1111 (N.D. N.Y. 1992), a federal district court ruled that under New York law a two-physician certification procedure constitutes a formal commitment. Judicial review of the commitment was not a requirement.
If the proponents of H.R. 2640 were not trying to expand the scope of the law, then why not simply amend the bill to limit "adjudication" to a court proceeding and thus put to rest this issue of concern?
Since at least one court has already ruled to validate the concerns of opponents of H.R. 2640, and the proponents of H.R. 2640 refuse to amend H.R. 2640 to specifically state what they tell us the bill "really" means, then how could any reasonable person believe that the words "other lawful authority" in H.R. 2640 will not be interpreted to include psychologists, psychiatrists, and review boards that do not provide the same due process that a court of law would provide.
Remember, the best predictor of future actions is to look at past actions.
There has been a restoration of rights procedure available for many years. It is found in Section 925(c) of the United States Code of Laws. But, Congress has refused to fund the process since 1992. In an attempt to have his rights restored, Thomas Bean submitted an application to have his rights restored. The BATFE returned his application without processing it. Bean then went to court to have his rights restored. The trial court ruled in Bean's favor. The US government appealed. The appeals court ruled in Bean's favor. The US government appealed again. The United States Supreme Court ruled against Bean on the grounds that Bean's application for restoration of rights must first be processed by the BATFE before Bean had a right to resort to the courts. The fact that Congress refused to fund the restoration of rights process and thus denied Bean the opportunity to ever have his application processed did not matter. United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002).
Interestingly, Section 101(c)(2)(A) of H.R. 2640 states that "relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code." So, what makes the NRA think that Sen. Schumer and his ilk won't deny funding to any other restoration of rights process in H.R. 2640 just as they have done for the last 15 years? Is this empty promise worth adding tens of thousands of people to the prohibited list?
Last, but not least, look at who is on each side of this issue.
Those known to oppose H.R. 2640:
The American Legion
The Order of the Purple Heart (opposed to H.R. 2640 because it will harm veterans)
Gun Owners of America
National Association for Gun Rights
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
National Association for Gun Rights
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
GrassRoots North Carolina
GrassRoots South Carolina
Oregon Firearms Federation
Wisconsin Gun Owners
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition
New Hampshire Firearms Coalition
Alan Korwin (author of Gun Laws of America)
Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition
Those actively pushing for H.R. 2640:
U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY),
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
...and the NRA.
One might want to ask why virtually every pro-gun rights organization in America opposes H.R. 2640, while the NRA is siding with Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.
Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912813/posts
National Association for Gun Rights ^ | 10/10/2007 | NA
Posted on 10/17/2007 7:01:18 PM PDT by neverdem
U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) is now publicly telling constituents he is opposed to HR2640, which means steam is gathering against this gun control scheme.
This is terrible news for the anti-gun forces in Congress -- including House Sponsor Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) -- and good news for the NRA, as they are now starting to realize that this gun control bill will be seen largely as their creation.
One of the problems with trying to understand what H.R. 2640 really means is that the whole truth is not always being told. So, here are some important points to consider.
The NRA claims:
H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons."
What Section 3 Definitions of H.R. 2640 states:
"(2) Mental health terms.--The terms ``adjudicated as a mental defective'', ``committed to a mental institution'', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act."
The Truth:
Existing law states a prohibited person has to be "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution". These terms have not yet been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). But, pro-gun forces and most lower court precedents say "adjudicated" means a ruling by a court of law where due process rights are protected. However, the BATFE has written regulations defining "adjudicated" to be a ruling by "a court, board, or other lawful authority", not just a court of law where due process rights must be protected. The BATFE regulations include more people than does the plain wording of the law because the words "board or other lawful authority" could include school psychologists who determine your child has ADD, VA psychiatrists who diagnose returning veterans with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which almost invariably includes some element of possible danger to ones self or others), or a psychologist appointed by the court to evaluate a child custody dispute. The validity of the BATFE regulations have not yet been decided by the SCOTUS. H.R. 2640 would turn the BATFE regulations into law, which is a loss for the pro-gun side. Thus, more people would be prohibited from possessing firearms under H.R. 2640 than would be prohibited under existing law if the BATFE regulations were found to be an improper interpretation of the law - which is likely. So, who do you think is telling the truth on this point?
Also, Section 102(b)(3) of H.R. 2640 states:
"(3) Clarification.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), States shall endeavor to provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."
As it currently stands, most of the records for misdemeanor criminal domestic violence from many years ago are not in the system. Many years ago, "no fault" divorces could not be gotten. So, many times a husband and wife who wanted a quicker divorce would claim there was spousal abuse just to qualify for a divorce. Then, years or decades later, the Lautenburg amendment was passed that imposed a lifetime firearms disability retroactively to include these people. H.R. 2640 will catch these people when they go to apply for a hunter's license or to buy a gun, and it will turn them into felons. Thus, the practical effect is that more people will be denied the right to keep and bear arms because of H.R. 2640 than were being denied the right before. So, who do you think is telling the truth on this point?
The NRA claims:
"H.R. 2640-for the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill."
