Ballistic "Fingerprinting"

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

When I lived in Maryland....

Ah, a fellow soul who knows my pain. I'm almost out of here. hip hip HOO-RAH!!!

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jfields 0]

Quote

We don't need compromises.

Ah, the spirit of open-minded dialogue.

Where are you headed now, Tom? You graduating from UMCP and going back to New Jersey?
Justin (31-year resident of Maryland)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

We don't need compromises.

Ah, the spirit of open-minded dialogue.

Ah, the spirit of taking words out of context. I meant we don't need the compromises you have in mind.

I'm heading south, west, or both by at least two states. Still figuring that out while supposedly doing something to earn my paycheck [and screwing around on dz.com, of course].

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I'm also against registering guns. I can not see how this is doing much to catch gun criminals. It does let the government know exactly who has legal weapons and they can go on to harass these honest gun owners, but registration also overlooks millions of guns that are not registered. Do you think a criminal is going to go in and volunteer to register his firearm?

Actually, the Supreme Court has already said that requiring felons to register their firearms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violates the fifth amendment clause against self incrimination. So that's how much good registering guns would do you. Not "a little" bit of crime reduction. Not "even a few" criminals brought to justice. Zero. None. They don't have to.

So somebody please explain to me passing legislation applicable to good and honest citizens only. [sarcasm] It couldn't be that the government wants more control, could it? Naw, we trust the government.[/sarcasm]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnischalke 0]

HOT off the press:

CRIME UP SLIGHTLY IN 2001 REPORTS FBI . . . Final data from the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Reporting Program confirm that, after a decade of decreasing crime, the Nation’s Crime Index rose by 2.1 percent in 2001 from the previous year. Crime Index offenses include murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Crime rose in all categories except aggravated assault, which declined 0.5 percent. Murder was up 2.5 percent. Forcible rape increased 0.3 percent. Robbery rose 3.7 percent. Larceny-theft was up 1.5 percent, and motor vehicle theft rose 5.7 percent. The 1.4 million reported violent crimes in 2001 represent an increase of 0.8 percent from 2000. Personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet were used in 31.1 percent of violent crimes. Firearms were involved in 26.2 percent. Knives and other cutting instruments in 14.9 percent, and other “dangerous weapons” were used in 27.8 percent. The FBI report notes, however, that in looking at five and ten year trends, the nation’s crime was down 10.2 percent from 1997, and down 17.9 percent from 1992.

To hear some folks talk, one might think guns are used in a lot more than a quarter of all violent crimes.

peace,
mike

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[jaaska 0]

As this discussion is quite US domestic, I do not want to start to argue one way or the other on the main subject of gun-control nor the ballistic fingerprinting (the original subject left far behind).

It's been interesting debate...

However, I would like to point out for those who talk about "...[having] a lot of rules and restrictions [in Europe], enforced by an all powerful government..." should first of all read a bit more extensively and use wider range of sources (and this, I'm afraid, does not include a story about the raped rights of Europeans in a NRA's magazine
I've been to US couple of times and even lived in Texas for a year when I was still in high school. I'm not trying to say I know that much about the society in US - all I'm saying is that I've seen it and I have my own first hand experience. I recommend that those of you who make conclusion about the level of freedom in European states based on gun-owning rights, should visit different European countries (and yes, they are different - a lot different in many cases) before doing so.

This is just IMHO...

(oh, I forgot to check my spelling, that's why I edited this message

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

HOT off the press:

CRIME UP SLIGHTLY IN 2001 REPORTS FBI . . . Final data from the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Reporting Program confirm that, after a decade of decreasing crime, the Nation’s Crime Index rose by 2.1 percent in 2001 from the previous year. Crime Index offenses include murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Crime rose in all categories except aggravated assault, which declined 0.5 percent. Murder was up 2.5 percent. Forcible rape increased 0.3 percent. Robbery rose 3.7 percent. Larceny-theft was up 1.5 percent, and motor vehicle theft rose 5.7 percent. The 1.4 million reported violent crimes in 2001 represent an increase of 0.8 percent from 2000. Personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet were used in 31.1 percent of violent crimes. Firearms were involved in 26.2 percent. Knives and other cutting instruments in 14.9 percent, and other “dangerous weapons” were used in 27.8 percent. The FBI report notes, however, that in looking at five and ten year trends, the nation’s crime was down 10.2 percent from 1997, and down 17.9 percent from 1992.

