Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I thought this only happens in third world countries ruled by dictators.
This court ruling happened in the heartland of America.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 29697.html

No probable cause, no court order needed.

Jericho01 wrote:I thought this only happens in third world countries ruled by dictators.
This court ruling happened in the heartland of America.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 29697.html

No probable cause, no court order needed.

***************************************************************************************
This is an interesting case with all sorts of ramifications. For example: Since the police were responding to a potential domestic violence situation it would seem that they had probable cause to enter the premises to talk to the wife. So the court could have decided this issue on that narrow ground, but they went further. Apparently they avoided a 4th Amendment issue because in their opinion they cited common law, not the 4th.

By going further they bring forth the question what is "reasonable resistance" to an unlawful entry by police. And who determines what is an "unlawful entry". Is that the home owner or a 3rd party after the fact?

What if instead of shoving the officer against a wall, Barnes had stabbed or shot the officer. Would we now be saying it was justifiable homicide? Are we comfortable with every citizen determining what is and what isn't an unlawful entry?

It seems that the Indiana SCOTUS took a prudent approach to limit potential violence. But since it was a split opinion it makes you wonder. Maybe the narrow opinion is not as significant as we think since the dissenting justices opposed the the broad rational for the opinion rather than the fact that it was an unlawful entry.

Gat6

@Gat6 - yeah right - with no probable cause or court order need and any cop can merely come right in whenever they choose for whatever reason....maybe in Germany circa 1937...your attempt to justify this is lame at best. Its a direct assault on a foundational right not common law. The only reason I can see that anyone would support this is if they were a cop of questionable character. You fit that profile...maybe?

zephyp wrote:@Gat6 - yeah right - with no probable cause or court order need and any cop can merely come right in whenever they choose for whatever reason....maybe in Germany circa 1937...your attempt to justify this is lame at best. Its a direct assault on a foundational right not common law. The only reason I can see that anyone would support this is if they were a cop of questionable character. You fit that profile...maybe?

+1

A LEO is an agent of the government. In this country the government (and by extension its agents) is not allowed to exercise limitless power and then claim it's ok because you can work after the fact to redress your grievances (of course only in the limited fashion the very authority who violated your rights permits). A LEO violating those laws is just as much a criminal as a citizen violating the same laws.

The court could have ruled without reinterpreting hundreds of years of existing common law, but they didn't. They needed to reinterpret the common law in order to say that the officers did no wrong, which is BS IMHO. They could very easily have said the LEOs were wrong in their unlawful entry, but the resistance was above and beyond what common law protected.

What really makes the whole decision laughable is this. The various branches of government were to put a check and balance on the other branches, not redefine the law to gang up against their subjects. I.e. the very authority they claimed as a check and balance against such unlawful police action is the very authority who just permitted the police to violate the law!

gunderwood wrote:

z[i]ephyp wrote:@Gat6 - yeah right - with no probable cause or court order need and any cop can merely come right in whenever they choose for whatever reason....maybe in Germany circa 1937...your attempt to justify this is lame at best. Its a direct assault on a foundational right not common law. The only reason I can see that anyone would support this is if they were a cop of questionable character. You fit that profile...maybe?

+1

A LEO is an agent of the government. In this country the government (and by extension its agents) is not allowed to exercise limitless power and then claim it's ok because you can work after the fact to redress your grievances (of course only in the limited fashion the very authority who violated your rights permits). A LEO violating those laws is just as much a criminal as a citizen violating the same laws.

[i]The opinion did not say that government can legally exercise limitless power. Nothing in the opinion changes, eliminates, or alters any 4th Amendment rights. The opinion was about REMEDIES, i.e. the who, what, when and where. Is every citizen empowered in the heat of the moment to decide when LEOs are acting unlawfully? Are they then empowered to decide in the heat of the moment what action to take against LEOs? Are citizens empowered to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in the heat of the moment? What if the LEO acted in "good faith" but unlawfully? Are you saying it's acceptable for citizens to assault LEOs if they THINK or BELIEVE the LEOs are acting unlawfully. In effect you are arguing that vigilantism for private citizens is acceptable[/i]

The court could have ruled without reinterpreting hundreds of years of existing common law, but they didn't. They needed to reinterpret the common law in order to say that the officers did no wrong, which is BS IMHO. They could very easily have said the LEOs were wrong in their unlawful entry, but the resistance was above and beyond what common law protected.