The Truth:
Under the law, reports are to be made upon conviction. Expungement is a process that occurs long after conviction. So, this claim from the NRA rings hollow because most people would still need to seek a relief from disabilities determination since the expungement comes at a much later date than the adjudication.
Also, the NRA is not being accurate when it infers the ability to get relief from the adjudication is something that is new to H.R. 2640. Such relief has been available since 1986, as described by Joseph R. Simpson, MD, PhD in the J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 35:3:330-338 (2007).
Dr. Simpson is a Staff Psychiatrist at the VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, and a Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Southern California (USC) Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. Dr. Simpson wrote:
"In contrast to provisions for other prohibited categories such as felons, the 1968 laws made no provision for an individual who is prohibited from owning a firearm based on a history of mental illness to regain the privilege. The discrepancy was eliminated by a section of the Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986, which granted the same right to petition for relief that had been afforded convicted felons."
The NRA claims:
"Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek "relief from disabilities" through either state or federal programs. Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person "adjudicated" incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm."
The Truth:
The McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 has provided veterans a way to have their rights restored for almost twenty years. The procedure for doing so is contained in 18 USC 925(c). The problem is that Congress has refused to fund the department responsible for processing restoration of rights applications since 1992, which - not coincidentally - is the 15 year time period that the NRA refers to in their claim above. So, the problem is Congress' failure to fund the restoration of rights, not the non existence of a procedure to have rights restored.
The NRA claims:
"FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an "adjudication" or "commitment." Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an "adjudication" to include a decision by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority." They claim any doctor could potentially be a "lawful authority." They are wrong. Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position."
The Truth:
In U.S. v. Waters, U.S. v. Waters, 786 F.Supp. 1111 (N.D. N.Y. 1992), a federal district court ruled that under New York law a two-physician certification procedure constitutes a formal commitment. Judicial review of the commitment was not a requirement.
If the proponents of H.R. 2640 were not trying to expand the scope of the law, then why not simply amend the bill to limit "adjudication" to a court proceeding and thus put to rest this issue of concern?
Since at least one court has already ruled to validate the concerns of opponents of H.R. 2640, and the proponents of H.R. 2640 refuse to amend H.R. 2640 to specifically state what they tell us the bill "really" means, then how could any reasonable person believe that the words "other lawful authority" in H.R. 2640 will not be interpreted to include psychologists, psychiatrists, and review boards that do not provide the same due process that a court of law would provide.
Remember, the best predictor of future actions is to look at past actions.
There has been a restoration of rights procedure available for many years. It is found in Section 925(c) of the United States Code of Laws. But, Congress has refused to fund the process since 1992. In an attempt to have his rights restored, Thomas Bean submitted an application to have his rights restored. The BATFE returned his application without processing it. Bean then went to court to have his rights restored. The trial court ruled in Bean's favor. The US government appealed. The appeals court ruled in Bean's favor. The US government appealed again. The United States Supreme Court ruled against Bean on the grounds that Bean's application for restoration of rights must first be processed by the BATFE before Bean had a right to resort to the courts. The fact that Congress refused to fund the restoration of rights process and thus denied Bean the opportunity to ever have his application processed did not matter. United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002).
Interestingly, Section 101(c)(2)(A) of H.R. 2640 states that "relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code." So, what makes the NRA think that Sen. Schumer and his ilk won't deny funding to any other restoration of rights process in H.R. 2640 just as they have done for the last 15 years? Is this empty promise worth adding tens of thousands of people to the prohibited list?
Last, but not least, look at who is on each side of this issue.
Those known to oppose H.R. 2640:
The American Legion
The Order of the Purple Heart (opposed to H.R. 2640 because it will harm veterans)
Gun Owners of America
National Association for Gun Rights
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
National Association for Gun Rights
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
GrassRoots North Carolina
GrassRoots South Carolina
Oregon Firearms Federation
Wisconsin Gun Owners
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition
New Hampshire Firearms Coalition
Alan Korwin (author of Gun Laws of America)
Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition
Those actively pushing for H.R. 2640:
U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY),
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
...and the NRA.
One might want to ask why virtually every pro-gun rights organization in America opposes H.R. 2640, while the NRA is siding with Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.
Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912813/posts
0
-
How many times you going to beat that anti-NRA drum? 0 -
And here are some facts about H.R. 2640:
http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html?wh=wh
http://www.claytoncramer.com/PopularMagazines/HR 2640.htm0 -
When people stop living in denial, maybe? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
How many times you going to beat that anti-NRA drum?
Not an "anti" drum, just a drum to try to wake up some of my fellow gun-owners.
After all, MY rights depend on my fellow gun-owners and many of my fellow gun-owners are squandering them by supporting further infringements on Amendment II. This equates to more government regulations being jammed down MY throat.
Answer to the question...as long as it takes. Don't like it, don't click on it. It really is that simple.[;)]0 -
If folks don't wake up to the facts now, they are going to wake up to no 2nd Amendment later... 0 -
I don't really think there can BE enough discussion concerning the Second Amendment.
