Comments

IF POLICE COME FOR YOUR GUNS — 87 Comments

  1. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but haven’t LEO/gunwriters such as yourself told 2nd Amendment supporters for years that if confiscations began that scrupulous LEO’s would resign/refuse such orders to tyrannize law-abiding citizens (and, to be fair, there are already cases of county sheriffs throughout the US who are refusing to enforce such Red Flag orders)? And now you’re advocating that citizens drop to their knees and hand ’em over, with the hope that the same courts that issued the orders to begin with will decide that gee, maybe taking their guns is a step too far? Perhaps this would work for wealthy gun owners that have excess wealth to spend on attorney fees and court costs, but the working man doesn’t have such disposable income.

    • We’re already seeing sheriffs announcing they will not comply with the poorly crafted laws under discussion. As you noticed.

    • Well now it is in the “tone” of your statement that makes me want to reply to you specifically, and those who ‘think’ like you. Yes we have all heard the mantra, “come take them” and “molan labe” and the steadfastness of other 2A guys proclaiming their resistance to tyranny. NEVER GIVE THEM UP!!!

      And as I have said for years, confiscation will be in the form of a thousands cuts. Yes these red flag laws are confiscation by fiat and that is what I have predicted all along. Here in Maryland we have already had one tragedy as a result of these illegal laws, but, no matter how illegal WE think they are, they are the law. The law is to be enforced. Law Enforcement Officers enforce the law. Some LEO’s have taken a stand, such as our sheriff in Calvert county who stated publicly “WE WILL NOT COMPLY” to other laws being enacted this session, but the red flag laws is what it is.

      If you took the moment to read the provided link with The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Foundation, you will garner some very important knowledge. DO NOT RESIST, COOPERATE, sort it out in the courts. It is the law. Yes, the very same legal system who ordered the firearms confiscation. If not resisting and cooperating is in your opinion “dropping to your knees, and handing them over” that would be your opinion.

      In my opinion, if you have not shown the propensity of the allegations thrust on you, did not resist and was over and above cooperative with the officers ordered to attend this miscarriage of “justice”, your actions will be on record and that record will be an article of evidence at the administrative hearing you will have to attend in order to remedy the allegations and accusations. It is in my hope, that if any consequential expenses are, to the truly innocent accused, he/she may find remedy by taking the accuser to to court for a variety of compensatory actions.

      It is in my hope… Stay safe.

      • I hope your are not a Japanese American, because there is a concentration camp with your name on it. That was legal at one time to. Also maybe a little Jew in the oven or gas chamber. That was also legal. Maybe you need to re-read those documents that make Americans, Americans. I say shoot to kill any cop or fed trying to violate my rights.. Of course I could also find out where that cop or fed lives and violate their rights to have a family…. Just a thought from an average armed to the teeth AMERICAN……

  2. One area where I’m concerned, particularly with red flag laws, is mental illness. I don’t think any of us would argue some degrees of mental illness require assertive action to protect the person, their family and, potentially, society. I’m thinking Charles Manson type behavior. However, most mental illness is now placed on a spectrum scale. I’ve had mild depression each time I’ve had stents for coronary artery disease. My daughter in law had mild post partum depression. PMS and menopause are accepted as mental disorders. Inhe past, we would have said we had the blues for a while and no one would think twice other than asking if they could do something for us. By the way, I have two wonderful grandchildren as well as my son and daughter in law and the post partuum depression only lasted a couple of months.

    Fast forward this to now and the last thing I was asked last year after my third set of stents was: 1) do you fear for your safety or life when discharged? 2) do you have thoughts of harming yourself? 3) do you have thoughts of harming others? They even ask the same after my counseling for weight loss!

    I am getting to the opinions on that mixing politics, safety, and medicine is a bad idea. When I first had stents, I checked the time I needed to wait before shooting again and discovered that heart disease is considered a valid reason in the UK and other countries for revocation of firearms liscenses on the grounds of public safety. I’m just waiting for someone to propose it here in the US under red flag laws.

    • Living in SF I know that I don’t dare mention anything concerning political, social, emotional or stress issues no matter how minor, around a doctor especially if you ever go to a shrink. The same may go for some relatives and neighbors. If they know that you are a gun owner, they think you may be dangerous and they freak. And it gets much worse if they know you take a medication that is used for something like anxiety, even a very small dose, only taken when/if you need it. This is not an exaggeration. I’m sure it isn’t this bad in other places, but still, these are issues that I would keep private unless I know the person very, very well.

    • I am a Dialysis patient take an anti-depressant and I am asked those same questions every Quarter and any time I have had minor surgeries. Thankfully I have a good support system at home and strong faith to keep me in balance. I have never been asked if I have guns in the house.

    • Topics to Google are “DSM IV (297 mental disorders)” and “Do Psychiatrists Go Crazy?” The people that create the questionnaires are probably teams of psychologists and bureaucrats who may or may not realize that patients and clients are not likely to tell the truth in writing. When I think of the various homicidal individuals that I have had the misfortune to encounter in my somewhat now-lengthy life, none of the already extensive written rules and policies in effect would have been taken seriously by the killers, who mostly operated in somehow firearms-restricted environments. Far better to depend on an armed populace to handle situations on the spot. Except maybe for PMS? (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself. But take cover!)

