Interesting Article 'setting a LEO straight' ...

[israel67]

.. 'thought this might interest y'all. From the site Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ...

http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-leo-straight.htm

Addendum: 'weapons of war' is exactly how the French government classes all handguns and long guns (except for .22 LR, if I recall correctly).

[pedalman]

Wow!! Quite an article.

[Kalrog]

Wow.

[Charles L. Cotton]

TexasCHLforum Rules:

5. Posts with racist, anarchist, or antisocial comments or content are not allowed and links to sites with such content are not allowed.


9. Blatant, global, or rampant law enforcement bashing is prohibited. Discussions of specific identifiable events presented factually are fine.

This thread is locked and actually should be deleted.

Chas.

[israel67]

sorry, I wasn't aware that I was actually 'bashing' any LEOs ...

[Charles L. Cotton]

I've received PMs from a few members who disagree with the locking this thread. After considering their comments, I've decided to unlock it.

I didn't post this earlier when I locked the thread, as it would have served no purpose. Since the thread has been unlocked, I want to note that taking anything L. Neil Smith says as accurate is risky business. Portions of his article slander all "public servants" and even the title of "Setting a LEO Straight" is transparent. The particular article Smith references is absolute garbage. He has not one clue what the NRA has done to the BATFE. We have sued them, the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund supports numerous lawsuits against the BATFE, and the NRA is the driving force behind the BATFE improvement bill. Make no mistake, the BATFE hates the NRA because of what we are doing to that agency.

Please do not let this turn into an anarchist diatribe against the U.S. Government or LEOs in general or it will be locked again. This garbage from Smith certainly has the potential to go downhill very quickly.

Chas.

[israel67]

I'd just like to say that as a newbie here, it wasn't my attention to offend anyone, and I'm sorry if my posting this article, in fact did offend.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'd just like to say that as a newbie here, it wasn't my attention to offend anyone, and I'm sorry if my posting this article, in fact did offend.

You didn't offend me or anyone to my knowledge. There is a rather long history of Mr. Smith's slanderous and unfounded remarks against law enforcement in general as well as the NRA. Since you are not currently living in America, I wouldn't expect you to know that. There will be other members who disagree with my view of Mr. Smith. Please don't think I am at all critical of you personally. I've deleted threads I've started and I've deleted my own posts, when I later decided they were inappropriate or violated one of our forum rules!

Chas.

[KBCraig]

Thanks for unlocking the thread, Chas.

I have to point out that it's not an "anarchist diatribe" to vehemently defend the Constitution, with references to Madison and Jefferson.

[The Annoyed Man]

FWIW, I had never heard of Smith, or his cause against BATF, until reading this article. My gut reaction was caution. Whether or not I sit on the same side of the fence as does the author of any article, I am put off by language that is over the top - with an exception for language that is deliberately satirical and intended to be humorous. Monty Python comes to mind.

When the written word is bombastic and the tone is lecturing and over the top, it is the equivalent of SHOUTING. When people shout at me - even if I might agree with their point of view - I stop listening to them. There just isn't anything that can be communicated by shouting, that can't be better communicated with calm and reasoned tones.

As regards the Constitution, people make all kinds of claims on its behalf, and only a tenth of them have ever read the thing all the way through, and then bothered to place the meaning of the original form, and then all of its successive amendments, within the context of the time in which they were written, in order to have a complete understanding of those amendments, and how they relate to the founders' original intent.

Also FWIW, I do not claim to be an expert in it myself, and I am little by little trying to make up for that.

In my opinion, the degree to which we have suffered gradual infringements on our original rights as enumerated in the Constitution is directly proportional to the degree to which we have permitted ourselves as a society to behave without shame or restraint. The common virtues which were admired and sought after in the age when the document was written, have become uncommon virtues today and are often held up for ridicule by the masses. The Constitution, and our form of government upon which it is framed, are intended for a moral people, and there is no room within it for licentiousness. Our common culture today, which is the context in which the Constitution currently exists, is no longer a culture which places a premium on probity, virtue, and morality. It is no wonder that so many no longer know what to do with the document nor how to restrain themselves, and neither is it any wonder that the beast which is our modern government no longer knows how to restrain itself.

