Connecticut LEO says will go door to door to confiscate guns,,, interesting

[TripleGGG]

http://universalfreepress.com/video-ct-state-police-if-necessary-will-go-door-to-door-to-confiscate-your-guns-says-i-am-the-master/

[luvmyberetta]

I think this should be a lesson that the laws of the U.S. Constitution & the Amendments mean exactly squat to our bad president & liberal lawmakers. If they come across a law they don't agree with, their solution is to either add new laws to cancel out the existing ones or try to get the existing laws changed. I hope people keep this in mind in 2016.

[RobertNashville]

I'm sorry...I listened to this audio and frankly, I think this LT was more than reasonable to someone who was trying very hard to bait him and this kind of behavior by this "Ashley" is just a reprehensible as those on the left who try to bait people and carry things to the extreme to prove their point.

 

Expecting individual officers to refuse to obey the civilian government and enforce the laws that have been passed by that duly elected civilian government is rather beyond the pail...whether these laws are "constitutional" or not is going to have to be for the courts to decide; not the officers in the street. Hopefully, the people of CT will win back the rights that THEY let slip away (when the voted for these assholes who passed this law but until that happens I suggest they had better get their "illegal" weapons out of the state.

[DaveTN]

Lt. Paul Vance Handled the call from that nutcase as well as could be expected. If anything he talked to her too long.

When he didn’t go along with her idiotic games she reduced the conversations to saying she was the master and he was a servant and talking about black people.

He told her the truth; he didn’t have a good answer at this time and that decisions had not been made on this yet.

And the title of this thread is just wrong; at no time did he say that.

[Mark@Sea]

I have to disagree with luvmyberetta.  This admin simply ignores the laws they don't like, and if they decide they want a new one they make it up on the spot and promulgate through executive order.  'Bypassing' the pesky Congress.

[Smith]

Lt. Paul Vance Handled the call from that nutcase as well as could be expected. If anything he talked to her too long.

When he didn’t go along with her idiotic games she reduced the conversations to saying she was the master and he was a servant and talking about black people.

He told her the truth; he didn’t have a good answer at this time and that decisions had not been made on this yet.

And the title of this thread is just wrong; at no time did he say that.

As much as I hate to agree with you I agree with you on this one. I thought he answered pretty much as well as he could given the circumstances and questions that were asked. This was a no win and was a t least courteous enough to stay on the phone and let her vent.

 

That being said, I'm afraid the sentiment that most LEO will not go along with unlawful laws is mistaken and his interview speaks to that. They, like the American people who are going along with unlawful actions as we speak, will defer to those with percieved greater power over them. 

[Trekbike]

[quote name="Smith" post="1118167" timestamp="1393633813"] That being said, I'm afraid the sentiment that most LEO will not go along with unlawful laws is mistaken [/quote] Yep. "I was just following orders..." Seems like I've heard that somewhere before.

[K191145]

Yep. "I was just following orders..." Seems like I've heard that somewhere before.

 

Germany in the 30's and 40's?

[Garufa]

Germany in the 30's and 40's?

 

Pretty much anywhere there's a command structure in place.  ;)

[K191145]

Pretty much anywhere there's a command structure in place.  ;)

 

Yep, following orders to violate your constitutional rights that they swore an oath to protect.

[Smith]

Didn't intend to insinuate anything about LEO except they are human beings just like everyone else. My statement was more of an indictment about the complacency of the citizen towards this power grab. If we are expecting a president, politician, or police officer to be the one who takes a stand we have lost already. The Lt. was correct when he told the lady that he was the wrong person to direct her feelings toward.

[RobertNashville]

Yep, following orders to violate your constitutional rights that they swore an oath to protect.

Your profile says you are former military...I'm former military...not following orders is a pretty damn significant thing as I'm sure you know.  "Confiscating firearms" deemed "illegal" by a state (in this case, CT) seems really obviously "unconstitutional" to most of us but it certainly doesn't seem so obvious to many other people and may not be seen that way by the courts.

 

So, expecting a career LEO to just refuse to obey orders is no small thing...not only will he likely be throwing away his career (and maybe a retirement as well) but he may be doing if for a law that the courts eventually say is constitutional (no matter how much we know it isn't).

[Steelharp]

http://www.earlyamerica.com/shot_heard.htm

[RobertNashville]

maybe I am being a little too harsh but I can't help but wonder - if the firearm owners of Connecticut had the intestinal fortitude to perhaps make another shot heard round the world (i.e. resist with force) then perhaps they should have had the intestinal fortitude to not put such low life anti-constitution legislators in their state legislature.

