• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The Great AWs Firearm Regulation Food Fight

Hotdogs

Leeroy Jenkins
pilot
The damage is already done whenever someone's rights are violated, fortunately we have a robust legal system to redress those violations. Again, the only time gun seizures occurred on a broader scale was in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina where rights violations of all kinds occurred, what makes the right to bear arms so much more important or special than those? And again, an exceptional circumstance that was redressed appropriately.
Considering the amount of lawlessness during Katrina and an individuals inherent right to self defense, the lack of self protection via a firearm maybe find a citizen dead and/or their property stolen. Probably more than one instance known or unknown of that happening. In that instance the veil or course of “redress” is a moot point. That is unlike other rights where civil lawsuits can be given their day in court. Comparing one right to another right just in order to justify its existence is also a poor argument. Additionally to think a natural disaster or civil unrest is unthinkable or impossible in this country in the future is shortsighted. I wouldn’t call it an exception by any stretch of the imagination.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
Considering the amount of lawlessness during Katrina and an individuals inherent right to self defense, the lack of self protection via a firearm maybe find a citizen dead and/or their property stolen. Probably more than one instance known or unknown of that happening. In that instance the veil or course of “redress” is a moot point. That is unlike other rights where civil lawsuits can be given their day in court. Comparing one right to another right just in order to justify its existence is also a poor argument. Additionally to think a natural disaster or civil unrest is unthinkable or impossible in this country in the future is shortsighted. I wouldn’t call it an exception by any stretch of the imagination.
That's actually a major factor influencing my gun ownership. My neighbors actually had their car, shed and boathouse broken into during a passing tropical storm/hurricane.
 
The damage is already done whenever someone's rights are violated, fortunately we have a robust legal system to redress those violations. Again, the only time gun seizures occurred on a broader scale was in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina where rights violations of all kinds occurred, what makes the right to bear arms so much more important or special than those? And again, an exceptional circumstance that was redressed appropriately.
I wasn't implying gun rights are necessarily more important than others, it is just the issue being discussed. That agents of government would violate ANY citizens' rights when pressed by circumstance or bad policy should give us all pause, gun owner or not.

That's actually a major factor influencing my gun ownership. My neighbors actually had their car, shed and boathouse broken into during a passing tropical storm/hurricane.
Exactly.

Considering the amount of lawlessness during Katrina and an individuals inherent right to self defense, the lack of self protection via a firearm maybe find a citizen dead and/or their property stolen. Probably more than one instance known or unknown of that happening. In that instance the veil or course of “redress” is a moot point. That is unlike other rights where civil lawsuits can be given their day in court. Comparing one right to another right just in order to justify its existence is also a poor argument. Additionally to think a natural disaster or civil unrest is unthinkable or impossible in this country in the future is shortsighted. I wouldn’t call it an exception by any stretch of the imagination.
I agree completely with this.
 
That's actually a major factor influencing my gun ownership. My neighbors actually had their car, shed and boathouse broken into during a passing tropical storm/hurricane.
There is no way for this to not sound over the top, and like some conspiracy rant, but I can tell you from personal experience that it does not take long without power before civility begins to break down rapidly. In a large scale event where food, clean water, the ability to stay warm/cool, and the basics of life that most take for granted are removed for more than 3 or 4 days there will be more issues than LE will be able to address. Depending on the scale and nature of the event, LE may not be even up and running until conditions permit. If only 1 person out of a hundred uses this time of instability to engage in mayhem, it's easy to see how that can go south pretty quickly.

Again, I'm not saying that you need to have crew served weapons at the ready, but the ability to take care of yourself is paramount. Some people may include firearms in that plan, others may not.

Having a plan other than waiting on someone to come rescue you is highly recommended.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
... to think a natural disaster or civil unrest is unthinkable or impossible in this country in the future is shortsighted. I wouldn’t call it an exception by any stretch of the imagination.
But Hurricane Katrina was exceptional in modern US history, both in the almost complete breakdown in law and order and the order to seize weapons. And since the seizure order was ruled unconstitutional it is doubtful that an order like that will be able to be enforced again, with the one in the Virgin Islands not even being enforced or clear to begin with.

The whole idea of law enforcement breaking down your door and seizing law-abiding citizen's guns has often been used as a Bogeyman by the NRA and others but just doesn't happen in real life but for rare, exceptional cases that redressed appropriately trough our legal system.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
The whole idea of law enforcement breaking down your door and seizing law-abiding citizen's guns has often been used as a Bogeyman by the NRA and others but just doesn't happen in real life but for rare, exceptional cases that redressed appropriately trough our legal system.
So here's a scenario that may boil down to semantics... Bob is married to his old lady who likes to drink. Bob's old lady decides it's time to flip the crazy switch and hits Bob. Bob, in an effort to defend himself and remove himself from the situation, pushes his old lady away (thereby making a mark) and then goes to his friend's house for the night.

