Posted on 09/19/2019 4:16:48 AM PDT by from occupied ga
One has to recognize the racial aspects of gun control. There are millions of blacks who possess firearms illegally and the cops can’t disarm them NOW. So what happens when the Democrats turn tens of millions of white people (because, face it, “gun control” is about disarming whites) into criminals who own firearms? They can’t disarm millions of blacks now how in the world do they expect to disarm tens of millions of whites?
M — which essay features the mobile firing positions (sand-bagged) set up in the rear of full-sized pick ups?
Was that ‘When the Music Stops’?
New York has very strict gun laws...assault weapons must be registered in New York. I would expect that any unregistered assault weapon could be legally seized. In this "scenario" the cops could be fired for not following a legal order.
It will not be a one sided massacre with 50 cops killing one family. Cops, their SWAT trucks, and even their speed traps will be the targets of EFPs, drones, and other sorts of novelties that don't expose the one who set them to return fire.
“The law does not account for this sort of breach.“
Actually it does. Look up 18USC242 sometime.
L
legal peril?
The gun grabbers need not fear legal peril. Gun grabbers should fear existence peril. For them, gun grabbing becomes an existntial peril
If there is no law, then there is no law
Every day I log on to FR wondering when I will come across that day’s anti-cop thread. Today I have found it nice and early. Lol.
To clarify the NYC seizures, in 1976 New Yorkers were required to register "assault weapons" with the promise that the registration lists would never be used for confiscation (ha ha). Along came Dinkins and used the registration lists for confiscation. So they were not "unregistered," but registered so the police would know where to find them. I think that most of the owners complied with the demand to get rid of them one way or another and that there wer only about 40 or 50 actual raids, but "I was just following orders" seems to be good enough for all of the cops that participated.
Every day I log on to FR looking for a jack boot licking response and today I found it early. LOL
And the oathbreaking LEOs and FLEAs won’t be living behind the wire on secure firebases thousands of miles from their families, who are living way back in a safe and secure homeland.
It’ll be a long walk across that Target parking lot for the off-duty oathbreakers.
If I recall correctly, you are the one who denies that this statute 18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law) is about actions based on race, color, citizenship ...
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 ...
The cops who disarmed citizens after Katrina weren't indicted for criminal acts.
Maybe you are thinking of 1983 or Bivens actions. 18 USC 1983 provides money damages, a Civil action for deprivation of rights. Bivens is broader in some ways, and narrower in that it only covers conduct of federal officers.
When a statute is in place that criminalizes previously legal possession, the whole "color of law" thing disappears.
Pence let out one detail anout trump’s gun control package a couple of weeks ago. What is in your gun control mr prez.
NRA is silent on it, so I am returning my renewal with a note concerning their clear political agenda to cover for the gop.
After signing the bumpstock ban, it’s pretty clear, he is willing to allow gangs, criminals and government agencies such as NOAA, dept of Ed and others have fully automatic weapons.
Physicians are stepping in agressively.
Gun control under a republican.. congrats.
“is about actions based on race, color, citizenship ...”
Read it again:
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person...”
ANY person. The “or” is conditional.
L
No, any confiscation will be done by blue helmets at the request of a spineless liberal POTUS who wants domination of the populace, and can't reliably use the apparatus in place to accomplish it. They would have to use a group that has no responsibility to the Constitution.
As Schlichter stated, "I was just following orders" ended at the gallows in 1945.
If you consider this sentiment to be "anti-police," then the police you are referring to must be the Gestapo, the Stasi, or the KGB.
Certainly not oath-keeping American LEOs.
True dat.
FYI —
In case anyone needs them.
;-)
Was there a law passed requiring assault weapons owners to get rid of their assault weapons?
If there was such a law, then the police would be executing a legal order.
If there was no law but Dinkins issued an executive order that assault weapons were banned in NYC, then the situation would be exactly as written in the original article. The police would be violating the Constitution.
bkmk for later read.
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.