WA state sheriff deputy "We have a lot of Constitutionalists" to justify MRAP use.

[WalkingWolf]

I can't believe I have to keep repeating this to you. Private civilians and public servants is not equatable.

I have no problems with civilians owning and having military weapons.

I have a huge problem with cops owning weapons of war since the people they will be using them on are the people they supposedly serve. Especially when the means for equipping these war machines comes from theft.

I am saying you shouldn't have the funds in your department to build/own/maintain a mad max battle tank.

Your last question is plain silly, is the armor an offensive weapon? I wonder why some states with the support of their cops are working to outlaw civilian use of armor?

IMO the proper solution is government agents have no more access to certain weapons then the public. That was the whole purpose of the 2A, making laws and court decisions giving one more than the other neuters the reason for the 2A.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

IMO the proper solution is government agents have no more access to certain weapons then the public. That was the whole purpose of the 2A, making laws and court decisions giving one more than the other neuters the reason for the 2A.

I can see that point. IMO the government is to have less being constitutionally restricted and existing without rights.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I wonder why some states with the support of their cops are working to outlaw civilian use of armor?

indeed? I guess I should not be surprised. JFC!
Wonder if those children's backpacks with the armor built in will be forbidden.

 

[MAC702]

indeed? I guess I should not be surprised. JFC!
Wonder if those children's backpacks with the armor built in will be forbidden.

Only in public schools, where the elite do not go.

 

[utbagpiper]

I can see that point. IMO the government is to have less being constitutionally restricted and existing without rights.

I see no constitutional restrictions on what arms the government or its agents can possess. While I have concerns about the seeming proliferation of military equipment and tactics among police departments, if the objection to such equipment is based on such a gross mis-understanding of the constitution as to suggest it restricts what equipment government can own, I think legitimate concerns get seriously undermined.

Restrictions on what personal arms private citizens can posses, is offensive to the constitution, IMO.

Charles

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

I see no constitutional restrictions on what arms the government or its agents can possess. While I have concerns about the seeming proliferation of military equipment and tactics among police departments, if the objection to such equipment is based on such a gross mis-understanding of the constitution as to suggest it restricts what equipment government can own, I think legitimate concerns get seriously undermined.

Restrictions on what personal arms private citizens can posses, is offensive to the constitution, IMO.

Charles

Emphasis added and 100% correct. The founders wanted the people to have the arms necessary to throw out a despotic government by force if necessary.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
Unknown Patriot

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I see no constitutional restrictions on what arms the government or its agents can possess. While I have concerns about the seeming proliferation of military equipment and tactics among police departments, if the objection to such equipment is based on such a gross mis-understanding of the constitution as to suggest it restricts what equipment government can own, I think legitimate concerns get seriously undermined.

Restrictions on what personal arms private citizens can posses, is offensive to the constitution, IMO.

Charles

Yes they are limited to what the people want them to have. They have a constitution, we don't.

 

[marshaul]

Emphasis added and 100% correct. The founders wanted the people to have the arms necessary to throw out a despotic government by force if necessary.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

The Jefferson one is good though.

 

[OC for ME]

Well argued. I'd like to ad his argument simply fails.

If I hire a painting company to paint my house I am under no obligation to become an insider to judge their work, criticize them, or fire them.

Good analogy, if there were only you or one paining company to paint your house. I have little choice as to which LE service I wish to engage with.

The citizenry has the power of the vote and thus the power of the purse. If we do not wish for our local cop shop to have a MRAP then vote out those folks who hire and fire top cops. Vote in those who would restrain those cop shops via the power of the purse. But, ya know what is gunna happen? Sick-outs, slow-downs, backs being turned...the evidence is clear on this.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Good analogy, if there were only you or one paining company to paint your house. I have little choice as to which LE service I wish to engage with.

The citizenry has the power of the vote and thus the power of the purse. If we do not wish for our local cop shop to have a MRAP then vote out those folks who hire and fire top cops. Vote in those who would restrain those cop shops via the power of the purse. But, ya know what is gunna happen? Sick-outs, slow-downs, backs being turned...the evidence is clear on this.

+1 And great point about the monopolization of this by the state.

 

[utbagpiper]

Yes they are limited to what the people want them to have. They have a constitution, we don't.

I welcome a citation the specific constitutional language that imposes any such limits.

It isn't there.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I welcome a citation the specific constitutional language that imposes any such limits.

It isn't there.

Charles

Thinking there are no limits to the government is Hamiltonion twisting of a document that clearly states enumerated powers.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

The Jefferson one is good though.

Damn, foiled again! Quote amended. Thanks.