That being said, I think that the best way to return ourselves to a more constitutional exercise of our rights to self-determination is to do so incrementally, the same way we lost them. The reason is that part of the exercise must necessarily be to simultaneously transform the society back into one where the common culture admires probity, virtue, and morality. Otherwise, without a population which knows how to restrain itself, our Constitution would create anarchy.

My observation is that anarchists shout louder than anybody, which is why I don't listen to them either.

[Liberty]

Thanks Charles for unlocking it.
I think the referenced post was interesting and brings to mind the intentions of the what the 2nd amendment really means. While Mr. smith might take this to an extreme, it can not be denied that the purpose of both the 1st and second amendment was to remind our our Government that it exist soley at the pleasure of its citizens, and it is governments purpose to serve us, We the people are not put on this earth to serve any government. Its that pesky God given rights thing again.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Today this isn't so much about actual revolution, but letting our Government know who is boss. Notice though we are not to take overthrow lightly, as highlighted in red. But once they strip away our arms, and strip out our right of free press and speech, we become slaves to our governments will.

Mr. Smith also makes a case that the 2nd Amendment was not about hunting or even self protection. It was about military arms. He is absolutely right; the early Americans owned much of the of the military equipment personally. Including musket, cannon, even warship. We are now restricted to the most primitive arms of the modern world. If an armed society means a polite society, think just how polite we would be if we were allowed real military grade weaponry.

Either our Constitution means what it says or it doesn't mean anything anymore.

Sure all this might sound radical, but I find it interesting that in Iraq, Our forces were concidering imposing a ban on all weaponry, they decided that that the populace needed the ability to protect themselves. One might notice that the folks in Iraq aren't armed with bolt actions or semiautomatics, but mostly with full auto AKs. Gee if it is good enough for them, ...

[israel67]

Today this isn't so much about actual revolution, but letting our Government know who is boss. Notice though we are not to take overthrow lightly, as highlighted in red. But once they strip away our arms, and strip out our right of free press and speech, we become slaves to our governments will.

Interestingly enough, I spent at least an hour last night watching and reading news of the confiscation of weapons from citizens, right after the Katrina disaster. I was aghast!

Perhaps my views are coloured by the regime (I choose my words carefully) under which we live in France. Whereas in the United States, you may be able to say that the government is there to serve you, here, it's the opposite. It's a criminal offence to insult a civil servant. It's a criminal offence to say that the courts suck. Insult the President in public, and you can find yourself in gaol.

Wow, and I actually live in this place. Lemme out, as soon as possible ..

Anyway. I was shocked by the footage of the gun confiscations on the NRA site and youtube, because without exception, every citizen meekly surrendered his weapons. What happened to 'cold, dead fingers ..' ? Legally, what would have been the position of a citizen who responded with deadly force to what was in effect, unlawful seizure of his weapons? Theft.

And what sanctions did the officials involved suffer? I read that the Senate basically changed the law to make any future such seizures illegal. Does that mean that they were legal?

And most of all ... if a disaster such as Katrina befell the US on a wider scale ... would y'all just stand there and let the police take your weapons off you, if the President ordered it?

[CHL/LEO]

would y'all just stand there and let the police take your weapons off you, if the President ordered it?

I think it would be unconstitutional except during Martial Law and it would probably be the governor that declared that. Interesting question though because when Martial Law is enacted it basically suspends habeas corpus. Whether this allows a governor or the President to order the seizing of weapons I'm not sure. Perhaps this new recently passed law that you referred to addresses this.

[Liberty]

would y'all just stand there and let the police take your weapons off you, if the President ordered it?

I think it would be unconstitutional except during Martial Law and it would probably be the governor that declared that. Interesting question though because when Martial Law is enacted it basically suspends habeas corpus. Whether this allows a governor or the President to order the seizing of weapons I'm not sure. Perhaps this new recently passed law that you referred to addresses this.

My copy of the constitution doesn't mention Martial Law or say anything about allowing the President to suspend the rights given by the constitution.

[The Annoyed Man]

Anyway. I was shocked by the footage of the gun confiscations on the NRA site and youtube, because without exception, every citizen meekly surrendered his weapons. What happened to 'cold, dead fingers ..' ? Legally, what would have been the position of a citizen who responded with deadly force to what was in effect, unlawful seizure of his weapons? Theft.