To hear some folks talk, one might think guns are used in a lot more than a quarter of all violent crimes.

peace,
mike

AS I've said repeatedly: EXCLUDING homicides, violent crime in the US is hardly any different from the rest of the western world. It's only in homicides that the US is way out of line. Go back to the FBI UCRP and see what % of HOMICIDES involved firearms.

Jeez- just read what I wrote, not what you wanted me to write!

[billvon 3,073]

>Actually, the Supreme Court has already said that requiring felons to
>register their firearms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL . . .

Requiring felons to register their guns might be unconstitutional, but requiring everyone (including felons) to register theirs is not. The only unconstitutional issue is the singling out of one group.

In any case, I'm against felons having guns to begin with, so the point is sorta moot with me.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Requiring felons to register their guns might be unconstitutional, but requiring everyone (including felons) to register theirs is not. The only unconstitutional issue is the singling out of one group.

Not quite. Go back and read the ruling in U.S. v. Haynes (1968). What the court said is that requiring law abiding citizens to register is ok, but requiring everyone, particularly including felons, is not OK. It said felons cannot be punished for failing to register due to the 5th Amendment; only otherwise law abiding non-felons can be punished for not registering.

The original law Haynes was tried under, the National Firearms Act of 1934 required that EVERYONE register. The law was intended for use against hard-core felons during the depression, but it included everyone. Turned out it only applies to the people who weren't it's original target.

Quote

In any case, I'm against felons having guns to begin with, so the point is sorta moot with me.

Well, what can we say? I think this is the only point of consensus in the entire thread.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnischalke 0]

Unfortunately, Bill, Kennedy is right here. Under mandatory registration, felons would be exempt due to Amendment V. This was a Supreme Court ruling, although I cannot lay my hands on it right now.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put into jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Kennedy 0]

Come on people. Billvon was proved wrong. No surprise? No congrats? I've sure never seen it before [in the forums anyway]

Damnit, I'm going to celebrate with or without you all!! As far as I know, this calls for virtual BEER!!

and no, this thread is never going to die. ever. so there.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnischalke 0]

FBI Agents 'Miffed' that Gun Owner Contacted Media
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
November 05, 2002

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Prior to the capture of "Beltway Sniper" suspects John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, an unconfirmed number of Maryland gun owners received surprise visits from the FBI as part of the investigation. One such gun owner had a surprise of his own for the agents when they arrived at his home.

Jeff Brown of Gaithersburg, Md., was "a little nervous" when he heard the voicemail message from an FBI agent on the sniper task force who wanted to "visit" Brown at his home to check a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle Brown purchased in 1993. Adding to that apprehension was the fact that Brown owns and drives a full-sized white panel van, the type of vehicle investigators believed the sniper was driving.

"I expected, actually, to be pulled over and spread-eagle on the street at some point," Brown told CNSNews.com Monday. "When he called, I knew their database had had a double hit. A white van and a .223 rifle? I knew they were coming."

In a subsequent telephone conversation, Metzger reportedly told Brown that agents merely wanted to verify the serial number of the rifle and confirm that it was, in fact, still physically in Brown's possession. The two scheduled an appointment to accomplish those goals.

But Brown later learned that the agents had tried at least once to make an unannounced visit, and only called because they were unable to catch him at home.

"Once I told some of my friends in the pro-gun community what was happening, they began to relate some stories to me about guys having their guns confiscated, for so-called 'ballistic fingerprinting,' and not getting their guns back," Brown explained. "I became alarmed."

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the attitude of the federal agents comes as a result of "years of accepting gun control as somehow useful for solving crimes."

