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

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

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? 

 

 

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.

If he is going to make a statement asserting that the State Police (because as you stated, if he is their PAO, he has the authority to speak publically for them) are going to act in a manner that is unconstitutional, then he should be responsible enough to phrase his responses to something along the lines of "our officers will act in accordance with the laws and constitutional protections of the citizens of this state"....if he CAN'T say that because it would not be a true statement, then there IS a problem. I personally don't give a flying f*** about him getting nailed to the wall by his CoC...right is right. BTW, not sure if you were tracking this one or not, but a few years back a company commander in 3/187 inf on Ft Campbell (believe it was C Co) mandated that any unit personnel residing off post provide a list of what weapons they had, serial numbers, where they were stored, who had access etc. When one of the NCOs challenged him, the 1SG told him to basically STFU and fill out the form. This NCO went public and the process was crushed by the Division CoC....so, again, if you are complicit in an in just action, you are part of the problem...remember this?..."...I will not compromise my integrity or my moral courage"

[TMF]

You're right. 99% of police in this country are comprising their morals by violating their oath and enforcing unconstitutional laws. I don't see why you're all picking on this guy. By the logic exhibited here you should be cursing every LEO you see, because at some point he likely enforced a law which could be interpreted as unconstitutional in regard to 2nd Amendment rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[K191145]

 

 

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? 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, pretty much so if he really believes in his oath and an individual citizens constitutional rights.

Is there any limit? So if the legislator passes a law stating that it's a felony to openly blog or publicly speak critisizing the governor or legislators or LEO's, and LEO's were making arrests of people openly critisizing the government, you would accept that? They are just following orders, upholding the law, just doing their job. In reality that's just as bad of a violation of the constitution and citizens constitutional rights as going door to door making unlawful(un-constitutional) arrests and stealing a persons personal property.

[DaveTN]

We have yet to see if this is what the people of the state of Connecticut want. We will know in the next election if they leave them in office.

Lt. Vance is not elected and is not there to make political statements about made up scenarios. I don’t expect him or anyone else to make a statement that would get him fired.

As I said before, I doubt very much they actively go looking for guns, they will make the decisions as they run across them. If cops just ignore the law; I doubt we will hear about it. If cops refuse to execute a warrant on someone who is only suspected of having AR’s; we might.

If cops refuse to enforce these laws they could be fired immediately. That would be a pretty tough pill to swallow while the legislators would still have their jobs. The cops aren’t the problem here, but some are more than willing to ask them to take the hit.

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

We have yet to see if this is what the people of the state of Connecticut want. We will know in the next election if they leave them in office.

Lt. Vance is not elected and is not there to make political statements about made up scenarios. I don’t expect him or anyone else to make a statement that would get him fired.

As I said before, I doubt very much they actively go looking for guns, they will make the decisions as they run across them. If cops just ignore the law; I doubt we will hear about it. If cops refuse to execute a warrant on someone who is only suspected of having AR’s; we might.

If cops refuse to enforce these laws they could be fired immediately. That would be a pretty tough pill to swallow while the legislators would still have their jobs. The cops aren’t the problem here, but some are more than willing to ask them to take the hit.

Dave,

 

With all due respect, I disagree with the phrase "what the people of Connecticut want"...while I do not believe this was your intent, that phrase seems to suggest that state policy is a product of majority rule. As I have said before, the purpose of constitutional protections is to protect the rights of the minority from the actions of the majority. As such, it doesn't matter HOW many people support this legislation, WHO they put in office, or WHAT those legislators pass....if the action violates the protections afforded by the constitution, then it is illegal and cannot be LEGALLY enforced (now, we all know the deal...at the end of the day, it is the state employees with the guns who are going to enforce the "law"....it is then up to the citizen as to what they want to do about it).

