I've always wanted to ask this, as I haven't seen it posted: What does the 2nd mean to you?  Or, to put it another way, if the gov't passed a national gun ban, would you enforce it?

If you disagree w/the courts about a ruling on something that you believe is of fundamental importance, what do you do? Is there a line that can't/shouldn't be crossed, or is it just about the job?

I really don't expect too many replies, as a career might be put on the line just by responding, though I could be wrong. Neither am I posting this try to put anyone on the spot, or to be rude. Considering some of the legislation that has (or will?) been crafted recently, it seems important to know how much teeth these laws might have.

Why am I asking this? Back when I lived in the PRK, I knew a guy who liked to shoot, and who was attending the POST academy. He had recently acquired the right to carry, and so we got into a discussion about J.Q. Public's firearms rights. His opinion?: "I don't care, because I have mine now."



Thanks for the replies. For the record, I'm not a "pick & choose" constituent. I do my civic duty, vote my conscience, voice my opin's to my reps., and legally purchase all that I own, firearms or otherwise. My 1st degree was in criminology (10 years ago), and dilemmas were presented  as part of a class on problem solving and decision-making (not as simple as some would think).

As far as, "...filling up our jail cells," is concerned, I've managed 35 years w/o being otherwise detained, questioned, arrested, etc.
I've also worked for 6.5 years in a psych. hospital (the very one where Buford Furrow had come in and subsequently held a knife to one of the RN's throats - I was there then), and understand all too well what the worst/ugliest elements of society can be like.

This is an issue that concerns probably everyone who frequents this site. I believe that the courts have not definitively spelled the matter out. If it really is a constitutional issue, then it requires clarification.

Sorry if I offended. Not the intent.

My answer has to be that I work to prevent laws from being passed that I dislike, work to repeal/change laws I dislike, and that I obey/defend the ones on the books, whether or not I agree with them.  If your response is "I obey the ones I like, and to hell with the rest!" you are the kind of folk that is filling up our jail cells.
you asked for opinions this is mine.
TRW

This is covered from time to time. Stick around and you'll see it again. I took an oath of office to enforce the law. I do not make the law. The whole of society is responsible for the laws that are created. If you do nothing to oppose the enactment of laws you disagree with then you give tacit approval to their enforcement. There is still room for officer discretion in every law. I am no more zealous in enforcing firearms related laws than any other law. My short answer is yes, that's what the people pay me for.

What TRW said.  You really don't want the police to be able to decide if a law should be enforced or not or how it should be enforced.  That is what leads to a police state.  If a law were to go against my fundamental sense of "rightness" I might get out of the business rather than enforce it, but that is the policemans job, enforcement.  Legislatures legislate and courts judge, not the police.

M_B,
I was not implying that you are one of the scoff-laws that are generatting the downfall of society today, that was my generalizing.  Perhaps I should have placed that sentance in quotes.  I do hold strong opinions on getting the laws adjusted/corrected.  We (the royal we) have seen the impact that a few vocal soccer moms can have on a subject, getting books banned from high school because they imply that women have breasts or some such.  The squeeky wheel does get the grease, if a law on the books is wrong, then get off your rear, prove it to the lawmakers and get it changed!!  Most of this is not for you M_B but for the silent majority that needs to get moving.  By coming to sites like this and reading we can hope to open their eyes and then their minds and get things headed in the right direction.  Write to you elected officials, let them know what you want them to hear.  They are stuck here in DC and need your input!  It is amazing how big of an impact E-Mail and phone calls make, but biggest impact is snail mail.
No I am not in politics, I am serving my country in the military, now in my twentieth year.
TRW

OK Lew,
If it is passed by your elected officials and signed by your elected president into law you would not support and defend that Law?
Now I am confused
TRW

edited to add, I am not talking about the lawfulness of an order from a senior, my discussion was about an actual signed law.
TRW

Quoted: I took an oath of office to enforce the law. I do not make the law. The whole of society is responsible for the laws that are created. I am no more zealous in enforcing firearms related laws than any other law. My short answer is yes, that's what the people pay me for.