  3. That’s probably the way to survive but as far as getting your guns back from a judge who will be afraid to put his name on giving back guns…..I don’t know…..I think your guns will be gone forever.

  4. Problem is with the Colorado Red Flag there is no due process. Terrible law.

    I’m not complying.

  5. “Don’t resist.  Allow them to take the weapons. Sort it out later in court.”

    Wow…I was going comment but it really isn’t worth it.

    • very simple. If you resist you almost are guaranteed to get killed. there’s *GOING* to be too many cops and they’ll *KNOW* you’ve got guns.

      in many cases, lawyers are better than guns –
      while we still do live under the rule of law.
      find one *now* that knows you and will be
      very sympathic to your side of the story.

      might not help anyway but ; better alive than dead

      • We have a two tier justice system. One for them and one for us. I’m done with the Marxist. This 1775. I’ve made my choice as Patrick Henry stated “Give Me Liberty, or give me death.” Death always wins. Die a Patriot of die enslaved.

        Registration, Confiscation, Genocide the Marxist history of the Twentieth Century.

        https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM. Very interesting read. University of Hawaii not exactly supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Democide (death by government) always follows Confiscation.

        I will not COMPLY, nor will I voluntary surrender firearms.

    • Thus LI Mike, here is the apathy that so many others share. You did comment, but you are correct, it was worthless. Apathetic to be specific so it wasn’t truly worthless. Stay safe.

    • Put a trailer/motorhome that is in a friends name. You are just storing it for him/her. Keep just two cheap but reliable defense weapons(I don’t have assault weapons), pistol and shotgun in the home. Answer ONLY non-firearm related questions only after thinking for a moment. No quick responses, no disrespect, no ass kissing, smile, take it seriously, but crack a simple joke or two. Agree with them when they say, “just doing our job”, and tell them to be safe when they leave, with your tossers.

  6. Another great and relevant post! These new ERPOs strike me as a way to legalize SWAT-ing. I appreciate the guidance to be cooperative as that helps keep us and the LEOs safe and as happy as can be expected. My takeaway is that I need the number of a good lawyer, just in case and that it would make sense to disperse one’s inventory to multiple locations to prevent being left defenseless should one be unjustifiably SWAT-ed or EPRO-ed.

  7. What I’m wondering is what will happen when “Red Flag” laws get it “right.”

    Let’s say there’s someone down the street who is thinking of harming himself or others. He gets reported, and a judge signs the order. The police aren’t going to send Officer Friendly, it’s going to be the SWAT folks. They burst in the guy’s door, cuff him, slap him with a warrant that says he’s too crazy to be armed, search his house, confiscate guns and ammo. Meanwhile his family and all the neighbors are watching.

    Then the cops unhook his handcuffs and just leave.

    Red Flag laws don’t have anyone with any mental health credentials review the paperwork, much less have a face-to-face with this “unstable” person. And now, the cops have pushed every emotional button possible, invading his home, taking valued firearms, leaving him defenseless, and shaming him in front of everyone. He’s left with nothing to lose.

    He doesn’t need guns to kill himself, or to kill others. The three worst mass murders in recent U.S. history involved no firearms.

    These aren’t “Red Flag” laws, they’re “You aren’t paranoid if they’re coming to get you” laws.

    • I gotta ask: “three worst mass murders in recent U.S. history “. Details?

      Google seems only willing to show “shootings”, with the usual well-publicized choices. Well, duh.
      DuckDuckGo is similar. Top 8 all involved guns.
      The Bathe school massacre, the only one I can think of, reputed to be the worst ever, used explosives, but is hardly recent.

      Got a list?

      • 9-11, Oklahoma City and I think the third is an arson attack on a nightclub somewhere.

  8. as far as getting your guns back from a judge who will be afraid to put his name on giving back guns

    You won’t have to worry about that under the proposed Texas “Red Flag” law. You have to find a psychiatrist willing to stick his neck out by signing a competency statement before you even get to the judge.

    • Am I guilty until proven innocent? And that by a shrink? I had no idea such a thing was proposed. Are you sure? If so, who is the guilty politician?

  9. One interesting wrinkle occurs to me: what if you happen to be storing items for a family member? I would expect that given the probable wording of the writ, everything is going. I can see the actual owner having a real issue regaining their property in a timely manner, or at all. I doubt many still have receipts to prove ownership for something purchased decades ago or received as a gift.

    The list of your stuff might help, but I can see some issues here. OK, you have the receipt from the seizure but I can see some martinets getting overly picky.

  10. Don’t resist. Don’t have all your eggs in one basket. Don’t lie to the police ( it’s a crime in many places). Do exercise your right to remain silent. Call a lawyer. That about covers it.

    42 years as a criminal defense attorney.

    • So if they ask for the combo for the safe. Just remain silent, and then get arrested for not complying with a court order?

