LogFAQs > #886239449

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	This is what it looks like for the govt to strip you of your rights without...
DawkinsNumber4 09/08/17 9:05:07 AM #13:	Pogo_Marimo posted... DawkinsNumber4 posted... Pogo_Marimo posted... The seizure still has to be in accordance with the rules of force like usual, and is essentially saying the National Guard is allowed to intervene in a person's 2nd Amendment Rights if that person is committing a disturbance or crime that jeopardizes the Emergency Response mission of the Guard. A.K.A. it gives the ability to act as law enforcement for the duration of the mission with no promise of reimbursement of weapons if your activities explictly mandate their seizure. Or maybe they'll break into homes and steal every person's gun in the Virgin Island, though I would suspect they'd be a bit more subtle if that were the case. The big issues I see are that they have the authority to decide without a citizen having any recourse for appeal and that it is an indefinite order and that a governor has an ability to make such an indefinite order at their own discretion. The bigger issue is the hurricane that is destroying entire cities. A national emergency is not something where the protection of rights is the highest priority if it comes at the expense of the time and effort put towards rescue and recovery of people who might literally die. Spending two hours creating a legal ownership trail for some nut who refused to leave his gun at the door of a food shelter is two hours that could have been spent helping people. There comes a point in time where we must weigh the priority of our rights against each other. You act like these places cannot already ban weapons without a natural disaster occurring. The law already handles this another way. Stripping people of their Constitutional rights without due process is never ok and their ability to dictate when it is and is not appropriate to strip people of their weapons is concerning. If there was a natural disaster I would want to keep my weapons to protect myself from looters, not give them up. --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board <cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted [p:886239449] in This is wh... [t:75751029]...</cite> <quote><cite>Pogo_Marimo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DawkinsNumber4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Pogo_Marimo posted...</cite> <quote>The seizure still has to be in accordance with the rules of force like usual, and is essentially saying the National Guard is allowed to intervene in a person's 2nd Amendment Rights if that person is committing a disturbance or crime that jeopardizes the Emergency Response mission of the Guard. A.K.A. it gives the ability to act as law enforcement for the duration of the mission with no promise of reimbursement of weapons if your activities explictly mandate their seizure. Or maybe they'll break into homes and steal every person's gun in the Virgin Island, though I would suspect they'd be a bit more subtle if that were the case.</quote> The big issues I see are that they have the authority to decide without a citizen having any recourse for appeal and that it is an indefinite order and that a governor has an ability to make such an indefinite order at their own discretion.</quote> The bigger issue is the hurricane that is destroying entire cities. A national emergency is not something where the protection of rights is the highest priority if it comes at the expense of the time and effort put towards rescue and recovery of people who might literally die. Spending two hours creating a legal ownership trail for some nut who refused to leave his gun at the door of a food shelter is two hours that could have been spent helping people. There comes a point in time where we must weigh the priority of our rights against each other.</quote> You act like these places cannot already ban weapons without a natural disaster occurring. The law already handles this another way. Stripping people of their Constitutional rights without due process is never ok and their ability to dictate when it is and is not appropriate to strip people of their weapons is concerning. If there was a natural disaster I would want to keep my weapons to protect myself from looters, not give them up. --- https://soundcloud.com/xsquader - http://youtube.com/xsquader http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1044-independent-politics - Independent Politics Community Board</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1