Red Flag Law Killed Maryland Gun Owner

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jstokes1

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Oct 9, 2012
    604
    16
    Houma
    JStokes-
    What do you think the correct course of action would be? Do you see the lone dipshit raising a call to arms and hordes of like-minded individuals come to his aide piecemeal in their pickup trucks?
    If these are the first shots in your revolution it better be a little more well scripted than that. The Lone Wolf approach is futile Hollywood fodder; the lone mental patient is suicidal and futile.
    I do not believe in any wholesale legal action: gun confiscation, DWI checkpoints, Terror watch lists, etc. I personally believe they violate the spirit of our law if not the letter of it. But the way to remedy it is through collective and legal action. Did anyone pursue the filing of an injunction? Did anyone challenge its legality in court? That is the way things are done here. As I said earlier, that is what separates us from BLM, Antifa, Greenpeace, and any other crackpot entity advocating ends justifying means. I personally do not see that as a solution.
    I genuinely mean it when I say I am curious as to what each person's recommendation would be in this situation. I've explained the way I would handle it, I would like to hear from others, providing it is sincere and fruitful.
    Tregre pointed out there is a 100% approval of applications from the local police. It seems that would provide damn good proof of a lack of judicial review. That ought to make it an open and shut slam dunk court case for the citizens of Florida that pursue injunctions or repeal.
    Unfortunately, every post or publication on this matter presents feeling, opinions, and emotion; none that I have found include facts, precedent, statistics, or empirical data. That makes it impossible to give an intelligent reply.
    There comes a time when the logical approach to.. "incidences" such as this is blatant non-compliance. Yes, you can try to "defuse" the situation, that you did not even elevate to begin with, but the end result is the same, a boot to your neck. I am a student of history and know where laws and occurrences like this lead to every single time if the citizenry is complacent. Approach this issue as you please, but the fault in this was not the homeowner and but in the unconstitutional nature of the "public servants" carrying out these orders. Just remember, complacency breeds the apathy that eventually leads to enslavement, as shown throughout recorded human history.
     
    Last edited:

    jstokes1

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Oct 9, 2012
    604
    16
    Houma
    In order for autonomy and liberty to survive, there needs to be a line in the sand drawn and enforced at all cost.
     
    Last edited:

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    notice I didn’t mention the guy in the video.
    The cops actions killed someone, which is more and more the case nowadays. Argue all you want, a very significant number of police shootings, especially the ones happening in the dead peoples’ homes, are not the only solution and are a product of total lack of concern for human life over finding an easier route. Most get away with killing people when there were other options. A few do not. And there are real cops who don’t go straight to empty the magazine when someone doesn’t comply with every command. On the other end of the spectrum are those that somehow make the decision to kill no matter how many commands the victim complies with. When I hear the reasons why, how people just don’t understand what it’s like and so on, all I hear is excuses.
    I don’t put all cops in the killer category because I’m not a cop hater. But I’m not gonna sit and ignore the bad cops and the bad judgement and bad actions of any cop. If any of my words are inflammatory to you personally, try not to put yourself in any of those categories by being so quick to defend them. I don’t pass judgement on you for being a cop. You let us all know where you stand any time anything negative is said about any cop. Cops are just people. Some tend to forget that. When some decide that it’s gonba be their way or die, they’ve taken a life that they don’t care about. Many times a completely innocent person who the cop mistook for a criminal and who simply didn’t stand for their rights being trampled.

    You’ve given yourself away, asking me that question, and buddy, lemme tell you, if I have to make a life or death choice any time a cop comes into contact with me there’s a problem. Like there’s no other choice? Are you serious?

    I would go out on a limb and say that 99% of LEO don’t go straight to dumping mags when people don’t comply with every command, it happens nightly. And yes, I do tend to side with LE when I think they are right. I haven’t sided with anyone on this one due to not having a lot of the Info but I can say that grabbing a gun was 100% not the thing to do.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    Annndddd ladies and gentleman, this is the reason why people were easily carted off to concentration camps. You would have made a great subject during 1930’s-40’s Germany. You might as well turn all your **** in now buddy.