  11. Being a former LEO, I can assure you that if armed resistance is met when the police come for your guns, you and anyone with you at the time will be shot and probably killed (witnesses are a problem for cops). The raid will be well planned and there will be overwhelming numbers of SWAT officers wearing hard body armor and carrying ballistic shields, so unless you have a Browning M2 with AP ammo and are ready for them, they may lose a few guys, but will win in the end. You and your spouse and adult children will be killed as they will be claimed to be trying to pry the gun from your warm, dead fingers to use on the police, who are allowed to defend themselves. Pets, especially medium and larger dogs are automatically killed whether they resist or not.

    I have tactfully engaged my former co-workers in idle conversation regarding gun confiscation raids and all minority officers spoken to in my medium sized city agency have told me they would follow department orders to take guns from owners regardless of whether they think it is right or not. They justify this by saying “I was just following orders.” like Nazi war criminals, only in the present liberal environment, this excuse would work. About 25% of white officers, mostly male and half of them shooters and gun guys, said they would refuse to confiscate firearms from owners who had not committed a crime. My former department had about 400 sworn officer when I worked there and I spoke to approximately 50 of them over the 8+ years I was employed there. Not very encouraging and this was nearly 20 twenty years ago when there weren’t as many liberals slithering around back then.

    I am very pro-gun but do not show up at public events, have no firearms related decals or stickers on my two vehicles, and don’t even wear my Second Chance caps or shirts anymore, and keep a low profile to lessen my chances of being targeted by the police.

    • gulag.jpg
      “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

      Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” — Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn Quotes (Author of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich)

  12. You don’t say! Lawyers’ recommendation is to use a lawyer. Let me guess, said lawyers will not defend the accused pro-bono, but for a fee. Geez, red flag laws are not bad for business, are they?

    Solution for an individual is to store guns off-site. The house could still be damaged by LE ransacking the place. Long term solution is to form armed that will show up when called, to put pressure on LE to leave the premise; and to lessen the likelihood of showing up in the future. Due to the high risk the group will verify each member, so legitimate red-flags will be filtered out. Individuals paying lawyers to to defend them, when the offense is literally zero cost and zero penalty is a losing battle.

    • I’d like to clarify:

      1) above, I said “to form armed *support groups*”. it was filtered due to my formatting.

      2) Putting pressure on LE via armed groups is the extreme case, where abuse of these laws becomes common or used for mass confiscation.

      3) A civilized solution would be red-flag-insurance, similar to ACLDN, where members’ annual payments will be saved/invested and used to pay lawyer fees. This would work as long as the income is more than the payouts. If the number of incidents increases, this model will bankrupt. Still the only winners would be lawyers, unless false allegations carry penalties.

      4) Either way, solving this problem as an individual is a loss. If the individual responds with force, they will be singled out as a gun-nut crazy person. They will be over-looked by the majority, left and right. If the individual pays out of pocket to resolve in court, other people will think the problem is sad but not their own; similar to hearing about someone’s house burning down.

      5) There may be a few sad cases before laws are modified to a) introduce penalties for false accusations, b) all fees paid by the accuser in no-fault case, c) government covers costs for damage to firearms whilst in their possession

  13. It is truly a sad time when the ‘tool of destruction’ is taken from law-abiding citizens of good standing, yet the ‘mentally ill’ have more rights and protections to keep us from knowing who they are and taking THEIR stuff!

  14. I am sickened by the whole process, both sides.

    Don’t comply and die, your family to be pilloried in the press for years.

    Comply and have your reputation stained forever and your Constitutional rights stripped from you without due process.

    And, who will pay these lawyers to set everything right again? The government pockets, while not bottomless, may as well be compared to the average Joe’s.

    It’s a no win situation, all because we elect politicians who don’t believe in the law or people who voted for them. So, who is really to blame?

  15. That escalated quickly. In the same vein of public discourse, the internet is concerned about the consequences of self-defense against state actors. Probably because of the Tuttle/Nicholas HPD SWAT gunfight in Houston. Interesting behavior on both sides. I think that I know the answer but it would be better coming from you Mas. It would also be valuable to hear a take on the issue from SAF.

  16. Looks like its time to update the poem written by Martin Niemoller as referenced in this link:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_

    Here is the updated version for 21st Century America:

    First they came for the 2nd Amendment and I did not speak up because “Assault Weapons” are evil.

    Then they came for free speech, in the 1st Amendment, and I did not speak up because they said it was “Hate Speech”.

    Then they came for Freedom of Religion, in the 1st Amendment, and I did not speak up because they said that there needs to be separation between church and State.

    Then they came for the 1st Amendment Freedom to March and Protest against Leftist Government control and I did not speak up because they said that it was a “Hate Crime” to do so.

    Then they came for State’s Rights and I did not speak up because they said that power needs to be centralized in Washington, D.C.

    Then they came for the 4th Amendment Right to be secure in my own home and I did not speak up because they said it was for my own security. It was an “Extreme Risk Protection Order”.

    Then, when they came for me, I could not complain because all of my Constitution Rights were gone and I found myself a helpless victim of the All-Powerful Government.

