2nd Admendment Sanctuary?

Woody and others that know me here can tell you all, I own and carry. I do it legally! I inherited a collection as well as own my own. I sold the ones I wasn't allowed to own to legal, licensed collectors. Now I'm told my Bushmaster and Colts will have me listed as a Felon! I bought them many years ago, they were legal then.

I talked with our Sheriff today about all this, he assures me they will have a very difficult time enforcing any such law. Even if passed it would be tied up in the courts for many years to come.

I am for more realistic gun laws. Deeper background checks, physician reporting for depression or other TRUE red flags. I don't know enough about PTSD but I'm sure the are some warning flags there as well. But still all of these just keep a honest man / women honest. Nothing more.

I fear I do see history starting to repeat itself

Dwna1a,
If you have to dispose of your suddenly soon-to-be illegal firearms, I will gladly provide a safe, new home for them. They will have a happy large family down here in Louisiana.


But let’s hope it never comes to that.

There just another reason to keep a few at a undisclosed remote locations, buried in a LTC

DWABoat said:

I don’t chime in on politics. I keep my politics to myself. This discussion is not political. I am a registered Independent. No bias here. I have to jump in on this one.

To get an arrest warrant to take someone’s liberty, even temporarily, the government must produce evidence, in the amount of probable cause, that someone has committed, or actually tried to commit, a crime. There must be some action to point at to convince the judge to sign the warrant. So, if criminal nutcase wanted to commit some violent crime, but had done nothing at all towards that crime - no discussion with a witness, no obtaining the means, no written plans, etc, then it would be virtually impossible to document intent that the person intended to commit a crime. If nutcase talked about doing something bad, had plans, etc, we can already address that situation with attempt or conspiracy laws.

I am dumbfounded that these laws allow the government to take someone’s property when there are only the opinions and concerns of others that they may do something bad in the future. This is a very scary path.

Supposedly, the goal is to prevent a violent crime and, thus death and injury.
If the concerns are the person will commit an act of violence in the future, then the recent stabbings in Europe dictate that we must take all edged weapons as well. Later, we see the person could drive into a crowd. Take the car. Later we learn the person could mix household chemicals in a pressure cooker. Take the bleach and the cooking instruments. How do we solve the problem of neutering a threat? Taking the guns will not do this. The govt will have to take all threatening instrumentalities.

When the Red Flag laws are unsuccessful in stopping violence, as they will fail, the govt will have to expand the scope to what is being taken and who is subject to being neutered.

When a govt can take your liberty, take your property, and take your speech, because of something you may do, we as a country have crossed to the side of totalitarianism. Period. No argument can change the fundamental concept.

I write this as a 26-year law enforcement officer. Red Flag Laws are a bad power to give me or anyone. Period.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the Republican Party.

Golfman25 said:

I wouldn't even apply "red flag" laws to that situation. We are talking about the guy who for several days or weeks before an event makes statements, acts out, posts on social media, that something is going down and has weapons. There needs to be a trail of evidence, circumstantial though it may be. Have to make the standard more than "he's scary."

Click to expand...

Golfman, well before red flag laws were even thought of (back in the 80's and 90's) it was not difficult to get a court order to remove one's firearms, swords, etc., from his possession to be kept by the police until a hearing could be held to determine if the seizure was justified.

Years have passed but things have not really changed all that much.

Bt Doctur said:

There just another reason to keep a few at a undisclosed remote locations, buried in a LTC

Click to expand...

LTC? Long term care?

Gofirstclass said:

Golfman, well before red flag laws were even thought of (back in the 80's and 90's) it was not difficult to get a court order to remove one's firearms, swords, etc., from his possession to be kept by the police until a hearing could be held to determine if the seizure was justified.

Years have passed but things have not really changed all that much.

Click to expand...

What has changed is the mass shootings which are usually preceded by several clear signs of trouble. The police say they "can't do anything" so whatever laws we have these days aren't working. So there is a place for red flag laws. But I share the concerns of many. I don't trust ex's. Any out of control DAs. Thus they must be tightly written with sever penalties for abuse. They should also sunset automatically so they are reviewed every few years.

dwna1a said:

Woody and others that know me here can tell you all, I own and carry. I do it legally! I inherited a collection as well as own my own. I sold the ones I wasn't allowed to own to legal, licensed collectors. Now I'm told my Bushmaster and Colts will have me listed as a Felon! I bought them many years ago, they were legal then.

I talked with our Sheriff today about all this, he assures me they will have a very difficult time enforcing any such law. Even if passed it would be tied up in the courts for many years to come.

I am for more realistic gun laws. Deeper background checks, physician reporting for depression or other TRUE red flags. I don't know enough about PTSD but I'm sure the are some warning flags there as well. But still all of these just keep a honest man / women honest. Nothing more.

I fear I do see history starting to repeat itself

Click to expand...

