Elderly Vet's Guns Confiscated After He Voices Concern About Potential School Shooting

^^^
OK, good point... hit them in the wallet is as good as we've got I guess as I doubt if the politicians will admit they were/are wrong..

Shanghai McCoy said:

^^^
OK, good point... hit them in the wallet is as good as we've got I guess as I doubt if the politicians will admit they were/are wrong..

Click to expand...

Not just in the wallet, but in the reputation. Make the perpetrators and their enables social pariahs. Just because they have no shame doesn't mean that you can't embarrass them publicly.

Deanimator said:

Just because they have no shame doesn't mean that you can't embarrass them publicly.

Click to expand...

I think that pretty much is the definition of having no shame - not being able to be embarrassed, LOL.

Politicians generally have no shame, that's why they can look you right in the eye and lie to your face. A reporter once asked Rudy Giuliani why he wasn't doing something he promised when he was running for NYC mayor. He literally said "that was a campaign promise, you really didn't think I meant that, did you?"

The only thing that will get a local politician's attention is a large monetary verdict that they'll have to explain to their constituents as to why their taxes are going up to cover it.

Speedo66 said:

Politicians generally have no shame, that's why they can look you right in the eye and lie to your face. A reporter once asked Rudy Giuliani why he wasn't doing something he promised when he was running for NYC mayor. He literally said "that was a campaign promise, you really didn't think I meant that, did you?"

The only thing that will get a local politician's attention is a large monetary verdict that they'll have to explain to their constituents as to why their taxes are going up to cover it.

Click to expand...

But it also has to go against the enforcers. "I was just following orders." isn't any more convincing in English than it was in German. They need to worry about the financial consequences of enforcing unconstitutional and unjust laws.

If everyone's too afraid to enforce a law, is it really a law?

My understanding in this instance is that there was no "red flag" law involved in this incident. In Massachusetts, local law enforcement has great discretion over who gets to have a firearms permit or not.

the red flag law will of course work in a few cases however it is a horrible law. it gives ever near do well and crank a voice to get you because they dont like you. the worse part of it is gives every nasty exwife the go ahead by their lawyer to have all your guns taken from you. she just lies and your guns are gone. their are other ways of keeping guns out of the hands of nut jobs, this should not be one of them.i see nothing but BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD from the red flag law. i have a ex from 48 years ago that would have gone nuts with this law if it were in affect then,. she ripped me every way their was in those day. also ripped another guy and the settled for a rich realestate man.bet a lot of guys here could say, been there and done that. red flag laws. NO.

SharpDog said:

We are becoming victims of the surveillance society. Sadly, you need to watch what you say and be observant of who can hear it. RFLs are the legislative embodiment of that.

There is the directive to 'see something, report something'.

Well, that can be good or bad as illustrated here.

One would like to think that, if there were a judge involved, The presumption of innocence would be assumed.

Click to expand...

Well said. Media manipulation creates in some people a sense of constant danger. Ignorance is strength.

Jeff22 said:

My understanding in this instance is that there was no "red flag" law involved in this incident. In Massachusetts, local law enforcement has great discretion over who gets to have a firearms permit or not.

Click to expand...

Does that really matter, when the result is the same? Guy was able to keep and bear arms legally before this. Never gave anybody any problems. Now, even though he got his guns back, he feels compelled to get rid of all of them thru his relatives because of all this.

His feeling, his choice, but isn’t that where we all think this is going to end up anyway? Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic won’t help.

Sovblocgunfan said:

His feeling, his choice, but isn’t that where we all think this is going to end up anyway? Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic won’t help.

Click to expand...

Then why own any guns now? With your opinion it would be financially wiser for you to sell your guns now and invest the proceeds in the stock market rather than being forced to turn your guns to the Government without compensation.

BSA1 said:

Then why own any guns now? With your opinion it would be financially wiser for you to sell your guns now and invest the proceeds in the stock market rather than being forced to turn your guns to the Government without compensation.

Click to expand...

I’m not as financially wise as others, and I think maybe you miss my point.

