motoxmann
Regular Member
Are you a attorney? And if not how many police officers have you questioned "under oath"?
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
Are you a attorney? And if not how many police officers have you questioned "under oath"?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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/
And is a demand to issue out speeding tickets an unlawful order?
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
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.
Your Illinois reference brings to mind the Illinois State Trooper who killed two women while driving distracted.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]
Mitchell's attorney says his client was justified when he was driving 126 miles an hour just moments before the crash.