    By all means, do not speak up when the Police come to your door and hand you the Extreme Risk Protection Order. Be good and hope that some fragment of your Rights will be honored in the following legal hearings!

  17. Guys, let’s remember that the big danger of Red Flag laws when they don’t involve harsh and certain penalties for false accusations, is that they can be used for harassment that’s similar to SWAT-ing. If a harasser called for SWAT at your house, you wouldn’t pull guns on the responding officers. Thinking about pulling guns on cops in response to a Red Flag order, an event which you are likely to win big when you go to court, is nothing less than stupid.

    • Mas – While a gun battle should be the last resort, simply grabbing a lawyer and hoping to win in court should not be the only option either. Speaking up and PROTEST are also available to us. I, for one, will not just quietly hire a lawyer and then sit back to await results!

      If I am unjustly targeted, I will be writing letters to every Senator and Congressman in my State. I will be marching outside the courtroom with a sign and hoping to attract others to my cause and to publicize my unfair treatment at the hands of false accusers and a gullible Justice System.

      There are steps that can be taken that fall in-between meek submission and armed resistance. When unjustly targeted, we need to avail ourselves of those steps. We need to SPEAK UP for our Constitutional Rights before they vanish entirely!

      • And all that is fine, TN. I’d be doing something similar. But chest-pounding “I’ll kill the cops if they come for my guns” is bullshit. And the guy who said the cops would murder you and murder your family because they were witnesses? That’s bullshit too.

    • Mas, I think the big question is, what to do when the law as-written allows someone to make the complaint more-or-less anonymously, after having minimal contact with the subject?

      How does one go for “harsh and certain penalties for false accusations” when the accusation has no name attached? How does one “win big when you go to court” if there’s no accuser to win against?

    • ” If a harasser called for SWAT at your house, you wouldn’t pull guns on the responding officers.”

      The problem with this is they will not show up at lunchtime and politely knock on your door. They will come at 0300 and break down your door. How would you respond to “intruders” at that time of morning? Not very many people are gonna put on their housecoat and take the lifesaving seconds needed to ascertain whether the disturbance is being caused by MS-13 or Leo’s “following orders.”

      • The flashing police lights outside and the cops shouting “Police!” might be a clue.

      • When approaching a house in low light where the police know there are weapons and people inside who would use them, cops are taught to shut off their headlights and park their cars down the street, then approach quietly on foot to maintain the element of surprise. If the raid is ‘no knock’ the first sound will be a ram smashing in the front and rear doors of the structure, followed by dynamic entry by at least four heavily armed and armored tactical team members for each entry point, maybe preceded by the use of audio and visual distraction devices aka flashbangs. Any medium sized or larger dogs will be immediately shot.

        By this time, the people inside will be deafened by the gunfire and having just woken up, will be groggy and disoriented as very bright LED or halogen flashlights are shined in their sleepy eyes. Shouted orders from several mouths will not be understood and if children are present, they will be screaming their heads off, adding to the confusion. If there are flashing lightbars, they will only be seen if the master bedroom is in the front of the house and the curtains or windows are open. For safety’s sake, please sleep in a front bedroom and leave the binds and curtains open so you can see the numerous police cars and SWAT vehicle parked in front of your house with the pretty flashing lights.

  18. I made my decision of what I would do when faced with this decision several years ago. Red flag or simple confiscation, it matters not. The only caveat is that my families safety comes first. I simply will not become involved in a gun battle if my family is present, unless the gun battle is in defense of my family.
    My family will have to be either sent away or be elsewhere, and then, I won’t surrender my guns willingly. That is a choice that I made, and I made it after due consideration, and much soul searching and long time spent in prayer. Of course, I know that I would never survive such an encounter. In the same way that many of the founders of this nation knew that they would never survive some of the battles of the revolution, I would be doing such a thing in hopes of somehow spurring my fellow patriots to awaken to the reality of what we are facing today, and to stand up to our government, and say “NO MORE”. I do not look forward to such a thing, and do not consider myself a leader or a person who wants to start some kind of revolution. I believe in peaceful solutions to our nations problems.
    However, the peaceful solutions had better begin very soon, or I am afraid that they will stand no chance of overcoming the rising tide that is starting to take place in the center of the nation, and that can be felt and sensed if one but stop and look.

  19. Mas is correct. Fighting the police who come to confiscate your guns just gets you arrested, injured or killed and provides an excuse for the gun grabbers to authorize still more violent home invasions.

    I expect issuance and enforcement of confiscation orders to vary across the country depending on the local culture. The refusal of some cities and states to cooperate with federal immigration authorities created a precedent that may turn around and bite them when they try to force county level officials to enforce locally unpopular state law. So far, the federal government hasn’t forced the issue on immigration. I can’t say whether they fear the political upheaval that would result no matter which way the issue was decided or if they fear the Supreme Court might rule in the subordinate levels’ favor. Just how much authority does a state actually have to compel cooperation from county sheriffs and prosecutors? An anti-gun governor might find himself having to divert state troopers from writing speeding tickets to confiscating guns.

