shocking ignorance

Jim March said:
Except there's some pretty good historical evidence that that's exactly what happened.

First issue: why did they make bank robberies and kidnappings federal offenses in that period?
Click to expand...

Not sure about that period, but now it is understandable with banks being backed by the FDIC, federal funds are tied into most bank robberies so they should fall into federal jurisdiction.

Kidnappings sometimes cross state lines, but aside from that I'm not sure why they qualify as federal jurisdiction. However, seeing as federal law enforcement is typically better equipped to handle kidnappings it is not necessarily a bad thing that they get involved.
 
it is not necessarily a bad thing that they get involved
Click to expand...

You might have misunderstood me in that at no point did I say that federalizing bank robbery and kidnapping were bad things...then or now. I don't think federalizing those crimes cause any problems. Somebody has to deal with those issues, I really don't care if it's local or federal police...either way it's a legit police function (unlike, say, arresting people eating pot brownies).

But I do see that federal criminalization process as part of a pattern by which we can understand the motives behind other federal actions around that time. The NFA is one, the ban on pot is another, and so on.
 
Please guys, this thread is drifting.
My intent was to show that this retired officer, and presumably many others still working, may be poorly trained and have no real knowledge of our Constitutional rights or the difference between Federal and State laws.
 
Sorry to sound like Clinton here, but doesn't it depend on what his/your definition of controlled is?. If I had been part of that discussion I certainly would have asked.
Follow this scenario (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that a firearm is manufactured with a serial number. A batch of them are sold to lets say Academy Sports and then one is sold to an individual. Academy will have a record of that. So you go out and rob a bank and drop your gun during the escape. Aren't they going to know who you are very soon? Yes, there are exceptions (gun shows, thefts, etc.) and some may say that is not control but registration or some other moniker. I'm just saying the police will certainly have a clue that they will follow.
 
My intent was to show that this retired officer, and presumably many others still working, may be poorly trained and have no real knowledge of our Constitutional rights or the difference between Federal and State laws
Click to expand...

I suppose for your everyday local LEO that isn't really surprising. Where are they going to be taught that? I doubt they teach it much at the police academy; it wouldn't be considered a priority compared to keeping peace and order and catching bad guys. Perhaps some of the LEOs here could comment on that?
 
it IS that mythical "collective right" all the anti-gunners were so sure (pre-Heller) the 2nd Amendment protected.
Click to expand...
Precisely. For those of us who serious students of Soviet and other totalitarian regimes, their legal systems and constitutions recognized practically all the rights we have and cherish. The Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Their constitution simply collectivized all those rights with: "Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens. "

Collectivizing rights logically and historically negates them.

I was a long time admirer and supporter of the ACLU. It is one thing that they supporter Miller, that was just bad, real bad. But their post Heller assertion that the second was still a collective right was utterly obscene, hypocritical and craven.
 
Last edited:
I suppose for your everyday local LEO that isn't really surprising. Where are they going to be taught that? I doubt they teach it much at the police academy; it wouldn't be considered a priority compared to keeping peace and order and catching bad guys. Perhaps some of the LEOs here could comment on that?
Click to expand...

Law school is typically 3 years. LEO's aren't tranformed into lawyers in a 16 week academy while they're also learning radio procedures, traffic stop and building search tacitcs and how to write reports.

I'm not so concerned about what young LE recruits don't learn at the academy as much as I am at what young people are not learning in high school before they ever get to the LE academy.
 
But of course the FEDS had a lot of time on their hands after prohibition. That's why they came up with the Federal Kidnapping Act 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) which was intended to let federal authorities step in and pursue kidnappers once they had crossed state lines with their victim. They could load up a whole car full of agents and run willy nilly about the country stopping at one auto court after another in the pursuit of justice.:D
 
Law school is typically 3 years. LEO's aren't tranformed into lawyers in a 16 week academy while they're also learning radio procedures, traffic stop and building search tacitcs and how to write reports.
Click to expand...
Neither are attorneys, for that matter. Newly minted attorneys are as unqualified to practice constitutional law as infants are to change their own diapers.

Fact is, just like most reasonably difficult jobs, both LEO's and attorneys require significant OJT before they can be considered even reasonably competent.
 
csmsss said:
Neither are attorneys, for that matter. Newly minted attorneys are as unqualified to practice constitutional law as infants are to change their own diapers.

Fact is, just like most reasonably difficult jobs, both LEO's and attorneys require significant OJT before they can be considered even reasonably competent.
Click to expand...

Except even after significant on the job training, police officers are still not qualified to give much legal advice. The same cannot be said for attorneys.

Yet all too often, people seek police officers for just such a question.
 
Federal laws do in fact control firearms & their sale, manufacture, possession etc.
Click to expand...

This is not worded correctly. Federal laws do in fact control firearms & their sale, manufacture, possession etc.

Federal Firearms Laws control who may not possess firearms. The provide regulation for the manufacture and sale as it relates to interstate commerce.

They provide classifications of different weapons/firearms and enforce restrictions on those.

But they do not as a whole in it's entirety control firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top