• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A note on gun control and police

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
why would it matter if he's an attorney? anyone can examine an officer under oath in a case that the questioner is connected to

This is true, but only if that person is involved in the criminal, civil, traffic, or petty case directly, otherwise they would be practicing law without a license. By his quote it would seem he is claiming to have questioned a LOT of police officers under oath. So either he is getting in a **** load of trouble a lot, is suing a lot, or is a attorney. Hopefully he is smart enough not to be practicing law without a license.
 

luckyykid

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
74
Location
Meriden, CT
Can I steal back my original intent of this thread for a moment?

I came across another article of a police organization supporting the 2A as it was originally intended, plus various other pro-gun stances. It is written by the International Vice President of the International Union of Police Unions.

In sum the stance is "In brief, we believe that the private ownership of guns is not only guaranteed by our Constitution but also directly and positively related to a citizen's ability to protect himself and his family in his own home."

I can't get a direct link to it, but if you follow this link, scroll down to the bold "Gun Rights" on the right side of the page to read the full article.

http://www.apbweb.com/from-the-pages.html

Also this article: http://www.apbweb.com/featured-articles/2386-le-leaders-not-sold-on-new-gun-laws.html

Found it in American Police Beat magazine.
 

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
Can I steal back my original intent of this thread for a moment?

I came across another article of a police organization supporting the 2A as it was originally intended, plus various other pro-gun stances. It is written by the International Vice President of the International Union of Police Unions.

In sum the stance is "In brief, we believe that the private ownership of guns is not only guaranteed by our Constitution but also directly and positively related to a citizen's ability to protect himself and his family in his own home."

I can't get a direct link to it, but if you follow this link, scroll down to the bold "Gun Rights" on the right side of the page to read the full article.

http://www.apbweb.com/from-the-pages.html

Also this article: http://www.apbweb.com/featured-articles/2386-le-leaders-not-sold-on-new-gun-laws.html

Found it in American Police Beat magazine.

um, thats actually quite ANTI-gun, specifically due to them saying they ONLY believe a citizen has a right to protect themself/family IN HIS OWN HOME. they are basically flat out stating they are fully against anyone using/carrying a gun for protection outside their own home. which goes directly against several SCOTUS cases. so it is actually in fact NOT supporting the 2A as it was originally intended by ANY means
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
um, thats actually quite ANTI-gun, specifically due to them saying they ONLY believe a citizen has a right to protect themself/family IN HIS OWN HOME. they are basically flat out stating they are fully against anyone using/carrying a gun for protection outside their own home. which goes directly against several SCOTUS cases. so it is actually in fact NOT supporting the 2A as it was originally intended by ANY means

+1
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
Anywhere police enforce open carry or concealed carry laws they are defying the Constitution.

Anywhere police enforce laws against magazine capacity or "assault weapons" they are defying the Constitution.


All these Sheriif's who have spouted off lately about being "defenders" of the 2nd. How many PERMISSION SLIPS (CCLs) have they handed out to people? AK, AZ, WY, VT are the only TRUE pro-2nd states, as they do not require their citizens to get "Pernission" to bear arms.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Cops

I'm friends with this guy who got hired by the Prince William County Police in Virginia. Great,kind, intelligent guy, and anarcho-libertarian at heart, and loves all things gun. After working a few months of being a trainee he quit, his fellow officers ran him off. He wouldn't lie nor could he bring himself to write most "speeding" tickets when his superior ordered him to do so. The republic is gone, soon the skeleton will be dissolved.
 

luckyykid

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
74
Location
Meriden, CT
um, thats actually quite ANTI-gun, specifically due to them saying they ONLY believe a citizen has a right to protect themself/family IN HIS OWN HOME. they are basically flat out stating they are fully against anyone using/carrying a gun for protection outside their own home. which goes directly against several SCOTUS cases. so it is actually in fact NOT supporting the 2A as it was originally intended by ANY means

How is that anti-gun?? I don't think the intent of the writer was to say that the 2A applies ONLY to one in one's own home. YOU added in the "ONLY" in one's home. That's nowhere in his statement. He was just addressing the current climate of gun control which is currently aimed at "assault rifle" possession, which isn't typically carried outside of the home for self defense on one's person. The current climate is also focusing on high capacity magazines. You calling it "anti-gun" is based on something he DIDN'T say as opposed to what he DID say. Just because he didn't mention CC/OC, doesn't make an automatic inference that he is opposed to it.

