Allow me to give you a refresher course on American history.
Alien and Sedition Acts
Suspension of Habeus Corpus During U.S. Civil War
Suspension of Habeus Corpus During War on Terrorism
Habeus Corpus in the U.S. - See “Suspension During WWII and its Aftermath”
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 - See the Suspension Clause
I’m sure there are more examples.
A quick reading of the suspension during the “War on Terrorism” seems to indicate the US courts agree that it is unconstitutional.
I can’t get over this line of reasoning:
So, they’re not taking it away, you just do not have it to begin with. It would be a bad dream if it were not for the fact that this was the US government for eight years.
That would be the state lying, Hentor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo [72]
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/10/09/nra_to_settle_suit_over_katrina_gun_seizures/ [73]
“No one will be (able to be?) armed. We’re going to take all the weapons.” There’s video of the sheriff saying it. There’s video of them arresting people in houses and taking their guns. Right there. See it? This is pretty much settled fact, Hentor. Are you denying history?
I was reading this week that the jump start for a citizen arming itself came at the Paul Revere ride. Lexington and Concord were our arsenals. The Brits came in and captured them both leaving us in a bad place. We had to rely on the citizens arms for a while after that.
Partially. (Family history says that our rifle came from a british soldier watering the trees behind a pub.)
But remember, up till after the Civil War, with no standing army, even those arsenals were largely privately owned. Eg, John Williams, who owned, say, the Williamsberg Plantation would decide, “I want to be a captain.” And he’d buy some cannons and some rifles and make some uniforms, and everyone’d join up in town.
Whether or not they were in the right would depend entirely on whether the orders they were given were lawful orders. Which brings us to the next point:
Since when does a “State of Emergency” allow the government to suspend the Bill of Rights? The Constitution specifically allows habeas corpus to be suspended in certain situations (specifically “in cases of rebellion or invasion”), but I’m not aware of anything in the Constitution that would grant the government unlimited power under any circumstance. Would it also be legal for the government to regulate the exercise of religion or speech during a natural disaster? How about instituting a set of cruel and unusual punishments in an effort to reign in lawlessness by making a public example of a few troublemakers?
I will echo ParentalAdvisory’s sentiment that the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act, while an appropriate recognition that the confiscations were not right, was in fact, much like the Bill of Rights itself, merely an exception to powers not granted in the first place.
Then they can go fuck themselves, that’s not what a Militia is.
A militia has no use in that situation, Militias cannot, by and large, enforce peace and law efficiently. They’re not trained to do so. They’re trained to resist “enforced peace and law”, whether foreign or domestic.
And, while I disagree with Lumpy, I respect that he would be willing to do that for his community.
Since Militias are voluntary forces, AFAIK, they could only request you join.
Echoed again.
Looks like more lying politician bullshit.
And more Hentor making it a point to insult those of us who own guns.
You and me both.
The three of us.
Well, there’s no video of anyone being arrested in a house, or of the police even talking to anyone in a house. However, the narrator does say that the police did do so. Based on that, it appears that I was wrong, and I apologize for that.
Well, there’s video of guys sitting on what appears to be the front of a house in handcuffs, talking about their guns being taken. I admit that didn’t show the actual entry and confiscation, but it does seem to be fairly conclusive. I did note no actual confiscation was shown, but figured the implication was strong enough to allow it.
Thank you, accepted.
Also, it’s factual that over a thousand guns were confiscated. Assuming 15 guns a house, that’s still a lot of people. I’d hate to think it was just from random people walking the street.
Again I ask, who decides whether the order is lawful or not, and in what way do you disobey a supposedly unlawful order?
I would not have shot them, I would have told them that I lost my firearms in a rather tragic boating accident.
http://www.agfc.com/!userfiles/gallery/medium/accident_md.jpg
You know what the answer to that question is. I will. I will also be the one who lives with such consequences as may be. Proceed with the sneering that you’re aching to do.
Just as I thought. You haven’t got the guts to actually say what you would do if the law came for your weapons-just false bravado and broad hints. What say the rest of you? Is Scumpup the person you would turn to for legal advice?
I think pretty much everyone in this thread would do exactly as they were told. It’s easy to bluster on a message board. Only a truly, unhinged psychopath would murder police officers trying to do their job.
It would also be really stupid. If the shooter wan’t instantly killed by other cops, he’d end up in prison and lose all rights to own a firearm for the rest of his life. It’s not like you’d be able to get away with it and go about your life.
ETA, on second thought, I think most people would just hide their guns and deny they had them. I doubt the cops would search that thoroughly. I think they were more concerned about the retards walking around in the streets with them that with those holed up in their homes.
In any case, only those who were actually clinically disturbed would try to have a shootout.
The person being given the order.
If they’re wrong in the opinion of the courts, or maybe a jury of their peers, then they may face consequences though.
If the officer tries to use force to institute compliance, regardless of lawfulness, then they then they could face some problems as well.
There’s no chance the officers would be in any legal trouble for enforcing the order. Even if you want to argue that they were following an unlawful order, you’d still have to prove they KNEW it was an unlawful order, and that would be all but impossible.
I guarantee, it would be no defense for anyone who tried to shoot at the cops. Joe citizen doesn’t get to decide he’s allowed to kill cops just because he has personally adjudicated that cop’s order to be “unlawful.” There is no more question of “self-defense” involved than there is with any other law that LE personel use force to enforce.
How far does this go?
If you’re assaulted and unable to defend yourself, in lawless post Katrina New Orleans, after the confiscation will the cops pay your medical bills, therapy, and possibly funeral expenses for you and your family?
If the police wanted to cuff you to a tree in Compton with the word “snitch” tapped to your forehead would resisting that be okay?
At what level of jeopardy do cop orders expose you to risk without resisting being an act of self defense?
And who will pay your bail(if you’re lucky) or your funeral expenses(if you’re not?)
You have two choices: