People Who Keep Their Guns Aren't Breaking The Law

[mehavey]

HOWEVER, even though that is the case, it would not have justified simply resisting LE who was enforcing the law.
That would likely result in separate charges even if the confiscation was illegal.

JOHN:

Not to make too fine a point about it, but what Law were they enforcing in confiscating all weapons ?
Knowing that would be helpful.

[JohnKSa]

Call it following orders, then, if you wish. It's not a practical difference.

[mehavey]

Call it following orders....

Oh no.
Don't . even . THINK . of . going . there.
Please . . . .

[JohnKSa]

They were told by their superiors to do it and some of them did.

So was it reasonable for them to carry out those orders? You know, LEOs aren't required to be legal experts, and emergencies can give the authorities powers that they aren't normally allowed to wield. I'm not personally going to try to beat up the ones that carried through with the orders they were given, but I'm also not saying I'm happy about it. I absolutely don't agree with the orders they were given.

But, again, the fact that their actions turned out to be illegal would not legally justify a person resisting their actions.

[mehavey]

You know we hanged some (quite a few) very prominent people for that very thing?

As to punishing resistance to an illegal action committed under the color of Law . . .
I can see winding up in court...
....but only in Texas (apparently*) punished for that alone in the end -- even after
a legal finding that the police action was patently illegal under existing law..

FWIW: I'm pretty much on the side of the "settle it in court" crowd -- save for invocation
of "I've got my orders" actions that result in either immediate harm -- or the clearly high
probability of imminent harm. I can think of a hundreds of such "orders" given by political
actors if they think they can get away with it (and `lived in a few countries where that was a
fact of life). I would hate to see this fairly civilized argument devolve into defense of that situation.

* I'm open to expanding knowledge of other states

[JohnKSa]

...but only in Texas (apparently*) punished for that alone in the end...

I quoted TX law because I know TX law. That's not evidence that they are unique in that respect.

In fact, it's quite common.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...ul-arrest.html

Basically it amounts to giving citizens the right to self-defense against LE if LE uses excessive force.

If an officer uses excessive use of force in an arrest, many states' laws give citizens a limited right to use force in self-defense. Here, it's not necessarily about resisting but rather protecting oneself against serious harm. Some states don't permit suspects to claim self-defense if they committed a dangerous felony that required police to respond to an immediate threat of violence.

State laws differ on self-defense rules and their specifics. But generally, a person must reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of suffering bodily harm or death before resorting to self-defense. And a person can only use as much force as is necessary to protect oneself—using a greater amount of force can turn the tables and make the victim the aggressor. In some states, if the officer stops using excessive force, the suspect can no longer justify the use of further force. Other limitations to self-defense claims may also apply.

In some states, it is acceptable to use force (a reasonable amount) to resist an illegal arrest. HOWEVER, it's important to understand what an illegal arrest is. If there's no probable cause for arrest, or the officer uses excessive force, then, in some states citizen may be justified in resisting. Keep in mind that the officer might have probable cause based on instructions given them by their higher ups that could later end up being invalid. If an officer is told to confiscate weapons and they have probable cause to believe the person has weapons, the arrest wouldn't be illegal in the sense that would allow resistance. So this provision isn't about legal disagreements, it's basically about LE going rogue and taking action when they have no pretext at all for doing so.

And even when it is actually a qualifying illegal arrest, the article correctly points out that:

"But even then, it can be dangerous to resist. Circumstances can unravel quickly, leading to serious injuries or even death. For this reason, the best place to contest the legality of an arrest is often in the courtroom, not the streets."

And frankly, I think it would be very easy to find people who legitimately (but mistakenly) think that an arrest is illegal while they are being arrested.

The article also makes it clear that the innocence of the person being arrested is not evidence that the arrest is unlawful.

You know we hanged some (quite a few) very prominent people for that very thing?

Which LEOs were hanged for following orders and what actions were they carrying out?

[44 AMP]

Which LEOs were hanged for following orders and what actions were they carrying out?

The biggest bunch I can think of were Germans (or acting in German service) after the end of WWII.

US LEOs?? Apparently some people believe that there are or have been some in recent times enough to riot about it and call for "defunding" the police.
Not that it is of any use or benefit, and from what I can see, rather the opposite.

I don't think we've actually hung anyone in years, but more than a few bad actors have been "hung out to dry" (including criminal convictions) for their bad actions.