[TMF]

Yea, pretty much so if he really believes in his oath and an individual citizens constitutional rights.
Is there any limit? So if the legislator passes a law stating that it's a felony to openly blog or publicly speak critisizing the governor or legislators or LEO's, and LEO's were making arrests of people openly critisizing the government, you would accept that? They are just following orders, upholding the law, just doing their job. In reality that's just as bad of a violation of the constitution and citizens constitutional rights as going door to door making unlawful(un-constitutional) arrests and stealing a persons personal property.

Okay, so you agree that any LEO who enforces any firearms laws is an oath breaker, yes?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

Yea, pretty much so if he really believes in his oath and an individual citizens constitutional rights.
Is there any limit? So if the legislator passes a law stating that it's a felony to openly blog or publicly speak critisizing the governor or legislators or LEO's, and LEO's were making arrests of people openly critisizing the government, you would accept that? They are just following orders, upholding the law, just doing their job. In reality that's just as bad of a violation of the constitution and citizens constitutional rights as going door to door making unlawful(un-constitutional) arrests and stealing a persons personal property.

If you want to play “What if” let’s look at something close to reality. Carrying a loaded gun in Tennessee is a crime. What about the Officers enforcing that?

We have a bill right now to remove that unconditional law from our state. But what do we do? We write letters and we listen to the forum members tell us why this bill can’t pass; politics and usual. We accept that and do nothing. Yet we want to whine and cry like babies because the state can’t force gun rights down the throats of businesses. They can’t do it because they are rights you do not have.

We have a Constitutional Carry bill submitted. But apparently we will stand by quietly and watch it die. So we don’t get to judge the people in Connecticut.

[Worriedman]

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

At that point, he and any Sheriff that did not agree to enforce the unconstitutional law were subject to fines and arrest.

[Worriedman]

If you want to play “What if” let’s look at something close to reality. Carrying a loaded gun in Tennessee is a crime. What about the Officers enforcing that?

We have a bill right now to remove that unconditional law from our state. But what do we do? We write letters and we listen to the forum members tell us why this bill can’t pass; politics and usual. We accept that and do nothing. Yet we want to whine and cry like babies because the state can’t force gun rights down the throats of businesses. They can’t do it because they are rights you do not have.

We have a Constitutional Carry bill submitted. But apparently we will stand by quietly and watch it die. So we don’t get to judge the people in Connecticut.

What did Chairman and Lt.  Gov. Ramsey say when you talked to him about getting that bill out from behind the calendar and into committee?

 

How about Sen. Campfield, is he saying what date he intends to put it on notice?

Edited March 1, 2014 by Worriedman

[sigmtnman]

Everyone always thinks of the minority as a group of people.

 

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

[TMF]

At that point, he and any Sheriff that did not agree to enforce the unconstitutional law were subject to fines and arrest.

And how many Sheriff's have been arrested for speaking out against perceivably unjust laws versus how many cops have been fired for making public statements while in uniform?

The only thing that would have happened by this officer speaking his mind would have been his immediate termination and replacement by someone who may think the same, but have mortgages and stuff so they keep their mouth shut.

Really, unless you believe that every cop in America should be jailed for violating the constitution and their oath then you are consistent in your convictions, you're just jumping on board to bash this cop.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

...

Really, unless you believe that every cop in America should be jailed for violating the constitution...
...

 

Many of us do believe this, if they uphold laws that violate the Constitution...  Mortgages be damned.

Edited March 1, 2014 by sigmtnman

[TMF]

Many of us do believe this...

Well I suppose if you fly that flag I can respect you actually believe in what you believe.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Worriedman]

Really, unless you believe that every cop in America should be jailed for violating the constitution and their oath then you are consistent in your convictions, you're just jumping on board to bash this cop.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, I responded to your question, did not trash anyone.  I did not start this thread, but you posed a question, I thought my answer was valid, and don't remember even mentioning the officer in Connecticut.

 

I can offer proof that I do my best to work with and reach out to our local LE, JPD, the Madison County Sheriff's Department, TWRA and our State Police.  If you want contact names from the individuals I will supply them if you will PM me.  But By God, I also hold them responsible to their oaths.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Worriedman

[TMF]

No, I responded to your question, did not trash anyone. I did not start this thread, but you posed a question, I thought my answer was valid, and don't remember even mentioning the officer in Connecticut.