    It should be understood that guns are only a secondary target. The primary one is the right of private citizens to use force to defend themselves against violent criminals. The long range goal is to require us to put the welfare of violent criminals above our own.

    • the point of these laws is to get gun owners killed. you won’t even know you’re fighting cops..someone will break down your door at 3AM, there will be a gaggle of shouted orders, none of which will make sense, someone will shine a flashlight in your face and they’ll kill you because you were reaching for the gun on your nightstand.

      these are assassination orders, gun control writ small so they hope we won’t notice or act…drip…drip…drip….

      any cop who acts on one of these has to understand what they are doing is wrong. “pre-crime” is not something they should be involved in. it violates every part of the law and how the law works.

      I only wonder if it will take “red flagging” one of their own for them to understand this.

      • Bingo. I sleep with guns. You kick my door at 3am first thing I do is grab a gun. By the way I’m allowed to use lethal force in my home. How the Hell do I know WHO is coming through my door. We have had home invasions in the area by bad guys who claim to be the police. I’m not advocating killing cops. It’s inevitable people will die on both sides. Colorado has no due process, no way to get your guns back, no way to face your accuser. You can only appear in court AFTER they have kicked your door in and they have shot your dog’s. Which is now very common.

        I’m saying I will not voluntary surrender my firearms. Colorado has rigged the system. The Bill is to be signed today. Frankly it doesn’t address the real problem. It’s just a tool to abuse legal gun owners and confiscate guns.

  20. What no one has said is that the ones who propose these laws are never held accountable.
    We need to punish A- The one that came up with the law B- The ones that agreed and signed the law and C- The ones that went out and enforced the law. A and B need to be stopped before C gets involved.
    Names are important. They thrive in the shadows.

  21. Since someone brought up the Reverend Doctor Neimoller…..several decades ago I had the privilege of hearing the man preach in an area which bears upon the concept of the concept of the Red Flag laws, I believe it bears repeating. It also has other applications.

    The sermon differs somewhat from the alleged “poem” due to the lessons he was attempting to teach. I may be paraphrasing somewhat, but I’m conveying the message so bear with me.

    “First they came for the Communists, we understood this and supported it. Then, they came for the Socialists. We wondered about this, but believed they must have had good reason. Then, they came for the Jews, we did not understand this, but did not protest.” The rest pretty much goes along with the “poem”, but it more clearly underscores the lesson. Those opening lines really stuck in my mind.

    • OOPS! I have an extra “of the concept” in there that I missed in initial proof reading. Sorry about that folks-unless Mas can edit me after the fact.

      • I didn’t think I needed to note this, but, I’ve changed my mind seeing some of the other comments.

        My post regarding the wisdom of the Reverend Doctor Niemoller is in no way, shape or form to be regarded as support for the viewpoint of the gent who first mentioned the man.

        Finally, most LEOs get a post graduate degree in sorting out fairy tales from truth with regard to complaints. They generally aren’t backward in making their judgement known during proceedings. You’re well advised to sort it out in court where the officers involved could be in a position to provide testimony favorable to you. Several of my former coworkers drew suspensions while abuse complaints were sorted out and all but one were exonerated and reinstated.

      • @ WR Moore – “My post regarding the wisdom of the Reverend Doctor Niemoller is in no way, shape or form to be regarded as support for the viewpoint of the gent who first mentioned the man.”

        I am the “gent who first mentioned Dr. Niemoller” and I must say that I find your posts to be unclear. What are you trying to say here? That you reject my viewpoints entirely?

        What were my viewpoints? Well, in my first post, I use the style of Doctor Niemoller to point out that our basic Constitutional liberties are under attack. I advocate speaking up and supporting our Constitutional Rights.

        In my second post (a response to Mas), I pointed out that there are legal ways (beyond just hiring a lawyer and going to court) to protest unfair treatment received under so-called “Red Flag” laws. I advocate writing to one’s representatives, legal (1st Amendment style) protesting and advocacy.

        Are you saying that you reject these points? Don’t you thing that our Constitutional Rights are currently under attack? Are you saying that everything is “just fine and dandy” with respect to our 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendment Rights? That I am being some kind of “Chicken Little” and falsely proclaiming that the Sky is Falling?

        Or do you object to a person exercising his or her right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” as it is put in the 1st Amendment?

        If you object to my posts because YOU THINK that I was calling for the use of violence, then you must misunderstand my posts as much as I am misunderstanding yours.

  22. The ERPO as written in Colorado has nothing to do with keeping weapons out of the hands of unstable persons and everything to do with enabling an ongoing attempt by Democrats in this state to disarm the general population. I live in a county where the sheriff has stated he will not enforce this unconstitutional law. The state is already looking for a work around for it’s problem with the sheriffs. That said here is my position. I will resist unto DEATH any attempt to deprive me of my God given rights. I will loose no matter what but there comes a point where you must choose Man or Serf. I choose man no matter what.

  23. And the writers of the fine ACLDN publication being lawyers (and subject to immediate BAR card revocation) do NOT advise criminal complaints ,and professional licensure grievances, against the officers who showed up to confiscate the firearms due to an ERPO? Which is too bad really, but if you can do much more as a Pro Se (after the complaints then retain the lawyer for ERPO defense.