I also believe that defining that clear, bright line between those supporting gun control...and those who don't..is EVER a bad thing.
The Second says what it means, and means what it says...all you NRA supporters to the contrary.0 -
That was one of the best posts on here.
I read every word and am duly impressed.
This is BAD LAW. Period. People advocating for it are 1.fools 2. ignorant of government tendancies. or both.
D.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
How many times you going to beat that anti-NRA drum?
Not an "anti" drum, just a drum to try to wake up some of my fellow gun-owners.
After all, MY rights depend on my fellow gun-owners and many of my fellow gun-owners are squandering them by supporting further infringements on Amendment II. This equates to more government regulations being jammed down MY throat.
Answer to the question...as long as it takes. Don't like it, don't click on it. It really is that simple.[;)]
Here is what I do not understand about you: from reading this forum, I understand that you are a police officer. As such, part of your job is enforcing all those anti-gun laws that you do not seem to support. (And other laws like seat belt and helmet laws you say you are against.) How do you reconcile that? Do you not ever arrest people that break those laws? Such as carrying concealed without a permit? Or not wearing a seat belt or helmet? What do you do on National Click it or Ticket enforcement? Stay home that day? Just curious.0 -
I don't know why we're all gnashing our teeth and rending our clothes about this legislation. Guns and ammo are going to be taxed into only the hands of the rich in our lifetime.
Can't legislate something out of existence?
Tax it out of existence.
Mark these words.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
How many times you going to beat that anti-NRA drum?
Not an "anti" drum, just a drum to try to wake up some of my fellow gun-owners.
After all, MY rights depend on my fellow gun-owners and many of my fellow gun-owners are squandering them by supporting further infringements on Amendment II. This equates to more government regulations being jammed down MY throat.
Answer to the question...as long as it takes. Don't like it, don't click on it. It really is that simple.[;)]
Here is what I do not understand about you: from reading this forum, I understand that you are a police officer. As such, part of your job is enforcing all those anti-gun laws that you do not seem to support. (And other laws like seat belt and helmet laws you say you are against.) How do you reconcile that? Do you not ever arrest people that break those laws? Such as carrying concealed without a permit? Or not wearing a seat belt or helmet? What do you do on National Click it or Ticket enforcement? Stay home that day? Just curious.
Fair question. My job is as a Peace Officer, NOT a Law Enforcement Officer. Big difference in philosophy and practical application. Frankly, the systemic "LEO" mentality and increasing acceptance of such, is a large part of the problem in our ever increasing level of predatory government.
You see, I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. That is primary over any other factor.
Regardless of some of the laws passed, particularly the "malum prohibitum" laws, I have a little thing called my choice and "officer discretion". I use both. I am fully aware that with both these uses comes a great deal of personal responsibility and accountability.
I am adamently opposed to most malum prohibitum laws and restrictions such as helmet and seatbelt laws. I have NEVER charged, cited, or otherwise sanctioned anyone for a violation of one of these laws. Their choice, my choice.
You are correct that I do not support anti-gun laws, nor do I choose to enforce them. Although I am now primarily an administrator, I still stay active to maintain proficiency, stay current and to stay in touch with my personnel. In my career, I have had many an occasion to be confronted with persons violating laws while in possession of firearms. Permits mean squat to me. I do not recognize that the government has the authority to regulate the simple carry of firearms under the US Constitution, or the Arizona State Constitution, Article 2, subsection 26. I have chosen to charge the other crimes, not the act of possessing or carrying a firearm. Absent another criminal violation, a person simply exercising their Constitutional RTKBA is in no danger of sanction from me, period.
I really see nothing to reconcile. This is America, I am an American Citizen who happens to be empowered to keep the peace. I am not a storm-trooper, or a robot, that must follow any law or order presented to me. There are far too many laws out there, many are stupid, many infringe on individual freedoms. I keep the peace as I am empowered to do. I refuse to be a part of our predatory system of government. It is that simple.
Just as with DUI Checkpoints, which by the way are unconstitutional IMO, I choose to not participate in the Federal "Click it or Ticket" campaigns, period. I don't stay home, or didn't when I was primarlity on patrol, from these events, I chose to look for DUI's the constitutional way, e.g. drive around and observe signs of imparement, then act accordingly. I choose to ignore and disregard the stupid "Click it or Ticket" stuff. The pamphlets and educational aspects, as in attempting to increase useage, is fine. I draw the line on enforcing such laws.
It is actually pretty easy and quite rewarding to take the stance that I have maintained my entire career. I am blessed with the ability to have some influence on not only the members of my agency, but to some small extent on the policies and direction we have taken as an agency.
Clarified enough?0 -
[:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
How many times you going to beat that anti-NRA drum?
Not an "anti" drum, just a drum to try to wake up some of my fellow gun-owners.
After all, MY rights depend on my fellow gun-owners and many of my fellow gun-owners are squandering them by supporting further infringements on Amendment II. This equates to more government regulations being jammed down MY throat.
