Cops confiscate firearms in Lakewood ...Ohio

[SuperiorDG]

What legal interpretation is that? I'm pretty sure the whole thing has been settled by the Constitution, McDonald v Chicago and Heller v DC. I don't think it's being interpreted incorrectly by those that infringe on the 2A rights of citizens, it's just that, so far, they've been able to get away with it without much worry of any sort of consequences for their actions. They infringe upon our 2A rights because they don't like the 2A.

(I'm pretty sure you meant interpretation...but interpenetration does seem more like what's going on in terms of what the .gov is doing to citizens! I may have to steal that word and start using it more often.)

2A will be before the High Court again. The issues with its interpretation will last as long as our Constitution. If it is settled (in the way society understands it) then how does the government get away with the above situation? I think the problem is is that society believes it to be up for interpretation. It would be nice if society believed the law the way it is written, but the above example, I think, proves we have a long way to go.

Yea the is a cool word.

[Sharpienads]

Unless there is something that we don't know yet about this, anyone involved in the confiscation or issuing the order to confiscate the firearms should be fired. And they should be required to inform all of their neighbors and anyone they meet that they are constitutional rights predators.

On an unrelated note (sort of):

1) Nowhere in Article III of the Constitution does the Supremem Court, or any court for that matter, have the power to interpret or interpenetrate (great word by the way) the constitution.

2) The preamble to the bill of rights specifically says that the following rights are written down so that douchebags in federal office don't violate them.

"The conventions of a number of States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best ensure the benificent ends of its institution."

3) 2A ends with "shall not be infringed"

The federal government cannot make any law having anything to do with guns, period. Case closed... or should be.

It's seems pretty simple to me, not sure why it's so hard to understand for some (not written towards anybody involved in this thread, just getting it off my chest before I explode).

[Ronin13]

This event has me really thinking. What makes a gun a different piece of property then lets say a TV. If the cops came in and took her TV then it would be seen as stealing by most. Guns, however, being that the they are an item that has been granted to us by the Constitution, and therefore possession of which is open to legal interpenetration and thus lives in a grey area are seen differently. Some in our society see guns not as property but as something else thus "allowing" the government to take said items. Is this a slippery slop? Will government one day see other items as they now see guns?

So you think that they believe guns are not one's property, but property of the state, able to be seized at any time... because that's what I kinda see here. I didn't spend $1,000's on all my guns to not have 100% lawful, legal, ownership. Anyone tries to take my guns, LE or not, will be treated as a suspected thief and will meet violent force if necessary- I don't give 2 shits about a badge, tyranny is what I'm standing up against.

1) Nowhere in Article III of the Constitution does the Supremem Court, or any court for that matter, have the power to interpret or interpenetrate (great word by the way) the constitution.

2) The preamble to the bill of rights specifically says that the following rights are written down so that douchebags in federal office don't violate them.

"The conventions of a number of States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best ensure the benificent ends of its institution."

3) 2A ends with "shall not be infringed"

The federal government cannot make any law having anything to do with guns, period. Case closed... or should be.

It's seems pretty simple to me, not sure why it's so hard to understand for some (not written towards anybody involved in this thread, just getting it off my chest before I explode).

Goddamn RIGHT! I don't see how the Brady Act, or any other legislation put into place is not viewed as a blatant infringement on the second amendment. To keep and bear arms... not to keep and bear semi-automatic/bolt action/lever action/flintlock only arms, I see it strictly as- If you can use it to defend yourself from a tyrannical .gov (as the framers intended the amendment to be viewed as necessary for) it's protected and the right to have it "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." I'd love to file a suit against .gov for years of 2A infringement and violation of the American people's constitutional rights... thus ending this reign of shoddy .gov and ushering in an era of a constitutionally sound and fit .gov.

[kidicarus13]

Court action

[Elhuero]

so, who's betting some of those firearms never turn up?

[SuperiorDG]

So you think that they believe guns are not one's property, but property of the state, able to be seized at any time... because that's what I kinda see here. I didn't spend $1,000's on all my guns to not have 100% lawful, legal, ownership. Anyone tries to take my guns, LE or not, will be treated as a suspected thief and will meet violent force if necessary- I don't give 2 shits about a badge, tyranny is what I'm standing up against.

I believe, and I think most people on this forum believe, that guns are our property. But I think that a lot of folks out there believe that guns are not the same type of property as TVs and other items. If the cops were taking your TV and you protected your property it would be a different case in a court of law then if they were taking your guns. I think the issue is how people see the acts. If it where a TV in the case above do you think they would have to go though all that crap to get it back? The mind set of the populous is what concerns me.

[Elhuero]

The mind set of the populous is what concerns me.

not to mention the mindset of the police.

[SuperiorDG]

not to mention the mindset of the police.

I think the mind set of the police comes from what their belief in what the people want.

[Ronin13]

I think the mind set of the police comes from what their belief in what the people want.

Thus pandering to the sheeple will soon leave us paying in blood to preserve the constitution. Just my theory of the bleak future that awaits.

[Zundfolge]

So you think that they believe guns are not one's property, but property of the state, able to be seized at any time... because that's what I kinda see here.

Yes, that's why they call them "Gun Buy Backs"