Sen. Graham VS Police chief - Page 2

ClydeFrog · February 27, 2013, 10:02 PM

I read over "The Owl's" remarks & I agree with part of it but disagree with others.
Sworn LE officers(police commanders & chiefs) & county sheriffs(which are elected) have complained about "unfunded mandates" for decades. The poor economy is one point, but US law enforcement agencies have made that complaint for years. Mostly smaller PDs or sheriffs depts with less sworn manpower gripe the most.
As for the resources & calls for service, I'd say the big problem is a lack of focus. US police agencies used to go by community policing or community oriented policing to lower crime rates or address major problems. Now they just respond to 911 calls/service calls & avoid being pro-active.

I've talked to many sworn LE officers in real world events(not Hollywood cop shows or internet news items). In critical incidents they say; "we only have 2 guys working" or "you'll have to wait".
Some cops blame citizens for reporting crimes and do what they can to avoid reports, arrests, etc. it's called "holding court in the street".

Many patrol officers are also burned out or unable to work in a professional, ethical way.
This why the DoJ/Civil Rights Div & the DEA have to go after them. Or the PD's own IA(internal affairs) or Professional Standards have to come in & clean up the mess.

ClydeFrog

The Owl · February 27, 2013, 10:06 PM

No, it isn't a crime to be a felon, but I think we all know the reasons why felons are excluded from purchasing firearms.

I will state that I don't believe it should apply to felons who have committed non-violent offenses, but I will also state that a prior record of non-violence is not necessarily indicative of a person who can be trusted.

Do you see how we can dissect the fractal? It's somewhat pointless. Endless iterations and we still end up in the same predicament.

It all relies on human nature, which is fickle.

ScottRiqui · February 27, 2013, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Pursuing charges against someone who fails a background check is absurd.

It is the equivalent of prosecuting someone for asking a question. That is what the current background check basically is. It is permission to purchase a firearm based on a number of established criteria.

May I purchase a firearm?
Maybe. Answer these questions first.
May I purchase a firearm?
Based on your answers, yes/no.

It's a simple program - if/then. Pardon my computerspeak.

No one should be punished for asking a question.

[EDIT] I should add an example. Would you prosecute someone who is mentally ill for attempting to purchase? Is it a crime to be mentally ill? No, it's not.

I don't think anyone is advocating for arresting someone simply because they were denied permission to purchase a firearm on the basis of their truthful responses to the questions on the Form 4473.

**Spats McGee** · February 27, 2013, 10:12 PM

Well, OK. Now I know more about where Flynn comes from. Fair enough.

If we wanted to get really, really technical about it, we could even argue over whether his department actually conducts any prosecutions. However, that's beside the point, IMO. Between his department and the local prosecuting authority, there's not enough budget to prosecute things like straw purchases now, adding more laws to the mix will not solve that problem.

The penalty for providing false answers on a 4473, if it's ever actually prosecuted, is already pretty permanent: a felony conviction, loss of firearms rights, loss of voting rights, 10 years in prison and $250K in fines (if I remember the fines right).

**Aguila Blanca** · February 27, 2013, 10:20 PM

I would say the Chief was being evasive. On the one hand he said he wants to prevent the "wrong people" from buying guns, but on the other hand he said he isn't interested in chasing people who fail background checks.

Aren't people who fail background checks BY DEFINITION "the wrong people"?

Fail.

Willie Sutton · February 27, 2013, 10:25 PM

He's the police mouthpiece for the same Milwaukee mayor who was beaten within an inch of his life and permanently injured by club-wielding thugs at the state fair, but who is (A) not in favor of CCW and (B) has the distraction (to our glee) of the local sheriff making public service messages on the radio telling citizens to buy a gun and keep it at home because the police cannot be there fast enough to help in an attack.

He's hardly the poster child for anything other than the small city version of Chicago politics. As a local, I can say that we mostly ignore him. They don't have the budget to actually do squat, most of the beat-cops are strong supporters of CCW and RKBA issues, and all of the good citizens carry.

All in all.... it works. Plus we have good beer.

Willie

.

The Owl · February 27, 2013, 10:35 PM

And that's just what we don't need with incarceration in the US at the highest in the world. I can't speak for other states or the feds but max incarceration in Wisconsin is 35-40k per inmate, lesser classifications only slightly cheaper.

It doesn't makes sense to prosecute for this, especially at max sentence - 10 years for lying on a piece of paper? People lie all the time to get what they want. It's human nature. We don't throw them in the slammer for 10 years for goosing their résumé, although sometimes I think we should.

Existing laws should be culled and tailored as necessary to address issues as they arise, whatever they may be. New laws are not needed.

These kneejerk responses to random violence are going to be the death of us. Government has lost all sense of proportion.

TXAZ · February 27, 2013, 10:55 PM

Congressional Hearing Rule #1: Make the members look good!
Congressional Hearing Rule #2: Staffers know the real answers to every question that will be asked, make sure Rule #1 is met
Congressional Hearing Rule#3: NO SURPRISES!
Congressional Hearing Rule#4-10: See rule #1

(from someone who worked for the chairman of the house appropriations committee many years ago... And little has changed)

Fishing_Cabin · February 27, 2013, 11:15 PM

I'd like to mention a few things in response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Owl

It is clear that there are people here who do not understand the manpower problems faced by law enforcement agencies in this country.

Being in law enforcement in a small town that has been hit hard by the textile industry moving overseas the last many years, I know too well the manpower problems. It can also be debated about whether it was Sen Graham or Chief Fynn was wrong... I will say, just from testifying in court, that if asked to provide relevant information, provide it. Even if it is detrimental to your case.

All bickering aside though, the question is, is that the fed gov is looking into expanding the background check requirements. Its well known the lack of prosecutions. The argument of manpower, etc. doesn't mean that any new law will be enforced either. So why are they discussing new background checks if it wont be enforced?

Unsure what you mean by

Quote:

And that's just what we don't need with incarceration in the US at the highest in the world. I can't speak for other states or the feds but max incarceration in Wisconsin is 35-40k per inmate, lesser classifications only slightly cheaper.

I never knew the crime should equal the cost to incarcerate the criminal once convicted....

Again at the end of the day, its passing the buck...Too bad its not deer season.

I don't mean to be rough on you The Owl, but I hope you admit too, the whole hearing is a dog and pony show.

The Owl · February 28, 2013, 12:20 AM

We cannot afford to incarcerate everyone who likely breaks this law.

gc70 · February 28, 2013, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Owl

LE doesn't do paperwork prosecutions because they don't have the time or resources to do so. Pursuing charges against someone who fails a background check is absurd.

Consider the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States, during hearings on the National Firearms Act of 1934, about how to convict the major gangsters of the 1930s:

Quote:

And I am assuming in all this, of course, that the criminal elements are not going to obtain permits and they are not going to obtain licenses, and they are not going to be able to bring themselves within those protective requirements. Therefore, when we capture one of those people, we have simply a plain question to propound to him - where is your license; where is your permit? If he cannot show it, we have got him and his weapons and we do not have to go through an elaborate trial, with all kinds of complicated questions arising.

Convicting a felon for an open-and-shut "paperwork" offense of falsifying a 4473 would seem to be easier -and a more pro-active use of law enforcement resources- than waiting for a violent crime to occur, trying to identify and capture the criminal, and then trying to get a conviction with probably imperfect evidence.

lcpiper · February 28, 2013, 11:23 AM

Quote:

LE doesn't do paperwork prosecutions because they don't have the time or resources to do so. Pursuing charges against someone who fails a background check is absurd.

It is the equivalent of prosecuting someone for asking a question. That is what the current background check basically is. It is permission to purchase a firearm based on a number of established criteria.

You are so mistaken.

Don't confuse a felon who knowingly is attempting to illegally purchase a gun by falsifying his paperwork with someone who has a mental problem and may not be aware they are not allowed to purchase a gun. The form is not a permission slip. It is a legal document, falsification is a Felony Offense.

If the system is broke you adress the system and fix it, you don't ignore it and leave it broke. I learned this in the Army and I learned it well. You can talk around it and complain about it and give all the reasons why you "can't do what is supposed to be done" but the end result is if you haven't done what is required to fix the problem then the problem doesn't get fixed.

