People Who Keep Their Guns Aren't Breaking The Law

[JohnKSa]

While I still have issue with an illegal arrest still be prosecutable...

The problem is that if you want police to be effective, (and any organized society needs effective LE) then their powers can't be nullified simply because someone disagrees with their actions. From a purely practical standpoint, except in very limited cases, it is absolutely necessary for citizens to cooperate with police, either voluntarily or otherwise.

Imagine the chaos that would result if it were possible for anyone who is the focus of LE action to simply say: "I don't believe this is a valid arrest." and the utterance of that sentence would force the LEOs to immediately abandon the action and move on. For LEOs to have any utility at all to society, they must have the power to carry out their actions even when the targeted citizens don't want them to and that means that there must be penalties for those who resist LE actions.

You can't create a situation where you tell citizens--yeah, if you think you're right, if your legal knowledge tells you the arrest isn't justified or if you think their actions might not be legal, go ahead and fight the police--take up arms against them and there will be no penalties if you were right. It would be mayhem. You can't pit citizens against cops as if the streets are a court where each side tries to bolster their legal opinions with violence.

That is why, except in very limited cases, it is illegal to resist LE actions. If there's a legal problem with the LE actions taken, that should be hashed out later in the courts--NOT by resisting in the moment. We have a legal system and LE so that things can be done in an orderly fashion, without violence if at all possible. Things are settled in court based on existing laws.

The whole idea of a court system and law enforcement is that nearly all the time, things can be settled without violence. You don't want to abandon that ideal except in extreme cases--in very limited circumstances.

[44 AMP]

Imagine the chaos that would result if it were possible for anyone who is the focus of LE action to simply say: "I don't believe this is a valid arrest." and the utterance of that sentence would force the LEOs to immediately abandon the action and move on.

IF this were actually the situation, I can't imagine any criminal failing to take advantage of it, let alone "wrongly" accused "innocent" people.

You don't fight the cops on the street or in your home. You accept the arrest and fight them in court. That's what the system expects and is set up to do.

do things differently and you are wrong. You might be dead wrong.

[seanc]

people who kept their guns after Katrina don't like to talk openly about it because it's not smart to talk about how you broke the law after breaking it.

Those who chose to keep their firearms when the "authorities" came by to confiscate them, were smart enough to not die on that hill and are smart enough not to brag about it afterwards. Regardless of any state laws that were subsequently passed, local tyrants are going to tyrant, that's what they'll do. You don't need to kill a cop to fight the power, you do need to shut the heck up. And a little compliance doesn't mean you completely complied.

[mehavey]

Imagine the chaos that would result if it were possible for anyone who is the
focus of LE action to simply say: "I don't believe this is a valid arrest."

And there's the crux:
> You may not resist the executive, even when the Executive's agents are SO far out
> of line as to put you or yours in mortal danger, and/or are SO far outside the Law in
> their actions as to be prosecutable themselves.

Even "as a man again under authority" as I was (still am to some degree), I also "...view with alarm..." as the saying goes,
that the "I've got my orders" crowd cannot see no less a danger in that, as in the chaos of individual anarchy.

Bottom line, I ascribe to neither. But I offer that both are dangerous when taken to the boundary limits.

[JohnKSa]

You may not resist the executive, even when the Executive's agents are SO far out of line as to put you or yours in mortal danger, and/or are SO far outside the Law in their actions as to be prosecutable themselves.

It is possible to claim self-defense against LE in at least some areas (TX being one of them) in certain circumstances, so I think that's an overstatement. If they put you in mortal danger without justification, you can claim self-defense if you survive. Unless the circumstances were clear cut, it would probably go to trial and I wouldn't like to be put in the position of having to claim self-defense against LE, but that is a viable option.

But yes, it is possible that an LEO could do something and get prosecuted for it AND the citizen involved could also be charged with resisting. Wrongdoing on the part of LE certainly isn't, in the general case, carte blanche for any citizens involved in the incident to do as they please.

...the "I've got my orders" crowd cannot see no less a danger...