Okay, my bad. Then simply said, if he had spoke his opinion rather than the departments he would have been promptly fired and would have to find a different career.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

Dave,
 
With all due respect, I disagree with the phrase "what the people of Connecticut want"...while I do not believe this was your intent, that phrase seems to suggest that state policy is a product of majority rule. As I have said before, the purpose of constitutional protections is to protect the rights of the minority from the actions of the majority. As such, it doesn't matter HOW many people support this legislation, WHO they put in office, or WHAT those legislators pass....if the action violates the protections afforded by the constitution, then it is illegal and cannot be LEGALLY enforced (now, we all know the deal...at the end of the day, it is the state employees with the guns who are going to enforce the "law"....it is then up to the citizen as to what they want to do about it).

If you want to stoke the fires of a gun fight over this law; go ahead. Why are we so concerned with what is going on in Connecticut when we have legislation of the table that would allow all Tennessee residents to carry?

A shootout will not change this law. It will leave families to bury dead gun owners that died as criminals. If cops die they will get a hero’s burial and their families will get death benefits and a pension.

I don’t believe this is a majority rule issue. It’s a state issue. The SCOTUS has ruled we have a right to keep arms. They have implied that the State will determine when and where they will be carried and has also left some leeway for the state to limit some weapons. We will have to see if this law is upheld as it works it was through the courts.

As far as the respect statement, I respect the opinions of all who post when we are discussing the issues. I’m not pizzed off; I’m just stating facts as I believe them to be or giving my opinion. So until someone lowers themselves to the level of a personal attack on me for something we are discussing; they have my respect even if I don’t agree with them.

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

If you want to stoke the fires of a gun fight over this law; go ahead. Why are we so concerned with what is going on in Connecticut when we have legislation of the table that would allow all Tennessee residents to carry?

A shootout will not change this law. It will leave families to bury dead gun owners that died as criminals. If cops die they will get a hero’s burial and their families will get death benefits and a pension.

I don’t believe this is a majority rule issue. It’s a state issue. The SCOTUS has ruled we have a right to keep arms. They have implied that the State will determine when and where they will be carried and has also left some leeway for the state to limit some weapons. We will have to see if this law is upheld as it works it was through the courts.

As far as the respect statement, I respect the opinions of all who post when we are discussing the issues. I’m not pizzed off; I’m just stating facts as I believe them to be or giving my opinion. So until someone lowers themselves to the level of a personal attack on me for something we are discussing; they have my respect even if I don’t agree with them.

Just to be clear here...I am NOT trying to "stoke the fires of a gun fight", I am making what I believe to be an objective factual statement. With regard to the "dead gun owners that died as criminals" and the "hero's burial" I guess it matters which side of the fence or point of view you take. I think it is fairly safe to say that most everyone here believes that the Continental soldiers during the Revolution were heros, they were of course, by definition, traitors and criminals to the crown. Conversly about 90 years later, southerners were seen by the north and the federal government as traitors. Regardless of how anyone wraps it, I believe, FWIW, a person's lable is not defined by those in power but rather, in the case of the citizens of this country, their adherence to constitutional law and provisions. 

[DaveTN]

Just to be clear here...I am NOT trying to "stoke the fires of a gun fight", I am making what I believe to be an objective factual statement. With regard to the "dead gun owners that died as criminals" and the "hero's burial" I guess it matters which side of the fence or point of view you take. I think it is fairly safe to say that most everyone here believes that the Continental soldiers during the Revolution were heros, they were of course, by definition, traitors and criminals to the crown. Conversly about 90 years later, southerners were seen by the north and the federal government as traitors. Regardless of how anyone wraps it, I believe, FWIW, a person's lable is not defined by those in power but rather, in the case of the citizens of this country, their adherence to constitutional law and provisions.