The court decision did not over turn hundreds of years of common law, nor did they plow new ground. This goes to the common law right to "reasonable resistance", in this case, unlawful entry by LEOs. The court cited efforts in the 40s to change this right since it presented a danger to LEOs. Once LEOs became professional and remedies existed to citizens such a right was no longer necessary. Statues in most states have nullified such a right. The Model Penal Code recommends the same thing. If you are concerned about LEO violence and misconduct now, it would be nothing compared to the potential for violence with every citizen acting like a prosecutor whenever LEOs respond to 911 calls. All the majority did was affirm earlier conclusions in the U.S. that you don't have a right to reasonable resistance in the heat of the moment to an unlawful LEO entry.

What really makes the whole decision laughable is this. The various branches of government were to put a check and balance on the other branches, not redefine the law to gang up against their subjects. I.e. the very authority they claimed as a check and balance against such unlawful police action is the very authority who just permitted the police to violate the law!

You are making way too much of this case. The 2 LEOs responded to a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE in progress 911 dispatch. The wife, Mary, called 911 after her spouse, Barnes, took the phone and threw it against a wall. Mary called 911 on her cell, and said that her spouse was throwing things around the apartment, she also said he had not hit her. The 1st LEO arrived to see Barnes exiting the apartment with a duffel bag walking towards the parking lot. The LEO told Barnes why he was called. Barnes was yelling at the officer loud enough to get the attention of bystanders. The 2d LEO arrived to see an agitated and yelling Barnes. LEO 1 told Barnes to calm down or he would be arrested. Barnes told the officer that he was not needed so they could leave. Mary then came out of the apartment and threw another duffel bag towards Barnes. Mary moved to return to the apartment with Barnes walking behind her, and LEO number 1 behind Barnes. At the threshold Barnes turned blocking the entrance. LEO 1 asked to enter, Barnes said no. Mary was heard saying don't do this and you should let them in. Mary did not specifically address the LEOs. The 1st LEO went to walk by Barnes when he grabbed the officer and shoved him against a wall. A struggle ensued with the LEOs. Barnes was tasered and arrested. He was charged with 3 misdemeanors, tried and convicted by a jury. On appeal he wanted the trial over turned because the judge did not advise the jury of Barnes' right to reasonable resistance. You know the outcome

[/ I have read and heard from LEO friends that they dread domestic violence calls. Some LEOs consider these calls to be the most dangerous. Obviously these LEOs did not conclude that the situation was stable. At minimum it's apparent that the LEOs wanted to be sure that Mary was ok because Barnes was clearly still agitated and angry. No LEO wants to leave the scene of a domestic violence call before they are assured that the situation is stable. The last thing they wanted after an angry Barnes said they should leave was to go then later hear a homicide 911 dispatch to the same location. Every LEO has heard of cases like that. Further, did they think it was an exigent entry situation, that they had probable cause, that Mary had invited them in, or that department policy specifically required LEOs to make sure that the situation was stable before departing.] It could have been any of those things.

There was no government conspiracy to shred the 4th Amendment, and no evidence that the LEOs were being abusive or acting like thugs. So come on guys this is not a barely governable late 1700 to early 1800 U.S. when LEOs were mostly private, and sometimes you couldn't see a judge for several weeks.

If you want to express some anger about 4th A nullification direct it towards the Patriot Act, which most conservatives had no problem with when it was enacted. And now you want to be angry about this state case when your government could be searching your home without your knowledge under a National Security Letter?

Sometimes the nostalgia here for a return to an America that never existed is odd. The inconsistency shown in these cases is also rather strange.

Gat6

Gat6

@Gat6 - I for one think the Patriot Act is one of the worst things ever done to our country and also think W was quite daft to allow it...that and the TSA and the DHS...but, I'm not truly a conservative...more of a Constitutionalist than anything else...

zephyp wrote:@Gat6 - I for one think the Patriot Act is one of the worst things ever done to our country and also think W was quite daft to allow it...that and the TSA and the DHS...but, I'm not truly a conservative...more of a Constitutionalist than anything else...