Everybody can see the danger in that, if it is allowed to be used indiscriminately to justify actions. Any "out" that lets people justify anything they do by shifting responsibility or saying some magic words is a serious problem. That doesn't mean it is NEVER justification, because in some cases it might be reasonable for someone to believe that an order is legitimate even if it turns out not to be later. But yes, of course there is danger there and potential for misuse.

[Wag]

Recently, we had the local county sheriff come out in public and refuse to enforce the dictate of our governor's anti gun edict. Several other LEO's agreed with him and also refused to enforce or support her new edict.

The State police, however, had no comment. I expect that is because they are under the auspices of the governor and their paychecks were at stake. They remained judiciously silent about it and it's believed that most of the State policy LEO's would not enforce the edict either.

Of course, a week later, the courts ruled her edict unconstitutional (mostly) and the LEO's were justified in the end.

It never really had a chance to play out but it was remarkable in the sense that the LEO's in the area were adamantly opposed to the governor's executive order.

Add to that, the day the rule went into effect, a group of New Mexicans gathered, weapons openly displayed, with State police observing and nobody was arrested or otherwise intimidated by them.

It's still playing out in some ways but generally, I'm impressed that law enforcement stood up to the powers that be and said, "No," rather than say anything about following orders.

--Wag--

[mehavey]

I'm impressed that law enforcement stood up to the powers that be
and said, "No," rather than say anything about following orders.

To their credit where credit due.
But very complex in execution across the board.
And troubling that we're in such situations.


Albuquerque here `75-77, `90-98.... dramatic changes in those times.
(But green chili and Sadie's are pillars of cultural stability -- even apart from loss of bowling alley ambiance)


.

[JohnKSa]

Recently, we had the local county sheriff come out in public and refuse to enforce the dictate of our governor's anti gun edict.

Sheriffs are elected and, to at least some extent, tend to fall outside of the normal chain of command of government.

[44 AMP]

Some time back we had a very badly written law make it onto the books in my state, Every LEO group in the state, save one (the police chief of the state's largest city) refused to enforce it.

Even the State Police refused to enforce it, "pending further clarification and instruction".

Its been nearly a decade since then, and to date, no such further clarification has been provided.

Legal challenges to that law are still working their way through the courts.

Point here is that even LEOs who work directly for the Governor can, and have said "no, we're not doing that", at different times in different places.

[5whiskey]

Sheriffs are elected and, to at least some extent, tend to fall outside of the normal chain of command of government.

This is a great thing. I'm not a deputy, but a city cop. Nonetheless, I respect the position of the sheriff. Lots of governors came out with EXTREMELY heavy handed curfews and mask requirements during covid. The majority of sheriff's in my state essentially said "you should social distance and wear a mask until we figure out exactly how bad this thing really is, but we aren't making arrests based on the governors order." And there was a mechanism to arrest for violation of this emergency order, it's just that the vast majority of sheriff's stated that they wouldn't. Police chiefs (not elected) mostly followed this lead.... but it was the elected Sheriff's in the lead.

[reubenray]

I was living in Metairie when Katrina came through. I left for three weeks and on one of the first days I was back a sheriff deputy stopped by and he told that if I did not have a gun to get one.

[44 AMP]

City cops (especially) can face being fired for not following "the party line" if their upper management (chiefs, Mayors etc) are trying to curry favor with their bosses. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.

Sheriffs are elected and can't be just fired, they have to be recalled through an election process, where it is the people who decide, not the political bosses, and so are not at the same level of risk to their employment.

Even "emergency powers" does not give civil authority unlimited power. Some leaders will take as much as they can, and hold on to it as long as they can, despite what the law actually allows. Others will play by the written rules.

It is the responsibility of the people to remove from office those who abuse the authority granted to them in times of emergency. We should do a better job of doing that than we have been lately.

[PhotonGuy]

Of course. But that doesn't mean that, after the fact, you won't wind up in court defending your actions.

Yes it would go to court, but if it was found in court that you were in fact using what force was necessary, including deadly force, to stop somebody from raping or murdering you, then the courts will find you justified, whether the person trying to do such stuff was law enforcement or not.