I’m not saying that you or anyone here specifically is calling for a shootout. But let’s face it; that’s what many of these threads are about.

Will someone that dies in a shootout with Police that have a warrant to take their guns be seen as hero? I’m sure they will be by some. Will it change anything? You never know; it might…or it might not.

What’s happening now in Connecticut? Is the law being challenged in the court? Are the politicians standing behind this law publicly?

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

I’m not saying that you or anyone here specifically is calling for a shootout. But let’s face it; that’s what many of these threads are about.

Will someone that dies in a shootout with Police that have a warrant to take their guns be seen as hero? I’m sure they will be by some. Will it change anything? You never know; it might…or it might not.

What’s happening now in Connecticut? Is the law being challenged in the court? Are the politicians standing behind this law publicly?

Well we do know that an appeal was struck down by a district federal court. We also know that editorials from the Hartford Courant have called for review of the 4473s (not sure how much valid/actionable info that will provide) and the seizure arrest of those listed on the 4473s found in possession of the "prohibited" weapons. Where the executive and leglislative branches are on all this as far as executing or "blinking"?....not sure.

[DaveTN]

We also know that editorials from the Hartford Courant have called for review of the 4473s (not sure how much valid/actionable info that will provide) and the seizure arrest of those listed on the 4473s found in possession of the "prohibited" weapons.

So you are saying this call for seizures and arrests are coming from some crackpot writers at the paper or some legitimate law enforcement official’s?

[sigmtnman]

I’m not saying that you or anyone here specifically is calling for a shootout. But let’s face it; that’s what many of these threads are about.

...

 

but: a word used to negate everything stated before it. 

[RobertNashville]

So what that this is happening in Connecticut at the moment?

 

We really are talking about possible gun confiscation; would anyone have dreamed that possible 50 years ago?  I wouldn't have...not in any state in this country (and I've lived in several).  I don't really think CT authorities will do it but the fact that it's even, apparently, being considered based on a number of news stories I've read should make all of us stop catch our breath. There may well come a time when each of us will have to decide whether to "turn them in" or face the consequences (the consequences being prison or perhaps even death).

 

There is NOTHING so special about the gun culture in Tennessee or any state that guarantees that this cannot happen here...let one deranged crackpot kill a dozen or two kindergartners in a school here in Tennessee and just wait to see what kind of bogus, unconstitutional laws this legislature might be willing to pass; then what are you going to do when the legislature says your gun is now illegal because it looks mean or tells you that you can't have a "high capacity clip" that holds more than 10 rounds...not just not be able to carry it in public but now allowed to have AT ALL (that's a rhetorical question...I'm not looking for a real answer here...just offering up something for people to consider)?

 

I'm not fanning the flames or for a shootout either but I do think we need to be aware of what's happening in CT as it may well be an example of what will be on our own doorstep someday.

Edited March 1, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

In the face of an unjust and unreasonable law that the state legislature won't correct, what is the right course of action?

Voting new blood in to the legislature may never happen in states like this.

 

What's the correct course of action?

[RobertNashville]

In the face of an unjust and unreasonable law that the state legislature won't correct, what is the right course of action?

Voting new blood in to the legislature may never happen in states like this.

 

What's the correct course of action?

I'm not sure there is a correct course of action.

• Trying to vote out the idiots is one approach but that can take a long time assuming it ever happens at all.
• You can get the petroleum jelly and comply like good little servants.
• You can continue to be a felon and hope they don't arrest you
• You can leave the state and try to find someplace where the legislature doesn't have their heads up their nether regions.
• You can resist with violence when the show up on your doorstep wanting to confiscate your "illegal" weapons and arrest you which may be the most heroic thing one could do although I suspect it will end very, very badly for the hero and his family.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think there is. It is called making the legislative bodies adhere to the US Constitution and quit passing these emotionally

charged laws. If that can't be done, follow what the Fathers intended. Pretty easy decision to me.

 

Sometimes, pragmatism is a disease worse than the West Nile virus.

Edited March 3, 2014 by 6.8 AR