I was born in Virginia and it has been home for the last 40 years. The dems also controlled the House, Senate and the Governor's mansion 20 years ago and got thrown out for passing tax increases and really divisive laws. So we are headed for Version 2.0 of that next year.

It is the cycle of politics. Your Sheriff friend is correct....the dems are simply pushing extreme positions to get more moderate ones passed. Virginia is home to the NRA who has equally bankrolled southern dems in the State as well as the GOP. Northern Virginia is the dems stronghold. But Northern Virginia does not have the votes to get NY or Kalifornia style laws passed in the State.

I will also point out that this past Black Friday the number of guns that were sold in the US exceeds the number of Marines in the Marine Corps.....so I'm not worried.....yet.

Gun and immigration laws have something in common.
The problem with both is with the illegal versions, not legal versions.
All these proposed gun laws are nonsense. They make nice sound bites for politicians to use in times of crisis or to sway votes. But that’s about it.
Mentally ill mass murderers are going to find a way to achieve their twisted goals no matter what the law says.
If they can’t get their hands on a gun they’ll use a knife, bomb or other instrument.
There are plenty of good gun laws already on the books around this country that aren’t properly applied.
My experience is that law enforcement does their job and makes the arrests, but local prosecutors (politicians) drop the ball with prosecutions.
We don’t need more gun laws.
What we really need is a ban, or laws prohibiting, career politicians!

DWA without saying to much, I had one safe of my own a old Remington. Then I brought my dads here. Everything in mine is registered but under the wording of the law mine are legal except for a new Sig that has a mag that carries more than 9 rounds. MANY of my long arms will not fit into anyone's safe, early Springdields. IF I had to move things around I'd be asking many of my friends for help.

GO1st I do have two single shot 22's boys Stevens Crackshots. Both I was told to remove the stocks to make them legal. I did and stored the stocks. I've asked five different dealers and other collectors, maybe you can tell me.
What makes them illegal while the stock is on? I'm hopeful your past job might give you some insight others don't have.

I will be going to the meeting on the 10th, I still don't see how this can be legal for ANY group to do and what do they think is going to happen at the next election?

PlayD the Commonwealth can be a messed up place, monument removal and history being erased are top among them but I a true Virginian as was my dad and many grandfathers before him. Hell I still have one of their dog tags 61st VA / Norfolk. But one of the illegal things they have named is a concealed weapon he picked up at the 1st battle of Manassas, it's a gentalmans walking stick. Very legal in the 17 and 1800's but it would be a weapon today.

Virginia is my home, no matter how messed up they are or are seeming headed towards

Gofirstclass said:

I would be in favor of a punishment for an improper use of a red flag law. An example, a soon to be ex-wife who is pi$$ed off at her hubby and wants a way to get back at him calls her local police and tells them (untruthfully) that he has threatened to shoot her and has a houseful of guns to do it.

The cops come, take his guns and he'll have to spend a lot to go through the judicial game playing to get them back.

That is just not fair and the penalties for that should be the same as for mis-reporting any crime.

Click to expand...

Totally agree there. I makes me angry when well intentioned rules for the preservation of safety are corrupted by self-serving jerks. There seems to be not enough repercussions for they types of abuse you mention.

I'm not an expert on how these red flag laws are set up from place to place. And I'm not a lawyer. IMO, the court hearing should take place BEFORE the property is seized. In an expedited fashion.

OllieC said:

Maybe so, however the problem with your argument is there are 'commas' in the sentence of the Amendment.
Seems psycho's who "had" unfettered access to guns until the last couple of decades weren't an issue like today. What changed?

Click to expand...

Yeah so many debates from the placement of commas. They don't exactly make the message super clear.

What changed? A lot, in my opinion. Much easier access to firearms, in part from modern manufacturing methods (guns used to be SUPER EXPENSIVE and low production products). Lower cost of firearms relative to income. Firearms that are infinitely more powerful than when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were being drafted and debated. More people (population density. More people with mental issues. The cost of and dearth of available mental health treatments for people that need it. And, perhaps most relevant, the continued mass shootings and deaths that show there are people willing to plan and carry out murders.

Look, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I just can't imagine that the Framers would really be OK with letting mentally unstable people horde lots of high power weapons. If the purpose of the 2nd is to have a ready militia to defend the nation, it seems counter intuitive to let unstable people have weapons. They won't be good members of a well regulated militia.

b_arrington said:

......
Look, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I just can't imagine that the Framers would really be OK with letting mentally unstable people horde lots of high power weapons. If the purpose of the 2nd is to have a ready militia to defend the nation, it seems counter intuitive to let unstable people have weapons. They won't be good members of a well regulated militia.

Click to expand...

I won debate in 6th grade on the issue of 2A.

What I think gets lost in the over-analyzing and interpretation of the words and commas, is the underlying concern during those times.

