Fighting The Police For Gun Rights
BY Herschel Smith
8 years ago
Remember I just recently said this?
… in the case of Indiana, we’ll have to fight (in many cases) the police, and in other cases progressive clerics.
On queue, a blue costumed special person weighs in.
“I believe people have the right to carry a gun, but the basic licensing requirement helps ensure that the people allowed to carry are the ones who are carrying,” Fort Wayne Police Chief Steve Reed said. “I think there would be even more guns in the wrong hands without it.”
Because LEOs are just like you and me, only better.
So if he believes in a right to carry a gun, but believes that he gets the right to override that right, then it isn’t really a right like he claims, and he was lying all along.
The chief gives you no means to contact him via writing to tell him what you think. You recall what I said about men who don’t give contact information, right?
On December 2, 2016 at 5:34 am, UNCLEELMO said:
I’ve seen it happen myself. At a California ‘Public Safety’ committee hearing in 2012, when California was about to pass the first batch of new gun laws under Moonbeam, two L.A. County Sheriffs deputies spoke in support of several of them. They were there in uniform, which told me they were there representing their sheriff and were being paid to testify.
And naturally, most of the new gun laws passed in California have exemptions for current and retired law enforcement.
On December 2, 2016 at 12:19 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
– because some animals are more special than others…
On December 4, 2016 at 8:21 am, Billy Mullins said:
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
Pay the man!
On December 2, 2016 at 5:36 am, Francis W. Porretto said:
Chief Reed should be required to answer this conundrum:
Imagine that a group of policemen have come to your house determined to execute a warrantless, causeless search and seizure. When you cite your Fourth Amendment guarantee of the right to be free of such, the head cop says, “Okay, just give us $100 and we’ll let you be.”
Has the cop acknowledged your right to be free of arbitrary invasions of your property, or has he merely extorted you? If the latter, how does this differ from the registration and licensure of guns?
If something is yours by acknowledged right, why should you have to meet conditions to get or keep it? Why should you have to pay a fee or meet extrinsic, State-specified requirements? Especially considering that the fee and requirements are set at the State’s pleasure, and can be made so high that practically no one can afford to exercise his “right.”
No anti-gunner I’ve challenged with that scenario has come up with an answer that preserves his position.
On December 2, 2016 at 11:49 am, Fred said:
I am stealing your first paragraph, IMMEDIATELY!!! and posting it on #Gab.ai
@ProGunFred
#2A
On December 2, 2016 at 11:56 am, Archer said:
“But guns are different, because they are different.”
That (or variations of that theme) is the universal answer I’ve gotten when making analogies comparing gun rights to other enumerated rights.
Anti-gunners truly believe, despite all logic, that guns are different from any other object available for purchase, and so gun rights should be treated differently. You’ve heard the old saw, “Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,” yes? Requiring consistency weakens their position; it forces them to acknowledge either that the 2nd Amendment is as valid as all the others and needs to be upheld, or that they really believe no rights are valid.
Trey Gowdy once ripped apart a representative from the DoJ over the disparate treatment of the 2nd Amendment, comparing how people are “allowed” to exercise 2A rights versus other rights. Using your analogy, suppose an American judge sentences you to 20 years in a labor camp (with daily floggings!) for jaywalking, and you cite your 8th Amendment right protecting you from cruel and unusual punishment. The judge blinks and says, “Sure, just give me $1,000. Oh, and you’ll need to register yourself with the Sheriff, take this 16-hour class in Constitutional law, get fingerprinted and pass a background check, and get a license to exercise your 8th Amendment rights. Then I’ll change it to a small fine instead.” Did he just recognize your rights, or extort you and force you to jump through hoops in order to exercise a right that you already have?
On December 4, 2016 at 8:23 am, Billy Mullins said:
HUSH! Don’t give the bastards any ideas!
On December 2, 2016 at 9:00 am, Duke Norfolk said:
The St. Louis police chief has been vocal about opposing Missouri’s new concealed carry law (allowing it without permit or training req’t). And, of course, he trots out all the same old sophistry about how it will endanger us all and hurt his officers’ ability to do their jobs, etc., etc.
One thing that he said in particular that I thought kind of funny (in that maddening way). He said that now they will have to always assume that a person is armed when approaching them. And that differs from the present how exactly? I’m sure they never thought that way when working in the ‘hood before. Uh huh.
On December 2, 2016 at 12:19 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
“I think there would be even more guns in the wrong hands without it.” — Like – more police?
On December 2, 2016 at 5:57 pm, Roger Jerry said:
From the FWPD webpages – Area Code is 260: Chief of Police 427-1230
Unfortunately, no email address is given. Maybe FWPD has not discovered email yet. /sarc
On December 2, 2016 at 10:12 pm, joefour said:
Here’s a link to an extremely interesting paper the history and questionable constitutionality of modern day “cops” … highly recommended.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
On December 2, 2016 at 10:14 pm, joefour said:
Here’s a link to an extremely interesting paper on the history and questionable constitutionality of modern day “cops” … highly recommended.
http://www.constitution.org/lr…
On December 2, 2016 at 11:50 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Broken link, Joe. I’m interested. Provide URL pls.
On December 3, 2016 at 4:40 pm, joefour said:
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
On December 3, 2016 at 9:08 pm, joefour said:
,,,,same author writing on the history and diminishment of the grand jury…
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm
On December 5, 2016 at 3:10 pm, Jack Crabb said:
When it comes to expecting integrity and honesty, as soon as I realize it is a blue costumed one speaking, I expect them to have neither integrity nor honesty.
On December 5, 2016 at 5:16 pm, Frank_in_Spokane said:
“The chief gives you no means to contact him via writing to tell him what you think.”
I don’t get it. You link to FWPD’s home page, which includes their mailing address:
Fort Wayne Police Department
1 E. Main St.
Fort Wayne, IN
So just slap “Steve Reed, Chief of Police” atop that, and you’re in like Flynn.