***************************************************************************************
OK Mr Z I take you at your word. Does this mean you are a member of the Constitutional Party and that you agree with their 45 item platform?

Gat6

gatlingun6 wrote:

zephyp wrote:@Gat6 - I for one think the Patriot Act is one of the worst things ever done to our country and also think W was quite daft to allow it...that and the TSA and the DHS...but, I'm not truly a conservative...more of a Constitutionalist than anything else...

***************************************************************************************
OK Mr Z I take you at your word. Does this mean you are a member of the Constitutional Party and that you agree with their 45 item platform?

Gat6

Not a member but I do take the Constitution at face value and am pro-life except in cases of rape or incest...thats where me and the "party" diverge...

zephyp wrote:

gatlingun6 wrote:

zephyp wrote:@Gat6 - I for one think the Patriot Act is one of the worst things ever done to our country and also think W was quite daft to allow it...that and the TSA and the DHS...but, I'm not truly a conservative...more of a Constitutionalist than anything else...

***************************************************************************************
OK Mr Z I take you at your word. Does this mean you are a member of the Constitutional Party and that you agree with their 45 item platform?

Gat6

Not a member but I do take the Constitution at face value and am pro-life except in cases of rape or incest...thats where me and the "party" diverge...

************************************************************************************
Thanks Mr Z, I take the Constitution at face value as well. However where we differ is interpretation you are an a "textualist" and I'm not. You are in Justice Thomas' wheel house since he is, I think, a textualist as well. Abortion within the confines of the weeks allowed is a decision that I prefer to keep government out of. But that's a whole topic that we best leave alone in this thread. Thanks again
Gat6

@Gat6 - yw...by the way, I would add to your line of thought...not just interpretation but application as well. We, and the courts, can interpret all day long but the real issue is how interpretations are applied and the impact those applications have. Also, application of interpretation inevitably leads to additional interpretation, etc...a conundrum...better let it stand on its own and take it at face value. Just my opinion of course.

Oh stop it you two, you're freakin me out!

Palladin wrote:Oh stop it you two, you're freakin me out!

Ah Glen...you must think scientifically and pathologically...here lies the prime opportunity to observe yin and yang, matter and antimatter, electron and positron...indeed a unique opportunity...the task is to determine which is which...virtually impossible unless you define and thus invalidate the definition and mission of opposites beforehand...let us begin...

zephyp wrote:

Palladin wrote:Oh stop it you two, you're freakin me out!

Ah Glen...you must think scientifically and pathologically...here lies the prime opportunity to observe yin and yang, matter and antimatter, electron and positron...indeed a unique opportunity...the task is to determine which is which...virtually impossible unless you define and thus invalidate the definition and mission of opposites beforehand...let us begin...

Yes, Sensei!

Palladin wrote:

zephyp wrote:

Palladin wrote:Oh stop it you two, you're freakin me out!

Ah Glen...you must think scientifically and pathologically...here lies the prime opportunity to observe yin and yang, matter and antimatter, electron and positron...indeed a unique opportunity...the task is to determine which is which...virtually impossible unless you define and thus invalidate the definition and mission of opposites beforehand...let us begin...

Yes, Sensei!

gunderwood wrote: What really makes the whole decision laughable is this. The various branches of government were to put a check and balance on the other branches, not redefine the law to gang up against their subjects. I.e. the very authority they claimed as a check and balance against such unlawful police action is the very authority who just permitted the police to violate the law!

Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. "

Nothing here about being a check against the government. The courts decide and interpret the LAWS. And, of course Marbury v Madision set the precedent of Judicial Review, which if you really think about it, must be given to the courts in order for them to actually do their work to resolve conflicts in law. If they can't make a judgement about the Constitutionality of a Law, then their standing as a check is eliminated. It is a matter of OPINION as to whether, in any particular case, they act to defend government or defend citizens, it's not a matter of constitutional authority.
Dems4Guns

dems4guns wrote:

gunderwood wrote: What really makes the whole decision laughable is this. The various branches of government were to put a check and balance on the other branches, not redefine the law to gang up against their subjects. I.e. the very authority they claimed as a check and balance against such unlawful police action is the very authority who just permitted the police to violate the law!

Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. "

Nothing here about being a check against the government. The courts decide and interpret the LAWS. And, of course Marbury v Madision set the precedent of Judicial Review, which if you really think about it, must be given to the courts in order for them to actually do their work to resolve conflicts in law. If they can't make a judgement about the Constitutionality of a Law, then their standing as a check is eliminated. It is a matter of OPINION as to whether, in any particular case, they act to defend government or defend citizens, it's not a matter of constitutional authority.
Dems4Guns

10-4

The Judiciary power was not separated from the Executive power which was not separated from the Legislative power. No checks and balances, check! Thanks for the uncontext.

gatlingun6 wrote: You are making way too much of this case. The 2 LEOs responded to a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE in progress 911 dispatch. The wife, Mary, called 911 after her spouse, Barnes, took the phone and threw it against a wall. Mary called 911 on her cell, and said that her spouse was throwing things around the apartment, she also said he had not hit her. The 1st LEO arrived to see Barnes exiting the apartment with a duffel bag walking towards the parking lot. The LEO told Barnes why he was called. Barnes was yelling at the officer loud enough to get the attention of bystanders. The 2d LEO arrived to see an agitated and yelling Barnes. LEO 1 told Barnes to calm down or he would be arrested. Barnes told the officer that he was not needed so they could leave. Mary then came out of the apartment and threw another duffel bag towards Barnes. Mary moved to return to the apartment with Barnes walking behind her, and LEO number 1 behind Barnes. At the threshold Barnes turned blocking the entrance. LEO 1 asked to enter, Barnes said no. Mary was heard saying don't do this and you should let them in. Mary did not specifically address the LEOs. The 1st LEO went to walk by Barnes when he grabbed the officer and shoved him against a wall. A struggle ensued with the LEOs. Barnes was tasered and arrested. He was charged with 3 misdemeanors, tried and convicted by a jury. On appeal he wanted the trial over turned because the judge did not advise the jury of Barnes' right to reasonable resistance. You know the outcome

Agents of the government entering your home without a warrant and without justification is corruption and thuggery. Arguments and yelling are not crimes. Even breaking ones things are not crimes. Nor, is leaving the premise to cool off. The wife admitted she had not been touched. As far as I can tell in the case, the courts even agreed that the LEOs in question had no legal standing to enter his home.

The central question was not if they had legal standing, as it appears that they were presumed to not, but rather if agents of the state illegally entering your home can be resisted and to what extent. The 4th and common law until this ruling protected the people against arbitrary government; the ability to enter one's home without due process and without cause. That wasn't the question at hand though...it was, since they are already doing it, can you defend yourself against such thuggery? The courts threw out hundreds of years of common law and said NO. That is very injurious to the rights of the people. It sets a precedent that illegal actions by the state and its agents can not be thwarted.

It is no different than saying that you can't defend yourself against a common criminal, you must allow them to violate you. Just so we are clear, a criminal is someone who is violating the law...it doesn't matter if they have a badge, a robe, or won an election. It's a central concept to common law that the state and its agents are not above the law. When they break the law they are criminals like the rest of us would be if we did the same. However, statists of all sorts have been slowly breaking down that foundation and making various agents of the state above the law. That's exactly what this ruling does. It's sick and perverted and yes, it's a big deal.

Amen, brother - glad you're back!

gunderwood wrote:

gatlingun6 wrote: You are making way too much of this case. The 2 LEOs responded to a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE in progress 911 dispatch. The wife, Mary, called 911 after her spouse, Barnes, took the phone and threw it against a wall. Mary called 911 on her cell, and said that her spouse was throwing things around the apartment, she also said he had not hit her. The 1st LEO arrived to see Barnes exiting the apartment with a duffel bag walking towards the parking lot. The LEO told Barnes why he was called. Barnes was yelling at the officer loud enough to get the attention of bystanders. The 2d LEO arrived to see an agitated and yelling Barnes. LEO 1 told Barnes to calm down or he would be arrested. Barnes told the officer that he was not needed so they could leave. Mary then came out of the apartment and threw another duffel bag towards Barnes. Mary moved to return to the apartment with Barnes walking behind her, and LEO number 1 behind Barnes. At the threshold Barnes turned blocking the entrance. LEO 1 asked to enter, Barnes said no. Mary was heard saying don't do this and you should let them in. Mary did not specifically address the LEOs. The 1st LEO went to walk by Barnes when he grabbed the officer and shoved him against a wall. A struggle ensued with the LEOs. Barnes was tasered and arrested. He was charged with 3 misdemeanors, tried and convicted by a jury. On appeal he wanted the trial over turned because the judge did not advise the jury of Barnes' right to reasonable resistance. You know the outcome