[K191145]

Your profile says you are former military...I'm former military...not following orders is a pretty damn significant thing as I'm sure you know.  "Confiscating firearms" deemed "illegal" by a state (in this case, CT) seems really obviously "unconstitutional" to most of us but it certainly doesn't seem so obvious to many other people and may not be seen that way by the courts.

 

So, expecting a career LEO to just refuse to obey orders is no small thing...not only will he likely be throwing away his career (and maybe a retirement as well) but he may be doing if for a law that the courts eventually say is constitutional (no matter how much we know it isn't).

 

I clearly remember being instructed in basic training that it is a soldiers DUTY to refuse to obey an illegal and unlawful order given by a superior officer. Principles and honor are more valuable, at least to me, than a job or career. I will not respect anyone including military personnell of LEO who clearly violates their oath and violates someones constitutional rights for the lame excuse of, "I was just following orders". No different than some of the thugs in New Orleans who comitted the criminal act of theft and assualt against law abiding citizens by stealing their lawfully owned firearms. At that point they were as bad if not worse than the looters and gang bangers there.

[TMF]

I clearly remember being instructed in basic training that it is a soldiers DUTY to refuse to obey an illegal and unlawful order given by a superior officer. Principles and honor are more valuable, at least to me, than a job or career. I will not respect anyone including military personnell of LEO who clearly violates their oath and violates someones constitutional rights for the lame excuse of, "I was just following orders". No different than some of the thugs in New Orleans who comitted the criminal act of theft and assualt against law abiding citizens by stealing their lawfully owned firearms. At that point they were as bad if not worse than the looters and gang bangers there.

So when someone is arrested for modifying a weapon to make it fire as a machinegun, or turns their rifle into a prohibited weapon under the NFA, the arresting officer is guilty of following an illegal and unlawful order? In my opinion, the NFA is a violation of the Constitution and so is the requirement to register them with the ATF.

In fact, if you work out the logic, most states, to include ours, has unconstitutional gun laws. That would make the vast majority of law enforcement to be oath breakers and without honor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[K191145]

So when someone is arrested for modifying a weapon to make it fire as a machinegun, or turns their rifle into a prohibited weapon under the NFA, the arresting officer is guilty of following an illegal and unlawful order? In my opinion, the NFA is a violation of the Constitution and so is the requirement to register them with the ATF.

In fact, if you work out the logic, most states, to include ours, has unconstitutional gun laws. That would make the vast majority of law enforcement to be oath breakers and without honor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Ever heard of two wrongs don't make a right?  Just because there's some bad laws doesn't excuse a LEO from violating a persons constitutional rights. This is a LEO who will honor his oath.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CCbpNQC7tw

[TMF]

Ever heard of two wrongs don't make a right? Just because there's some bad laws doesn't excuse a LEO from violating a persons constitutional rights. This is a LEO who will honor his oath.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CCbpNQC7tw

Not what I was saying. If you believe that all law enforcement in CT are oath breakers if they enforce this law, how can you not believe that 99% of LEOs aren't oath breaking traitors if they enforce similar laws in every state in the country?

And what was this guy supposed to do anyway? Publicly denounce the law and lose his job, just to appease you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

And a sheriff can say just about anything he wants with his only fear being from voters. You expect a public affairs officer to write a resignation every time the legislature passes a law he/she might disagree with?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

I think this whole conversation boiled down to two basic points:

 

1. It is apparently the position of Lt. Vance (not necessarily the State Police as a whole) that a "law" passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and either upheld by/not overturned by state or federal supreme court is legal and legitimate.

 

2. that the Ct State Police will enforce that "law"

 

What this essentially proves is that the provisions of Article 6, Clause 2 and American Jurisprudence 2nd edition 177 and 256 are applicable ONLY if the executive, legislative, and judicial branches say they are. The system of checks and balances is supposed to prevent overreach, overbearance by a government. Generally this works. In this case, however, all three entities seem to have established a position that works in contravention to the Constitution (the question of infringement and supremacy).

 

      The Lt. has, incorrectly, stated that the decisions of the court dictate the constitutionality of a law. Although SCOTUS may have that authority, it is still bound by Article 6, Clause 2. If that were not the case, we would have to submit that ANY decision, no matter how unreasonable, by SCOTUS regardless of the protections granted by the bill of rights. What we seem to have here is a test bed case (although the civil rights movements of the 60s may be applicable) of a direct challenge to constitutional protections where NO governmental authority believes those protections apply. As such, it then falls to the citizenry to uphold and secure those rights. We have seldom, if ever, seen this before as some governmental authority has, at some level, stepped in to intervene.