    Lest we forget it is our duty to report crimes no matter who commits them, and it would be the most expedient way to eliminate said unconstitutional laws, since we don’t tar & feather and drive from town politicians any more.

  24. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?”

    Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

    DEATH to all tyrants and the goons who serve them!

  25. If you resist in any way the courts will use that against you..it is a “damned if you do damned if you don’t” deliberately structured law. They are fully aware most people don’t have the resources to get a lawyer for defense and this law will never affect wealthy people. Until our so called rulers fear us they will never back off. At some point you have to threaten their families and be willing to act on the threats to get them to back off. Trying to hold the high ground of ethics has zero effect on people with the morality of the Clintons or Obama’s, you must fight as dirty as they do or all is lost and we are getting close to losing.

  26. my question is why are the police in support of clearly unconstitutional laws?

    why is it when these laws are proposed, not one single cop comes forward, and says “we will not become assassins for the state”? because that is clearly what these laws are intended to do. the gun owner has no day in court until afterwards..which means a SWAT team will show up at 3AM to take his guns and most likely the gun owner WILL be killed. they will kick down your door, and shoot you half-asleep shouting things at you you don’t understand with your gun from your nightstand in your hand.

    this is not what cops should be doing. this is not how the law is supposed to work. and even if they DO manage to somehow cuff-and-stuff the poor gun owner that doesn’t know what’s going on, I hope the ride back to the station is about as peaceful as the british march back to washington in april of 1775. because that’s exactly what this is.

    • You apparently aren’t aware that tons of sheriffs have already said they won’t enforce these laws if enacted. Do a little research, dude.

      • I’m aware. I’m in NH. I had a long discussion with a guy who runs the londonderry F&G club (I won’t name him, I think you know who he is). he said the reason cops don’t testify against gun laws is 1)they aren’t allowed. the chiefs and the unions forbid it. yet the chiefs can advocate for gun laws. and in uniform. weird how that works. 2)they have theirs, the left isn’t going to poke that particular bear and try to take guns away from cops, and the cops really don’t care about anyone else.

        true, or false?

        one way or the other, we need to know where the cops stand on this. they swore an oath to the constitution, not only of the US but to NH. is that garbage? because every single time we try to expand freedom here in NH, (the knife freedom laws, constitutional carry, ect) the one people we hear from against it are the chiefs. do they speak for all police? I would like to doubt it, but honestly we have zero evidence otherwise.

        I WANT to support my local cops. but it’s a two-way street. I do not hear them supporting me. silence = consent, and all I’m getting is a lot of silence.

      • As has been stated here numerous times, police officers cannot publicly advocate as such on political issues. Unfortunately, politically appointed police chiefs traditionally get away with it. Elected sheriffs are a notable exception, which is why the vast majority of the sheriffs in Colorado joined the gun people in their lawsuit against Governor Hickenlooper’s anti-gun legislation. It has been my experience in four and a half decades in the justice system that the overwhelming majority of street cops support a responsibly armed citizenry.

      • I get that cops can’t and shouldn’t be advocating for/against things in uniform. I was navy, we couldn’t do that, makes sense. out of uniform there should be nothing stopping them. yet whenever something comes up about asset forfeiture, the halls in concord are filled with uniforms, and they all get to have their say. I’ve been there and seen it. so “cops can’t testify” is pure bunk.

        yet not one cop..hell not even a retired cop…would show up and say “police don’t need this law. this will do nothing for safety and will get police and citizens killed”.

        aren’t YOU still in NH? where are you when these things come up? the women’s defense league here is doing some good work (look up the “assault pearls” meme) Jay Simpkin even got off his butt to come testify. even the left wing ACLU came out against it!

        but one cop…just one…even a retired cop..would have had more weight than any other person there. but all we get is silence.

        “we support you but shhhh…we can’t tell anyone” doesn’t put the brakes on this train. and this is going to get a lot of people killed, cops and citizens. you would think the cops would somehow want to have a say, even if they had to pick a representative.

      • ok, fine, you no longer live in NH. do you happen to know of any retired cops with backbones intact that can stand up and derail this particular train before it gets a lot of us on both sides killed? if so many of them are pro-gun this shouldn’t be hard to do.

  27. So Massive Boob advocates allowing your Constitutional rights be denied?
    The old white men who wrote that document would be shooting your surrendering ass right now.
    Once a cop, always a cop, eh?

  28. Sorry guys,other than my EDC I sold all my guns 2 days ago, search if you want you might find a few rounds of ammo I missed.
    Never store everything in one place

  29. LMAO the boot licking is strong with this one! Man, I used to be a fan but now, just wow. Sorry bruh, but Sam Adams said it best: “May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” Buh bye.

    • Buh bye to you too, Loaf. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, and sign up for a remedial reading comprehension course on your way home.