Agents of the government entering your home without a warrant and without justification is corruption and thuggery. Arguments and yelling are not crimes. Even breaking ones things are not crimes. Nor, is leaving the premise to cool off. The wife admitted she had not been touched. As far as I can tell in the case, the courts even agreed that the LEOs in question had no legal standing to enter his home.

The central question was not if they had legal standing, as it appears that they were presumed to not, but rather if agents of the state illegally entering your home can be resisted and to what extent. The 4th and common law until this ruling protected the people against arbitrary government; the ability to enter one's home without due process and without cause. That wasn't the question at hand though...it was, since they are already doing it, can you defend yourself against such thuggery? The courts threw out hundreds of years of common law and said NO. That is very injurious to the rights of the people. It sets a precedent that illegal actions by the state and its agents can not be thwarted.

It is no different than saying that you can't defend yourself against a common criminal, you must allow them to violate you. Just so we are clear, a criminal is someone who is violating the law...it doesn't matter if they have a badge, a robe, or won an election. It's a central concept to common law that the state and its agents are not above the law. When they break the law they are criminals like the rest of us would be if we did the same. However, statists of all sorts have been slowly breaking down that foundation and making various agents of the state above the law. That's exactly what this ruling does. It's sick and perverted and yes, it's a big deal.

******************************************************************************
Gunderwood I agree with some of what you said; however, maybe you missed a couple of key points.
1. The common law has been nullified by statues in most states in favor of public safety. Why? The right to resist made sense when police were not professionals, and when a magistrate might not be available for weeks or months. With the advent of professional police and standing courts concerns turned to safety of LEOs in an inherently dangerous situation, and against the right to resist.

2. A criminal is not someone who is violating the law. In our legal system a criminal is someone who is apprehended, arrested for an alleged crime, charged with that crime by a prosecutor, and convicted by his own admission, in a plea bargain, or at trial by a judge, or jury. the sobriquet criminal rightly comes with a guilty verdict. If police can't judge you to be a criminal, where do citizens get the right to judge that police are criminals. We cannot charge police with a crime. We may file a complaint with the prosecutor's office, or the police. In the end the prosecutor charges the police, or does not. If the prosecutor does not act we may pursue a civil suit. This is the procedure the subject should have followed.

3. Upon reading, the 4th Amendment is ironclad "no unreasonable search and seizures", and "no warrants to permit search and seizures without probable cause". However like every amendment the prohibition is not UNFETTERED, there's that word again. There are numerous, what are legally referred to, as 4th A "carve outs". These are circumstances where warrantless searches are legal, and have been upheld by the courts time, and time again, exigent circumstances is one such "carve out".

4. All of the above; however, is immaterial to a degree. The question is: What advice would lawyers have given the subject in the face of a police action that he THOUGHT violated his 4th A rights? I did just that by googling that question. The answer was universal from lawyers: If you think the police are about to, or are violating your 4th A rights in any way: State your opposition to the search or seizure, be specific that you do not consent, BUT DO NOT RESIST the police. As several went on to say: In VA resisting the police is a losing proposition since VA juries do not look kindly on such actions.

I truly hope that our community, law abiding gun owners, do not take it upon themselves to ignore counsel and THINK they have a legal right to physically resist the police when they THINK the police are about to, or are acting illegally. We know how such confrontations end since we have seen the tragic results again, and again.

As an aside, it's troubling, and mystifying to see us gun owners who profess a near reverence of the Constitution have so little regard for statues, and acts that have been legally determined to be Constitutional. If we believe these cases have been wrongly decided why pick a fight with the police, when the fight is against those who make the laws.