[5whiskey]

The Constitution of the United States is designed to create a "Republican form of Government," and the amendments tend to focus on limiting governments power. I will not go back and reference the dozens of times that the OP has referenced "a collective right of the people" when others reminded him that he alone does not get to interpret what a constitutional right is, but he clearly did countless times to support his position. But but but... here lies the rub!!!

Go out and poll any 1000 people in America and you will get radically differing opinions on variations of what a constitutional right is, what it should entail, and how far it would go. You likely won't get the poll opinions to coalesce around any clear majority except certain vague platitudes. Sure, most will agree that you shouldn't be prosecuted for going to a religious service Ala first amendment free exercise of religion rights. But get into the weeds of whether you should be given free reign to proselytize in a public school, and I bet you will probably get 1000 different answers in that poll group of 1000 people. So there lies the flaw of "we the people" interpreting what the Consitution says.

But wait! There's more! Think that the language of the 2nd Amendment is clearly plain, and private citizens will all agree on a common meaning? OK doke, then I challenge you to define "arms." Sounds very simple, right? OK then, please reflect on what in the following list is an "arm:"
-A revolver
-A semi-auto pistols
-An AR-15
-A M2 machine gun
-A M1 Abrams
-A F35
-An aircraft carrier
-An ICBM complete with nuclear warhead

Do you think the public will unanimously agree on what should be allowed for private ownership? Technically, per the 2nd Amendment, an argument could be made that all should be allowed. But do you actually believe the citizenry will agree that private ownership of nuclear weapons should be allowed per the 2A? If you think they do, you're dead wrong. You mignt be unpleasantly surprised at "the collectives" thoughts on an "assault rifle" or an M2 machine gun. So there the fallacy is laid bare that "the collective" can interpret the constitution and decide which laws to follow and which to ignore. It doesn't work like that. Once we realize "The Collective interpretation" argument just simply can't stand, we're left with what one individual feels is right at the time of resistance to laws. I'll devote no time to addressing that, a jury of your peers will do it for me. Better hope your actions and beliefs that the law you were resisting was, in fact, unconstitutional were Objectively Reasonable.

But wait! There's more! To put this "citizen collective interpretation" of the constitution to bed, one need look no further than reading the writings of the founders relating to their belief in democracy. Despite the platitude of "democracy" being heralded today, it is noticeably absent from founding documents (except in writings of the founders making sound arguments against it). The constitution designed our government, and rights, in a manner to be protected from the "tyranny of the majority." Think the public writ large gets the ultimate say in what is, and is not, constitutional? Don't cry when all semi-auto rifles are banned after a mass shooting then, as many polls favor a prohibition on "assault rifles" after such events. Thankfully, the constitution saves us from the tyranny of the majority by guaranting, in article IV, a Republican form of Government.

There are many vague inferences supporting armed rebellion in this thread. While I do agree that the citizenry retains this right (dissolution of government is addressed in the founding), and this is one of the intents of the 2A, making an argument for it today because some politicians in Louisiana ordered cops to confiscate arms nearly 20 years ago isn't prudent. Despite my disdain for the current unelected bureaucracy, it isn't sufficiently tyrannical to commit my children's life (or anyone elses) to a civil war to dissolve it. This country, despite its many flaws, is still a "beacon of freedom" and "a city on a hill" to the rest of the world. We commit personal injustice when we fail to recognize that.

[mehavey]

Good Lord. We've gone from debating the consequences of resistance to illegal gun confiscation in Katrina,
to "I've got my orders" being sufficient authority to effect that confiscation (or by extension any other illegal action)
under the color or Law.

I didn't start out this conversation convinced one way or the other -- in fact as paraphrasing the Centurion "I have also been a man
under authority" ...and remain thankful for our Law Enforcement personnel who truly do their best in most dangerous circumstances
.... and will obey their lawful commands /resolve our differences in court.

But there are some very disturbing if not dangerous ideas being presented here, and not all of them are centered on the call for revolution.

Yes, we hanged the Germans and the Japanese whose excuse was the absolute classic "but I was following orders."
You all take care now.... not to lose the war.




As a footnote:
The words "sedition" has been brought into the mix here -- which I believe is inflammatory in the extreme.
At the same time, all should observe caution not to present anything here you might not later want printed above the fold in the New York times.

As before Y'all take care.