  30. In response to Mas’ statement about me claiming that cops would commit murder to prevent witnesses from testifying against them in court at a later date, do any of you want to bet your lives and those of your family members, including pets,that all police officers are above doing that? I never said all cops are bad, but I’ve seen more than my fair share of bad apples(donuts?) who in a tense situation would do anything to get themselves out of a jam, especially if the PD and SA would back up their actions against a “mental case” or “gun nut” claimed to be resisting the police. Regular street cops are mostly OK, but SWAT types are usually well connected in the department otherwise they would never make it on the team. When I was a LEO, I could outshoot anyone in my department including all the members of the tactical team, but since I was not a favorite of the administration, there was no way I could get in and I was more physically fit than almost of them too. I even put in for firearms instructor seven times but never got scheduled for that class either, and one officer who did became an instructor later failed his semi-annual qualification!

    All this is to say, not all law enforcement agencies are run by honest folks – look at the FBI and DOJ and how sleazy their top bureaucrats are. The rank and file agents and officers are mostly fine, but not necessarily the people who make the big decisions. The two police departments I had worked for were run by scumbags, but some of the officers were among the best people I have ever encountered. The commander of the tactical team in my second department had wanted to get a military surplus UH-1 helicopter and arm it with a pair of Browning M2 machine guns for “anti-terrorist” purposes. Of course he would determine who is a terrorist. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and he never got his Huey gunship, but did get a Cadillac Gage Commando APC (which broke down regularly) which he proudly called his “tank”. Citizens have claimed the police have an “us vs them” mentality which is not always true, but many tactical teams have that same attitude, even towards their fellow officers who they see as inferior creatures.

    I’m not anti-police, but I am anti-bad cop, who gives them a less than stellar image.

    • So tell us, Tom, how many cops have you seen murder witnesses? What department was that? What did you do about it?

      • Mas, I did not actually see a fellow cop murder a suspect, but did hear him admit to killing the guy because he was “mad at him” for bumping a cop with a car he was trying to drive away in. The struck police officer was not seriously injured for his foolish tactic of trying to block the vehicle with his body and was pulled away by fellow cops before the shooter ran to the front of the vehicle and shot the driver in the head through the windshield, killing him. The cop who did the shooting was not charged as he was hailed by the PD and DA as a ‘hero’ for saving his dumb fellow officer who had been pulled to safety before the shooting took place. I will not name the PD here on this blog as I still live in this city and do not want to be identified and possibly targeted by the local PD. If you wish to e-mail me, I will be glad to explain in detail about this situation.

  31. The laws are written SPECIFICALLY to facilitate disarming citizens. It’s a BACKDOOR
    gun control scheme….and so far it’s working. ANYBODY can start the ball rolling
    by making a claim that someone who owns guns is a danger….and THAT’S IT. No need for proof of any kind…..hell they don’t even have to KNOW YOU! They can pull your name out of the phone book and BAM…..a SWAT raid at O DARK thirty is coming your way. And
    IF by chance you survive you will spend THOUSANDS of dollars trying to get YOUR LEGALLY OWNED PROPERTY back from the government. With NO GUARANTEE you will succeed. “Red flag” laws are an abomination. And the ONLY reasonable response to them from FREE MEN is the death of the people who wrote and passed the laws, the death of the judges that sign the order and the death of the badgemonkeys that are the ‘tip of the spear’. Till the gun grabbers suffer a penaly for committing these abuses of our rights they will NEVER STOP ABUSING OUR RIGHTS. Stalin, Mao and Hitler would be GREEN WITH ENVY at the idea of “red flag laws”.

    • So, you advocate the assassination of judges and lawmakers because you don’t like a proposed law? Did Bloomberg or somebody pay you to pose as a genuine member of the firearms community to smear the real proponents of gun owners’ civil rights? Goodbye, Dan, you’re no longer welcome here.

  32. If a man is such a danger to himself or others that we need to raid his house and take his guns, why not simply arrest him at the grocery store or post office? Why put the lives of the Target and law enforcement at risk this way by going after his guns? we

    Like others have said and actual situations have borne-out, one doesn’t necessarily know who is kicking the door in at 3am. Simply saying “Don’t resist.” seems a bit unrealistic here. What was it that Colonel Cooper said about a masked man with a gun?

  33. Hi “Mas’!!.
    Ha,Ha,Ha,!!
    Show up at my door.. want my guns… You can have them, “ONE BULLET AT A TIME!! First your head,then your balls!! (the least protected…..) Then we can “TALK!! Please visit “Sipsey street Irregulars (Mike Vanderboegh’s Blog” …since he died!!) and read about “Phil Gordon” in his novel “ABSOLVED!!!” He took care of business!! and don’t forget “Charlie Kintard!!” Now that’s a Hero!!
    skybill

  34. Any conflict with our Bill of Rights is null and void…Period !
    “Shall Not Be Infringed” has only one meaning.
    Without due process, they’re always in the wrong.
    If someone is deemed “unsuitable” to bear firearms it must be
    proven in court…not by secret judges and panels. For this is
    assuredly communism to use these methods. I believe they’re installing
    these measures to instigate a hot war…which will come to pass,
    should they continue in this direction. No doubt about it.
    Those who endorse communistic methods should be shunned.
    And later tried for sedition.