Answer to the question...as long as it takes. Don't like it, don't click on it. It really is that simple.[;)]
Here is what I do not understand about you: from reading this forum, I understand that you are a police officer. As such, part of your job is enforcing all those anti-gun laws that you do not seem to support. (And other laws like seat belt and helmet laws you say you are against.) How do you reconcile that? Do you not ever arrest people that break those laws? Such as carrying concealed without a permit? Or not wearing a seat belt or helmet? What do you do on National Click it or Ticket enforcement? Stay home that day? Just curious.
Fair question. My job is as a Peace Officer, NOT a Law Enforcement Officer. Big difference in philosophy and practical application. Frankly, the systemic "LEO" mentality and increasing acceptance of such, is a large part of the problem in our ever increasing level of predatory government.
You see, I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. That is primary over any other factor.
Regardless of some of the laws passed, particularly the "malum prohibitum" laws, I have a little thing called my choice and "officer discretion". I use both. I am fully aware that with both these uses comes a great deal of personal responsibility and accountability.
I am adamently opposed to most malum prohibitum laws and restrictions such as helmet and seatbelt laws. I have NEVER charged, cited, or otherwise sanctioned anyone for a violation of one of these laws. Their choice, my choice.
You are correct that I do not support anti-gun laws, nor do I choose to enforce them. Although I am now primarily an administrator, I still stay active to maintain proficiency, stay current and to stay in touch with my personnel. In my career, I have had many an occasion to be confronted with persons violating laws while in possession of firearms. Permits mean squat to me. I do not recognize that the government has the authority to regulate the simple carry of firearms under the US Constitution, or the Arizona State Constitution, Article 2, subsection 26. I have chosen to charge the other crimes, not the act of possessing or carrying a firearm. Absent another criminal violation, a person simply exercising their Constitutional RTKBA is in no danger of sanction from me, period.
I really see nothing to reconcile. This is America, I am an American Citizen who happens to be empowered to keep the peace. I am not a storm-trooper, or a robot, that must follow any law or order presented to me. There are far too many laws out there, many are stupid, many infringe on individual freedoms. I keep the peace as I am empowered to do. I refuse to be a part of our predatory system of government. It is that simple.
Just as with DUI Checkpoints, which by the way are unconstitutional IMO, I choose to not participate in the Federal "Click it or Ticket" campaigns, period. I don't stay home, or didn't when I was primarlity on patrol, from these events, I chose to look for DUI's the constitutional way, e.g. drive around and observe signs of imparement, then act accordingly. I choose to ignore and disregard the stupid "Click it or Ticket" stuff. The pamphlets and educational aspects, as in attempting to increase useage, is fine. I draw the line on enforcing such laws.
It is actually pretty easy and quite rewarding to take the stance that I have maintained my entire career. I am blessed with the ability to have some influence on not only the members of my agency, but to some small extent on the policies and direction we have taken as an agency.
Clarified enough?
Very interesting, thank you for taking the time to write all that. Another question if you do not mind: what would happen if one of your officers decided that all the drug laws were unconstitutional and thus refused to arrest people caught selling/using/transporting drugs? Would that officer be allowed to make that sort of decision and remain an officer? thank you0 -
Quote from sigfan: "Very interesting, thank you for taking the time to write all that. Another question if you do not mind: what would happen if one of your officers decided that all the drug laws were unconstitutional and thus refused to arrest people caught selling/using/transporting drugs? Would that officer be allowed to make that sort of decision and remain an officer? thank you"
Another relatively fair question, however, don't forget that the original issues being delt with were related to the RTKBA and simple personal choices to not wear a seatbelt, or helmet.
I responded to your question about my views related to my profession since I understood the corrolation you sought. I will also answer this one to further corrolate for you, but I will not get further dragged into a philosophical Q&A. My positions are quite clear after all. You may not agree, but then again, that doesn't concern me.
Back to the question, understand that I have to speak from my own view, philosophy and position. Since you took the issue of "drug laws" to attempt to make your point, I will address that issue in a general sense, or as a generic.
Any peace officer has to analize and make his/her own decisions regarding action, or discretion. To some extent, policy and practice impact this, but that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Each of us must weigh the potential consequences also.
I will be speaking for myself and how I would deal with one of "my officers". I view most malum prohibitum laws, in this case related to drugs, in a "how do they affect others" view. You postulated sale/use/transport of drugs.
Simple drug use is a no brainer to me. If the use is personal and not while in a position to endanger others, such as driving etc, then the choice to not charge is fine with me and I would have no issue with any officer exercising their descretion on the matter.
Sales are in a somewhat different catagory, in that others may be affected by this activity. For me, that takes it out of the venue of a purely "personal" choice issue, or that of a constitutionally protected right. Big difference, at least from where I sit.
Your transportation of drugs is more problematic, in that it is also situational. Usually, a transportation charge is related to quantities for sale, not for personal use. Generally there is a threshhold amount required and/or some sales/distribution nexus needed. Transport of personal use drugs is in the same catagory as personal use IMO. Transportation of quantity for sale or distribution is in the same venue as sales to me, in that it has a negative effect on others and therefore is no longer simply a "personal" issue.
Appreciate the direct and straightforward manner in which you asked.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
How many times you going to beat that anti-NRA drum?