[5whiskey]

But their are some very dangerous ideas being presented here, and not all of them are centered on the call for revolution.

I won't disagree at all. Military membership and years as a LEO has repeatedly drilled into me that knowingly following an order known to be unlawful does not absolve a man or woman for being held accountable for their actions. In fact, if we are going to focus on gun confiscation during Katrina (nearly 20 years later?), a much more prudent discussion would be on how to hold those giving those unlawful orders accountable. And even those who were "just following orders," while knowing those orders were unlawful. What should that accountability look like? Certainly not "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants" accountability. Many men and women giving and following those directives were members of that community and were heart broken by the devastation. And angered by the hoodlums who took advantage of it to loot and pillage. These things can be a tender subject.

The words "sedition" has been brought into the mix here -- which I believe is inflammatory in the extreme.

Perhaps you're correct. It was removed. My goal wasn't to inflame anything other than the argument that "a collective of citizens" gets to interpret what is constitutional and what is not. If we are going to adhere to the constitution, Article III makes it clear who gets to decide "Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution."

[JohnKSa]

Yes, we hanged the Germans and the Japanese whose excuse was the absolute classic "but I was following orders."

Come on now. We're not talking about genocide or war crimes here, we're talking about U.S. LEOs carrying out weapons confiscations during a state of emergency.

The point is that, from the standpoint of a citizen confronted with LEOs (who aren't committing genocide, rape or murder and who have probable cause, etc.) resistance isn't usually a legal option. And further, that if a person does resist, even if the actual actions turn out to be invalid/unjustified (the persons giving the order didn't have the authority to do so, the citizens being confronted are innocent) they are likely still breaking the law.

And even those who were "just following orders," while knowing those orders were unlawful.

If it could be shown that those LEOs carried out the orders KNOWING them to be unlawful, then they would certainly be culpable, as would the people who gave them the orders. No one is saying that their actions were justified, the question is what someone on the receiving end of those actions could do legally and what might happen to them if they take certain courses of action.

So there the fallacy is laid bare that "the collective" can interpret the constitution and decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

Exactly. Which is why the government is set up with one organization that is the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution.

Good Lord. We've gone from debating the consequences of resistance to illegal gun confiscation in Katrina, to "I've got my orders" being sufficient authority to effect that confiscation (or by extension any other illegal action) under the color or Law.

That's a total and blatant mischaracterization. This isn't about whether or not the government had sufficient authority to confiscate weapons during Katrina or LE had the right to do so--the fact is that they didn't--or at least the NRA was able to convince a judge to make them stop the confiscations and then later made them give back the guns without forcing the owners to jump through hoops. I mentioned the problematic nature of the confiscations in my first post.

The original assertion was that a citizen could ignore laws or flaunt LE action and get away with it by citing the Constitution and/or their personal interpretation of it. That is a false assertion. The Constitution isn't a magic wand that can be waved at LE or the courts to stave them off and personal interpretations of the Constitution are only valid if they align with SCOTUS rulings or existing law.

That question has sort of morphed into whether or not a citizen can resist LE actions without breaking the law in the general case. Again, not talking about LE committing war crimes, genocide, murder, rape, etc., but rather carrying out actions which may later be found to be unjustified. Like arresting a person who turns out to be innocent, or enforcing a law that turns out to be unconstitutional, or carrying out orders which are later found to be illegal, etc. The answer is, generally, no.

What you're doing is like this:
Someone says: "If a person shoots at you with no cause, since they are in the wrong, their bullets won't hurt you."

Another person says: "Look, the bullets are going to be just as dangerous either way. You'd better duck and get behind cover if you don't want to get dead or hurt badly."

You say: "OMG! I can't believe it's come to this! Now we have people saying that it's perfectly ok for others to shoot at you for no reason. Haven't we learned anything from the Nazis?!!"

[44 AMP]

OK then, please reflect on what in the following list is an "arm:"
-A revolver
-A semi-auto pistols
-An AR-15
-A M2 machine gun
-A M1 Abrams
-A F35
-An aircraft carrier
-An ICBM complete with nuclear warhead

They all are!

After that, we get into what category of arm they are, and whether you take the narrowest or broadest view of what is meant by the term "arms".

The language of the Second Amendment says 'arms". It does not further define the term. It does not say "personal arms", it does not say "individual arms" it does not even say "firearms. It says "arms", which, to me is an all inclusive term. Other people argue differently.