Old lady calls the cops, states Bob committed battery (and let's say assault, not that it matters), shows her mark and the cops go to arrest Bob on a DV charge. Bob gets out on bail and awaits his court date. Per a Form 4473, Bob is not a prohibited person. However, in the state of CA, they have LE teams that will (and have) showed up and confiscated weapons from someone like Bob. Typically it's for convictions, but it has happened where someone has had their weapons confiscated until a court decision. In Bob's case, this starts to get a little sticky, as his constitutional right is being limited before adjudication.

Fast forward to Bob's trial where charges are dropped. Bob is confirmed to not be a prohibited person, however, he doesn't have his firearms anymore. Now he has to go to the municipality and pay a administrative fee to retrieve his firearms (and it's not a quick process). This is yet another burden to Bob's rights.

Personally, other than guns I've inherited, I don't think I own a firearm that didn't at least go through a background check, and several that went through CA's DROS system. And unless I personally know you, even face to face, I'd be leery of selling someone a gun without going through a dealer (because individuals can't utilize a NICS system, even if they want to). But given the above very real scenario, it's understandable for people to not want to have their guns in some registry.

And we haven't even got into the anecdotal accounts of ATF agents copying down 4473 information on certain individuals while doing normal FFL inspections.
 
Last edited:

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Old lady calls the cops, states Bob committed battery (and let's say assault, not that it matters), shows her mark and the cops go to arrest Bob on a DV charge....Per a Form 4473, Bob is not a prohibited person. However, in the state of CA, they have LE teams that will (and have) showed up and confiscated weapons from someone like Bob. Typically it's for convictions, but it has happened where someone has had their weapons confiscated until a court decision. In Bob's case, this starts to get a little sticky, as his constitutional right is being limited before adjudication.

Fast forward to Bob's trial where charges are dropped. Bob is confirmed to not be a prohibited person, however, he doesn't have his firearms anymore. Now he has to go to the municipality and pay a administrative fee to retrieve his firearms (and it's not a quick process). This is yet another burden to Bob's rights.
A bit of a gray area but the courts are involved in the process you laid out, and other restrictions are put in place on the rights of the accused as well to include freedom of speech (protective order) and even their freedom, period (detention until trial). If there is a constitutional violation then redress is available through the court system, and as far as I know the scenario you laid out has not been determined to be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Just because you or others think that is a constitutional violation doesn't mean it is. Again, a case where some folks seem to fixate on one constitutional right supposedly being violated when the same thing happens to others and has been found constitutional.

You do have an argument with the court fee and the process to get the arms back but that is sometimes the case with many things seized by the government.

But given the above very real scenario, it's understandable for people to not want to have their guns in some registry.
Okay fine, but that doesn't mean that such a registry isn't constitutional.

And we haven't even got into the anecdotal accounts of ATF agents copying down 4473 information on certain individuals while doing normal FFL inspections.
Yeah, can't say I put much stock in that person's claims from that posting and the subsequent comments rebutting his claims.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Okay fine, but that doesn't mean that such a registry isn't constitutional.
I've never said it wasn't. My point was that it's understandable for individuals to have concerns about such a registry. Given the number of tax stamps I have, I've long accepted registering some of my belongings so I can have some fun toys.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I've never said it wasn't. My point was that it's understandable for individuals to have concerns about such a registry. Given the number of tax stamps I have, I've long accepted registering some of my belongings so I can have some fun toys.
It may be understandable to them but it is also understandable to the family members of those killed by their partners or exes, who didn't have their weapons taken away even when threatening to inflict harm on those they later killed.
 

nittany03

FUBIJAR
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
It may be understandable to them but it is also understandable to the family members of those killed by their partners or exes, who didn't have their weapons taken away even when threatening to inflict harm on those they later killed.
There are restraining order laws being passed in numerous states to ameliorate that.
 

Pags

Well-Known Member
pilot
So would the discussion change if the ire of anti-gun folks was on a less popular weapon such as a blunderbuss or a wheel gun or something else that people don’t seem bumper sticker worthy?

The “help I’m being repressed” argument with regards to rights seems a bit “special snowflake” to me. That and the rights violations during Katrina as an example of a government attempting to infringe on your rights seems a bit over the top. Post Katrina NOLA was a special circumstance and govt was trying to what it could to restore law and order. It’s also not the first time that rights have been infringed on due to extremes circumstances such as any other time martial law or a curfew is declared or other unique circumstances in our country’s past when constitutional rights have been restricted.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I'd say it is even less likely than Katrina to have troops quartered in my house. So lets get rid of the 3rd Amendment.
 
Top