Okay.
Being an ex-cop, I can see the desires of all LEO-types to go home at the end of the day. I want to do that too.
Too, I might have a cop disarm me, after jumping through all the hoops to prove that I'm already good guy. Assumption being that everyone you come across is not? That seems quite contrary to all tenents of the constitution & bill of rights.
That whole assumption is that I am against the wall/in the position & already under a duress situation that none of my deameanor caused. I type much more vociferous than any of my words ever caused.
Imagine the consternation here, good LEO-folk. Best case = you have just created an enemy where there wasn't one one minute before. Tell y'all what. Being "thrown up against a vehicle" isn't conducive to a later-day friendy LEO-friendly experience.
You & me should be on the exact same side. We both believe in the sancrosancts of the BORs, 2nd Amend, yada -
Don't we?
This same basis of my "goodness" also comes from your own same "basis of goodness," right? Aren't we both "blessed" from that "higher authority" that gives license to & has checked us all to be "good" in the eyes of the law?
That your authority, coming from the same source, that just allowed me to carry "freely" to still take away my gun, makes me just want to shudder.
Just as a basic of comparision, didn't your authority come from that same place?
And, to bring it back to the initial question posited.
If you ask me to give you my gun, how is it that I just won't shoot you?
We keep drifting here towards a philosophy & not one of tactics.
Please answer that question first, & then we can drift off to mere philosophicals, huh? Maybe a whole 'nother thread - feel free, but I'd really just like to address my initial premise. Please. It's been well over 3 years.
Wildalaska posits a:
"Until the Supreme Court of the United States rules on the breadth, meaning and scope of the Second Amendment, your reasonable actions in enforcing the present and still constitutional laws of your jusrisdiction are appreciated.
Thanks for being a dedicated officer and providing us with your input. Please note that some of the most strident defenders of the Second Amendment are the ones who not only have an incorrect understanding of the law, but in additon, lack the courage of their own convictions in opposing what they construe as unconstitutional."
I would counter with a clear reading of the Miller Decison.
Of course you've read it & concur since it's binding, being a ruling set forth by the SCOTUS?
Right?
Then, of course, you'd already know your position to be in opposition to your own statement.
Let's please be consistant here.
My reading of Miller is that I cannot be in possession of any weapon not conducive to the effectivenes of the militia. I'd like to think many of your own posts have reflectived that same = we are allowed all weapons to protect & defend this country, from all enemies - foreign and domestic.
As a quick aside, how is it that I, who have allowed the guv'mint to do a colon-xscope of my entire past-life & I have come up clean & being presented with their own "Stamp Of Approval" could be a "bad guy?"
If they've done their search completely enough, I am certainlt well-qualified enough to be at the least, as good as any they'd consider "A Cop."
& still, I may very well be considered "a threat," merely because "I possess."
I cannot condone & I will, at every breath of me puke at disgust those who will not recognize that I too have already proven, (as if that would ever be necessary)
I very much await your own "ruling" to support your stated premise.
Powderman,
"But you know what?
I swore an oath to enforce it--and I will!! "
Did you?
I bet you swore an oath to defend the constitution - not any laws that may, or may not be contrary to same.
"Likewise, if you are a CCW bearer, and I inform you that until the traffic stop is over I am going to relieve you of your legally carried firearm, if you tell me NO, then guess what? You WILL be relieved of your firearm, at least on a temporary basis. If you want to make a scene of it, fine. Be prepared to be proned out, placed in cuffs, and put in the back of my car while we figure out what is happening."
Or, as an unlawful & willing violator of rights, how 'bout I just shoot you COM for attempting to illegally violating my civil rights?
So much for all of us being in the same ball-park, no? & you getting to go home safely.
I betcha I could get a lawyer to dig up some of your previously archived TFL posts where you staunchly uphold your beliefs regards the 2nd & bill of rights. You are assumedly aware of at least some of these facts.
And, willingly being aware, wouldn't you be in complete violation thereof AND that of civil rights violations as well?
Contiplate that at your leisure.
Want to enforce unconstitutional laws? regardless of how the rulings have gone - wanna start a whole new thread whether or not you can legally deprive me of my 2nd right to posessess firearms without due process AND above & beyond, I have already proven myself to be crime-free for 50+ years, gone through the process, yada, etc. to the point of throwing up & still some of you will want to violate me for your own self-perceived belief that you are not a servant of us!?
And how that "civil servant" stutus does rankle, no?
You are, like it or not, our civil servants.
Says so in our contract with you who chose to sign it.
You are subserviant to our laws & have no choice but to abide by that, your written contract, to us, and our constitution.
That you would choose to use a "court of law" that does bastardize it will not releive you from your word & sworn oath.
So much for honor, oath & your own word regards the constitution. Guess you'll blithley go about what it is you think you shall, to observe that which you will - regardsless.
So be it & that's what you'll ed up with. Well met! Sirs & slaves.
But,
back to the question posited.
If I choose to hand you a weapon, why wouldn't I just shoot you?
Have a nice day.