I understand your point regarding original intent of the 2A, and maybe I misspoke when stating that he supported the original intent, but to say it's anti-gun is a hell of a stretch.

And just for the heck of it, here's another link. 4 Sheriffs representing 484 other sheriffs opposed to gun control. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...o-infringe-upon-your-second-amendment-rights/
 

luckyykid

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
74
Location
Meriden, CT
All these Sheriif's who have spouted off lately about being "defenders" of the 2nd. How many PERMISSION SLIPS (CCLs) have they handed out to people? AK, AZ, WY, VT are the only TRUE pro-2nd states, as they do not require their citizens to get "Pernission" to bear arms.

You suggest that its the sheriffs who enacted "permission slips." They didn't come up with that policy; that's the state legislatures, who are not law enforcement. Sheriffs merely follow the laws, policies, and procedures written by the legislature, so don't blame them.
 

luckyykid

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
74
Location
Meriden, CT
I'm friends with this guy who got hired by the Prince William County Police in Virginia. Great,kind, intelligent guy, and anarcho-libertarian at heart, and loves all things gun. After working a few months of being a trainee he quit, his fellow officers ran him off. He wouldn't lie nor could he bring himself to write most "speeding" tickets when his superior ordered him to do so. The republic is gone, soon the skeleton will be dissolved.

Too bad he quit. He could have been one of the "good guys" on the inside. No officer is obligated to follow an illegal order. In fact if the officer follows an illegal order, in court they are held liable for their actions, and can't take the defense of following orders. No supervisor can "order" me to do something illegal and expect me to follow it. I can't get fired for defying an illegal order.

On a side note in regards to the ticket, quotas are illegal.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Too bad he quit. He could have been one of the "good guys" on the inside. No officer is obligated to follow an illegal order. In fact if the officer follows an illegal order, in court they are held liable for their actions, and can't take the defense of following orders. No supervisor can "order" me to do something illegal and expect me to follow it. I can't get fired for defying an illegal order.

On a side note in regards to the ticket, quotas are illegal.

And is a demand to issue out speeding tickets an unlawful order?
 

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
How is that anti-gun?? I don't think the intent of the writer was to say that the 2A applies ONLY to one in one's own home. YOU added in the "ONLY" in one's home. That's nowhere in his statement. He was just addressing the current climate of gun control which is currently aimed at "assault rifle" possession, which isn't typically carried outside of the home for self defense on one's person. The current climate is also focusing on high capacity magazines. You calling it "anti-gun" is based on something he DIDN'T say as opposed to what he DID say. Just because he didn't mention CC/OC, doesn't make an automatic inference that he is opposed to it.

I understand your point regarding original intent of the 2A, and maybe I misspoke when stating that he supported the original intent, but to say it's anti-gun is a hell of a stretch.

And just for the heck of it, here's another link. 4 Sheriffs representing 484 other sheriffs opposed to gun control. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...o-infringe-upon-your-second-amendment-rights/

yes I added the word ONLY into my speculation, because that actually is the true opinion of the association. they have publicly admitted that a few times. they have also publicly admitted a few times that they do not believe a person has a right to use a gun for protection outside of their home or place of business, they firmly believe that if you need a gun for protection outside your home or business that you should call police and let the police do their job. they've also said that if you think you may need a gun for protection in a certain area moreso than other areas to simply not go to that area.

I'll provide cites for all these later today, working right now. if anyone else would like to provide cites in the meantime, feel free, as I know a large amount of people on these forums are very familiar with all these opinions and public statements by the International Union of Police Unions
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
There are even some gun owning numpties that believe permission cards are what the 2A intended. While it is better than being anti gun, it is anti 2A.
 

luckyykid

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
74
Location
Meriden, CT
And is a demand to issue out speeding tickets an unlawful order?

Depends on the context. Its perfectly legal to target a particular trend, such as doing "speed traps", or seatbelt enforcement, or a DUI unit that specifically looks for DUIs. So a supervisor can tell you "I want you to concentrate on speeding today; go run radar for the day." But the violation has to occur to be ticketed.

To tell someone to issue a ticket when no violation occured would be lying and illegal.
 

luckyykid

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
74
Location
Meriden, CT
yes I added the word ONLY into my speculation, because that actually is the true opinion of the association. they have publicly admitted that a few times. they have also publicly admitted a few times that they do not believe a person has a right to use a gun for protection outside of their home or place of business, they firmly believe that if you need a gun for protection outside your home or business that you should call police and let the police do their job. they've also said that if you think you may need a gun for protection in a certain area moreso than other areas to simply not go to that area.

I'll provide cites for all these later today, working right now. if anyone else would like to provide cites in the meantime, feel free, as I know a large amount of people on these forums are very familiar with all these opinions and public statements by the International Union of Police Unions

OK then you have some information that I don't. I was only going on what was right in front of me, which did not discuss CC/OC at all, and that's the first statement i've read from them. I'd like to see your sources. Working? Like that's a good excuse....j/k :p
 
Last edited:

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
some of the un-implied should be considered too. recently, at a TEA party meeting on the 2nd A, we had the local sheriff speak. he made the statement; "don't worry folks, i will not show up tonight to take your guns". he also claimed he wouldn't take any that were not legal. but later on he said he will do what is legally his obligation. in other words he said if they make guns illegal he would take them. did he say this directly, no. but the intentions are just that. if they declare "assault weapons" illegal, he would take them
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I get what you are saying. Thank you for your service and please be safe.

I am not sure how cryptic CT gun laws are, but here in MO they are very short, uncomplicated in their wording and easy to remember. Even municipal ordinances are easy to find and recall. But, many cops claim that they cannot be expected to remember all of the laws. Hogwash!! OC is either legal or it is illegal. Simple. After that the "where" can make it complicated-ish.

If a cop cannot determine whether or not they have violated a citizen's right, re firearms [OC], then they will absolutely "kick-in doors" regardless of their claim to the contrary. How on earth can a cop not know something as simple as "shall not be infringed?" But, most cops do not think they are infringing because they do not accept that "just checking out an OCer" who is lawfully OCing as a infringement.

A rights respecting cop would never make contact with a citizen who they reasonably believe is the subject of a MWAG call if they do not witness, with their own eyes, any criminal activity. Just checking to see if they are "permitted" to possess a firearm [the ole "check to see if you are a felon" BS] is anti-liberty and anti-gun.

The opinion in 'Terry' is unambiguous. SCOTUS and various other courts have repeatedly stated that the mere possession (OC) of gun is not evidence of criminal activity. Yet you have, I surmise, just checked us out to be sure. Or at a minimum you have stood quietly by while you witness a fellow officer check us out.

I hold no animosity towards you, I do not know you. I simply relate facts that are evident from documented occurrences. OCDO is replete with documented examples of "good cop" trampling rights. I reject the premise [excuse] that officers are uneducated, undereducated, or mis-educated.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
You suggest that its the sheriffs who enacted "permission slips." They didn't come up with that policy; that's the state legislatures, who are not law enforcement. Sheriffs merely follow the laws, policies, and procedures written by the legislature, so don't blame them.

In two counties in Illinois both the prosecutor and the sheriffs have declined to enforce unconstitutional state laws. If you would enforce a state law, just because it is a state law even though it is unconstitutional you ARE anti second amendment. You had me going, or hoping there for a while, knew it was too good to be true. [sigh]
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
In two counties in Illinois both the prosecutor and the sheriffs have declined to enforce unconstitutional state laws. If you would enforce a state law, just because it is a state law even though it is unconstitutional you ARE anti second amendment. You had me going, or hoping there for a while, knew it was too good to be true. [sigh]
Your Illinois reference brings to mind the Illinois State Trooper who killed two women while driving distracted.

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Illi...illed-two-sisters-pleads-guilty-91065499.html

Mitchell's attorney says his client was justified when he was driving 126 miles an hour just moments before the crash.

How does this story relate to the OP. Well, and some may not see a relation, should the Illinois State Police ban their officers from driving because they may drive while distracted. Would they enforce a ban of driving while distracted on their troopers? The trooper in the article will not spend one minute in jail for killing two women.

Nope, cops of all stripes rely upon QI and other immunities within the law to enforce the law, even those laws that they know, or should know, infringe upon our rights. Cops of all stripes enforce these laws now and they will enforce these and new laws in the future.

Sadly, I am skeptical that luckyykid will jeopardize his career by refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. Or, hold his fellow officers who he knows have and who he knows likely will in the future abuse citizens and trample their rights.

He will testify and that is about all we can expect at this point.....better than nothing I guess.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I believed him up until he posted that as long as it's state law, then it is OK to violate rights. I guess David had him pegged from the gitgo.
 
Top