Not an "anti" drum, just a drum to try to wake up some of my fellow gun-owners.
After all, MY rights depend on my fellow gun-owners and many of my fellow gun-owners are squandering them by supporting further infringements on Amendment II. This equates to more government regulations being jammed down MY throat.
Answer to the question...as long as it takes. Don't like it, don't click on it. It really is that simple.[;)]
Here is what I do not understand about you: from reading this forum, I understand that you are a police officer. As such, part of your job is enforcing all those anti-gun laws that you do not seem to support. (And other laws like seat belt and helmet laws you say you are against.) How do you reconcile that? Do you not ever arrest people that break those laws? Such as carrying concealed without a permit? Or not wearing a seat belt or helmet? What do you do on National Click it or Ticket enforcement? Stay home that day? Just curious.
Fair question. My job is as a Peace Officer, NOT a Law Enforcement Officer. Big difference in philosophy and practical application. Frankly, the systemic "LEO" mentality and increasing acceptance of such, is a large part of the problem in our ever increasing level of predatory government.
You see, I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. That is primary over any other factor.
Regardless of some of the laws passed, particularly the "malum prohibitum" laws, I have a little thing called my choice and "officer discretion". I use both. I am fully aware that with both these uses comes a great deal of personal responsibility and accountability.
I am adamently opposed to most malum prohibitum laws and restrictions such as helmet and seatbelt laws. I have NEVER charged, cited, or otherwise sanctioned anyone for a violation of one of these laws. Their choice, my choice.
You are correct that I do not support anti-gun laws, nor do I choose to enforce them. Although I am now primarily an administrator, I still stay active to maintain proficiency, stay current and to stay in touch with my personnel. In my career, I have had many an occasion to be confronted with persons violating laws while in possession of firearms. Permits mean squat to me. I do not recognize that the government has the authority to regulate the simple carry of firearms under the US Constitution, or the Arizona State Constitution, Article 2, subsection 26. I have chosen to charge the other crimes, not the act of possessing or carrying a firearm. Absent another criminal violation, a person simply exercising their Constitutional RTKBA is in no danger of sanction from me, period.
I really see nothing to reconcile. This is America, I am an American Citizen who happens to be empowered to keep the peace. I am not a storm-trooper, or a robot, that must follow any law or order presented to me. There are far too many laws out there, many are stupid, many infringe on individual freedoms. I keep the peace as I am empowered to do. I refuse to be a part of our predatory system of government. It is that simple.
Just as with DUI Checkpoints, which by the way are unconstitutional IMO, I choose to not participate in the Federal "Click it or Ticket" campaigns, period. I don't stay home, or didn't when I was primarlity on patrol, from these events, I chose to look for DUI's the constitutional way, e.g. drive around and observe signs of imparement, then act accordingly. I choose to ignore and disregard the stupid "Click it or Ticket" stuff. The pamphlets and educational aspects, as in attempting to increase useage, is fine. I draw the line on enforcing such laws.
It is actually pretty easy and quite rewarding to take the stance that I have maintained my entire career. I am blessed with the ability to have some influence on not only the members of my agency, but to some small extent on the policies and direction we have taken as an agency.
Clarified enough?
I.....did not know you shared so many of my attitudes.0 -
That, Sir, is an Officer (PEACE) and a gentleman.
Some of you that whors hip the Beast will not find it satisfactory..but then some of us find little about the Beast that is satisfactory.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
How many times you going to beat that anti-NRA drum?
Not an "anti" drum, just a drum to try to wake up some of my fellow gun-owners.
After all, MY rights depend on my fellow gun-owners and many of my fellow gun-owners are squandering them by supporting further infringements on Amendment II. This equates to more government regulations being jammed down MY throat.
Answer to the question...as long as it takes. Don't like it, don't click on it. It really is that simple.[;)]
Here is what I do not understand about you: from reading this forum, I understand that you are a police officer. As such, part of your job is enforcing all those anti-gun laws that you do not seem to support. (And other laws like seat belt and helmet laws you say you are against.) How do you reconcile that? Do you not ever arrest people that break those laws? Such as carrying concealed without a permit? Or not wearing a seat belt or helmet? What do you do on National Click it or Ticket enforcement? Stay home that day? Just curious.
Fair question. My job is as a Peace Officer, NOT a Law Enforcement Officer. Big difference in philosophy and practical application. Frankly, the systemic "LEO" mentality and increasing acceptance of such, is a large part of the problem in our ever increasing level of predatory government.
You see, I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. That is primary over any other factor.
Regardless of some of the laws passed, particularly the "malum prohibitum" laws, I have a little thing called my choice and "officer discretion". I use both. I am fully aware that with both these uses comes a great deal of personal responsibility and accountability.
I am adamently opposed to most malum prohibitum laws and restrictions such as helmet and seatbelt laws. I have NEVER charged, cited, or otherwise sanctioned anyone for a violation of one of these laws. Their choice, my choice.