Read Tench Coxe, and see if you agree with his statement about arms. I do.

The sword and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans....

Also consider we are discussing underlying principles and concepts here, not the details of modern practical reality. I am not saying that the govt does not have a valid interest in regulating things for public safety, only that they do not have solid moral grounds for complete prohibition of arms.

[Double Naught Spy]

Also consider we are discussing underlying principles and concepts here, not the details of modern practical reality. I am not saying that the govt does not have a valid interest in regulating things for public safety, only that they do not have solid moral grounds for complete prohibition of arms.

Which is the pragmatic arguing point. The question we are basically fighting about in legislatures is how much regulation is appropriate. Even non-extremists fail to agree on what is appropriate regulation.

Absolute consitutionalists, sort of like the OP, would hold that any infringement, um, regulation, of firearms is invalid. Absolute reformers want all guns gun, but there is seemingly no mid ground that we can agree upon.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Which is the pragmatic arguing point. The question we are basically fighting about in legislatures is how much regulation is appropriate. Even non-extremists fail to agree on what is appropriate regulation.

Absolute consitutionalists, sort of like the OP, would hold that any infringement, um, regulation, of firearms is invalid. Absolute reformers want all guns gun, but there is seemingly no mid ground that we can agree upon.

That would be me. I strongly believe that the language of the Second Amendment explicitly disallows any regulation of the RKBA. That's what "shall not be infringed" means.

That said, I also am pragmatic enough to understand that what counts is not what I think it means, but what the Supreme Court thinks it means.

[44 AMP]

We have, essentially two extreme viewpoints, one being any infringement (meaning any restriction or regulation at all) is a violation of our enumerated right, and the other is, essentially that as long as we are permitted to own some kind of firearm (one they approve of) then our right is not being infringed.

If we were all restricted to single shot muzzle loading arms, they would feel our right is preserved. This viewpoint, I think, is in error.

Do remember that it was the "infringers" and their primarily irrational fears that resulted in the actual historical arms used at Lexington and Concord, displayed (UNLOADED) on a wall in a museum where children visit required trigger locks be put on them for "safety". Considering that that had been on that wall for over a couple centuries, I think that a bit beyond reasonable.

And that's our basic problem. What they consider reasonable and what we consider reasonable are quite different. I think they are wrong. They think we are wrong.

I forget who said it, but there is a saying about how "the law may upset reason, but reason must never be allowed to upset the law:.

Personally, I disagree.
The problem is when the wrong "reason" either creates or upsets the law, and the people doing it believe it is the "right" reason.

[mehavey]

That was not the OP question/issue. The OP posed . . .

People who [kept] their guns during government gun seizures such as in
New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina aren't breaking the law by doing so

That position devolved into (and I paraphrase) "It matters not that what the police may be doing is patently* illegal.
To resist the police is in & of itself/ipso facto a crime -- and "I've got my orders" is their authority to act.

That was contrasted with the position that an illegal order, is not a lawful order

It was then that things went off the rails . . . .



*"Degree of infringement" is a whole other matter.

[JohnKSa]

"It matters not that what the police may be doing is patently* illegal. To resist the police is in & of itself/ipso facto a crime...

That is a mischaracterization. It absolutely does matter what the police do. Blatant disregard for the law or outright crimes are not going to fly. If the police are murdering, raping, committing genocide, taking action against citizens without any pretext whatsoever, etc. that's another thing entirely from the general case.

In general, citizens can not legally resist actions by the police simply because they disagree with their actions. In other words, they can't resist arrest because they feel that the basis of LE action is not justified under the Constitution or because they feel like they are innocent. Even in cases where the LE actions (excluding extreme/blatant disregard of the law) are later ruled illegal or unconstitutional, or the arrestee does actually turn out to be innocent, it is likely that resisting arrest was still against the law and the arrestee can be prosecuted for taking that option.

You can not make this into a black or white situation where either cops can do anything they want with impunity or it's always legal for citizens to resist them. The real world is never that simple.

...and "I've got my orders" is their authority to act.

You asked specifically under what authority the confiscations in Katrina were done. It appears that the officers were told by their superiors to confiscate the firearms and so that's what I said happened--I answered you accurately. I pointed out that the orders did not appear to be legal.