That LEO was Milwaukee Chief of Police Edward Flynn, he is a servant of the City of Milwaukee and a Government offical himself. He was at a hearing, probably a request he couldn't say no to. He was being questioned and he wasn't being asked his opinion and he was dodging the answer in a Government inquery which is looking for answers on how to find solutions to real problems. He can be part of the solution or part of the problem and from what I saw he is not part of the solution, he is a broken cog in the machine.

ltc444 · February 28, 2013, 06:46 PM

The Owl If I may state your position as I understand it. We should not prosecute persons who falsify the 4473 because it cost to much and it is a minor crime.

My response is the Wal Mart policy of vigorously defending every damage lawsuit brought against them no matter what the actuaries say. In effect Wal Mart spends more to defend the suit than it would cost to settle. By doing this attorneys (ambulance Chasers) know that a suit against will be long and expensive so they do not take cases against Wal Mart.

By very publicly prosecuting persons who lie on their 4473, we will stop others from knowingly falsifying their application. These convictions are not flashy but they have teeth.

Al Capone was never convicted for violation of the Volstead act nor was he convicted for any of the numerous assaults, murders or racketeering activities which he was involved.

He was convicted of INCOME TAX EVASION. Or a Tom Cruse said in the Firm. It anin't sexy but it has teeth.

MLeake · February 28, 2013, 07:29 PM

The Owl, I would like clarification from you on two points:

1) Are you suggesting that it was proper for Flynn to avoid giving a direct answer, in terms of numbers or percentages of prosecutions?

2) What is your position on proposed Universal Background Checks, in light of your argument that LE is already overtasked given current budget limitations?

**Aguila Blanca** · February 28, 2013, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Owl

LE doesn't do paperwork prosecutions because they don't have the time or resources to do so. Pursuing charges against someone who fails a background check is absurd.

Are you old enough to be aware that the Feds finally nailed Al Capone on an income tax charge, rather than a criminal charge for any of his various "business endeavors"? (ltc44 beat me to it)

As I posted above, the chief's statement is a logical fallacy.

Romeo 33 Delta · February 28, 2013, 07:59 PM

What part am I missing? Isn't a convicted felon attempting to purchase a firearm on a 4473 a FEDERAL felony voilation? Why then should Flynn get his panties in a knot? Isn't it the Feds job to prosecute this type of violation?

And, Owl, no it's not a crime to be a felon ... but it sure is a crime if you're one and attempt to buy a firearm! I'll make the same beef about the mentally ill. Not everyone who is mentally ill (and thus a prohibited person) is incapable of rational thought and the ability of knowing right from wrong. I don't see mental illness as a get-out-of-jail card if you're trying to purchase a firearm.

We can't lock 'em all up. Agreed. Maybe it's time to stop putting non-violent offenders in prison/jail. That said, maybe future prisons shouldn't be so nicely appointed. Not like a Turkish or Mexican prison ... but certainly not even close to the facilities that some of our service men and women have to live in.

But you'ld better do something to them and fix what's broken in the present NICS system before allowing these Federal goofballs to pass more laws which they won't enforce. Or just scrap the whole NICS thing and pretend it's OK and working 100% to keep all the wrong people from getting firearms.

jimpeel · March 1, 2013, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetarman

It really makes little difference if existing laws and regulations are not enforced because of budget/manpower constraints. The end result is the same. . .non compliance.

What it truly opens is the door to selective enforcement by overzealous prosecutors bent on "sending a message" by making examples of a select few.

Dwight55 · March 1, 2013, 07:58 AM

Ahhh, . . . yes, . . . now we cannot have the police doing their job because they don't have enough money.

GIVE ME A BREAK !

Every stinking politician, doctor, lawyer, union member, non-union member, teacher, cook, and janitor is singing the same tune.

Answer: if you can't handle the heat, . . . get your arse out of the kitchen.

Throwing money at problems never settled them, . . . but finding people willing to put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay is something that is being lost.

And, . . . "NO", . . . Owl, . . . this is not specifically tailored to you, . . . but the money angle you bring up is old, worn out, tired, blah, blah, blah.

People who want to make a difference and do their jobs, . . . do it. The rest sit around and complain.

May God bless,
Dwight

Ruthless4christ · March 1, 2013, 08:02 AM

all this by the police chief who said "My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it."

yes I'm sure he is very impartial to the gun debate.