You are correct that I do not support anti-gun laws, nor do I choose to enforce them. Although I am now primarily an administrator, I still stay active to maintain proficiency, stay current and to stay in touch with my personnel. In my career, I have had many an occasion to be confronted with persons violating laws while in possession of firearms. Permits mean squat to me. I do not recognize that the government has the authority to regulate the simple carry of firearms under the US Constitution, or the Arizona State Constitution, Article 2, subsection 26. I have chosen to charge the other crimes, not the act of possessing or carrying a firearm. Absent another criminal violation, a person simply exercising their Constitutional RTKBA is in no danger of sanction from me, period.
I really see nothing to reconcile. This is America, I am an American Citizen who happens to be empowered to keep the peace. I am not a storm-trooper, or a robot, that must follow any law or order presented to me. There are far too many laws out there, many are stupid, many infringe on individual freedoms. I keep the peace as I am empowered to do. I refuse to be a part of our predatory system of government. It is that simple.
Just as with DUI Checkpoints, which by the way are unconstitutional IMO, I choose to not participate in the Federal "Click it or Ticket" campaigns, period. I don't stay home, or didn't when I was primarlity on patrol, from these events, I chose to look for DUI's the constitutional way, e.g. drive around and observe signs of imparement, then act accordingly. I choose to ignore and disregard the stupid "Click it or Ticket" stuff. The pamphlets and educational aspects, as in attempting to increase useage, is fine. I draw the line on enforcing such laws.
It is actually pretty easy and quite rewarding to take the stance that I have maintained my entire career. I am blessed with the ability to have some influence on not only the members of my agency, but to some small extent on the policies and direction we have taken as an agency.
Clarified enough?
I.....did not know you shared so many of my attitudes.
Maybe you share his. Don0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
How many times you going to beat that anti-NRA drum?
Not an "anti" drum, just a drum to try to wake up some of my fellow gun-owners.
After all, MY rights depend on my fellow gun-owners and many of my fellow gun-owners are squandering them by supporting further infringements on Amendment II. This equates to more government regulations being jammed down MY throat.
Answer to the question...as long as it takes. Don't like it, don't click on it. It really is that simple.[;)]
Here is what I do not understand about you: from reading this forum, I understand that you are a police officer. As such, part of your job is enforcing all those anti-gun laws that you do not seem to support. (And other laws like seat belt and helmet laws you say you are against.) How do you reconcile that? Do you not ever arrest people that break those laws? Such as carrying concealed without a permit? Or not wearing a seat belt or helmet? What do you do on National Click it or Ticket enforcement? Stay home that day? Just curious.
Fair question. My job is as a Peace Officer, NOT a Law Enforcement Officer. Big difference in philosophy and practical application. Frankly, the systemic "LEO" mentality and increasing acceptance of such, is a large part of the problem in our ever increasing level of predatory government.
You see, I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. That is primary over any other factor.
Regardless of some of the laws passed, particularly the "malum prohibitum" laws, I have a little thing called my choice and "officer discretion". I use both. I am fully aware that with both these uses comes a great deal of personal responsibility and accountability.
I am adamently opposed to most malum prohibitum laws and restrictions such as helmet and seatbelt laws. I have NEVER charged, cited, or otherwise sanctioned anyone for a violation of one of these laws. Their choice, my choice.
You are correct that I do not support anti-gun laws, nor do I choose to enforce them. Although I am now primarily an administrator, I still stay active to maintain proficiency, stay current and to stay in touch with my personnel. In my career, I have had many an occasion to be confronted with persons violating laws while in possession of firearms. Permits mean squat to me. I do not recognize that the government has the authority to regulate the simple carry of firearms under the US Constitution, or the Arizona State Constitution, Article 2, subsection 26. I have chosen to charge the other crimes, not the act of possessing or carrying a firearm. Absent another criminal violation, a person simply exercising their Constitutional RTKBA is in no danger of sanction from me, period.
I really see nothing to reconcile. This is America, I am an American Citizen who happens to be empowered to keep the peace. I am not a storm-trooper, or a robot, that must follow any law or order presented to me. There are far too many laws out there, many are stupid, many infringe on individual freedoms. I keep the peace as I am empowered to do. I refuse to be a part of our predatory system of government. It is that simple.
Just as with DUI Checkpoints, which by the way are unconstitutional IMO, I choose to not participate in the Federal "Click it or Ticket" campaigns, period. I don't stay home, or didn't when I was primarlity on patrol, from these events, I chose to look for DUI's the constitutional way, e.g. drive around and observe signs of imparement, then act accordingly. I choose to ignore and disregard the stupid "Click it or Ticket" stuff. The pamphlets and educational aspects, as in attempting to increase useage, is fine. I draw the line on enforcing such laws.
It is actually pretty easy and quite rewarding to take the stance that I have maintained my entire career. I am blessed with the ability to have some influence on not only the members of my agency, but to some small extent on the policies and direction we have taken as an agency.
Clarified enough?
I.....did not know you shared so many of my attitudes.
TR, I'm really not a terrible guy, just direct and somewhat confrontational on certain issues that I feel strongly about.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
That, Sir, is an Officer (PEACE) and a gentleman.
