In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
I propose a New Law -- Defense of Rights
bustedknee
Member Posts: 2,002 ✭✭✭✭
Since new unconstitutional anti-4A laws (Virginia) are threatening our rights it has become necessary for counties and municipalities to pass laws saying they will refuse to enforce the unconstitutional laws.
However, some elected officials are balking, citing various reasons. Every county, town and city in Virginia is spending time and money in an attempt to protect an existing right with differing laws.
I feel it is time to propose a national Defense Of Our Rights (DOOR) law.
Any citizen that defends his (or her) Constitutional rights (4A) with deadly force (against an official) need only to claim DOOR to invoke the law.
No charges may may be brought against that individual.
That means, any official that attempts to disarm a law-abiding citizen my do so only if the citizen voluntarily surrenders his (her) arm(s).
Forced disarming may only be executed by court order accompanied by charging documents
All legal citizens of the United States may resort to use of deadly force to protect his (her) constitutional rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
After a claim of DOOR, the burden of proof falls upon the government to prove it was not DOOR before any other charges may be filed.
Are you with me? Suggestions? Thoughts?
However, some elected officials are balking, citing various reasons. Every county, town and city in Virginia is spending time and money in an attempt to protect an existing right with differing laws.
I feel it is time to propose a national Defense Of Our Rights (DOOR) law.
Any citizen that defends his (or her) Constitutional rights (4A) with deadly force (against an official) need only to claim DOOR to invoke the law.
No charges may may be brought against that individual.
That means, any official that attempts to disarm a law-abiding citizen my do so only if the citizen voluntarily surrenders his (her) arm(s).
Forced disarming may only be executed by court order accompanied by charging documents
All legal citizens of the United States may resort to use of deadly force to protect his (her) constitutional rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
After a claim of DOOR, the burden of proof falls upon the government to prove it was not DOOR before any other charges may be filed.
Are you with me? Suggestions? Thoughts?
I can't believe they misspelled "Pork and Beans!"
Comments
When they stack Senate with The NWO types and sign/ratify The U.N.resolution to eliminate firearms then it won't be local law enforcement at the door.
serf
So it is OK to unconstitutionally confiscate a weapon from from a person if there is a court order?
I'll pass.
Brad Steele
A court order and a charging document = arrest after the commission of a crime.
Neither of the above is confiscation of firearms in violation of 2A. Return of arms may be in order after the matter is solved.
I probably miss-spelled a word here and there as well.
Enter the National Guard
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/the-law-is-the-law-virginia-democrats-float-prosecution-national-guard-deployment-if-police-dont-enforce-gun-control
We have enough gun laws, what we need is IDIOT control.
Blood makes you related. Loyalty makes you family.
I thought getting old would take longer. :shock:
Blue is a pretty color for a target.
The 2nd Amendment has been re-defined by SCOTUS to include the regulation of firearm types, and thus far, the prohibition of certain types has not been successfully challenged. In other words, absent a change, an 'Assault Weapons Ban' and confiscation is not considered an infringement upon our 2nd Amendment rights. A court order for confiscation in your proposed law would therefore be Constitutional as the mere possession would be the crime.
A law will not change this. The only thing, IMO, that will change this is a proper re-definition of the 2nd Amendment that clearly states the limitations this right places upon governments. Currently we have a right that the vast majority of people in the country believe is fungible and the denial of that right to various groups, or denial of access to certain types of weapons is OK so long as most folks agree. As time goes on, the US population is being pushed away from a true understanding of our founding. This is done by deliberately misleading our young, and is happening as immigrants and future citizens arrive from countries and cultures that have no understanding of the necessity of this basic right necessary for the preservation of freedom and liberty.
While I applaud the concept, it depends upon the courts' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment at that moment in time. We have seen how even the much respected faux conservative Scalia gutted the 2nd in Heller and McDonald. A law protecting those decisions does not protect, IMO, the historic principle that resulted in the codification of the nature right express in Amendment 2.
Brad Steele