Willie Sutton · March 1, 2013, 09:32 AM

^^^ Didn't work out too well in Milwaukee, or in Racine, just a few miles south, or in Madison, a few miles west:

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/10/wisc...#axzz2MIXmCgxj

http://forum.gon.com/archive/index.php/t-505013.html

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/ar...?article=35497

If this happened to me in Milwaukee, I'd relish the opportunity to depose the police chief and then see him in court. Funny though that our local excellent hoster maker is a Milwaukee Police Officer, and thru him I have met many of Milwaukee's Finest. None of them would participate in anything of the sort.

Willie

.

geetarman · March 1, 2013, 11:06 AM

Quote:

, and thru him I have met many of Milwaukee's Finest. None of them would participate in anything of the sort.

That is pretty much the sentiment here in Arizona also. I don't shoot with any police chiefs, but I do shoot with some serving officers. Their view on concealed carry is often 180 out with the chief.

harrys ghost · March 1, 2013, 01:21 PM

I caught Flynn last night on Anderson Cooper 360. His big point was that the formation and evolution of the TSA in response to 9/11 is exactly what we should be doing with gun control in response to Sandy Hook.

MLeake · March 1, 2013, 06:01 PM

There's a thread about Bravo Company refusing to resupply Milwaukee PD with rifles, due to Flynn's antics.

Gotta love it. Not only is a manufacturer refusing to sell, but in this case it's not theoretical - Bravo Company was supposed to sell rifles to Milwaukee.

lcpiper · March 1, 2013, 06:13 PM

Quote:

I caught Flynn last night on Anderson Cooper 360. His big point was that the formation and evolution of the TSA in response to 9/11 is exactly what we should be doing with gun control in response to Sandy Hook.

Yessss, that's what we need, That's the answer. Flynn is a fool. Anderson Cooper 360 is a fool's stage.

What we need is fewer lays, a simpler system.

Really it's crazy, we have laws that say it's against the law to kill someone with an Assault Weapon, whyyy, killing someone to begin with was already illegal. In what way is it worse if they did it with an Assault Weapon or a shoe horn?

And my god, it's also worse if it's a Hate Crime. "Jesus Officer, I don't know why I shot him, I didn't hate him or anything". See, it's somehow worse to take someone's life if you did it because you hated them.

And don't wear body armor while robbing the bank and killing a guard cause that'll get you double. Actually not, but it is a seperate offense.

The guy killed someone, and that's all that matters, all the rest is just a distraction, it's just so much fluff.

wayneinFL · March 1, 2013, 11:38 PM

It isn't illegal to ask a question, Owl.

It is illegal to perjure yourself on a 4473. It is illegal for a convicted felon to knowingly attempt to buy a firearm.

If we can't afford to -at the least- put dangerous felons in prison for trying to buy guns, then we shouldn't look at spending money implementing new laws.

February 27, 2013, 10:02 PM	#26
ClydeFrog Junior member Join Date: May 1, 2010 Posts: 5,797	The Owls remarks, real world; unfunded mandates... I read over "The Owl's" remarks & I agree with part of it but disagree with others. Sworn LE officers(police commanders & chiefs) & county sheriffs(which are elected) have complained about "unfunded mandates" for decades. The poor economy is one point, but US law enforcement agencies have made that complaint for years. Mostly smaller PDs or sheriffs depts with less sworn manpower gripe the most. As for the resources & calls for service, I'd say the big problem is a lack of focus. US police agencies used to go by community policing or community oriented policing to lower crime rates or address major problems. Now they just respond to 911 calls/service calls & avoid being pro-active. I've talked to many sworn LE officers in real world events(not Hollywood cop shows or internet news items). In critical incidents they say; "we only have 2 guys working" or "you'll have to wait". Some cops blame citizens for reporting crimes and do what they can to avoid reports, arrests, etc. it's called "holding court in the street". Many patrol officers are also burned out or unable to work in a professional, ethical way. This why the DoJ/Civil Rights Div & the DEA have to go after them. Or the PD's own IA(internal affairs) or Professional Standards have to come in & clean up the mess. ClydeFrog

February 27, 2013, 10:12 PM	#29
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	Well, OK. Now I know more about where Flynn comes from. Fair enough. If we wanted to get really, really technical about it, we could even argue over whether his department actually conducts any prosecutions. However, that's beside the point, IMO. Between his department and the local prosecuting authority, there's not enough budget to prosecute things like straw purchases now, adding more laws to the mix will not solve that problem. The penalty for providing false answers on a 4473, if it's ever actually prosecuted, is already pretty permanent: a felony conviction, loss of firearms rights, loss of voting rights, 10 years in prison and $250K in fines (if I remember the fines right). __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