"The [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] went to the stores and got the lists of gun owners that had something that could fire a .223. But, it didn't solve the crime," Pratt noted. "The only reason we find that gun registration is 'useful' is for confiscation."

FBI Agents 'Were Not Happy'

Brown's apprehension prompted him to contact an attorney, who instructed him on preparing for the visit. So, when FBI Special Agent Greg Metzger and his partner arrived at Brown's home for their scheduled meeting, they were greeted by Brown and his wife, Mary, along with reporters and photographers from various media outlets.

As Brown described the situation, the agents were "a little bit miffed."

"They were not happy," he observed. "They just were not interested in being around any cameras."

The agents asked Brown to step outside the home, away from the television crew, to talk.

"Can we, uh ... come here," one of the agents said to Brown. Obliging, Brown stepped away from the door to speak with the agents, but still within view of the camera.

Brown began recapping the agreement he had made with Special Agent Metzger. But when one of the agents realized Brown was wearing a wireless microphone, he stopped the conversation short.

"Do you have a microphone on?" the agent asked as he reached toward the microphone clipped to Brown's shirt. Brown backed away and continued talking, but the agent interrupted him again.

"Can you do me a favor?" the agent asked. "Can you take the apparatus off that you have on? I'd like to speak to you privately."

Brown complied, but only after summoning his wife to serve as a witness to the conversation with the agents. Out of the camera's view, and believing they could not be heard, the agents challenged Brown about the presence of the media.

"They were belligerent, at that point, with me. They weren't threatening me or pushing me around or touching me or anything like that, but their mannerisms and attitude quickly became offended and belligerent," Brown recalled. "I was thinking to myself, 'See, this is what I was afraid would happen if you guys came into my house, especially if I was alone.'"

'Don't You Know People Are Dying?'

Parts of the conversation picked up by the camera's long-range microphone confirm Brown's account of what happened next.

"Why didn't you give us a chance to do what we said we were going to do instead of ambushing us with the media? Why didn't you trust us?" one agent asked.

Brown said it was not so much the words the agents used, as their attitude and body language that made him uncomfortable.

"There was some lecturing about it," he said recalling one comment that did unnerve him.

"One thing they said was, 'Don't you know people are dying and we're just trying to do our job?'" Brown recalled, "Of course, the inference was that I didn't care that there were people dying and I was trying to interfere with them doing their job."

During that conversation, the agents reportedly admitted that they had seized other rifles, allegedly with permission, to compare them to the ballistic evidence gathered from the crime scenes.

"They said, from some people, they do 'request' to take the gun with them and do 'ballistic fingerprinting,' as they call it," Brown recalled. "I just did not want to have my gun disappear."

Pratt believes the agents "developed an attitude," because Brown challenged their attempts to violate his constitutional rights.

"The FBI is trying to put this guy on a guilt trip because he's 'not cooperating' with the system but it's a totally useless system," Pratt argued. "They just assume that gun owners [are] all a bunch of suspects just for being gun owners and they should behave accordingly."

'They Were Doing It On Purpose'

At the request of Special Agent Metzger, Brown instructed the media to stay outside his home, where they could see what was happening through a plate glass window. Brown had the unloaded weapon displayed in plain sight for the inspection.

The agents followed Brown and his wife inside and confirmed the serial number on the rifle as they had said they wanted to do. But that was not the end of the encounter.

"After they checked, they started [questioning Brown again], and that's when my wife stepped in and told them to leave," Brown said, noting that his wife formerly worked in law enforcement.

Mary Brown believed the agents were attempting to agitate her husband, hoping he would say or do something to justify their confiscation of his rifle.

"I could tell that they were doing it on purpose and I didn't like what they were doing to you," she told her husband. "So, I decided to just jump right in."

The agents left the couple's property, as they were ordered to do.

Jeff Brown does not believe the agents' reaction to the presence of the media, or their "brow-beating" tactics were justified.

"I'm not here to make them feel happy. I have to make sure my rights are not violated. I wanted to help, but this is not Nazi Germany," he explained. "I looked [Metzger] right in the eye and said ... 'I don't care whether you're upset about being ambushed by the media. I felt I needed some witnesses here with me.'"