At that point, I went a bit further and commented on what I thought about the culpability of the individual officers. The fact is that there is precedent for firearm confiscations during states of emergency. I don't agree with that precedent, and since Congress changed the law, specifically due to Katrina, it's not an option any more. But in the past, it has been legal, in various parts of the U.S. for the authorities to confiscate firearms during states of emergency. Because of that, and because LE's are not required to be legal experts, I felt that, while I strongly disagree with the idea of firearms confiscation, even during emergencies, in that particular circumstance and in that time, I could understand why some LEs did comply with the orders and also that I'm not sure that it would make sense to hold them personally responsible--in this particular case. The people who ordered the confiscations are another story. It does appear that they overstepped their authority and a judge made them back down.

Again, you can not make this into a black or white situation. There are very obviously some situations where LEOs could be given orders that later turn out to be illegal but that might seem to have at least some chance of being justifiable at the time based on circumstances. In that case, "I was following orders might be a reasonable justification. There are also absolutely situations where "I was following orders." will carry zero weight given the circumstances.

I also pointed out that from a purely practical standpoint, it is dangerous to resist LE and that should certainly be a consideration in situations where immediate action is not required to prevent illegal actions by LE from resulting in death or serious injury. That is just an undeniable truth.

I am not claiming that it doesn't matter what cops do in terms of being able to resist them legally because it does matter.

I am not claiming that cops can justify anything by claiming they were following orders because I don't believe that is a true statement.

Saying that I am making either of those claims, at this point, is either the result of some serious issues with comprehension, a truly horrible oversimplification of my comments, or a deliberate attempt to vilify me.

[44 AMP]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we are talking about govt power during "emergencies" we are speaking about what the govt can lawfully do, seize, curtail, etc., short of declaring Martial Law.

and that if Martial Law is declared then civil rights, and protections are suspended, along with civil processes, and military rule is in effect.

None of the situations we have talked about (including Katrina) were cases where martial law was declared, as far as I know. Is that right??

[JohnKSa]

I'll answer that, but then I'm done with the topic of emergency powers. It's not like I have some special insight into the law or access to resources that others can't utilize. People who are actually interested can do the research on their own and then accuse themselves of defending Nazis if they don't like what they learn instead of taking me to task for telling them what I find out.

If a state of emergency is declared (NOT martial law) it can be used to authorize a number of different measures that wouldn't normally be considered reasonable. (I'm going to talk about TX law because I live in TX and have some knowledge of TX law and access it frequently so I know where it is and how to search it. I'm NOT saying that it's representative of all state's laws or that it is similar to LA law now or at the time of Katrina.) In TX, those special powers can include commandeering vehicles, appropriating buildings, restricting/controlling travel and movement in terms of both transportation and personal movement, control of the sale of alcoholic beverages, curfews, special control of explosives or flammable materials, etc., etc.

Prior to 2007, when the law was changed as the result of Katrina, TX law also allowed for the control of the sale, transportation and use of firearms and ammunition during states of emergency.

That does NOT mean I'm in favor of those kinds of powers, and again, I'm not saying that I know that LA law was similar at the time. I'm not saying that the order was lawful--in fact I've said that it seems that it was not based on the restraining order issued by a judge. All I said earlier in the thread was that, at the time of Katrina, IMO, based on the general sort of things that were authorized during states of emergency in at least some places it would not have been unreasonable for LEOs (who are not legal experts) to assume that an order to confiscate firearms was lawful.

[5whiskey]

It was then that things went off the rails . . . .

All I wanted to do was expose the falsehood in believing private citizens have any say in interpreting constitutional law. And my interest in doing so was that an argument was being presented here that suggested citizens could essentially decide to not obey laws if they (apparently as a collective?) believed said laws were unconstitutional.

Obviously there are some cases where citizens may have a moral obligation to resist laws. Suppose that Law Enforcement started apprehending Muslims for nothing other than being Muslim after 9/11. I believe it would be moral to resist that. But I still could be arrested until the courts settled out the constitutional aspects. And my resisting charge for hiding or protecting a Muslim may could still be prosecuted after the courts restrained government from rounding uo Muslims. Most likely it would be dropped, but there are no guarantees.

On the other end of the spectrum, you could resist a cop when he tries to search your car without a warrant (but based on probable cause) in the belief that it is unconstitutional... but that belief would be mistaken. US v Carroll decided that issue a century ago. Such are the potential dangers in advocating that private citizens forcibly resists the governments actions in the heat of the moment. Sure, extreme examples may justify it. Just do so with full recognition that your consequence may be dire if you're on the wrong side of that ruling later.

