Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A sobering question

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A sobering question

    If there was a large earthquake here in California and you were given the order to confiscate weapons from all of the citizens, would you carry out that order? Please, ONLY LEO poll votes. Comments from ALL are welcome.Please view the link below before answering.


    http://youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
    19
    Yes, enthusiastically
    5.26%
    1
    Yes, with reservations
    31.58%
    6
    No, I would rather turn in my badge
    47.37%
    9
    I don't understand the question
    15.79%
    3
    Last edited by JPR; 06-05-2007, 04:03 PM.
    Jubilant Patriotic Republican

    America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

  • #2
    it'd be impossible to confiscate everyone's weapons...

    Comment


    • #3
      Senate Bill 5516

      I'm not sure if this bill is law, but SB 5516 will prevent confiscation during a natural disaster.

      This makes sense, people will need to defend themselves when all hell breaks loose.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by novmike View Post
        This makes sense, people will need to defend themselves when all hell breaks loose.

        1) Thank You......I have no desire to engage anyone in a gunfight... far from it...one of the last things in life that I would care to experience......However,
        if the cops are overwhelmed during a major catastrophe which I belive is the likely scenario for a period of time, the bad guys are probably going to notice and take advantage of the situation... I and my fellow citizens will then need to have the means to persuade them to keep on moving through our neighborhood with a friendly live and let live message.

        2) In addition, if the authorities adopt the "end justifies the means" mentality to ignore the 2nd and 4th amendments to the Constitution as the video seems to illustrate to me, then how hard will it be after that to start stripping the remaining Bill of Rights from the Constitution?
        Jubilant Patriotic Republican

        America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

        Comment


        • #5
          An order to seize firearms is against the Bill of Rights. It is an illegal order. I would disobey the order and keep my badge.


          Originally posted by US Bill of Rights
          Amendment II
          A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

          Amendment IV
          The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
          As it stands in my area of the county (with a few exceptions) a person can carry an exposed loaded firearm in the unincorporated areas (PC 12031).

          Originally posted by San Diego County DA's Office
          The issue is whether “or in any public place” was intended to be separate, or was it intended to be read together with “in an incorporated city” and with “in a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.” An appellate court, in People v. Knight (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1568, interpreted the section to apply only to two types of places:

          1. In any public place or on any public street in a incorporated city; or
          2. In any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.


          As interpreted in Knights, the phrase “in any public place or on any public street” refers only to when the person is in either an incorporated city or a prohibited (i.e., “no fire”) area of unincorporated territory. In other words, unless your defendant is in an “incorporated city,” or in a “prohibited area of an unincorporated territory,” it is not illegal to walk around with a loaded firearm. Any public place that is NOT within an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory is not covered by the statute.
          Last edited by jato; 06-05-2007, 07:02 PM. Reason: update

          Comment


          • #6
            Let me get this straight...I work in a portion of the city in which, more than 300,000 people live in less than eight square miles. Many apartment buildings and high-rises are here meaning several will collapse, and you and the NRA think that among the first orders given will be to confiscate firearms? I simply won't have the luxury of time and sufficient officers to undertake, let alone accomplish, a fool's errand like that.

            If you're using the highly-polished, well-oiled, clear-thinking political machinery of New Orleans as a template for disaster response vs. gun rights, you might as well use N.O. for the template for space exploration vs. brain surgery.
            "You're never fully dressed without a smile."

            Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

            Three things I know for sure: (1) No bad deed goes unrewarded, (2) No good deed goes unpunished, and (3) It is entirely possible to push the most devoted, loyal and caring person beyond the point where they no longer give a 5h!t.

            Comment


            • #7
              In the video link, at 1:18, there is an officer wearing a "California Highway Patrol" shoulder patch. It looks like the officer who tackled the old lady may be one as well (its hard to tell).

              So while someone from New Orleans may have issued the illegal order, it was carried out in part by California Officers who should have known better.

              Every officer reading this thread should be reminded of Federal Law 18 USC 242:

              Originally posted by [url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html]TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242[/url]
              Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jato View Post
                In the video link, at 1:18, there is an officer wearing a "California Highway Patrol" shoulder patch. It looks like the officer who tackled the old lady may be one as well (its hard to tell).

                So while someone from New Orleans may have issued the illegal order, it was carried out in part by California Officers who should have known better.

                Every officer reading this thread should be reminded of Federal Law 18 USC 242:
                Your absolutely right. I didn't notice that before. What I did notice before but did not mention, is that one of the victims said both the Coast Guard and the National Guard were with the sheriff's deputies that took his weapon.

                This is a problem that is obviously not restricted to just New Orleans law enforcement personnel.
                Jubilant Patriotic Republican

                America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

                Comment


                • #9
                  only from the "idiots" like gangmembers marching around during curfew hours- folks at home or protecting their businesses- they'd have no trouble from me- i'd check to see if they had laid out any knuckleheads,then keep going.If the big one ever hit and Calif was that messed up,we'd have our hands full ala New orleans,so hurting the "good people" by disarming them would be a waste of time..........
                  "we're americans ! We don't quit because we're wrong, we just keep doing it wrong UNTIL it turns out Right"...

                  Comment

                  MR300x250 Tablet

                  Collapse

                  What's Going On

                  Collapse

                  There are currently 5529 users online. 300 members and 5229 guests.

                  Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                  Welcome Ad

                  Collapse
                  Working...
                  X