I’m not a fan of red flag laws. I’m not a fan of permissions that can be suspended just because another person thinks they should be. And to draw some distinction between those two things as if one or the other (but not both) affected the end result of all of this isn’t right.

My post wasn’t about “why own any guns now”. My post was to shed light on the fact that this old fella had guns all his life. And then he didn’t. And because of the trouble associated with that, he has now decided to just not exercise his rights. I’m not faulting him, but am pointing out that whether RFL’s or a “revocable” permission are in play, the newly-found lack of desire for firearm ownership will be a welcomed outcome for some. That has nothing to do with “why own guns now”, but but your question does support my point. Has everything to do with legislating behavior.

CapnMac said:

Ah yes, and there's the rub of it.
Not one of these travesties has an "oops we were wrong" provision in any of them. There's not even a mechanism created for redress and/or restitution.
Which speaks volumes on the intent.
It also means each and every victim will have to fight the uphill causal battle to prove their innocence, and to get permission to seek redress, and to then have to have property restored as well (along with the expungement of all records of the event, lest they slander the victim en absentia).

Click to expand...

Or, another way of putting it is guilty until proven innocent, the complete opposite of what our Constitution mandates

fireside44 said:

I dunno, he's 84 and in competition with the hills for a retirement package. He's talking about school shootings at a restaurant. Probably can't cook for himself any longer. Probably senile. Can he even see to clean his gun or shoot? I think he should have to have some testing or accreditation at that age otherwise I'm leaning confiscation.....

Click to expand...

Ageism? Let's hope you never get old.

My Dad will be 87 next month, and he still drives cross country by himself. He is also a gun owner, a retired soldier, and entitled to his own opinion.

buck460XVR said:

... Why something so trivial led to firearm confiscation and termination of his job before there was more investigation, is a poor reflection on the local PD. Many times the excuse for this is, "we always error on the side of the kids", and I understand this. Still, a simple conversation between the local PD, the Vet and whoever he was speaking to at the restaurant, would have ended this before it got anywhere.

Click to expand...

Exactly. A cop stopping by the table and saying "Hi, are you concerned about a school shooting?" or some such non accusatory approach and see what's up.
This whole rush to grab the guns or incarcerate someone is scary. A few questions, politely put and the answers listened to and the whole thing wouldn't have happened.

Deanimator said:

Perhaps you forgot that NRA members such as myself have been labeled "terrorists" by the City of San Francisco.

I'm sure that cleaner (and Holocaust fan) in that Lakewood, Ohio McDonald's SINCERELY agrees with that characterization. Do you think that "terrorists" should be allowed to possess firearms? What if the judge (and the police) "sincerely" believe that:

1. NRA members are "terrorists".
2. Terrorists shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.

Remember, a considerable number of advocates of racially invidious gun controls believe that people on the "no fly" list should be banned from purchasing firearms. How do you get on that list? How do you get off of it? NOBODY KNOWS.

Click to expand...

Senator Ted Kennedy, Cat Stevens and many others have run afoul of the no fly lists. If a Senator has multiple problems trying to get his name off of the list, won't be easy for us mere mortals to do so.

SharpDog said:

Either the process is seriously flawed or likely at least four government representatives failed in their duty to uphold the rights of an elderly citizen.

Click to expand...

Many of these quickly implemented, not well thought out programs that sound good when proposed are so flawed that they muck up systems that they are designed to help. Just look at the PROMISE program here in Broward County.
Until the systems work, there's no point in adding any new laws. It'd be like having a pickup truck that isn't running right and has transmission problems and ignoring them while going shopping for a travel trailer for the truck to pull. Fix the truck before you add more load.

FlSwampRat said:

Exactly. A cop stopping by the table and saying "Hi, are you concerned about a school shooting?" or some such non accusatory approach and see what's up.
This whole rush to grab the guns or incarcerate someone is scary. A few questions, politely put and the answers listened to and the whole thing wouldn't have happened.

Click to expand...

Too much Barney Fife, and not enough Andy Griffith.

