Standoff in NY with veteran over a 30 round mag

[USMC-03]

All of this Bubblegum when a deputy with a summons would have sufficed...

Common courtesy goes a long way. At the same time, law enforcement officers have a tough job within a very dynamic environment; I can fully understand how they will often error on the side of caution. Sometimes there is no good answer.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Prolly shoulda said pretty please?

 

[Heyjoe]

Mind control.

Afaik, noone here was there nor had any grasp on what was happening or what had happened to cause the situation.

Next time some news makes you sweat, take a step back, detatch, assess the facts as you know them, then act if you must.

Let's use our brains and not allow emotions to cause a reaction.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Dare I say it, no story I have heard about this makes any sense.

 

[Elf]

I think if one steps back from it, the facts of the specific case don't matter as much as the conclusion that with legislatures, the media, and much of society against them, gun owners are ready to boil over.

Whether or not "whiskey warrior" was primarily facing a red flag confiscation, a SAFE act violation, or some other crime entirely is only of minimal importance to why people react this way.

We know for a fact that confiscations without due process, magazine limits, gun bans, taxes, and purchase delays are either already law or are just waiting for the next legislative session. We know that the primary tools the government uses to enforce these laws are violence and imprisonment, and that enforcement of the laws is underway (see California).

In this case the more relevant dynamic is that the government of New York states it will imprison you for owning small plastic boxes. If you resist that imprisonment, the force may escalate to the point where you and/or your family nearby are killed by law enforcement. Whether or not "whiskey warrior" was in the process of doing that is almost a secondary concern; what people are so worked up about is not, in reality, his specific individual situation, but the situation created by that law and other laws like it and the politicians who enact them.

Given that context and background I don't think it's amazing that people are responding to something like the "whiskey warrior" event without knowing all the facts. The benefit to rallying around an individual in crisis is that it puts a human face to what would otherwise be abstract concepts and helps get others onboard more than a discussion of the law would. The downside to rallying around an individual in crisis is that it will always be impossible to know the totality of their situation beforehand.

If you want to jump to the defense of gun owners who are being threatened by law enforcement, then you need to be comfortable with not knowing the full situation. I don't think it's right to criticize people for wanting to strike back against these laws and help out others, but I also don't think it's wise to put your life (or even your reputation) on the line for someone you don't have a strong connection with. So there really is no right answer here other than to realize what a bad situation scummy politicians have put us in.

 

[Keepmsharp]

let's not forget that red flag laws are unconstitutional and any one who enacts or enforces them is breaking their oath to uphold the constitution which then makes them criminals of the worst kind dressed up in a costume.

 

[Geardo]

I think if one steps back from it, the facts of the specific case don't matter as much as the conclusion that with legislatures, the media, and much of society against them, gun owners are ready to boil over.

Whether or not "whiskey warrior" was primarily facing a red flag confiscation, a SAFE act violation, or some other crime entirely is only of minimal importance to why people react this way.

We know for a fact that confiscations without due process, magazine limits, gun bans, taxes, and purchase delays are either already law or are just waiting for the next legislative session. We know that the primary tools the government uses to enforce these laws are violence and imprisonment, and that enforcement of the laws is underway (see California).

In this case the more relevant dynamic is that the government of New York states it will imprison you for owning small plastic boxes. If you resist that imprisonment, the force may escalate to the point where you and/or your family nearby are killed by law enforcement. Whether or not "whiskey warrior" was in the process of doing that is almost a secondary concern; what people are so worked up about is not, in reality, his specific individual situation, but the situation created by that law and other laws like it and the politicians who enact them.

Given that context and background I don't think it's amazing that people are responding to something like the "whiskey warrior" event without knowing all the facts. The benefit to rallying around an individual in crisis is that it puts a human face to what would otherwise be abstract concepts and helps get others onboard more than a discussion of the law would. The downside to rallying around an individual in crisis is that it will always be impossible to know the totality of their situation beforehand.

If you want to jump to the defense of gun owners who are being threatened by law enforcement, then you need to be comfortable with not knowing the full situation. I don't think it's right to criticize people for wanting to strike back against these laws and help out others, but I also don't think it's wise to put your life (or even your reputation) on the line for someone you don't have a strong connection with. So there really is no right answer here other than to realize what a bad situation scummy politicians have put us in.

Well said!

 

[titsonritz]

From what I've read/seen...
First, this was not a red flag.
Second, this dude came off like a loon.

 

[mkwerx]

So here's a question related but unrelated to this specific scenario - at what point do we stop taking the word of government officials who continue to push these asinine laws and come in force to enforce them? They will always have a laundry list of horrible charges and a story to tell the media. They're going to claim everything under the sun - they'll have a warrant no doubt.