  35. Well if your only strategy to fight for your liberties is a gunfight against the government, good luck with that. When there’s legislative hearings involving gun rights the left brings in supporters by the bus load. We have someone from the NRA and our state advocacy group show up.

    • Yep. While I am a bit pessimistic about the outcome, we absolutely do owe it to the generations that came before us to exhaust ALL political means available to us to preserve what was given to us. Going to a meeting tonight to discuss the same. Here in Colorado, it is a tough battle this year. The Dems will pass anything and everything while they have the reins. I think the real battles are with public-sector unions and uncontrolled immigration that combine to fund the left, but we cannot afford to ignore any of these battles.

  36. Please sir, may I have some more(of my God given rights back)?

    No? Well I’ll just tug at my forelock as I back away deferentially.

    Ok, if I can stop laughing…..oh, we can vote and legislate our way out of this!

    Yeahrightsureyeah that’s worked SO WELL for us.

  37. I’m not sure the Boys are going to knock on your door and be happy when you hand them the key. They’ll probably kill your dog, humiliate your wife and handcuff you too as they tear your house apart knocking out sheetrock, cutting into things, and tossing the furniture. God forbid they find the 5 grand you saved for emergencies, it may be confiscated too.
    When they leave, even if you get your guns back, you will end up paying to repair your home. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe Mas can say they’ll be happy to peek in my safe. That’d be cool, compliance would then be more like a “beer summit”, I’m down with that, heck, they can even drink my beer.

    • Don’t have that $5K in cash. It will definitely by confiscated and you may be charged with some additional crime like drug trafficking as only criminals have need for large sums of cash.

  38. It’s not going to end well as much as we with it will. Common quotes now:

    -“What our ancestors knew, we have forgotten. The Civil War of our history has become a dim and comfortable myth. A new war leers at us like the devil, but we talk about it like a football game. We may learn as human beings have always learned — the hard way.”

    -“The normal democratic system of governance has broken down, so that the desires of the people are ignored, while the small donor class wields the state as a weapon against the people.”

    -“Like it or not, we live in a lawless age where the rulers will lie, cheat and steal to undermine dissent.”

    -“The universe has strict, self-enforcing laws. One of those laws is that of equilibrium: No force can remain indefinitely unbalanced. Among men, every movement of any kind will elicit a counter-movement that will halt it or worse.”

    “Both sides will continue to play the legal game only so long as they believe that the law can keep their adversaries at bay. If either side is ever proven irrefutably wrong in that belief, violence will follow soon after as the option of default. History screams this truth — even to those who are too deaf to hear it. Nations, distinct peoples with their own deep feelings of identity, do not consent quietly to their own demise.”

  39. From the comments, mine included this is a terrible situation. We were on the same side. Now a great division.

    I do think at some point cops need to step up and say I won’t go. In the military you are not obligated to follow illegal orders. Courage is needed like the helicopter crew who stopped the massacre at My Lai, Vietnam.

    In Colorado our county Sheriff’s for the most part have been very outspoken since the 2013 shenanigans and in fact have refused to follow unconstitutional laws.

    Cops need to tell Democrats NO. This won’t end well.

  40. I find myself in an odd position about this one. Im 2nd amendment all the way but im also a crisis worker who interviews a lot of crazy people and no thats not pc but its true. I think more gun ownership is the way to go but there are some folks you really dont want walking around much less owning a gun. What should we do about them? There are people we know are dangerous but cant do anything about because we cant prove it. The laws aren’t written well-true but these people are truly dangerous. I may end up doing interviews for people who are the subject of red flag laws. My nam vet buddies are worried i get it and hope i interview them, they get a pass. Not sure where i would fall on some others. I know all the cops, DA and judge in my district. Dont think they would enforce red flag unless they already had dealing with that person and knew they were bad news. I couldnt shoot any of them but i dont want to give in either. Certainly dont have the cash to fight anything. Seems like a terrible situation all around.

    • Bob,

      You are right. There are people we don’t want walking around free, but we are supposed to live in a free country. A troubled person threw a 5-year-old from a high place in a mall recently. He had been banned from that mall twice before.

      Since our government has such a hard time telling the good guys from the bad guys, maybe they should just stop trying. Trying to prevent crimes before they happen is leading to the government infringing on the rights of good people. In order to preserve our rights I say just let bad people have guns. And let good people have guns and carry them around. If a bad person commits no crime with a gun, good, no harm done. If they start shooting innocent people, then those innocent people should shoot back, and stop the violence. The government can then give the bad guy a fair trial and execute him.

      In this scenario, mass murderers might be able to kill 5 people before they get shot down, not 15. In the long run, bad people might be hesitant to start killing good people, when they know so many good people are armed and will resist with deadly force.

      America is supposed to be about freedom. In order to preserve our freedom, let’s just stop coming up with laws to keep guns out of criminals’ hands. Let criminals have guns. When they attack us we will eliminate them. Freedom for all.

      I know this idea will never even be considered by dumbed-down Americans, who are the majority today.