Posted on 07/04/2015 1:13:35 PM PDT by Okimi2200
The Third Amendment was created to protect your home from being quartered by soldiers without your consent. It has very rarely been a matter of debate or litigation, until now.
Federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon recently ruled that the police are exempt from the 3rd Amendment with a case out of Henderson, Nevada after a family had their home broken into and seized by local law enforcement who stated they needed the home to gain a “tactical advantage” against suspected criminals in a neighboring house.
Police actually forced their way into this family’s home, pepperballed the father and his dog and then incarcerated the man for a day.
(Excerpt) Read more at truthandaction.org ...
It’s very simple; I stand firmly for the Constitution.
Some times I like the result of such a stance. Other times I dislike it. I work to change what I can, accept what I cannot change, and know the difference.
Regardless of my likes or dislikes, I don’t cry over the results.
What I have seen all too often over the years are jailhouse and shade tree lawyers who make it up as they go.... and cry over the results.
Actually, I believe you may well have the UTRWT (Unless They Really Want To) variant for government expediency.
What was your last FR screen name before you got zotted?
Do you want to make a feeble attempt to refute the legal realities and stare decisis citations here, or simply continue to make senseless “last angry man” accusations?
Smart people work to change laws they don’t like. Fools simply cry about them, beat their chests during screams of angst, then go home to 2 six packs and a crying towel.
Never been “zotted.” Have been snotted upon a few times by grandchildren. Is that what you had in mind?
Most people want to do the right thing and this practice takes advantage of that.
Are you out of your mind? Of course it is when you’re looking down the
barrel of a gun. If they act like a duck.....
...
You should write a brief and present it to the court. Let us know how it goes.
How about you stop and get a damn clue. buffoon
Please show where my legal points are wrong, with specific citations of final decisions.... or go away.
I have already shown theses cases and citations.
Please also learn that rudeness or does not equal correctness.
This is why the left always seems to win -
the people they oppose are of better character than they are.
And warned us against. However, as we became more "civilized", we gladly traded our freedom[s] and responsibilities for A bowl of the Government stew of "make us feel secure and provide for our needs and wants". This was not merely a request, it was a demand. We, as a Nation, over the years, traded our freedoms, and responsibilities for the Government stew of "Making one feel secure and giving one what they want".
Back in the 1700's, the kings troops also had the job of enforcing the will of the king, and the king's appointed governor, upon the people. As such, it can legitimately be argued that the Founders had intended "troops" to also include any and all armed government agents.
Decision point?
That’s a good question.
And unlike many good questions, it has a very simple answer:
Only when you are prepared for the LEOs, and often, many of their well armed and well trained friends, to shoot back.
Just like elections, bullets have consequences.... and they go both ways.
You may be 100% right, and still be 100% dead
And if you survive that encounter, you must be ready to put your life and liberty in the hands of a jury that MUST all agree your actions were proper and MUST all agree you had NO remedies other than shooting, or they will imprison you or ask that you be executed.
That is the real world answer.
That is the answer in the instant case, and every case.
Again, you ask good questions.
I’m sorry that I do not have an exact or easy answer to your important question, because so much would depend on the instant circumstances... and perhaps my life experiences.
Are we anywhere near armed rebellion now? No, although I see us on a road to that if it is not reversed.
I have made preparations to convert all my assets to hard, transportable ones, and leave the US if necessary. Actually, I would not consider it leaving the US, but rather the US having left me/us. That could occur sooner than later, due to a combination of political, racial, personal security and economic issues.
I would go where other Americans, similarly situated, have already “bought” a good government.
In the US currently, the question is one of, as you described it, “political bonds.” Are political bonds driven only by the Constitution, or are they driven in part by the last election? If only by the Constitution, then the Constitution as interpreted by whom?
Some interpretation will always be needed. For example, some court decided that Freedom of the Press also includes the freedom to air uncensored news on Radio and TV, and that was certainly not in the Constitution.
That was a good decision.
However, some other idiot decided the (non-existent) “Constitutional Right to Privacy” guaranteed the “right” to abortion on demand. It was, and obviously is, in a purely legal sense, a States issue.
P.S., Had a prof who asked, if the Right to Privacy is sacrosanct in terminating a pregnancy, then why do so many young people try to ensure everyone knows they are possibly starting a pregnancy, with noisy and/or public sex?
Regarding killing, I’ve killed or caused the killing of too many people in war, and too many tried to kill me. It’s pure luck (and a good XM177E2) that I am here.
I used to be a frequent hunter, and have no problem with it, but I now hunt only to provide meat for an Appalachian orphanage. (At least that’s my excuse!)
Actually, I think hunting would be more challenging if we gave guns to all the deer and bears.... but I digress.
F**K Ho Chi Minn and the other communist bosses, but I have been back to RVN too many times, and met too many good old soldiers who only thought they were doing right to want to engage in any more killing. They didn’t know anything more about socialism and communism than the typical inner city infantryman knew about Adam Smith and the Western economy. ... but if it comes down to me, the Mrs, the kids and grandkids, etc, and frankly, some local shopkeepers, etc. vs. some perps with guns; Mr. Glock and I will ensure the perps are DRT.
The problem isn’t the gun. The problem is the political issue, and absent the exact surroundings, I don’t have an exact answer for you.
All the best,
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.