Damn good quote whomever said it!

 

[self preservation]

Let me just say that in my experience most of the people I knew in my thirty year law enforcement career would not agree with the comments of the deputy quoted in the original post. In fact they would likely want to slap the guy for saying something so stupid. First of all, local law enforcement officers (municipal, county and state) are not fond of most of the BS coming out or DC these days. Your local law enforcement officers would never participate in any kind of federally mandated gun confiscation for those in lawful possession of a firearm. I have numerous personal friends who are chief's and they absolutely oppose anything of that nature.

As far as MRAP's, any claims that departments are obtaining them due to "fears of armed constitutionals" are pure BS. Armored vehicles have been in use by law enforcement for over 50 years. They are a public safety tool to be used against armed criminals who are engaging in crimes like school shootings and robberies with hostages just to name a few. With the rising threat to our country by radical Islamist's it is even more important that law enforcement be prepared. An armored vehicle is just one of many tools law enforcement is making use of. Any claims of conspiracy theories that law enforcement is planning on using such tools to "oppress" they public is complete nonsense.

I know a lot of law enforcement professionals. None of them including my self have a problem with people exercising their second amendment rights.

That's what was said after hurricane Katrina too. A couple of years ago I asked a deputy friend of mine if he would confiscate legally owned firearms if ordered to do so. His answer was "it would suck, but if the Sheriff tells me to do so, he is the boss." I promptly called him a Nazi and wished him good luck with his "just following orders."

 

[Mr45ACP]

That's what was said after hurricane Katrina too. A couple of years ago I asked a deputy friend of mine if he would confiscate legally owned firearms if ordered to do so. His answer was "it would suck, but if the Sheriff tells me to do so, he is the boss." I promptly called him a Nazi and wished him good luck with his "just following orders."

I tend to tune out when people throw out the N word. Was your friend a younger deputy? I have a number of clients in law enforcement. Several are police chiefs. All are rather senior in their positions. They chiefs have told me that they would never give such an order as they consider it unlawful. The deputies have told me they would never follow such an order as it is unlawful and there is no duty to follow an unlawful order. My military clients are officers and senor NCO's. They all say they would never follow such an order and are highly doubtful the military would follow a presidential order of that nature. Personally I think any such attempt to confiscate would result in another civil war.

 

[F350]

I tend to tune out when people throw out the N word. Was your friend a younger deputy? I have a number of clients in law enforcement. Several are police chiefs. All are rather senior in their positions. They chiefs have told me that they would never give such an order as they consider it unlawful. The deputies have told me they would never follow such an order as it is unlawful and there is no duty to follow an unlawful order. My military clients are officers and senor NCO's. They all say they would never follow such an order and are highly doubtful the military would follow a presidential order of that nature. Personally I think any such attempt to confiscate would result in another civil war.

YEA RIGHT!! I use to work in a gun shop and one of our regulars was a youngish full time NG trooper. When asked he said "I would hate it but I would do my duty". I said when I was in I recall swearing to defend and protect the constitution, not blind elegance to what ever @hole sat in in oval orifice. He just had a dumb @ blank look on his face.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I would trust soldiers far more than I would trust police. Most soldiers do not feel they are a arm of the government, and most believe they are there to protect the people. This was proven post Katrina when NG units refused to take part in the gun confiscation. No police officers refused that I am aware of, they all went with the flow, and followed illegal orders.

 

[WalkingWolf]

LOL LOL What kind of clients, one wonders, of such a <scare-quotes>professional</quotes> that would write so? Your honor, use spellcheck. Read about the Twenty-Nine Palms survey http://29palmssurvey.com/

That survey while enlightening is probably the catalyst for the government turning to local law enforcement to do their bidding.

 

[HPmatt]

Yes they are limited to what the people want them to have. They have a constitution, we don't.

Actually on this point the Federal Govt is supposed t/b restricted only to rights granted it by the States. Those not granted the Feds are reserved to the States. As such States have almost unlimited powers, but State officials, being closer to the people, can be more easily influenced by voting them out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I tend to tune out when people throw out the N word. Was your friend a younger deputy? I have a number of clients in law enforcement. Several are police chiefs. All are rather senior in their positions. They chiefs have told me that they would never give such an order as they consider it unlawful. The deputies have told me they would never follow such an order as it is unlawful and there is no duty to follow an unlawful order. My military clients are officers and senor NCO's. They all say they would never follow such an order and are highly doubtful the military would follow a presidential order of that nature. Personally I think any such attempt to confiscate would result in another civil war.

Hear that over and over and over again. Yet Katrina shows these oath keepers just followed orders.