Brown, a member of the National Rifle Association and former candidate for public office in Maryland, was also upset by what he perceived as a lack of honesty on the part of the FBI.

"[Metzger] wasn't upfront with me, and I didn't have any guilty feelings about [contacting the media]," Brown said. "They weren't truthful with me. They didn't tell me all the truth. They only told me the part they wanted to hear."

A Message to Gun Owners?

Debbie Weierman, a spokeswoman for the FBI, said the bureau would not respond to any questions about the encounter, because the probe into the multiple murders was still in progress.

"We're not going to be able to get into any kind of a dialogue with you regarding any aspect of our investigation," she said.

Pratt believes the response of the agents to the presence of the media shows that their main focus was not on finding the "Beltway Sniper," but rather on sending a message to gun owners.

"They know it's not about crime control because, if they were really interested in finding the perpetrator they would have kept moving. Obviously this guy wasn't the guy," Pratt concluded. "What it's really all about is showing that the feds are in control in a very totalitarian sense of the word."

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[kmcguffee 0]

I sure hope Mr Brown never needs the help of the FBI. I'm sure that little event will be remembered. They were just trying to check out a lead and this guy wants to act like an asshole. They should have cuffed him and took him back to the office under investigative detention. They could have been a lot more of a pain than he ever thought about being. And "yes" they had enough evidence to detain him until they determined whether there was enough evidence to prosecute him.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I sure hope Mr Brown never needs the help of the FBI. I'm sure that little event will be remembered. They were just trying to check out a lead and this guy wants to act like an asshole.

You've got to be kidding me. This guy was protecting himself. The FBI were the ones acting like assholes. They said they wanted to check the numbers. They did. You'll notice they didn't just up and leave afterwards. They had something else in mind. I think this guy was smart to make the media do something useful for once.

Quote

They should have cuffed him and took him back to the office under investigative detention. They could have been a lot more of a pain than he ever thought about being. And "yes" they had enough evidence to detain him until they determined whether there was enough evidence to prosecute him.

Um, there's this little thing called a 'law suit' for doing something like that. It's illegal.

A white van and a .223? That's enough evidence? Not even close. That's not even reasonable articulable suspicion. Not even close to probable cause. You can't just arrest someone and THEN check them out to see if you're going to prosecute. You have to have a reason to arrest someone.

I've got a little quote that can apply to the government. "We've got what it takes to take what you've got" Show them they're wrong and they get all pissy, or worse.

[n.b.] I am a strong proponent of LEOs everywhere, and think they should have the tools to effectively protect the people.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[happythoughts 0]

My roommate went through the "We just want to clear a few things up, why not stop by the cop-shop and chat with us" routine. He agreed and said he would stop by in 2 days with his lawyer. "You don't need your lawyer, it's just an informal chat. Just to clear a few things up." He didn't.

They stopped by at 2:00am and wanted to speak with him. They complained when I mentioned that we had to go to work the next day and he was asleep. I heard "That is a stupid excuse. Bring him to the door NOW." and then they demanded ID and ran a check on ME to intimidate me. I was not involved except that I answered the door.

As far as the intimidation body-language of the FBI guys, I experienced it that night first hand.

The media may have been a bit much for self-protection. I would have had 4 adult members of family and a video camera running. That would be non-interfering if everything was on the level.

This sounded like there was an agenda running in the background.

As far as the FBI showing up the next time I call? Part of their job is not hassling me. Part of it is protecting me.

The cops that hassled me are just storm-troopers in my view and need to find another job. I have never committed a crime and don't expect to be threatened. That is getting to be the perception of a lot of law-abiding citizens these days.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Um, there's this little thing called a 'law suit' for doing something like that. It's illegal.

No it is not. I have done it and seen it done. It is perfectly legal to detain someone for investigative reasons until either probable cause is established or refuted. If you still doubt me I'll pull out the legal decision but you'll have to wait until tomorrow when I can get my book.