    Lol, sorry I’m not as tough as you.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    In order for autonomy and liberty to survive, there needs to be a line in the sand drawn and enforced at all cost.

    Whoa there Wolverine. I don’t think it’s time yet but you can be Patrick swayze when it is.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    enigmedic

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   1
    Sep 14, 2010
    280
    28
    New Orleans area
    Magblumpkin- Sorry about your literacy issues, they only became evident in the first line of your last reply. I would have made a video reply had I known earlier in the thread. There are some cool programs/ apps that convert text to speech, I will provide a link. Perhaps then you'll get more out of it.

    I think you attempted to say the homeowner wasn't certain if they were police or intruders. That was spelled out (sorry, no pun intended) clearly in the video (in audio, not print), so I am not sure where the confusion lies. He spoke with officers face to face for over a minute before going back inside for his gun; he did NOT mistake them for intruders or burglars.

    Please! Please! Please! I implore you! Do not give up on me! We could be the next Hannity & Colmes, minus the TelePrompter, of course.

    It was a simple lapse in judgement, that I had the unmitigated gall to have an opinion that differed from yours. It could happen to anybody. It's just that most of us don't insult other dissenting forum members right out the gate, including me. I made a post that you disagreed with, and before presenting logic or reason, you went to insulting me based on your perception that I am a member of a group that rejected you. I always let you guys draw first blood, because I don't feel so bad about beating you senseless in a debate.
    Predictably, you avoided presenting a sound argument and threw a few insults. That goes to the junior high mentality I spoke of earlier. In a serious conversation, otherwise involving adults, your contribution was effectively, "I know you are, but what am I?" I can't imagine why a government agency passed over a skilled litigator like you. More importantly, I don't know why you're angry. Adults disagree all the time.
    Promising NEVER to give up on you, Big Brother

    P.S. Your reply (attached below) to the other post suggests that you are not averse to shooting any cop that you feel wrongs you. If these guys are as corrupt and blood-thirsty as you say they are, you just gave them a green light and a free pass for a "suicide by cop" defense. It was not even said to someone in confidence; it was published for the entire world to see, as a matter of record. You saved them the trouble of locating witnesses and serving subpoenas. You're quite the strategist and a District Attorney's dream come true. I can't imagine why an agency wouldn't want you representing them in public!
    Quote attached, from Magdump to Motor51: "You’ve given yourself away, asking me that question, and buddy, lemme tell you, if I have to make a life or death choice any time a cop comes into contact with me there’s a problem. Like there’s no other choice? Are you serious?"
     
    Last edited:

    jstokes1

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Oct 9, 2012
    604
    16
    Houma
    Lol, sorry I’m not as tough as you.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    Nothing about being tough, it's about having conviction and making a point. Would you have complied to move to the ghettos, because fighting against doing so "put your family's lives in danger", when the real danger came from your decision to comply in the first place? Because with your reply, I would say 100% you would have. Do you not see the irony?
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    Nothing about being tough, it's about having conviction and making a point. Would you have complied to move to the ghettos, because fighting against doing so "put your family's lives in danger", when the real danger came from your decision to comply in the first place? Because with your reply, I would say 100% you would have. Do you not see the irony?

    So you compare the police taking a gun from an obvious wingnut to the holocaust and I’m suppose to rationalize that? Ok, good luck with your line in the sand, please keep us updated


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    jstokes1

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Oct 9, 2012
    604
    16
    Houma
    - - - Updated - - -

    Whoa there Wolverine. I don’t think it’s time yet but you can be Patrick swayze when it is.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    What exactly does "is it time yet" actually mean? You think confiscation is going to be some all at once stream-lined effort? No, it is piecewise process that's summation leads to what is perceived as the "right time". You think the journey to the concentration camps happened at one time? It was a process. I don't advocate "being rambo", but simply standing your ground. Some of what enigmedic stated was true, identify the reason they are knocking at your door first before anymore action is committed, but I will not blame someone for not complying to unconstitutional demands for the action(s) against said citizen that resulted because the citizen was not the aggressor.
     