The reality of the situation is that, if you responded with deadly force and you actually killed a police officer in the process, you would most likely be charged with murder. Whether or not you would be convicted is an open question, but the odds are that you would. Curiously, the fact that most law abiding citizens would surrender their weapons if ordered to do so, proves the point that it is not necessary.

And what sanctions did the officials involved suffer? I read that the Senate basically changed the law to make any future such seizures illegal. Does that mean that they were legal

No, the seizures were not even remotely legal. The officers and officials involved suffered no sanctions personally, other than having their local or national reputations tarnished. In fact, they lost their legal battle and were required by the courts to return all of the confiscated weapons to their rightful owners - an order with which they have, for the most part, not yet complied. As it turns out, the place of storage they used in a flooded area resulted in many of the firearms being kept under water for an extended period of time, permanently ruining them. In those cases, neither have they compensated the rightful owners for their loss of property.

And most of all ... if a disaster such as Katrina befell the US on a wider scale ... would y'all just stand there and let the police take your weapons off you, if the President ordered it?

Most certainly not. You have to understand the local political landscape of New Orleans going into the Katrina event to understand why things turned out the way they did. Other U.S. cities have suffered major devastation from hurricanes prior to Katrina, and none of them, to the best of my recall, ever had the sociopolitical fallout that happened with Katrina. Other American cities have experienced near total devastation, and yet none of them ever experienced the complete breakdown of political leadership and social order as did New Orleans. The bottom line is that both the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans were manifestly incompetent for the positions to which they had been elected. The state and local Democratic party political machines were very powerful at the time, and they kept the masses in line with bread and circuses. You had a city population with a majority of whom depended on government for assistance "entitlements" and who were used to suckling at the government teat. They had lost the ability to think for themselves and the drive to take personal responsibility for their condition. You had a complete breakdown of social services and local government's inability to lead was manifestly apparent. You had a number of police officers (but by no means all of them) abandoning their posts and joining in the looting.

An example of incompetence: after Katrina made landfall in Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin had meetings with President Bush on board Air Force One, on the tarmac, in which Bush made specific offers of federal aid and intervention. Blanco, instead of accepting the aid straight away, told Bush that she needed 24 hours to decide whether or not to accept it. Meanwhile, people were already dying deaths directly attributable to her inaction, looters were out of control, and social order had more or less completely broken down. At real issue was whether Blanco, a Democrat who despised the Bush administration, ought to accept help from a Republican president she hated. Mayor Ray Nagin, a Democrat who had endorsed current Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, and who was truly in over his head as Mayor during a disaster of this magnitude, had counseled that she accept Bush's offer. The fact that Nagin, a de facto rival, was urging her to put aside partisanship and do the right thing, must have made the pill even more bitter and harder for her to swallow. Whatever her motivations (upon which it is almost impossible to cast a good light), Blanco fiddled while Rome burned. It became apparent that she had absolutely no understanding of the Posse Comitatus Act, which, at the time, required her to request the law enforcement assistance of the National Guard before such assistance could be given. She tried to blame the president for inaction, when in fact, it was her own inaction which forced his inaction.

In short, New Orleans/Katrina was a "perfect storm" (pun very much intended) - an unhappy confluence of incompetence, corruption, personal sloth, stupidity, fear, and years of disastrous liberal policies, all coming together at a moment when even an upright and sober leadership with the best interests of its people in heart would have been severely tested. New Orleans was already a preloaded cesspool of leadership incompetence, welfare entitlements, and immorality, all simmering just underneath the surface and waiting for a triggering event like Katrina to reveal it to the world.

We are nowhere near being a perfect nation, but the majority of Americans possess and display more common sense on a daily basis than was exhibited in New Orleans during Katrina. I firmly believe that a gun confiscation effort on a national scale would result in an overthrow of government, partly because it would be difficult to motivate American troops to fire on their own citizenry for the purpose of putting down such a rebellion on a national scale, and partly because the gun grabbers have made the stupid decision to disarm themselves, and are therefore in no position to enforce such a thing on the rest of us who are armed. Also, the spectacle in New Orleans of legal gun owners being forcibly disarmed by a police force acting outside of their constitutional authority was a real wakeup call for the nation. I don't think it will happen again.

(...edited to correct a misspelling, and to add a link explaining "posse comitatus"...)