all citizens...Hand over your guns on demand

[wrag]

Im not DNR nor am I LE in Wisconsin but I will explain this the best way I can from my point of view. Purposely withholding a firearm from an officer who is aware you have it is NOT a good idea. It is in your best judgment to cooperate with an officer should you be in a situation where said officer is asking for your weapon (or it's location on your person/vehicle).

As an officer in a smaller city, I do encounter hunters from time to time. I also encounter MANY CCW holders who are armed. I am told about the weapon 99% of the time and I will secure it while I carry out my contact with the individual. When I am done, I will give back the weapon, as long as the situation warrants (not going to jail, ability to carry (legally and physically/mentally) is certain). Should the weapon be stolen or on a hit list, I keep it. Should you be intoxicated, in a mixed mental state or going to jail for other reasons, I will be hanging on to it.

Do I want to deprive anyone of their Constitutional Rights? Absolutely not.

Do I want to make sure I do everything in my power to go home to my family at the end of the shift? You bet your axx I do.

This part is what give me trouble.....


"Disobeying a lawful order is a crime. There is no possible way that an officer can be sure of your intentions when you withhold a weapon from him. Cooperation is key."


because....


"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." ~~ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)

who decides what a Lawful Order is?  The Judge or Jury AFTER the fact?  And what happened to I'm innocent until PROVEN guilty?  And how do I know that YOU are the officer stopping me or if it's some officer that's on a power trip that INTENDS to keep my firearm NO MATTER WHAT?


The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

and.... resistance is required?

Because.....

"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia [1782]

I want you to go home to your family SAFE and in good health!

But too much of what you said tells me that Law Enforcement MAY BE gradually taking on too much power!

Ya I know law suites and such are getting so ridicules that you can get sued either way you go so better safe then sorry. 

But I've also heard the argument similar to the  how do you know the individual isn't on their way to commit a murder/crime with that firearm argument.

You don't!  but you also don't know if the individual is just carrying it because they actually believe they STILL have rights.

The question that KEEPS coming up in my head is WHY!

WHY can't I carry around a weapon, or an assault weapon for that matter, in my vehicle if I want to?

[smkelly13]

WHY can't I carry around a weapon, or an assault weapon for that matter, in my vehicle if I want to?

You can carry a weapon in your vehicle, as long as its registered and not banned/stolen/hot.  You cannot carry an assault rifle due to the police shootouts in LA in the '90s IIRC and because the firepower behind the weapon out does what police normally carry.  I'm not 100% sure on that, but I know I've heard it somewhere before...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

[wrag]

You can carry a weapon in your vehicle, as long as its registered and not banned/stolen/hot.  You cannot carry an assault rifle due to the police shootouts in LA in the '90s IIRC and because the firepower behind the weapon out does what police normally carry.  I'm not 100% sure on that, but I know I've heard it somewhere before...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

Really?

"You cannot carry an assault rifle due to the police shootouts in LA in the '90s IIRC and because the firepower behind the weapon out does what police normally carry."

What does that have to do with anyone carrying around such a weapon?  Because they MIGHT abuse it?  So IF you carry such a weapon around you are GUILTY of MAYBE?

[Roundeye]

This part is what give me trouble.....


"Disobeying a lawful order is a crime. There is no possible way that an officer can be sure of your intentions when you withhold a weapon from him. Cooperation is key."


because....


"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." ~~ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)

who decides what a Lawful Order is?  The Judge or Jury AFTER the fact?  And what happened to I'm innocent until PROVEN guilty?  And how do I know that YOU are the officer stopping me or if it's some officer that's on a power trip that INTENDS to keep my firearm NO MATTER WHAT?


The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

and.... resistance is required?

Because.....

"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia [1782]

I want you to go home to your family SAFE and in good health!

But too much of what you said tells me that Law Enforcement MAY BE gradually taking on too much power!

Ya I know law suites and such are getting so ridicules that you can get sued either way you go so better safe then sorry. 

But I've also heard the argument similar to the  how do you know the individual isn't on their way to commit a murder/crime with that firearm argument.

You don't!  but you also don't know if the individual is just carrying it because they actually believe they STILL have rights.

The question that KEEPS coming up in my head is WHY!

WHY can't I carry around a weapon, or an assault weapon for that matter, in my vehicle if I want to?

I'm with ya, bro.  But the harsh reality is that if a LEO feels he may be in danger, he is NOT going to calmly discuss constitutional rights.  He is going to want you to comply NOW.  Failing to do so would not end well for either or both of you.  Like I posted earlier, if it escalates....it would be the word of a LEO against a body on the ground with a gun laying next to it.

[smkelly13]

What do you mean "What does that have to do with anyone carrying around such a weapon"?  If you're packing more heat than the police, bad things will happen.  You'll shoot your big gun, hitting/killing a few officers, and then they'll shoot you a bazillion times, and your family will sue them.

Like I said, I'm not 100% sure if what I said is correct or not, I'm almost sure I've heard it before.

[smkelly13]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

Quoted from source:

Q: Why did police support the ban so strongly?