February 27, 2013, 10:55 PM	#33
TXAZ Senior Member Join Date: September 5, 2010 Location: McMurdo Sound Texas Posts: 4,322	Theater, it's just theater Congressional Hearing Rule #1: Make the members look good! Congressional Hearing Rule #2: Staffers know the real answers to every question that will be asked, make sure Rule #1 is met Congressional Hearing Rule#3: NO SURPRISES! Congressional Hearing Rule#4-10: See rule #1 (from someone who worked for the chairman of the house appropriations committee many years ago... And little has changed) __________________ Cave illos in guns et backhoes

March 1, 2013, 07:58 AM	#43
Dwight55 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,568	Ahhh, . . . yes, . . . now we cannot have the police doing their job because they don't have enough money. GIVE ME A BREAK ! Every stinking politician, doctor, lawyer, union member, non-union member, teacher, cook, and janitor is singing the same tune. Answer: if you can't handle the heat, . . . get your arse out of the kitchen. Throwing money at problems never settled them, . . . but finding people willing to put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay is something that is being lost. And, . . . "NO", . . . Owl, . . . this is not specifically tailored to you, . . . but the money angle you bring up is old, worn out, tired, blah, blah, blah. People who want to make a difference and do their jobs, . . . do it. The rest sit around and complain. May God bless, Dwight __________________ www.dwightsgunleather.com If you can breathe, . . . thank God! If you can read, . . . thank a teacher! If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

February 27, 2013, 10:06 PM	#27
The Owl Junior Member Join Date: February 27, 2013 Location: US Posts: 7	No, it isn't a crime to be a felon, but I think we all know the reasons why felons are excluded from purchasing firearms. I will state that I don't believe it should apply to felons who have committed non-violent offenses, but I will also state that a prior record of non-violence is not necessarily indicative of a person who can be trusted. Do you see how we can dissect the fractal? It's somewhat pointless. Endless iterations and we still end up in the same predicament. It all relies on human nature, which is fickle.

February 27, 2013, 10:20 PM	#30
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,458	I would say the Chief was being evasive. On the one hand he said he wants to prevent the "wrong people" from buying guns, but on the other hand he said he isn't interested in chasing people who fail background checks. Aren't people who fail background checks BY DEFINITION "the wrong people"? Fail.

February 27, 2013, 10:25 PM	#31
Willie Sutton Junior member Join Date: January 26, 2012 Posts: 1,066	He's the police mouthpiece for the same Milwaukee mayor who was beaten within an inch of his life and permanently injured by club-wielding thugs at the state fair, but who is (A) not in favor of CCW and (B) has the distraction (to our glee) of the local sheriff making public service messages on the radio telling citizens to buy a gun and keep it at home because the police cannot be there fast enough to help in an attack. He's hardly the poster child for anything other than the small city version of Chicago politics. As a local, I can say that we mostly ignore him. They don't have the budget to actually do squat, most of the beat-cops are strong supporters of CCW and RKBA issues, and all of the good citizens carry. All in all.... it works. Plus we have good beer. Willie .

February 27, 2013, 10:35 PM	#32
The Owl Junior Member Join Date: February 27, 2013 Location: US Posts: 7	And that's just what we don't need with incarceration in the US at the highest in the world. I can't speak for other states or the feds but max incarceration in Wisconsin is 35-40k per inmate, lesser classifications only slightly cheaper. It doesn't makes sense to prosecute for this, especially at max sentence - 10 years for lying on a piece of paper? People lie all the time to get what they want. It's human nature. We don't throw them in the slammer for 10 years for goosing their résumé, although sometimes I think we should. Existing laws should be culled and tailored as necessary to address issues as they arise, whatever they may be. New laws are not needed. These kneejerk responses to random violence are going to be the death of us. Government has lost all sense of proportion.

February 28, 2013, 12:20 AM	#35
The Owl Junior Member Join Date: February 27, 2013 Location: US Posts: 7	We cannot afford to incarcerate everyone who likely breaks this law.