About that, I have only your word to go on that such did happen. If you have proof it did happen, please produce it.

There were a lot of allegations about all kinds of things in the aftermath of Katrina. Some were found to be supported by evidence. Many were not.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=5063796

[PhotonGuy]

Also, while I realize that there are some FEW rogue individuals wearing badges, I find claims that "the police" were raping and murdering people to be dubious at best, intentionally inflammatory and misleading at worst, absent concrete proof that this went on, particularly when the claims imply it was approved policy.

There are some police that are no better than the criminals. The thing is that police are just like everybody else. Some are good some are bad.

[PhotonGuy]

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

Everything you mentioned except the nuclear warhead can be obtained by citizens, if you're got the money. As for nuclear warheads, even the government does not have access to such stuff except in certain circumstances.

[PhotonGuy]

Those who chose to keep their firearms when the "authorities" came by to confiscate them, were smart enough to not die on that hill and are smart enough not to brag about it afterwards. Regardless of any state laws that were subsequently passed, local tyrants are going to tyrant, that's what they'll do. You don't need to kill a cop to fight the power, you do need to shut the heck up. And a little compliance doesn't mean you completely complied.

The point is, they didn't break any laws by keeping their guns because of the 2A.

[PhotonGuy]

It is possible to claim self-defense against LE in at least some areas (TX being one of them) in certain circumstances, so I think that's an overstatement. If they put you in mortal danger without justification, you can claim self-defense if you survive. Unless the circumstances were clear cut, it would probably go to trial and I wouldn't like to be put in the position of having to claim self-defense against LE, but that is a viable option.

But yes, it is possible that an LEO could do something and get prosecuted for it AND the citizen involved could also be charged with resisting. Wrongdoing on the part of LE certainly isn't, in the general case, carte blanche for any citizens involved in the incident to do as they please.

If somebody is trying to murder you in cold blood, whether they're law enforcement or not, you are allowed to defend yourself and you are allowed to use deadly force to do so, anywhere in the country. While it would definitely go to court, if in court you were found to be defending yourself from being murdered you would be justified.

[PhotonGuy]

City cops (especially) can face being fired for not following "the party line" if their upper management (chiefs, Mayors etc) are trying to curry favor with their bosses. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.

If they're fired because they refused to do something that was unconstitutional, they can sue the department.

[JohnKSa]

Yes it would go to court, but if it was found in court that you were in fact using what force was necessary, including deadly force, to stop somebody from raping or murdering you, then the courts will find you justified, whether the person trying to do such stuff was law enforcement or not.

If somebody is trying to murder you in cold blood, whether they're law enforcement or not, you are allowed to defend yourself and you are allowed to use deadly force to do so, anywhere in the country. While it would definitely go to court, if in court you were found to be defending yourself from being murdered you would be justified.

That's already been acknowledged multiple times on this thread. The reason it is true is because it is consistent with existing laws, not because of someone's personal interpretation of the Constitution.

If they're fired because they refused to do something that was unconstitutional, they can sue the department.

Anybody can sue anyone at any time for any reason. The courts will determine the merit of the suit based on existing laws, not based on someone's personal interpretation of the second amendment.

The point is, they didn't break any laws by keeping their guns because of the 2A.

Wrong. Go back and re-read the thread. This incorrect assertion has been addressed and the reason it is incorrect has been explained multiple times on this thread, the first time on the very second post of the thread.

If you have an argument as to why your assertion is correct, provide it. Simply stating something over and over again doesn't make it true. You can see this tactic used ineffectually on body cam videos--usually by drunk or otherwise impaired persons. It is never effective and often results in additional charges because it seems to help motivate the person using it to resist because they become more and more convinced of their rightness the more they repeat their mantra and because it convinces the officers that they can not be reasoned with and force is the only alternative for dealing with the person.

[rickyrick]

As much as I believe that the founders intended the second amendment to be interpreted as absolutely no infringement by government against law abiding citizens until it is changed through the amendment process, this simply isn’t the case in today’s world. It hasn’t been so for a very long time.
We are regaining some ground on the topic, but I don’t foresee any future without any firearm restrictions.