Some of you that whors hip the Beast will not find it satisfactory..but then some of us find little about the Beast that is satisfactory.
Thank you Sir.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
How many times you going to beat that anti-NRA drum?
Not an "anti" drum, just a drum to try to wake up some of my fellow gun-owners.
After all, MY rights depend on my fellow gun-owners and many of my fellow gun-owners are squandering them by supporting further infringements on Amendment II. This equates to more government regulations being jammed down MY throat.
Answer to the question...as long as it takes. Don't like it, don't click on it. It really is that simple.[;)]
Here is what I do not understand about you: from reading this forum, I understand that you are a police officer. As such, part of your job is enforcing all those anti-gun laws that you do not seem to support. (And other laws like seat belt and helmet laws you say you are against.) How do you reconcile that? Do you not ever arrest people that break those laws? Such as carrying concealed without a permit? Or not wearing a seat belt or helmet? What do you do on National Click it or Ticket enforcement? Stay home that day? Just curious.
Fair question. My job is as a Peace Officer, NOT a Law Enforcement Officer. Big difference in philosophy and practical application. Frankly, the systemic "LEO" mentality and increasing acceptance of such, is a large part of the problem in our ever increasing level of predatory government.
You see, I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. That is primary over any other factor.
Regardless of some of the laws passed, particularly the "malum prohibitum" laws, I have a little thing called my choice and "officer discretion". I use both. I am fully aware that with both these uses comes a great deal of personal responsibility and accountability.
I am adamently opposed to most malum prohibitum laws and restrictions such as helmet and seatbelt laws. I have NEVER charged, cited, or otherwise sanctioned anyone for a violation of one of these laws. Their choice, my choice.
You are correct that I do not support anti-gun laws, nor do I choose to enforce them. Although I am now primarily an administrator, I still stay active to maintain proficiency, stay current and to stay in touch with my personnel. In my career, I have had many an occasion to be confronted with persons violating laws while in possession of firearms. Permits mean squat to me. I do not recognize that the government has the authority to regulate the simple carry of firearms under the US Constitution, or the Arizona State Constitution, Article 2, subsection 26. I have chosen to charge the other crimes, not the act of possessing or carrying a firearm. Absent another criminal violation, a person simply exercising their Constitutional RTKBA is in no danger of sanction from me, period.
I really see nothing to reconcile. This is America, I am an American Citizen who happens to be empowered to keep the peace. I am not a storm-trooper, or a robot, that must follow any law or order presented to me. There are far too many laws out there, many are stupid, many infringe on individual freedoms. I keep the peace as I am empowered to do. I refuse to be a part of our predatory system of government. It is that simple.
Just as with DUI Checkpoints, which by the way are unconstitutional IMO, I choose to not participate in the Federal "Click it or Ticket" campaigns, period. I don't stay home, or didn't when I was primarlity on patrol, from these events, I chose to look for DUI's the constitutional way, e.g. drive around and observe signs of imparement, then act accordingly. I choose to ignore and disregard the stupid "Click it or Ticket" stuff. The pamphlets and educational aspects, as in attempting to increase useage, is fine. I draw the line on enforcing such laws.
It is actually pretty easy and quite rewarding to take the stance that I have maintained my entire career. I am blessed with the ability to have some influence on not only the members of my agency, but to some small extent on the policies and direction we have taken as an agency.
Clarified enough?
I.....did not know you shared so many of my attitudes.
Maybe you share his. Don
Either way it works for me.0 -
quote: I keep the peace as I am empowered to do. I refuse to be a part of our predatory system of government. It is that simple.
lt496 you just gained volumes of my respect. I wish there were more like you.
EDIT: I wouldn't mind working for you! [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
That, Sir, is an Officer (PEACE) and a gentleman.
Some of you that whors hip the Beast will not find it satisfactory..but then some of us find little about the Beast that is satisfactory.
That, he is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Kodiakk
quote: I keep the peace as I am empowered to do. I refuse to be a part of our predatory system of government. It is that simple.
lt496 you just gained volumes of my respect. I wish there were more like you.
EDIT: I wouldn't mind working for you! [:D]
Appreciate the sentiments Sir. By the way, we are hiring, come on over.[:o)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by Highball
That, Sir, is an Officer (PEACE) and a gentleman.
Some of you that whors hip the Beast will not find it satisfactory..but then some of us find little about the Beast that is satisfactory.
That, he is.
Right back at you Eric.0 -
Look, I appreciate everyones sentiments as to my stances as a peace officer. At least the positive sentiments that is.[:o)] It does mean alot to me.
Please understand that I am not alone in the profession as to my views, albeit a small percentage, we are among the ranks and working diligently to make a difference in the big picture of an overreaching and predatory government.
We all do what we can with the tools God gave us.0 -
lt496: a little common sense goes a long way doesnt it..[:D] After retireing from the service I spent a few years on a small town Police force.. Got a long way for using common sense.
Keep it up LT..0 -
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
lt496: a little common sense goes a long way doesnt it..[:D] After retireing from the service I spent a few years on a small town Police force.. Got a long way for using common sense.