CapnMac said:

Sadly, that means we have to cede our 1st amendment rights to preserve our Second (and 4th,5th,6th, & 7th). At some point that will have to be seen as "infringement."

Ceding liberty for freedom is no bargain.

And appears to be quite intentional.

Click to expand...

Cap, some students were walking across a parking lot shouting the "n-word". Not directing it anyone, no one else actually in the on campus housing parking lot, but they were videotaped shouting it out to the universe. First amendment rights? Where? Understood no yelling fire in a packed theater, but this wasn't endangering anyone as no one else was in the parking lot. This is a Class D misdemeanor, a hate crime. Just saying a word.
https://www.newsweek.com/uconn-students-arrested-n-word-jail-time-1466929

FlSwampRat said:

Exactly. A cop stopping by the table and saying "Hi, are you concerned about a school shooting?" or some such non accusatory approach and see what's up.
This whole rush to grab the guns or incarcerate someone is scary. A few questions, politely put and the answers listened to and the whole thing wouldn't have happened.

Click to expand...

It’s beyond scary. What you are seeing is US civilians being treated on about the same level as terrorists. Hell, some gov entities have even called NRA members and gun owners as such. This is antithetical to American ideals. I think the problem is that a lot of people that would stand up to this mess do not know how to. The laws are so convoluted that nobody knows what they can do anymore so anyone in power just does what they want and if it’s wrong they just get a pass until it is accepted as being ok. It way wrong and if it doesn’t change soon America as we know it is on a dangerous path.

FlSwampRat said:

Understood no yelling fire in a packed theater,

Click to expand...

"Prior restraint" has actually been pitched in the bin.
A person causing a public panic which results in injuries is entirely liable for those injuries. Unless they can demonstrate the political need for creating that situation.
Madicons and Adams would be appalled at the mere notion of "hate crime." Thoughtcrime remains a 20th century invention.

As if it's not already obvious, keep a very low profile.

I predict these unwarranted actions will become much more frequent and are just one sign as to how much closer we are to collapse.

Much of Pro2A America ain't going to take but so much of that.

Good Ol' Boy said:

As if it's not already obvious, keep a very low profile.

I predict these unwarranted actions will become much more frequent and are just one sign as to how much closer we are to collapse.

Much of Pro2A America ain't going to take but so much of that.

Click to expand...

I’d like to believe that but based on what I’m seeing, nobody is going to do anything and we will just continue to be on this downward spiral. Keeping a low profile, being scared to practice 2A rights and so on is effectively the same as wiping the 2A out without actually doing it.

SilentStalker said:

I’d like to believe that but based on what I’m seeing, nobody is going to do anything and we will just continue to be on this downward spiral. Keeping a low profile, being scared to practice 2A rights and so on is effectively the same as wiping the 2A out without actually doing it.

Click to expand...

Keeping a low profile doesn't mean not participating in 2A rights, it's more referring to things like not talking about guns in particular environments and things like not OC'ing.

That's just the "gun side" of keeping a low profile. There is much more to it which will not only help keep you off the "big" radar but will also help with general SD.

Things like that have been prudent among the gun community long before now.


And I firmly believe that a good portion, perhaps not the majority, are not going to stand for the types of infringement but so much longer if things keep escalating.

YMMV....

Good Ol' Boy said:

Keeping a low profile doesn't mean not participating in 2A rights, it's more referring to things like not talking about guns in particular environments and things like not OC'ing.

That's just the "gun side" of keeping a low profile. There is much more to it which will not only help keep you off the "big" radar but will also help with general SD.

Things like that have been prudent among the gun community long before now.


And I firmly believe that a good portion, perhaps not the majority, are not going to stand for the types of infringement but so much longer if things keep escalating.

YMMV....

Click to expand...

I tend to keep a low profile myself! My bad, I thought you were encouraging what seemed to me to be essentially hiding.

I blame law enforcement for this one. They should have spoken to the waitress and determined exactly what she thought she heard and then gone to speak with the gentleman and the person he was having the conversation with. If it was determined to be a misunderstanding they should have left with nothing more than a "Sorry to have bothered you, have a nice day."