[5whiskey]

Everything you mentioned except the nuclear warhead can be obtained by citizens, if you're got the money. As for nuclear warheads, even the government does not have access to such stuff except in certain circumstances.

Sigh... that is not true. Regulations (INFRINGEMENT!) prevent private procurement of certain arms in current use by the US military. Something about operational security and not having Russia or China obtaining an actual f35 or M1 Abrams to look for weaknesses and/or copy technology. You can own a fighter jet or a tank (minus Armament) that has been demilitirized. And some of the old tanks the main gun is intact and can be (and is) fired. There are some regulations to this (INFRINGEMENT!) but i can't recall what they are.

In pointing out that private citizens with deep enough pockets can own a fighter jet (minus missiles) or a tank, but not a current M1 or an F35, you failed to address the rest of the post which destroys any argument that citizens/collective gets to decide what is constitutional and is not.

[PhotonGuy]

As much as I believe that the founders intended the second amendment to be interpreted as absolutely no infringement by government against law abiding citizens until it is changed through the amendment process, this simply isn’t the case in today’s world. It hasn’t been so for a very long time.
We are regaining some ground on the topic, but I don’t foresee any future without any firearm restrictions.

It wasn't that way even when the BOR was first ratified, and sadly we've allowed it to not be that way.

[44 AMP]

Regulations (INFRINGEMENT!) prevent private procurement of certain arms in current use by the US military.

I think we understand some things a bit differently.

As I see it, the right to keep and bear arms is different from the right to purchase any thing you want. Easy and convenient are not considerations of the law. As long as there is some way to do it, even if that way is not practical, as long as it is possible, your right to do it is not being infringed.

Only your idea of how you think you should be able to do it is affected, not the basic right itself.

If the people who make /own the rights to something do not put it on the commercial market, your rights are not in question. Only your ability to purchase the item.

It may seem like a minor point, but its not.

I do fully agree with the concept used by the Founding Fathers, and found eloquently stated by Tench Coxe, that "the sword and every terrible implement of the solider is the birthright of the American citizen".

The law does not require such implements to be provided for sale on the commercial market however. That is a convenience, and a practice so common we expect it, but its not one of our enumerated rights in the Constitution.

Get a court (the high court, particularly) to rule that it is, and I'll happily change my mind on the subject.

[5whiskey]

44amp you're generally correct, but the waters get muddied a bit when the government forbids Raytheon, General Dynamics, et al from offering said currently used military items for sale in the procurement contract. Take a more benign item, such as a car, and have the federal government impose a contract that the manufacturer cannot sale any cars to private or foreign entities and can only supply the US government with the car... that would still be a regulation (and a case heard by SCOTUS eventually). I get that it's not a legit prohibition on ownership, but the government dominating the supply side of the equation to effectively make private ownership impossible is a regulation nonetheless. At least I view it that way.

[44 AMP]

I understand your point, and it would be a really odd thing with more benign items, but that's because those items are "benign" and not cutting edge military tech.

If you want to be upset with the terms of the contracts, consider that the maker is not under any legal obligation to accept such a contract. They don't have to take a govt contract with a "sell to no one but us without our permission" clause, but they do, because the alternative is unacceptable to the people who want the company to stay in business,

Say you make a jet fighter plane, your primary and intended customer is the govt. If agreeing not to sell your plane anywhere else (around the world or to a private person) that's what you do to get the govt to buy your planes, and you make sure the govt cost covers your potential profit loss by only selling to them.

Its a contract. Its a negotiated agreement between the parties. If you're not one of the contractual parties you don't get a say in the matter.

sucks if you really really want the latest jet fighter for your very own, and have the scratch to cover the cost, when the maker won't sell you one because it would violate their contract with the govt. Take them to court over it, if you want, I doubt you would win.

Wait some years, when that jet is no longer the cutting edge tech, and the purchase contract with the govt is fulfilled and you'll probably be able to buy one, then.