    Last edited:

    jstokes1

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Oct 9, 2012
    604
    16
    Houma
    So you compare the police taking a gun from an obvious wingnut to the holocaust and I’m suppose to rationalize that? Ok, good luck with your line in the sand, please keep us updated


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    The fact that you cannot see the parallel and the future implications is telling. The way these laws work is that they first go after those who the public deems fit for such action (people making threats, those with "mental issues", etc.), to help build justification for such actions in the name of safety....... but then when the public is desensitized from these occurrences due to the people typically involved in them.... the gears switch to a much different target. But, due to the apathy garnered from the original intent, people are already apathetic and associate the future victims of this law with the subjects I stated above (people making threats, those with "mental issues", etc.). Now when someone does decide to fight back, it is used to add more fuel to the fire, leading to an even greater justification of these laws. Before you know it, it's too late. If you want a recent example, take a look at what is happening in Britain/the UK right now. The intended direction of laws like these are so obvious it's almost funny.

    I bet you think the decision to ban bumpstocks without congress is completely okay too.
     
    Last edited:

    enigmedic

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   1
    Sep 14, 2010
    280
    28
    New Orleans area
    JStokes- We agree that there is a fundamental legal problem here, and you are correct that history is the best indicator of of future. "Past is prologue" is a favorite of mine. I sincerely hope that police unions and advisers unite with citizens to legally stop constitutional violations before they put both groups in harm's way. For far too long, they have treated each other as diametrically opposed instead of allies, in a fight against elected officials who have the luxury of going merrily on their way when the stage that THEY set gets bloody.
    If officers are educated and have a decent legal awareness, they'll know when they are being issued invalid or illegal orders. If not, that is their responsibility and they should be held accountable, both criminally and civilly. The citizenry will be well served in their refusal to execute those orders. The old Nuremberg defense, speaking of history.
    I always enjoy the exchange of ideas, that is the beauty of internet forums. We agree on the matter, even if we have different means of getting to our collective destination. Make no mistake, my belief is that the courtroom is the place to argue, not the scene of the incident. If you feel wronged, file suit and collect cash; it happens all the time. Otherwise, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
     
    Last edited:

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    - - - Updated - - -



    What exactly does "is it time yet" actually mean? You think confiscation is going to be some all at once stream-lined effort? No, it is piecewise process that's summation leads to what is perceived as the "right time". You think the journey to the concentration camps happened at one time? It was a process. I don't advocate "being rambo", but simply standing your ground. Some of what enigmedic stated was true, identify the reason they are knocking at your door first before anymore action is committed, but I will not blame someone for not complying to unconstitutional demands for the action(s) against said citizen that resulted because the citizen was not the aggressor.

    You are correct and I’m just not on your level I guess. I do have one last question so I can understand a little of your mindset. So the police talk to this guy for a few minutes and tell him they are there due to this new law and are going to seize his guns, do you think he was right to go back inside and grab his gun in order to stand his ground(draw a line in the sand)?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    jstokes1

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Oct 9, 2012
    604
    16
    Houma
    You are correct and I’m just not on your level I guess. I do have one last question so I can understand a little of your mindset. So the police talk to this guy for a few minutes and tell him they are there due to this new law and are going to seize his guns, do you think he was right to go back inside and grab his gun in order to stand his ground(draw a line in the sand)?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    I think he/she has the right to make whatever decision he/she intends to as a free citizen that is not willing to complying with a tyrannical request. I have an even more pertinent question for you, do you think the homeowner deserves to die at the hands of an unconstitutional decree that violates basic human rights because a public servant was just "following orders"? Reference the Nuremberg Trials if you want a little more insight.
     

