Posted on 12/03/2002 6:32:19 AM PST by Iron Eagle
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:38:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Published in the Asbury Park Press 12/03/02 Fire alerts authorities to nearly 500 weapons By MICHAEL CLANCY STAFF WRITER FAIR HAVEN -- Three dump trucks removed an arsenal of live ammunition and almost 500 weapons -- all of them apparently held legally -- which police found in a home after the fire department responded to a chimney fire and the homeowner threatened the fire chief with a rifle, authorities said yesterday.
(Excerpt) Read more at app.com ...
And yet that appears to be a far less serious offense around here than calling someone a "fruitloop".
Comment 369 - removed.
Comment 372 - still there.
Yep, missed it, sorry. Sometimes you gotta draw us old guys a picture. LOL
It's the ideologue's highest guiding principle: "If they're fer it, then I'm ag'in' it."
We've all heard stories of people who stayed behind in carbon monoxide, poison gas filled burning buildings to save eople or beloved pets. That, I understand, because living things are involved. on the other hand, you don't generally hear of serious art or antique collectors staying behind to save one of a kind items. They apparently respect their own lives too much.
Meanwhile, take a guy who has weapons in every room of the house - items which are easily replacable (I looked at a National Match Garand 3 years ago for $1,200.00 - they're available), and he'll have a hemhorrage over losing one or having it damaged.
It's not as if the man in the story went to save a 250 year old flintlock, or a Revolutionary War long rifle, or a Civil War Colt pistol - items which have true historic value and would be difficult to replace. To him, his guns were precious regardless of age or replacability, and needed to be shielded from the clutches of the evil firement and needed to be saved. He didn't give a damn about the danger to the firemen or his neighbor's property that delay would occasion - to him, the guns were the only consideration.
I think his fanatic fans here are much the same - that extends throughout their sick, twisted attitudes.
Here is where the disconnect with a lot of people is. Constitutions in America, be it State of Federal, expressly determine the powers given to a governing body. If it isn't in said constitution, then the government does not have the power to legally legislate on that particular issue. Case in point, the "Commerce Clause" in the US Federal Constitution has been twisted to mean things it was never intended to and has helped fuel the massive increase in abuse of federal power.
Others feel that the listing of SOME of our natural Rights in the BOR means that those are the only Rights that "We the People" have. A quick reading of the opinions of some of the Founders show that this was a fear in putting a BOR in the Constitution to begin with. That it would become a list of Rights the people have, disparraging all others, and that these Rights would come to be seen as something granted by government.
Government giveth, government can taketh away.
There is no provision in any of the Constitutions I have read that emergency services personel can order you off of your property. Yes. There are laws and statutes that state this as so. There are a lot of un-Constitutional laws on the books and plenty of activist judges out there to back up the abuse of power. The checks and balances don't seem to be working very well.
If, and until, we find out all the facts on this incident making any kind of blanket statement on this guys character is extremely out of order. If the guy turns out to be a whack-a-nut, toss the book at him for being stupid and assaulting the Chief. If, however, it turns out to be knee-jerk anti-gun reactionism on the part of the firefighter, then someone needs to be loosing their job.
Can we agree on that much?
The only Constitutional ban on infringement of your private property extends to quartering troops in your house and unreasonable search and seizure.
Wrong. See the 14th.
Whatever other legal protections there are to your private property there are exist in state and federal laws and precedents. And don't get me started on the 10th Amendment, because I suspect that is the root source of disagreement. So when there is disagreement over whether a certain law is Constitutional, the Constitution provides the remedies. The remedies are the election process and the appellate courts, not some fruitloop waving a gun at the Fire Chief.
Wrong, [wimp]. The executive branch or the states can refuse to obey or enforce unconstitutional law, and jurys can refuse to convict on the same basis.
The Constitution was written and ratified by people who respected the law--established law, common law, legal precedent, etc. True believers in the Constitution will respect the authority of the state and federal governments to make laws, as well as the authority of the judicial branch to have appellate review, because the Constitution gave them the authority. We respect the law, even when we disagree with it, and if we choose to protest or break the law to make a point, we also choose to take whatever consequences that action might bring, because even when we hate a bad law, we respect the Constitutional authority of the entities that made the law. Some of us have given an oath to protect & defend the Constitution. I refuse to 'respect' those who ignore it in making law that, imo, violates basic individual rights. It remains to be seen whether or not this fruitloop homeowner respects the judge and jury who have the Constitutional authority to try him for breaking the law. Even the signers of the Declaration of Independence put in writing their willingness to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes (read: property) and their sacred honor for the Cause. They were willing to face the consequences of their rebellion if they failed. Are you willing to risk prison, are you willing to risk losing whatever unburnt property you possess, for denying a firefighter access to your burning house?
We shall see [wimp], when, and if, -- this case comes to court. I doubt it will. Odds are the 'authorities' will settle out of court, rather than risk further embarrassment. - After all, tax money will pay for their excessive zeal.
He's sitting in jail (or was, when this article was written) contemplating his behavior. (Of course, his supporters here think he was right to do what he did.) And no, he didn't care about the firefighters, he didn't care about his neighbor's property--he cared about items that could be easily replaced.
If he was frantic to rescue a child or another family member, his behavior, marginal as it was, could be understood--we've seen people being physically restrained from going into a fully involved structure fire when there's a loved one trapped in a burning building. But guns are not human beings. His behavior was way out of line. It's simply not rational behavior.
It may be baloney but if that was the information they were going on... what were they supposed to do, have a lecture in the middle of a fire about how it doesn't work that way?
"Sir, I'm sorry but you must leave the property immediately so that we can fight this fire effectively." Bad, bad fireman.
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.