Quote

[n.b.] I am a strong proponent of LEOs everywhere, and think they should have the tools to effectively protect the people.

I seriously doubt you understand what their job is really like if you support this asshole.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[mnischalke 0]

kmcguffee,

I am very curious as to what law enforcement organization you belong. You have some very twisted ideas of law enforcement practice, and I really need to know where to steer clear of on my travels.

You are talking about detaining someone without any proof that they are in any way connected. You have one thing: A record of someone owning a gun in an extremely popular caliber. That is not enough to haul someone in on. Period. If you can't convince a judge to issue a warrant based on your *evidence,* you ought not be arbitrarily hauling everyone in who sneezes funny. You will have lots of lawsuits on your hands. Its the other part of Amendment V of the United States Constitution. I have posted it to this thread. Please read it.

Another very concerning point of your last post is what you called the person in this story. You called him an asshole. Hmmmm. He did nothing wrong. He committed no crime. He knew they were coming to take his rifle away to "fingerprint" it (which happened to 300+ other law-abiding citizens of the state of Maryland, many of whom have yet to see their property returned, even though that part of the investigation is complete). He prevented having his rifle seized by having witnesses, both live and on tape. I consider him not an asshole, but a man exercising his rights as an American citizen, as well as a human being. Please review history--especially the period between 1935-1942 in Nazi Germany--for other misuses of public power and remember that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Disclaimer--I am criticizing only those in the law enforcement community who feel they are either better or need to feel more powerful than the common citizens they are sworn to protect, just because they carry a chrome shield.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

You are talking about detaining someone without any proof that they are in any way connected.

I am talking about an Investigative Detention. It is law and it is exercised regularly. I didn't make it up and the courts have upheld this law on numerous occasions. The fact that he has a weapon that is of the same caliber as the murder weapon and drives a vehicle that matches the description of the getaway vehicle is enough to warrant further investigation. You cannot interview a possible suspect with TV cameras in your face. If you believe you can then you try it some day. If the guy was not involved he should have cooperated. Asshole does not mean he committed a crime. It just means he was making the job of the LEOs as hard as possible.

Quote

I am criticizing only those in the law enforcement community who feel they are either better or need to feel more powerful than the common citizens they are sworn to protect, just because they carry a chrome shield.

I assume you are saying I feel that way. I don't and I am also not a Nazi (as you inferred earlier). I would have given up my weapon to allow the police to close the lead though. Instead this guy did everything he could to hinder the investigation. Therefore, he is an asshole in my book. The job is hard enough without this kind of crap.

Quote

I am very curious as to what law enforcement organization you belong. You have some very twisted ideas of law enforcement practice, and I really need to know where to steer clear of on my travels.

Well, I am quoting federal law so you'll have to steer clear of the country.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

You cannot interview a possible suspect with TV cameras in your face.

Ummmmm, well again, that's not why they said they were coming in the first place. They said they were coming to take a look at the serial number. No interview, no seizure of the firearm (it's a firearm, btw, not a weapon). If they wanted to ask questions, or borrow the rifle for a test, they should have said that up front. Instead they made it seem like an innocent visit. Lots of other Marylanders got the same visit. Some have their firearms back looking like they were used to pound nails. Others still have not seen them yet. This is my point--an abuse of power.

Quote

I assume you are saying I feel that way. I don't and I am also not a Nazi (as you inferred earlier).

Don't assume anything like that. I never inferred you were a Nazi. I don't know if you are a Special Agent in Charge or a mall security officer--you might just watch lots of Law and Order. It makes no difference, as I made the Nazi Germany historical reference in regards to the jack boot federal agents in this case, and it doesn't seem like they were the only ones. My disclaimer was made in reference to said agents or anybody like them. Sorry if you took it personally, it was not meant that way.

Quote

Well, I am quoting federal law so you'll have to steer clear of the country.

I am speaking in reference to the way this "lawful detention" is used. You said they should have "cuffed him and took him back to the office under investigative detention. They could have been a lot more of a pain than he ever thought about being." This sounds like retaliation to me. That's not the way law enforcement is supposed to work in this country. I am sorry.

