Hopyard

We voted for it@#

stanislaskasava

If it was illegal for him to possess his wife's gun (so called) then why was he not charged with some sort of crime? If it's not a crime, then how is it illegal? Is it a 'violation'? Did he receive a ticket for his bad deed?

This whole story seems to perfectly illustrate what can be precipitated by having de facto gun registration. What good was done by all this attempted law enforcement? Was anyone protected? Was anyone served? Were any criminals arrested or black market weapons confiscated? The registration helps no one.

Kerbouchard

I refuse to be included in that 'we' statement. I have never voted for an extra benefit for myself. I have never voted for a raise for myself. I have never voted for an additional gov't program. I have never voted for a restriction of my rights.

I had always wondered what would happen when the people who actually work for a living and take responsibility for their own actions are no longer part of the collective 'we'.

I guess I am finding out.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

SelfDefense

But you are indeed part of the collective we: you are a United States citizen. I assume you have pledged allegiance to the flag, you take part in elections you benefit from our collective programs such as roads, sewers, electricity, fire protection, law enfocement and the military.

You most certainly are part of 'we.'

Kerbouchard

Here is the only oath I remember taking...I don't see anything in there that says I am part of a collective, sniveling 'we' who wants to gut the Constitution of the Greatest Nation on God's Green Earth.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

SelfDefense

The problem is that the Constitution encompasses much more than the first eight Amendments. It is the blueprint for our government, including how laws are passed and the powers Congress and the Executive are given by the people.

Getting back to topic, if there are no further mitigating facts then the police involved were not sufficiently aware of the law and acted inappropriately. However, I have read too many times where some people want to make some kind of statement rather than simply cooperating with authority. (I note that so many have a big problem with authority.) And that alone will provide LE the incentive to use their wide ranging discretion against the complaining of those whose 'rights' were violated.

I think there is more to the story than that reported by the OP. The police report would certainly make interesting reading.

sojourner

So, if I am not sufficiently aware of gun laws and act inappropriately, what should happen to me? And what should happen to the LEO who were not sufficiently aware of the gun laws and acted inappropriately?

I have no problem with authority when it is utilized correctly and operating within the boundary of authority given. Whether pre-meditated or inadvertent inappropriate acts, the authority was out of bounds. And totally with a lack of knowledge about the PA laws.

The people should not be treated badly because they legally exercise their right, even when it does inconvenience the LEO at the time.

The story is that people were acting well within the law that they knew better than LEO. LEO tried to bully them (which can easily be done to thugs and low lifes on the fringe of breaking law). When LEO found out that they couldn't legally do the things they were doing, they turned it around and acted like they were doing the people a favor.

Hopyard

SD, you nailed it.

We are all part of the "we" unless we are here illegally, or here on temporary visas of one sort or another. Otherwise, we are in the big boat together and we better figure out how to make it sail.

SelfDefense

If you do not break the law then nothing will happen to you. Similarly, if LEO does not break the law nothing will happen to them. If the people involved (yes, people) were not aware of the laws then they will be instructed as to their proper response.

Well, we only know one side of the story. We here are very familiar with gun laws but it is only a miniscule part of the responsibilites of LEO.

No one was arrested. Everyone went home. Maybe some bruised feelings but, in the final analysis, no one was any worse for wear. People need to understand that they may, from time to time, be inconvenienced. There is no right not to be inconvenienced.

There is no story here...let's move along.

kpw

It would seem that at least some of the officers present were aware of the laws but chose to ignore them. Cooperating and complying are often 2 different things. It would seem, from the accounts I've read, that they were cooperating. Mr. Banks, however, refused to comply with an unlawful request for which he was cuffed and placed in a cruiser and later released. It may seem a mere inconvenience to some but, to others, it is harrassment. Personally, I don't mind a little inconvenience when it is for a decent reason. Harrassment by law enforcement or government officials is intolerable. For the most part, LEOs in this country do a tough job every day and do it well. Even though they are human, mistakes can be very costly to an honest citizen. Officers are given discretion in dealing with many situations but it doesn't excuse breaking the law, even if that law seems trivial to some. The police report should be interesting as well as the video that was taken and the numerous witness testimonies.