2A doing it wrong and right

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by tallbump, Aug 7, 2015.

  1. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    BREAKING: Gun Confiscation for Veterans Begins… But First Victim Had a Sheriff, 2 State Reps and 100 Local Patriots Show Up at House Yesterday to Stop It

    http://libertynews.com/2015/08/breaking-gun-confiscation-for-veterans-begins-but-first-victim-had-a-sheriff-2-state-reps-and-100-local-patriots-show-up-at-house-yesterday-to-stop-it/

    A couple weeks ago we wrote about how the fed is about to rule that more than 4,000,000 social security recipients do not have 2nd Amendment Rights. The regulation in question basically claims that anyone who has assistance filing their social security paperwork or getting payments set up is not competent enough to do their own finances and therefor is not competent enough to own a firearm.

    I don’t remember reading in the 2nd amendment that you have a right to keep and bear arms unless you hire someone to help you with your accounting. But apparently that’s what the fed is suggesting.

    At the time of the story we didn’t yet have examples of how such a “rule” would be used against Americans. Now we do. Only it’s not Social Security where it happened. It’s the VA.

    Indeed, the VA sent a veteran a letter stating they would be sending an inspector/officer to his home to confiscate his firearms. Why? Because he checked a box on his paperwork stating that he gets assistance dealing with his finances.

    The inspector was schedule to confiscate the guns yesterday (August 6). That plan quickly fell apart, however, when the County Sheriff, two State Representatives and about 100 local patriots rallied at the vet’s home to protect him from the 2nd amendment violation.

    The AP has more
    .



    It’s probably very safe to say this is just the beginning. We’re going to be seeing a LOT more of it in the coming months and years.
     
  2. I feel we are not getting the full story.
    The AP say's the VA dose not have the authority to confiscate or inspect. But the Liberty article is worded that someone showed up to confiscate and the protest stopped them.

    Why would AP not report on the attempted confiscation if it happened?

    I believe the letter, I do not believe someone actively tried to remove his firearms.
     

  3. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    So, basically, we need to see the full text of the letter.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  4. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    Yes, I agree, we need to see the letter.

    I noticed the discrepancy too.

    I'm guessing someone did show up to try to confiscate but decided not to press the issue.

    I have no doubt the letter was sent.

    But just becuase the VA said they can't enforce the letter doesn't mean someone else can't.
    Clearly the Sheriff wasn't going to enforce it.

    But what about other agencies? Like here, in the city, we have PD and Sheriffs, each with distinct roles. Or State Police? or what about Feds like the ATF or DHS?
     
  5. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,279
    1,514
    INDY
    Sheriff Wheeler, doing what he was elected to do!

    County Sheriff = El Supremo inside his own county...
    per the US Constitution! ;) :dance: :llama:
     
  6. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,279
    1,514
    INDY
    As long as the Sheriff is on the job,
    NOBODY can do SH!T, I Gar-on-tee!
    Not even the F'eds. Sheriff is #1 law enforcement officer, in the county.
    NOTHING Trumps the Sheriff! He has the final say. PERIOD.
     
  7. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    That mgiht depend on the State or municipality.

    Here in PA, at least in my city, I think the City Police would have more power than the Sheriff.
     
  8. That is because they have the blessing of the sheriff to do it and are doing it in a way that the sheriff approves of. The sheriff is directly responsible for enforcing state laws and city police are only directly responsible for local laws(barking dog, etc).

    In almost all counties across the country the county sheriff prefers that the city police handle state crimes also. It makes life easier for him, few budget problems, fewer people problems, etc.

    When I moved here and check into how it's handled here, all city police are automatically considered to be reserve deputy sheriffs. That also allows for things like having one SWAT team, drug team, etc that can automatically go wherever in the county with there ever being the possibility of any toe stepping.
     
  9. While he is the #1 LEO in a county, a gov or the prez can send in a bona fide militia to enforce the law that over rules what sheriff wants to do.

    This is the fed part:

    "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
     
  10. I don't trust the AP to report anything correctly or unbiased.Their reporters routinely slant news stories to the left.Been reading it for years. If anyone wants see how County Sheriffs are doing,check Joe Arapio from Arizona.He wanted/wants to do something about illegals,but is stopped at every turn.
    The Feds think they can come in and supercede state and county authority.Nope.