They were framing a constitution designed to protect the individual from any form of government. They had fled their country and took great risks and sacrifices to leave oppression. They understood how power corrupts. That's why they put checks and balances in the three branches of our national government.

Obviously they went round and round on the wording and what they would agree on to get it into the Bill. But, it should be clear, it was to give power to the people so if the gov't attempted to oppress them they could defend themselves. 2A has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with the freedom to protect yourself as an individual and as a collective militia. The words simply get twisted to fit an agenda...

What people get lost in is the era. In other words, they think the founders weren't intelligent enough to foresee the innovation in weaponry. The thought is that this only applied when guns were muskets. But, that is a fallacy, because the founders were intelligent and didn't write "The right to bear muskets", nor did they write "the right to bear guns". They wrote "the right to bear arms". In other words, weaponry equally balanced to defend against an oppressive gov't.

This freedom that we take for granted. And, by freedom, I mean responsibility, is by no means not as important today as it was when written. Take a look around the globe at all the oppression. You can not spin it in any direction and not put your finger on an oppressive regime. - Not centuries ago - Today -....Hong Kong, North Korea, Syria, Iran, China, etc, etc...

I've said it many times. If you were born in the USA, by some miracle, you are one of the luckiest persons in the world. Our nation is far (far) from perfect. But the founders gave us a gift. A gift, those of little intelligence and fore-site, seem intentionally willing to destroy.

It is almost incomprehensible.

Further, I mention that 2A in as much of a gift as it is, is equally a responsibility. A responsibility some take with honor, and others can't fathom.

If your fortitude is such that you need people to defend you and look for others for protection, ok, no worries. You want to depend on 911, that's fine...But, move aside, and don't get in the way of defenders.

====

Now to your question of the mentally unstable. - We have a mental health crisis in the US that needs to be addressed. Most "mass" shooters really are not psychopaths, they are people / children in need of help learning how to cope. They reach their breaking point because everything has failed them. The worst part is, coping skills in adolescents is getting worse.

Does any of this mean we need "red-flag" laws? Not in my opinion. The harsh reality is that we don't live in a utopia or perfect world. Sadly, incidents will happen. The law already has the power to remove weapons or hold someone they feel is dangerous through due process...These red-flag laws are just liberals being lazy and not addressing the real issues.

(I wrote too much)

dwna1a said:

DWA without saying to much, I had one safe of my own a old Remington. Then I brought my dads here. Everything in mine is registered but under the wording of the law mine are legal except for a new Sig that has a mag that carries more than 9 rounds. MANY of my long arms will not fit into anyone's safe, early Springdields. IF I had to move things around I'd be asking many of my friends for help.

GO1st I do have two single shot 22's boys Stevens Crackshots. Both I was told to remove the stocks to make them legal. I did and stored the stocks. I've asked five different dealers and other collectors, maybe you can tell me.
What makes them illegal while the stock is on? I'm hopeful your past job might give you some insight others don't have.

I will be going to the meeting on the 10th, I still don't see how this can be legal for ANY group to do and what do they think is going to happen at the next election?

PlayD the Commonwealth can be a messed up place, monument removal and history being erased are top among them but I a true Virginian as was my dad and many grandfathers before him. Hell I still have one of their dog tags 61st VA / Norfolk. But one of the illegal things they have named is a concealed weapon he picked up at the 1st battle of Manassas, it's a gentalmans walking stick. Very legal in the 17 and 1800's but it would be a weapon today.

Virginia is my home, no matter how messed up they are or are seeming headed towards

Click to expand...

I've read the Virginia bill. I don't see anything limiting your pistol mag capacity to 9 rounds.

When you say you had to remove the stocks of that little single shot .22, what do you mean by stocks? Do you mean butt end, forearm? or did you actually remove everything to make it unusable. I see nothing in the proposed bill that would make this single shot .22 illegal at all.

Boat Guy said:

(I wrote too much)

Click to expand...

Not at all to much.

b_arrington said:

Yeah so many debates from the placement of commas. They don't exactly make the message super clear.

What changed? A lot, in my opinion. Much easier access to firearms, in part from modern manufacturing methods (guns used to be SUPER EXPENSIVE and low production products). Lower cost of firearms relative to income. Firearms that are infinitely more powerful than when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were being drafted and debated. More people (population density. More people with mental issues. The cost of and dearth of available mental health treatments for people that need it. And, perhaps most relevant, the continued mass shootings and deaths that show there are people willing to plan and carry out murders.

Look, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I just can't imagine that the Framers would really be OK with letting mentally unstable people horde lots of high power weapons. If the purpose of the 2nd is to have a ready militia to defend the nation, it seems counter intuitive to let unstable people have weapons. They won't be good members of a well regulated militia.

Click to expand...