Keep it up LT..
Yes Classic, common sense goes far. Thanks for the thought and I can assure you, I plan on keeping it up, at least for another 5 years or so, then blessed retirement.[^][^]0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by Highball
That, Sir, is an Officer (PEACE) and a gentleman.
Some of you that whors hip the Beast will not find it satisfactory..but then some of us find little about the Beast that is satisfactory.
That, he is.
And yet again!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Quote from sigfan: "Very interesting, thank you for taking the time to write all that. Another question if you do not mind: what would happen if one of your officers decided that all the drug laws were unconstitutional and thus refused to arrest people caught selling/using/transporting drugs? Would that officer be allowed to make that sort of decision and remain an officer? thank you"
Another relatively fair question, however, don't forget that the original issues being delt with were related to the RTKBA and simple personal choices to not wear a seatbelt, or helmet.
I responded to your question about my views related to my profession since I understood the corrolation you sought. I will also answer this one to further corrolate for you, but I will not get further dragged into a philosophical Q&A. My positions are quite clear after all. You may not agree, but then again, that doesn't concern me.
Back to the question, understand that I have to speak from my own view, philosophy and position. Since you took the issue of "drug laws" to attempt to make your point, I will address that issue in a general sense, or as a generic.
Any peace officer has to analize and make his/her own decisions regarding action, or discretion. To some extent, policy and practice impact this, but that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Each of us must weigh the potential consequences also.
I will be speaking for myself and how I would deal with one of "my officers". I view most malum prohibitum laws, in this case related to drugs, in a "how do they affect others" view. You postulated sale/use/transport of drugs.
Simple drug use is a no brainer to me. If the use is personal and not while in a position to endanger others, such as driving etc, then the choice to not charge is fine with me and I would have no issue with any officer exercising their descretion on the matter.
Sales are in a somewhat different catagory, in that others may be affected by this activity. For me, that takes it out of the venue of a purely "personal" choice issue, or that of a constitutionally protected right. Big difference, at least from where I sit.
Your transportation of drugs is more problematic, in that it is also situational. Usually, a transportation charge is related to quantities for sale, not for personal use. Generally there is a threshhold amount required and/or some sales/distribution nexus needed. Transport of personal use drugs is in the same catagory as personal use IMO. Transportation of quantity for sale or distribution is in the same venue as sales to me, in that it has a negative effect on others and therefore is no longer simply a "personal" issue.
Appreciate the direct and straightforward manner in which you asked.
I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. I 100% agree with you. It is nice to hear that there are officers around that have that sort of common sense approach and beliefs.
thanks again.0 -
What happened to our rights to take the power back from the government when it got out of control?!! Now if you make a stand or invoke a right given to you in the constitution, to stand up to the government and you are neither Black or Gay( No offense meant here), you are labeled a Terrorist. It is sad, how can we help ourselves? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sigfan
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Quote from sigfan: "Very interesting, thank you for taking the time to write all that. Another question if you do not mind: what would happen if one of your officers decided that all the drug laws were unconstitutional and thus refused to arrest people caught selling/using/transporting drugs? Would that officer be allowed to make that sort of decision and remain an officer? thank you"
Another relatively fair question, however, don't forget that the original issues being delt with were related to the RTKBA and simple personal choices to not wear a seatbelt, or helmet.
I responded to your question about my views related to my profession since I understood the corrolation you sought. I will also answer this one to further corrolate for you, but I will not get further dragged into a philosophical Q&A. My positions are quite clear after all. You may not agree, but then again, that doesn't concern me.
Back to the question, understand that I have to speak from my own view, philosophy and position. Since you took the issue of "drug laws" to attempt to make your point, I will address that issue in a general sense, or as a generic.
Any peace officer has to analize and make his/her own decisions regarding action, or discretion. To some extent, policy and practice impact this, but that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Each of us must weigh the potential consequences also.
I will be speaking for myself and how I would deal with one of "my officers". I view most malum prohibitum laws, in this case related to drugs, in a "how do they affect others" view. You postulated sale/use/transport of drugs.
Simple drug use is a no brainer to me. If the use is personal and not while in a position to endanger others, such as driving etc, then the choice to not charge is fine with me and I would have no issue with any officer exercising their descretion on the matter.
Sales are in a somewhat different catagory, in that others may be affected by this activity. For me, that takes it out of the venue of a purely "personal" choice issue, or that of a constitutionally protected right. Big difference, at least from where I sit.
Your transportation of drugs is more problematic, in that it is also situational. Usually, a transportation charge is related to quantities for sale, not for personal use. Generally there is a threshhold amount required and/or some sales/distribution nexus needed. Transport of personal use drugs is in the same catagory as personal use IMO. Transportation of quantity for sale or distribution is in the same venue as sales to me, in that it has a negative effect on others and therefore is no longer simply a "personal" issue.
Appreciate the direct and straightforward manner in which you asked.
I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. I 100% agree with you. It is nice to hear that there are officers around that have that sort of common sense approach and beliefs.
thanks again.
You're welcome sir. Enjoyed the give and take.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
32 comments