![]() |
|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#76 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,408
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#77 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,067
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 1998
Posts: 618
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,135
|
Quote:
> 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. Last edited by mehavey; November 28, 2023 at 08:36 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#80 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,408
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,007
|
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--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein. |
![]() |
![]() |
#82 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,135
|
Quote:
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) ![]() . Last edited by mehavey; November 29, 2023 at 10:36 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#83 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,408
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#84 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,067
|
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,744
|
Quote:
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#86 |
Member
Join Date: January 16, 2021
Location: Bella Vista, Arkansas
Posts: 49
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#87 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,067
|
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#88 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#90 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#93 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#94 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,408
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,344
|
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.
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
![]() |
![]() |
#96 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,744
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#98 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,067
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#99 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,744
|
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.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
![]() |
![]() |
#100 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,067
|
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|