Edited....deleted for content.

Deleted for content


I dont really like police either.

Why in gods name should I

A) Give a xxxx what you think enough to "apologize" for an opinion of mine ?

Ain't gunna happen.

You are right when you say I went too far in saying "Better Start Wearing IIIA"- I don't want anyone to think I am actively going to harm LEO's, becasue i'm not.

I will ammend that to say...

"If A time ever comes in this country where social order has decayed to the point where people are shooting people with impunity, you'd better wear IIIA, becasue I will hunt LEO's down like the pigs they are, and snipe them. Until that point, it is illegal to do so, so I won't"

account locked.....again, quess it was just a matter of time. Kuiper

Quoted: However, when something goes bump in the dark I find these same folks dialing 9-1-1 real fast

No, that is the "dependant element" I mentioned.
Not me. When somethng goes bump, i'm L&L with the 870, and takin care of buisness. The only time you will ever get a call from me is to either cealn up the mess, or handle a situation the law forbids me to handle with a firearm (Example- Someone is breaking into my car. I can't shoot him, so I hold him until you arrive)

I would rather see a society without you than with you- and no. I am not the "first to dial 911"- ever, never have been, never will be.

Benjamin- Interesting you mention that-
I met an ex Airborne dude who mentioned a lot of stuff like that. He never mentioned shooting it out with the Gubment, but he did mention plans him and his boys had to get out of Europe and dessert should UN start using them for stupid reasons..

Interesting guy to talk to.

Look,I know who you feel here and that freedom and rights are waht we all are working for.
We want to hold on the our rights and freedoms and there are some of "us" that feel that laws are just in the way.

The truth is there has never been a law pass that would take any gun away from anybody ever!
There have been laws that would keep us from getting new ones,but only people that brake the law(as it has been from day one)are unable to have guns.

Now we have to fight it out with the commie left all the time but they never win(I know I know "thats bull sh!t A2.....show me!)
Everbody in every state can have a hand gun if they are of age,everybody in ever state can have class3 weapons if they put in the time and work to get one and everbody in any state can have guns in there homes.

Here is the truth of it,most people today are cry babies,they don't know waht freedom is.
People to day think that freedom is being able to do whatever you want and that nobody can ever tell you anything (same the left says)
The founder set up a sys. of rules and laws,in this sys. we are freedom do just about anything we want but not everthing.
The founder made it so we would be able to have firearms but the never siad that everbody should have them.
Can you really say to me that everbody you know should be able to have a gun(or drive a car or anything that a dumb ass could kill somebody with)?

Anyway no I would never have any part of a law that banned all guns for everybody in the US,but there will never be such a law and there is noone other that some cry baby in a tinfoil hat to say there will be a total ban.
Even big wig dens like our buddy Al Gore did not have the balls to come right out and be totaly anti-gun,we have more power that you may think.

To tell you the truth, I agree with Carrots. I've never really followed the McUzi Saga, but he is mostly right on this topic. Killing LEO's for the sake of killing LEO's is wrong, but if they are enforcing an unjust and unconstitutional order. especially if they are attempting to deny and violate one of the inalienable rights, than any resistance to that is just. It might not be prudent, unless we are in national SHTF situation, but it would be right.

The U.S. has flourished within the 210 some odd years off the existence of the 2nd amendment.

Who's to say this country would have better without it?

I for one would find it unacceptable for someone to come to my house and try to take my guns away.

I honestly believe IF the 2nd was abolished. Civil war would erupt with any attempt of enforcing it.


[yea ok my spelling sucks...]

Remember that laws are:
 
  A: Made to be broken.

  B: Made to create criminals of the populace
     in order to keep the status quo.

The more people that are convicted, the less voters that can challenge the laws that may be unjust.  When LEO'S or the military say that they are just upholding the laws because they are in fact laws it relieves them of the need to  check their conscience before they act and clears their conscience after the act.  So in essence they are lemmings.  Until I see proof that someone in an authority type position is willing to buck the system and say "This is not right" I will continue my distrust of any one in that position.