February 28, 2013, 06:46 PM	#38
ltc444 Senior Member Join Date: March 3, 2011 Location: Vernon AZ Posts: 1,195	The Owl If I may state your position as I understand it. We should not prosecute persons who falsify the 4473 because it cost to much and it is a minor crime. My response is the Wal Mart policy of vigorously defending every damage lawsuit brought against them no matter what the actuaries say. In effect Wal Mart spends more to defend the suit than it would cost to settle. By doing this attorneys (ambulance Chasers) know that a suit against will be long and expensive so they do not take cases against Wal Mart. By very publicly prosecuting persons who lie on their 4473, we will stop others from knowingly falsifying their application. These convictions are not flashy but they have teeth. Al Capone was never convicted for violation of the Volstead act nor was he convicted for any of the numerous assaults, murders or racketeering activities which he was involved. He was convicted of INCOME TAX EVASION. Or a Tom Cruse said in the Firm. It anin't sexy but it has teeth.

February 28, 2013, 07:29 PM	#39
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	The Owl, I would like clarification from you on two points: 1) Are you suggesting that it was proper for Flynn to avoid giving a direct answer, in terms of numbers or percentages of prosecutions? 2) What is your position on proposed Universal Background Checks, in light of your argument that LE is already overtasked given current budget limitations?

February 28, 2013, 07:59 PM	#41
Romeo 33 Delta Senior Member Join Date: March 27, 2009 Posts: 315	What part am I missing? Isn't a convicted felon attempting to purchase a firearm on a 4473 a FEDERAL felony voilation? Why then should Flynn get his panties in a knot? Isn't it the Feds job to prosecute this type of violation? And, Owl, no it's not a crime to be a felon ... but it sure is a crime if you're one and attempt to buy a firearm! I'll make the same beef about the mentally ill. Not everyone who is mentally ill (and thus a prohibited person) is incapable of rational thought and the ability of knowing right from wrong. I don't see mental illness as a get-out-of-jail card if you're trying to purchase a firearm. We can't lock 'em all up. Agreed. Maybe it's time to stop putting non-violent offenders in prison/jail. That said, maybe future prisons shouldn't be so nicely appointed. Not like a Turkish or Mexican prison ... but certainly not even close to the facilities that some of our service men and women have to live in. But you'ld better do something to them and fix what's broken in the present NICS system before allowing these Federal goofballs to pass more laws which they won't enforce. Or just scrap the whole NICS thing and pretend it's OK and working 100% to keep all the wrong people from getting firearms.

March 1, 2013, 08:02 AM	#44
Ruthless4christ Senior Member Join Date: June 24, 2007 Location: CNY Posts: 790	all this by the police chief who said "My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." yes I'm sure he is very impartial to the gun debate.

March 1, 2013, 09:32 AM	#45
Willie Sutton Junior member Join Date: January 26, 2012 Posts: 1,066	^^^ Didn't work out too well in Milwaukee, or in Racine, just a few miles south, or in Madison, a few miles west: http://www.ammoland.com/2011/10/wisc...#axzz2MIXmCgxj http://forum.gon.com/archive/index.php/t-505013.html http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/ar...?article=35497 If this happened to me in Milwaukee, I'd relish the opportunity to depose the police chief and then see him in court. Funny though that our local excellent hoster maker is a Milwaukee Police Officer, and thru him I have met many of Milwaukee's Finest. None of them would participate in anything of the sort. Willie .

March 1, 2013, 01:21 PM	#47
harrys ghost Member Join Date: January 21, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 67	I caught Flynn last night on Anderson Cooper 360. His big point was that the formation and evolution of the TSA in response to 9/11 is exactly what we should be doing with gun control in response to Sandy Hook.

March 1, 2013, 06:01 PM	#48
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	There's a thread about Bravo Company refusing to resupply Milwaukee PD with rifles, due to Flynn's antics. Gotta love it. Not only is a manufacturer refusing to sell, but in this case it's not theoretical - Bravo Company was supposed to sell rifles to Milwaukee.

March 1, 2013, 11:38 PM	#50
wayneinFL Senior Member Join Date: December 18, 2004 Posts: 1,944	It isn't illegal to ask a question, Owl. It is illegal to perjure yourself on a 4473. It is illegal for a convicted felon to knowingly attempt to buy a firearm. If we can't afford to -at the least- put dangerous felons in prison for trying to buy guns, then we shouldn't look at spending money implementing new laws.