If in this specific scenario, they did indeed have a warrant on a "felony domestic violence charge" - how hard is that to get? In Washington state, if you're in an argument with your wife, and you hit anything and break your own damn property in frustration - guess what, you just committed domestic violence and can face a felony charge. Goodbye guns, mags, and freedom. You don't even need to touch the other party. If your marriage is rocky, or if you just have a good old argument, you can wind up on the receiving end of some bullbubblegum charges because SHE wants to teach you a lesson and show she has the upper hand, because she can always call the cops and say she's in fear. You get red flagged, you get a warrant for DV, even if you actually did nothing.

So what is the tipping point? If you notice, none of the situations where people have stood up to the government and gotten them to back off, or at least come to a peaceful resolution came about from clear cut cases - those who people rallied around were not saints but they were the target of abuses of force and government flexing. The Cliven Bundy clan, the miners down in southern Oregon, Bundy 2.0, and now Whiskey Warrior.

I'd rather see people with questionable situations get protected from being abused, than to see more people squashed by bad laws, overzealous law enforcement, and to watch the boot heel of the oppressors slowly squish down. There won't be one single hot button tipping point that screams "Get your guns and go" - its going to just be the pot getting warmer and warmer and warmer.

 

[Ratfink]

Hummmmmm...I'll withhold my opinion until the laundry dries a bit...
[/QUOTE]
and this is why. There is ALWAYS two sides to every story.

 

[Kruel J]

I do not consider a 30 round magazine a "standard" magazine for a normal citizen to need.

Mike,

If you're not helping the 2A, you are harming it. NOBODY should get to pick and choose what firearms and accessories are "ok" for "normal citizens". Not the government and certainly not you! The minute you try, you completely miss the whole reason our forefathers found The Right to Keep and Bear Arms important enough to make it the SECOND amendment.

I've read similar posts from you in the past, and my ability to "be excellent" is waning quickly. I digress....

For now.....

 

[Caveman Jim]

Liberals with guns showing their true colors....

 

[DB is Here]

Can we get back to the topic at hand and leave the political label bashing at the door, please.

 

[Mikej]

Mike,

If you're not helping the 2A, you are harming it. NOBODY should get to pick and choose what firearms and accessories are "ok" for "normal citizens". Not the government and certainly not you! The minute you try, you completely miss the whole reason our forefathers found The Right to Keep and Bear Arms important enough to make it the SECOND amendment.

I've read similar posts from you in the past, and my ability to "be excellent" is waning quickly. I digress....

For now.....

Here's something I feel. I think bump stocks are pretty dumb. They definitely could be used to kill more people. I believe no one needs them. No one really NEEDS 30 round mags either. There are a lot of things people don't need though. Something else I believe deeply in? I believe I don't have the right to vote to take away these things from other people. I believe it's plain common sense that my thoughts toward those items are of no importance what so ever. It boggles my mind that individuals that think they know best, also think they have the right to force their beliefs on honest law abiding citizens. Put the dirtbags that use non animate objects to hurt people in jail for hells sake and leave honest people alone!

 

[Kruel J]

Here's something I feel. I think bump stocks are pretty dumb. They definitely could be used to kill more people. I believe no one needs them. No one really NEEDS 30 round mags either. There are a lot of things people don't need though. Something else I believe deeply in? I believe I don't have the right to vote to take away these things from other people. I believe it's plain common sense that my thoughts toward those items are of no importance what so ever. It boggles my mind that individuals that think they know best, also think they have the right to force their beliefs on honest law abiding citizens. Put the dirtbags that use non animate objects to hurt people in jail for hells sake and leave honest people alone!

I've always liked you, Mike.

 

[Mikej]

I've always liked you, Mike.

And dammit, I like you too Kruel J!

 

[Boboclown]

You mean enforce the law and put the bad guys in prison? Doesn't work that way. Gotta get more people in prison, and gotta make the law abiding pay more.

 

[slimmer13]

Mag capacity limits are designed to make your gun a worse tool. The longer you can run it without having to stop (briefly as it may be) to reload, the better. If I could have a gun that never needed reloading, I'd be all over it.

Why a gun owner thinks they should put the law abiding at a disadvantage over the lawless, who will ignore any restrictions is a bewildering thought.

 

[Howard1955]

I wonder if we'll ever see a serious crackdown on inner-city gangs, where they're all red-flagged at once, and all of their weapons are seized?

 

[11Charlie]

I'd like to know when they are going to take mental disorders seriously and quit blaming the objects!!!