[dogtown tom]

PhotonGuy

It is the US Citizens who are supposed to have the final word on US law and on everything else in the country. It is the government, including the SCOTUS, that serves the people not the other way around.

I don't think you've actually read the Constitution. If you had you wouldn't be posting utter nonsense.

"The final word on US law" is not now, nor has it ever been "US Citizens".

I'm surprised that this thread is still alive.

[stagpanther]

Hmmmm...interesting thread, one I know to stay out of.

[Aguila Blanca]

Some of the posts in this discussion have tip-toed around it but I don't think anyone has actually highlighted the fact that civilian law is different from military law under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Under the UCMJ, there IS a duty to disobey an unlawful order. Basically, this is to prevent things such as executions of prisoners of war, and the perpetrators then defending themselves on the grounds that "I was just following orders."

It wasn't explained to us very well when I took Army Basic Training in 1966 but, in fact, our servicemen and servicewomen have not only a right but also a duty to disobey an unlawful order. NOTE: Not "immoral" order -- "unlawful" order.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/l...ty-to-disobey/

The problem is knowing if/when an order is unlawful, because there are penalties under the UCMJ for disobeying lawful orders. And the presumption under the UCMJ is that all orders are lawful orders (unless you know they are not). It's quite a can of worms.

https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/mi...of-orders.html

The point of this is that we can't confuse military law with civilian law. Under military law, there is a duty to refuse to obey an unlawful order. Under civilian law, there is no duty or even right to refuse to obey a law that one considers illegal or immoral. Laws are "presumed" to be constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court says they are not.

https://exclusive.multibriefs.com/co...vil-government

[Wag]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

We have, essentially two extreme viewpoints, one being any infringement (meaning any restriction or regulation at all) is a violation of our enumerated right, and the other is, essentially that as long as we are permitted to own some kind of firearm (one they approve of) then our right is not being infringed.

If we were all restricted to single shot muzzle loading arms, they would feel our right is preserved. This viewpoint, I think, is in error.

Do remember that it was the "infringers" and their primarily irrational fears that resulted in the actual historical arms used at Lexington and Concord, displayed (UNLOADED) on a wall in a museum where children visit required trigger locks be put on them for "safety". Considering that that had been on that wall for over a couple centuries, I think that a bit beyond reasonable.

And that's our basic problem. What they consider reasonable and what we consider reasonable are quite different. I think they are wrong. They think we are wrong.

I forget who said it, but there is a saying about how "the law may upset reason, but reason must never be allowed to upset the law:.

Personally, I disagree.
The problem is when the wrong "reason" either creates or upsets the law, and the people doing it believe it is the "right" reason.

Very well said, Sir.

Along those same lines, there is a lot of preaching about "common sense" gun (and other) laws. Most of the time, the term is used to brow beat people who disagree and tell them that they don't have common sense and that they are stupid because they disagree. And then, of course, they stop listening to any further discussion about it.

"Common sense," of course, is not common but in any case, it's often just opinion.

--Wag--

[mehavey]

Even in cases where the LE actions (excluding extreme/blatant disregard of the law)
are later ruled illegal or unconstitutional, or the arrestee does actually turn out to be
innocent, it is likely that resisting arrest was still against the law and the arrestee
can be prosecuted for taking that option.

While I still have issue with an illegal arrest still be prosecutable, we've kinda beat that to death and I'll a jury decide.
(....unless the Judge says citing an illegal arrest is not a defense and forbids it during trial, then we have a whole nother issue.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting tidbit today while we're on the subject of governments ignoring the Law:

Last Week:
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License Requirement
Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore.
> ...a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals ruled > that Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License (“HQL”) requirement
> is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/us/ma...own/index.html

This Week:
Police ...will continue enforcing ‘draconian’ handgun law ruled unconstitutional by court
> Maryland State Police will continue enforcing the state's handgun law for now,
> despite a federal appeals court ruling that the licensing requirement is unconstitutional.
>
> "At this time, the HQL law remains in effect and there are no immediate
> changes in the process to purchase a firearm in Maryland," the department
> wrote in an agency-wide advisory after last week's ruling.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pol...tutional-court


And we wonder why there is increasing loss of respect/consent for what used to be well-thought of rule of Law as central theme of "the American Way..."