 

The basis of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the majority. We are becoming conditioned to believe, both as a society, and as government, that the majority rules, irrespective of what limitations are constitutionally imposed. It is a dangerous game and one that should not be played.

[Worriedman]

maybe I am being a little too harsh but I can't help but wonder - if the firearm owners of Connecticut had the intestinal fortitude to perhaps make another shot heard round the world (i.e. resist with force) then perhaps they should have had the intestinal fortitude to not put such low life anti-constitution legislators in their state legislature.

A failing we all seem to share from State to State...

[TMF]

I think this whole conversation boiled down to two basic points:

 

1. It is apparently the position of Lt. Vance (not necessarily the State Police as a whole) that a "law" passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and either upheld by/not overturned by state or federal supreme court is legal and legitimate.

 

2. that the Ct State Police will enforce that "law"

 

What this essentially proves is that the provisions of Article 6, Clause 2 and American Jurisprudence 2nd edition 177 and 256 are applicable ONLY if the executive, legislative, and judicial branches say they are. The system of checks and balances is supposed to prevent overreach, overbearance by a government. Generally this works. In this case, however, all three entities seem to have established a position that works in contravention to the Constitution (the question of infringement and supremacy).

 

      The Lt. has, incorrectly, stated that the decisions of the court dictate the constitutionality of a law. Although SCOTUS may have that authority, it is still bound by Article 6, Clause 2. If that were not the case, we would have to submit that ANY decision, no matter how unreasonable, by SCOTUS regardless of the protections granted by the bill of rights. What we seem to have here is a test bed case (although the civil rights movements of the 60s may be applicable) of a direct challenge to constitutional protections where NO governmental authority believes those protections apply. As such, it then falls to the citizenry to uphold and secure those rights. We have seldom, if ever, seen this before as some governmental authority has, at some level, stepped in to intervene.

 

The basis of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the majority. We are becoming conditioned to believe, both as a society, and as government, that the majority rules, irrespective of what limitations are constitutionally imposed. It is a dangerous game and one that should not be played.

 

 

So the public affairs officer for a PD should be an expert on law to the point that he can refute laws passed by the legislative and executive branch of his state government?

 

What in the hell was this guy supposed to do?  Answer the phone and say, "yeah, this law sucks and we ain't gonna enforce it"?  I mean, really? 

 

I'm surprised that you would even suggest that considering you were in the military.  Do you recall PAO guidance?  At all?  From what I recall, we weren't allowed to make ANY statements to the press or anyone else on behalf of the US Army, DoD or federal government unless there was expressed permission to do so.  I mean, crap.  When I was in the military there was all kinds of stuff the government did and passed and I didn't like it.  But if I were to get a phone call at my place of work and asked my opinion on DoD policy, which would suggest I was speaking on behalf of the US Army, and I answered the call with my personal opinion and that made it out into the world via social media, television, internet.... my ball sack would be used by the CoC as a dartboard. 

 

Now, this poor bastard is getting beat up because he didn't admit that this is a stupid, unconstitutional law?  This poor guy.  For all we know he goes home and posts on internet gun forums about what BS these new laws are.  You expect the guy just to throw it out there for the first wackado that calls so he can lose his job?

 

I tell ya, if every cop ever was to publicly speak about bogus laws that get passed then there would be no good cops left.  Just the aholes that everyone bitches about.

[Worriedman]

 

 

What in the hell was this guy supposed to do?  Answer the phone and say, "yeah, this law sucks and we ain't gonna enforce it"?  I mean, really? 

 

Could do like Sheriff Richard Mack in 1997 and refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws (Brady Bill), sue the Federal government if necessary, honor their oath to protect the Citizens of their State/County/City and interpose themselves between a rogue government and the people they have sworn to protect.

 

[gregintenn]

I'm not a big LEO fan as most of you all know, but I do not envy having to put up with crap like this from random people. He stated that was the third call like it that day. The police didn't have anything to do with the passing of this law. It would be very hard to remain professional while talking to that woman.

[TMF]

Could do like Sheriff Richard Mack in 1997 and refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws (Brady Bill), sue the Federal government if necessary, honor their oath to protect the Citizens of their State/County/City and interpose themselves between a rogue government and the people they have sworn to protect.

Sheriff's can do that without worrying about losing their job. Mid level public information officers will be immediately fired. I'm sure thus man's kids and wife would appreciate that. Geez Louise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk