imported post
That is true, that the burden to prove that he is doing something illegal with the firearms rests with the state. Especially the fact that he has no prior offenses and assuming from the post that he has not demonstrated a propensity for random or planned acts of violence against the public.
What if he owns them so that in the event of a disaster he may arm other good citizens like himself? Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so. I saw what happened in New Orleans firsthand so... when the police quit their jobs, the gunstores are robbed clean as a whistle, I think it will come down to Harry Homeowner to defend his property and his neighborhood against looters and hardened criminals. You can depend on FEMA, but you may have to wait a few days.... The laws of man are only there because theres people there to enforce them and there are those who follow them. The ones who do not follow laws that society has set forth could be considered criminal in nature. In New Orleans there was the basics... The need for food, water, shelter, clothing, and self defense...
The reason I said catagory 6 is because of the fact that there will probably come a time in the future where hurricanes are upgraded to catagory 6 and 7's due to the damage they inflict.... and their sheer power. I know the NOAA discussed making a new rating last year for such hurricanes.
If I see that a person has an "arsenal" "cache" or weapons "collection" that includes, pistols, rifles, shotguns, and machineguns that are fully legal because that person has followed the law to the T, I do not see a problem with that no matter what his intention is with that amount of weapons. Maybe he's a member of the Montana militia, or the minutemen project. So what. So what if he's muslim. So what if he's african American. Do these things in conjuction with him owning weapons make him a terrorist? Some may say yes, some may say no.
And if it does make him a terrorist for the sheer number and types of guns he owns, then where is the line drawn? Will it get to the point to where as agencies and forms of government will dictate what type of weapons you may and may not own?
I do understand the need to secure the weapons from being pilfered into the community, and can understand that the sheriffs department has somewhat of an obligation to public safety to do so. I also don't want this process to turn into a chance to search through peoples property and find things to use against them... Perhaps the policy should be looked at... Perhaps a letter to the editor of the newspaper might change their views on trying to criminalize the public through mass media for legal gun ownership, and legal ownership of ammunition.