    jstokes1

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Oct 9, 2012
    604
    16
    Houma
    JStokes- We agree that there is a fundamental legal problem here, and you are correct that history is the best indicator of of future. I sincerely hope that police unions and advisers unite with citizens to legally stop constitutional violations before they put both groups in harm's way. For far too long, they have treated each other as diametrically opposed instead of allies, in a fight against elected officials who have the luxury of going merrily on their way when the stage that they set gets bloody.
    If officers are educated and have a decent legal awareness, they'll know when they are being issued invalid or illegal orders. If not, that is their responsibility and they should be held accountable, both criminally and civilly. The citizenry will be well served in their refusal to execute those orders. The old Nuremberg defense, speaking of history.
    I always enjoy the exchange of ideas, that is the beauty of internet forums. We agree on the matter, even if we have different means of getting to our collective destination. Make no mistake, my belief is that the courtroom is the place to argue, not the scene of the incident. If you feel wronged, file suit and collect cash; it happens all the time.

    I can respect this approach and understand where you are coming from. Try the pen before the sword, but keep it sheathed close by when that pen runs out of ink.
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    I think he/she has the right to make whatever decision he/she intends to as a free citizen that is not willing to complying with a tyrannical request. I have an even more pertinent question for you, do you think the homeowner deserves to die at the hands of an unconstitutional decree that violates basic human rights because a public servant was just "following orders"? Reference the Nuremberg Trials if you want a little more insight.

    I’ll answer that question like you answered mine. The officer would have every right to enforce the law or quit.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    I can respect this approach and understand where you are coming from. Try the pen before the sword, but keep it sheathed close by when that pen runs out of ink.

    I’m guessing the military recruiter didn’t have to promise you a bunch of things to get you to sign up. You seem like quite the warrior.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    enigmedic

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   1
    Sep 14, 2010
    280
    28
    New Orleans area
    I can respect this approach and understand where you are coming from. Try the pen before the sword, but keep it sheathed close by when that pen runs out of ink.

    I can agree up to the point that blood is shed needlessly when there is a legal system. Elvis going for his gun when we have legal recourse implies he intended to kill cops for enforcing a court order, illegally. That is a slippery slope; where does it end? Shoot a trooper for an improperly calibrated radar gun? Kill a store dick in a mistaken identity shoplifting case?
    If society crumbles and our legal system collapses, where there is no appeal or recourse, then of course, light them up! But as long as we have a legal system and the courts are open for business, employ them. Elvis could be alive and well, sitting on a big civil judgement, had he let them wrongly take him into custody. The best part is, that wasn't why they were there- nobody was getting arrested or even detained! It was an asset forfeiture. Its hard to claim self defense there, it was no different than a car being repossessed. They weren't after him, they were after his property. Petition and SUE!
     
    Last edited:

    jstokes1

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Oct 9, 2012
    604
    16
    Houma
    I’m guessing the military recruiter didn’t have to promise you a bunch of things to get you to sign up. You seem like quite the warrior.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    Joining the military in this is context would insinuate that I go look for fights, but I’m quite the opposite. I don’t look for any fights, but I’ll hold my own if they find me and there is no way out. I think most can agree with that.
     

    jstokes1

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Oct 9, 2012
    604
    16
    Houma
    I’ll answer that question like you answered mine. The officer would have every right to enforce the law or quit.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    That they would, and they are then entitled to the possible consequences of following said orders, as would the citizen.
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    I can agree up to the point that blood is shed needlessly when there is a legal system. Elvis going for his gun when we have legal recourse implies he intended to kill cops for enforcing a court order, illegally. That is a slippery slope; where does it end? Shoot a trooper for an improperly calibrated radar gun? Kill a store dick in a mistaken identity shoplifting case?
    If society crumbles and our legal system collapses, where there is no appeal or recourse, then of course, light them up! But as long as we have a legal system and the courts are open for business, employ them. Elvis could be alive and well, sitting on a big civil judgement, had he let them wrongly take him into custody. The best part is, that wasn't why they were there- nobody was getting arrested or even detained! It was an asset forfeiture. Its hard to claim self defense there, it was no different than a car being repossessed. They weren't after him, they were after his property. Petition and SUE!

    Exactly


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,232
    Messages
    1,546,155
    Members
    29,172
    Latest member
    ksgunner82
    Top Bottom