Constitutional lawyers say that there are no more difficult cases than 4th A cases, yet we seem to want, no, demand that every American represent themselves as 4th A Constitutional lawyers in the heat of the moment. Come on guys relax, and lighten-up, the US Open is in town!
Gat6

gatlingun6 wrote:Gunderwood I agree with some of what you said; however, maybe you missed a couple of key points.
1. The common law has been nullified by statues in most states in favor of public safety. Why? The right to resist made sense when police were not professionals, and when a magistrate might not be available for weeks or months. With the advent of professional police and standing courts concerns turned to safety of LEOs in an inherently dangerous situation, and against the right to resist.

This position scares me. Remember that it was "professional police" that murdered Julian Alexander and Oscar Grant. It was also "professional police" that performed the acts of jackboot thuggery in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. And it was a power-mad, ego-driven nutcase cop that brandished his gun during Snowmageddon 2010 (Officer "Don't Bring a Gun To a Snowball Fight").

gatlingun6 wrote: 2. A criminal is not someone who is violating the law. In our legal system a criminal is someone who is apprehended, arrested for an alleged crime, charged with that crime by a prosecutor, and convicted by his own admission, in a plea bargain, or at trial by a judge, or jury. the sobriquet criminal rightly comes with a guilty verdict. If police can't judge you to be a criminal, where do citizens get the right to judge that police are criminals. We cannot charge police with a crime. We may file a complaint with the prosecutor's office, or the police. In the end the prosecutor charges the police, or does not. If the prosecutor does not act we may pursue a civil suit. This is the procedure the subject should have followed.

Umm...'scuze me? Breaking and entering is a crime, last I checked. That's what that cop was doing--breaking and entering. That badge does not give the cop the authority to violate the law.

gatlingun6 wrote: 3. Upon reading, the 4th Amendment is ironclad "no unreasonable search and seizures", and "no warrants to permit search and seizures without probable cause". However like every amendment the prohibition is not UNFETTERED, there's that word again. There are numerous, what are legally referred to, as 4th A "carve outs". These are circumstances where warrantless searches are legal, and have been upheld by the courts time, and time again, exigent circumstances is one such "carve out".

So what happens when you--or someone you love--becomes the next Julian Alexander?

gatlingun6 wrote: 4. All of the above; however, is immaterial to a degree. The question is: What advice would lawyers have given the subject in the face of a police action that he THOUGHT violated his 4th A rights? I did just that by googling that question. The answer was universal from lawyers: If you think the police are about to, or are violating your 4th A rights in any way: State your opposition to the search or seizure, be specific that you do not consent, BUT DO NOT RESIST the police. As several went on to say: In VA resisting the police is a losing proposition since VA juries do not look kindly on such actions.

So just let them beat you to a bloody pulp, like they did Rodney King? Just let them tackle you and injure you like they did that grandma in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?

Dude, even if you submit to the cops and are restrained by them, you can get killed by a cop, as Oscar Grant found out at the hands of Johannes Mehserle. Yes, there's a lawsuit against him and the precinct...but that doesn't bring Oscar Grant back to life.

gatlingun6 wrote: I truly hope that our community, law abiding gun owners, do not take it upon themselves to ignore counsel and THINK they have a legal right to physically resist the police when they THINK the police are about to, or are acting illegally. We know how such confrontations end since we have seen the tragic results again, and again.

And I truly hope that our community, law abiding gun owners, remember the original reason for the 2A--as a real-world deterrent to overreaching and violent use of government force.

gatlingun6 wrote: As an aside, it's troubling, and mystifying to see us gun owners who profess a near reverence of the Constitution have so little regard for statues, and acts that have been legally determined to be Constitutional. If we believe these cases have been wrongly decided why pick a fight with the police, when the fight is against those who make the laws.

Do you recall that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, i. e. overriding any statute? By definition, we as a People must have greater regard for the Constitution than for a statute.

gatlingun6 wrote: Constitutional lawyers say that there are no more difficult cases than 4th A cases, yet we seem to want, no, demand that every American represent themselves as 4th A Constitutional lawyers in the heat of the moment. Come on guys relax, and lighten-up, the US Open is in town!
Gat6

And what we don't want is "Open" season in the US upon Us, The People by jackboot thugs who think a badge lets them violate the law.

Sorry Gat6, but I just cannot agree with your stated positions on this one.

- T