A: While there are no exact numbers of assault weapon incidents, police across America in the 1980s reported that semi-automatic assault weapons had become the "weapon of choice" for drug traffickers, gangs and paramilitary extremist groups.

Law enforcement officers are at particular risk from these weapons because of their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor. In addition, limiting civilian access to such weapons lessens the need for law enforcement to carry assault weapons themselves in order to match the firepower capability that criminals with assault weapons would have. Law enforcement officers do not want to have to carry M-16s as their standard service weapon. In 1997, after a North Hollywood, CA shootout in which police were outgunned by two men with assault weapons, Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police stated

An AK-47 fires a military round. In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them...Police are armed with weapons that are effective with criminals in line of sight. They don't want and don't need weapons that would harm innocent bystanders.[

 

[sluggish]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

Quoted from source:

 

Brady Campaign, huh?  I suppose you thing the Second Amendment is about hunting and skeet shooting too...

[smkelly13]

Is that a Frederic joke?

[Rich46yo]

Actually SMKelly its very unusual to have so called assault weapons involved in crime. Even the gangs, while they would occasionally pop at us when the High rises were up, didn't want their AK taken away. Besides, it was already illegal. So what can you do? Make it really,really,really, illegal? But the truth is we dont often see them, where'as the Brady bunch would have you believe there is an AK toting criminal around every corner.

Besides, I'd rather have some gangbanger, with a chickens brain, go off with his AK then I would some redneck, ex-paratrooper, lifelong deer hunter, go off with his .300 win mag. And again we start backing into the 2nd amendment, which specifically guarantees the rights of Americans to own firearms. Which is my belief too. Ive seen enough gun control in my career to make me laugh at it when I see it. Since when did we become a Nation at the mercy of Government?

None of this has anything to do with a game warden doing his job however. Ive been checked many times and I just give him my shotgun. He has a right to check and make sure I'm in compliance with game laws. And afterwards I thank him for being out here, what with all the poaching going on.

A "part time instructor" that "owns a sporting goods store"? And now he is making himself a "part time ambulance chaser" as well. And getting his students into trouble with his little attitude problem? What we dont have enough problems in the game fields without Mark Palan going for his 15 mins worth?

[smkelly13]

It's not unusual, more or less that it's not as likely as a .40 pistol or sawed-off shotgun.  I never said you'd see it all the time, I provided the one instance I know about.

Besides, I'd rather have some gangbanger, with a chickens brain, go off with his AK then I would some redneck, ex-paratrooper, lifelong deer hunter, go off with his .300 win mag.

This defies sane logic.  One is a sniper rifle, the other an automatic machine gun.  Both would result in many casualties, but chances are, the AK would take out more people then the sniper rifle.  Either way, people will/would die.  You don't know what would actually happen.  The gangbanger could be ex Marine Recon, while the redneck was just a plain Jane Army grunt.  Add in rates of fire, reload times, mobility, and many other variables and it'd become clear that the AK-47 has a distinct advantage over a sniper rifle.  And, is it close combat or from a mile away?  Your little comparison is awfully vague.

Also, it'd make more sense if you said sniper instead of paratrooper.

The Second Amendment allows every American the chance (unless a felon) to own a firearm.  Unless regulations are put in place, the great people of this country would be mounting Gatling guns to their vehicles.  You cut someone off on the express way and you'd be getting torn in half by a Gatling gun.  This argument is alot like owning a pitbull.  Why does someone need to own a M16, or AK-47?  They aren't good hunting weapons, the M16 is fragile.  Do they need to protect themselves from 10 feet tall angry wolverines?  I personally own weapons, and am appreciative of it, but I'm not going to have a seizure over the fact my government says no assault weapons.

Since when did we become a Nation at the mercy of Government?

Are you serious?

[DJ111]

(1)You don't know what would actually happen. 
(2)Why does someone need to own a M16, or AK-47?

(1) But you are all-knowing, right?

(2) Because it's our RIGHT to own them.

[sluggish]

smelly13, what do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

[Rich46yo]

SMkelly you sound like a 14yo kid thats never even fired a gun before. Let alone been in the service. M16 fragile? Are you high?

But thanks for straightening me out anyway.

[Bronk]

SMkelly you sound like a 14yo kid thats never even fired a gun before. Let alone been in the service. M16 fragile? Are you high?

But thanks for straightening me out anyway.

Guessing 13 myself.

[smkelly13]

SMkelly you sound like a 14yo kid thats never even fired a gun before. Let alone been in the service. M16 fragile? Are you high?

But thanks for straightening me out anyway.

Have you ever used an M-16 for an extended period of time?
When I got sent to Louisana to help clean up the katrina mess, we had to have plastic wrapping around the entire weapon, because if a M-16 gets a little wet, it'll rust within minutes.  Let alone the jamming frequency of the weapon, it's plastic stock that'd break if used for close combat.  They'll rust completely shut if used in water, and they'll jam if sand gets poured in the weapon.  Yes, they are absolutely fragile.  Talk to me after you've been in the armed services.