If they have evidence, fine, they should use it and arrest him. If they want a sample round from the barrel of his rifle, fine, they should ask for it. If the cameras were rolling as they looked at the serial numbers, what's the harm? It's cool B-roll for whatever newsstation. But, the guy was justifiably worried they were lying, and they were gonna take his property, or worse. He just protected his interests.

I think the damning part is the reaction of the agents. They flipped out when they knew they could do no more than what they said on the phone. With a little more composure, they could have checked the number, smiled for the camera, and left. An hour later when the cameras had left, they could have came back. "Ummmm, i think i left my badge in your bathroom. And, by the way, where were you October third..."

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

It is perfectly legal to detain someone for investigative reasons until either probable cause is established or refuted.

You want to cuff me for not letting you run rampant in my house? You do that. I'll own whatever badge you carry and most of the town before the lawsuits are over.

You want to question me? Fine. Say so. I can either come with you or I can tell you to go to hell. My perogative. If you want to haul me in and act high and mighty, then I will say exactly three words to you. "Call my lawyer." Now, in this entire example, I am innocent. But I am also cautious in dealing with anyone.

Quote

I seriously doubt you understand what their [LEOs] job is really like if you support this asshole.

Every citizen that doesn't cooperate and submit 100% is an asshole? mnischalke is right. I really don't want to end up in your jurisdiction.

Think on this: look at your signature. What kind of cop are you, the kind that cause happiness wherever? or whenever?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The fact that he has a weapon that is of the same caliber as the murder weapon and drives a vehicle that matches the description of the getaway vehicle is enough to warrant further investigation.

Um, right. Getaway vehicle. Says who? Other than after the fact we know that he had access to a big white box truck, who says one was even involved? What about the cream colored SUV, or the tan pickup? Witnesses have said all kinds of things.

Quote

If you still doubt me I'll pull out the legal decision but you'll have to wait until tomorrow when I can get my book.

Well, it's two days after "tomorrow" and I haven't seen any decisions referenced. Can you let me in on it? Or do ordinary citizens not deserve to know, because that would make your job harder?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,073]

>Um, there's this little thing called a 'law suit' for doing something like
> that. It's illegal.

Not at all! Ashcroft himself has said that, if people are suspected of terror attacks (which a sniper attack definitely falls under) they can be detained indefinitely with no cause. It can be done; it has been done.

[billvon 3,073]

>Please review history--especially the period between 1935-1942 in
>Nazi Germany--for other misuses of public power and remember that
> those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

We are repeating it. We are currently letting the government indefinitely detain people in 'the war on terror' with no cause. Our government carries out summary executions of US citizens with no trial. You really think this isn't a dramatic expansion of the rights of government over people?

The war on terror will be one of the gun control advocate's best allies. We seem to have accepted that we have to give up some rights to help fight this undeclared war, and when you lose those rights, you will find it hard to recover them.

[Kennedy 0]

Ah, the voice of reason. So sweet it sounds.

Whose sig line is it that say something to the effect that if you give up liberty for peace/safety you deserve neither?

Words of wisdom, Lloyd. Words...of...wisdom.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jfields 0]

I think both sides are missing part of the point here.

The cops were working insane hours and putting up with tremendous public and media pressure on the case. Then they come across someone who is going very far out of his way to make their job into a difficult circus. I'm not getting into the legal specifics, because I'm not a lawyer. But his intent was clearly to frustrate and hinder the police, even while ostensibly complying. If nothing else, his shenanigans wasted a lot of time.

The guy is no "Second Amendment Hero". He was an ass. Yet the cops lost their cool too. Despite the strain of the situation, they shouldn't have. They should have dealt with the guy better. The situation was designed so they would look foolish no matter what, but they should have done better at defusing the situation.

I don't think this example makes any case whatsoever about the sensibilities of gun owners or gun ownership. If the general public all acted like this guy did, law enforcement would be far less effective than it is now and criminals would take even longer to be caught.