Brad,
Boat Guy's response in regards to the 2nd Amendment would be my response as well. I just can't write that well. All I have to say is that I'm a US Citizen and those are "my" Bill of Rights, not the Government's. The Government is there to protect my Liberties. As far as I'm concerned, they're failing.

In regards to easier access, I believe it was by far easier to acquire a firearm as early as a few decades ago. This Summer I shot my uncles bolt action 30-06 which he got from his dad. That 30-06 was mail ordered from a Woolworths catalog. The reason I was told this story was because at the time, the Government announced they would be banning all mail ordered rifle sales after the Kennedy assassination. He wanted to order one before the ban.

I have some questions: Why am I subjected to potential search and seizures because of the few that are unstable or are just plain'ol criminals ? Why am I penalized? Why are my liberties questioned & limited by the Government who was sworn to protect them? What have I done wrong - I'm not mentally unstable. How would these Red Flag Laws, including being 21 to purchase a firearm, have prevented some of these mass shootings?

As far as the Framers, the Framers never planned for the internet either. Does that mean we should limit freedom of speech to only the sane because freedom of speech is much more expansive - international?

I'm a firm believer that every American should be required to take a civics class on their Bill of Rights and also take a firearm safety course.

Here's a quote that somewhat applies as far as laws and regulations:
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
~Ayn Rand~

OllieC said:

Brad,


I'm a firm believer that every American should be required to take a civics class on their Bill of Rights and also take a firearm safety course.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
~Ayn Rand~

Click to expand...

Agree about the civics and firearm safety. Perhaps not so much with the quote.

I don't have a lot of answers about how to square the issue. Frankly I haven't participated a much debate on the subject.

I keep coming back to situations like Sandy Hook with all those dead kids. And the Colorado movie theater. And Las Vegas, etc. etc. Too many. How does one balance a one's right to bear arms, with other's right to live and not get shot? I don't know, and lots of others don't or we wouldn't be discussing this. I'm really tired of people getting murdered en mass .

Sarasota declared a 2nd sanctuary ... good stuff

b_arrington said:

Agree about the civics and firearm safety. Perhaps not so much with the quote.

I don't have a lot of answers about how to square the issue. Frankly I haven't participated a much debate on the subject.

I keep coming back to situations like Sandy Hook with all those dead kids. And the Colorado movie theater. And Las Vegas, etc. etc. Too many. How does one balance a one's right to bear arms, with other's right to live and not get shot? I don't know, and lots of others don't or we wouldn't be discussing this. I'm really tired of people getting murdered en mass .

Click to expand...

I love that quote because I believe it to be true. Not sure if you knew this but in 2015 there where over "80K Pages" of new Federal laws and regulations in the books. The year before over "70K Pages". Have you read them? I haven't. Adding more laws without enforcing current ones just adds more red tape - much like the proposed Red Flag Laws. Also, any law, the end result by not obeying said law, can result in death. Government is FORCE .....but I digress.

....and I'm not the one with the answers either, however as Boat Guy mentioned, I believe my family and I are the luckiest people on earth to be US citizens. This is the greatest experiment that civilization has ever experienced IMO.

I'm with you. Those events where horrid. Could they have been prevented - maybe, maybe not. Will we see more of this, it's likely. We see it weekly in our major metropolitan areas. We're approaching 470 in Chicago alone for 2019. However, the point I was trying to make was that stifling law abiding citizens liberties by adding new laws only works for the Government. It isn't going to make me more safe.

My last comment on this interesting issue.

Everyone must remember about any law, ordinance, or regulation, “The Government” is an abstract term. There is no faceless “Government.”
The Government will not take your property before you do anything criminal based solely on someone’s opinion.
Your property will be taken by real people. Sam, Nick, Sarah, Jose, Carolyn, etc. will decide whether you get to keep your property, and thus, your freedom.
People who never met you. People who don’t know anything about you, because they happen to have applied for a government job at the right time, will now make life changing decisions about you and your family.
Every law you pass. Every right you surrender to the Government, is you giving government employees more power to control your life.
Government employees are usually good, honest people. But they are no smarter or more knowledge than anyone else. Many work for the government because the government was hiring when they needed a job. Now, ten/fifteen years later, they are senior bureaucrats making life changing decisions.
The Red Flag Law process, as well written as it may be, will still be managed by human beings of average intelligence and experience. The secretary in a judge’s chamber has a lot of influence in a process. The clerk processing regulatory applications for TWIC cards, FFLs, and other applications, can make or break things easily.
Don’t steal. Don’t kill. Don’t rob. Don’t hurt anyone. These things you can control by your own actions.
By giving some distant human the power to control your life when you have done nothing to cause it, you are a servant.

After over two decades in government service including local, county, state, federal, and military, I think we have a great system in our country. However, I do not believe we should surrender our liberties to anyone, even other Americans. This is where we go too far, in my opinion.