Posted on 09/24/2005 12:47:27 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
A 12 man SWAT Team is not going to take on 100 ticked off armed citizens? The National Guard if called would examine the law 1st, I hope.
Sort of like the way the law was respected at Waco, huh?
Got bad news for you...
"Resisting the stupidity and ignorance of a tin-pot chief of city police and his equally wrongheaded local political bosses just doesn't cross that threshold for me."
That is your legal and lawful choice to make. I hope for your sake you never face such a thing, too. When I joined the military, I had to think out many of the things that I would and would not do, and make my decisions as much in advance as I could, so that when and if the time ever came, I'd know what to do. One thing you might want to consider, however, is that EVERYTHING comes down to local politics. Every single gun-grabber-wanna-be mayor in the country was elected by his local people. Likewise the governors, and even the federal people. You let them get away with it at the local level, they'll do it at the state level, and above.
If we can make enough of an example of the one in NOLA, it is unlikely to come to that elsewhere, but we need to have a clear picture of what things should be like, and what it will take to make them that way. Look at Waco, for example. I've little sympathy for David Koresh, but my own church has faced similar treatment in the past. I believe that even the Baptists have had such problems, although they may have forgotten them, since it has been so long ago. The Second Amendment was intended to secure all the other rights and freedoms, most especially from our government. If we, as a people, do not stand up for our second amendment rights, we won't have anything left.
That was the Feds who initiated that slaughter.
"Life is much better when your enemies are in the field, and not holding local office, isn't it?"
Yes, and they're certainly much easier to recognize then.
I left the People's Republic of California in 1973 partly to avoid such things. Oklahoma seems fairly free of such nonsense, so I'm not terribly worried that I'll have to back my words up with action, although I'm aware that it could happen. If I'd stayed in CA, I'd probably already be dead, or in prison.
I am partial to the Finnish variant of the Mosin Nagant, the 1939 model.
They are available for purchase at reasonable prices and are of excellent quality. The Nagant round is close to the 30-06 in stopping power too.
Great survival rifle for your cabin or truck.
My Nagant was made by the New England Westinghouse Company in 1915. Good shooter.
Just like a coward to deny that he ever gave the orders. Compass isn't fit to be dogcatcher, much less chief of police.
I thought the police were all busy looting........
I'll never forget the video of the 4 "law enforcement" officers that tackled the little old New Orleans lady because she refused to give up her pistol...
Now that was sad...while looters run amok!
"Count on me also. I stand with you."
Thanks, I appreciate that. It's a hard question. It can turn into a slippery-slope really quickly, too.
If this is correct, this is indeed a big win for the RKBA and the Second Amendment. Since neither the NRA's nor SAF's press released mentioned the grounds for the injunction, I was afraid it would be on unreasonable search and seizure grounds rather than the more stringent second amendment. "Unreasonable" can be subject to interpretation, "shall not be infringed", is pretty darn unambiguous.
If this is correct, this is indeed a big win for the RKBA and the Second Amendment. Since neither the NRA's nor SAF's press released mentioned the grounds for the injunction, I was afraid it would be on unreasonable search and seizure grounds rather than the more stringent second amendment. "Unreasonable" can be subject to interpretation, "shall not be infringed", is pretty darn unambiguous.
If the court ordered them to do so, they had best do that. Federal Judges, even more than most, do not look kindly on officials disregarding their orders. Can you say Contempt of Court? I know you can.
The people should have given them away bullets first.
Not this time, that would have given the police sympathy and an excuse to say "see, the people can't be trusted with guns in this city". Although it's possible the court would have ruled the same way, even if some had defended their property and their rights. After all, the judge knows the reputation of the NOPD and to a lessor extent perhaps, the other LA police agencies.
What you didn't get a reciept when you bought the gun? Guns have serial numbers, which are also on that receipt you know.
Well no matter, just go back to the dealer that you bought it from and get the serial number from the 4473 you filled out. I'm sure the dealer will be more than glad to find it for you. Records work both ways sometimes.
Generally it's true that you can't sue the government without their permission. However in this case, which is denial of rights case, the officials can be held individually liable. They'd better figure out how to get those firearms back into the hands of their rightful owners, or they'll end up paying for hundreds of guns out of their own pockets. Unless they have some sort of politicians equivalent of malpractice insurance, in which case their polices are about to be dropped or their premiums raised considerably. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.