Watch Out for ‘Weapons Under Disability’

 

By LC Judas

As a law enforcement officer I find that most laws have a purpose and a place. But whatever my opinion of a law may be, I have a duty to uphold those laws without question. That means laws on the books are enforced and carry corresponding charges and penalties. But a lot of people aren’t aware of the latest the flavor of the month charge that’s being used to bring gun control to more and more people: Weapons Under Disability . . .

Typically, a Weapons Under Disability charge is added onto other charges related to crimes in which guns were possessed by a prohibited person. Basically, if you are a felon, on parole, have other disqualifying factors in your past that keep you from owning a gun, such as being declared mentally incompetent or subject to an active 0rder of protection (restraining order) granted by a court, if you are caught with a firearm you can be charged with Weapons Under Disability in addition to whatever other hijinks you may have been involved in when you’re caught.

Does this list sound familiar? It should. It’s the same list of prohibiting factors on a Form 4473. That’s that long form you fill out and sign whenever you go to a gun store to buy a firearm. There is a small difference, though. Don’t worry, though. Weapons Under Disability doesn’t apply if you don’t have the weapon yet. So you can’t be charged if your 4473 application is declined. It only applies after you have the gun and commit another infraction of some kind. But, looking at the way WUD is being applied, you can also see that adding new laws to prohibit ownership would make this additional felony charge a nice cherry on top of a pile of other charges.

One example that worries me is if some sort of registration is eventually mandated. They can evaluate you on whether or not you can own a firearm every time you register one in the name of “universal background checks.” Regardless how regular the occurrence of registering and asking for permission to own your property occurs, it comes with one big hook. If, since you last bought a firearm, you’re caught in any of the new “stronger” gun laws designed to prohibit gun ownership…you’ll get yourself a felony charge.

How so, you ask? Simple. Even though requiring self incrimination is prohibited by an amendment to the United States Constitution, you essentially ask someone else if you are fit to register property you want to own. Let’s say you’re found unfit and they only confiscate the single weapon in question. Any other firearms you may own make you guilty of – you guessed it – Weapons Under Disability. A felony.

The charge was originally added to the books discourage gun crime. But nine times out of ten, whatever aggravated assault, robbery, murder or other serious felony is committed is more serious and carries a much stiffer penalty. The amount of time you’ll do for weapons possession is relatively small compared to 15 to life for manslaughter. Unless, of course, you’re an average Joe who may have taken Zoloft in the past and just wanted a nightstand gun.

Now, with the goal of “protecting the children”, we are stacking the deck against people who are trying to do just that. If you want stiffer punishment for “gun crime,” you’re going to start increasing the penalties for Weapons Under Disability and laws like it because “criminals shouldn’t have guns and be able to hurt people”. I use quotes because these are the things you hear in the media from people clamoring for action. These are people who don’t understand crime or the law, but think they can legislate away predators with strokes of a pen and by screaming “it’s just common sense”.

If I sound frustrated, I am. If gun control, as envisioned by liberals who think Congress is failing to protect us, actually existed as they want it to, it would place every police officer in the position of having to enforce the law on people who are otherwise upstanding citizens. I haven’t run an official poll, but I sincerely doubt my stopping by to raid your gun safe with my friends, using force, would be welcomed. I would venture enough people would take the forcible entry of my colleagues into their homes with search warrants for relatively weak felony charges would lead to potentially fatal altercations.

Weapons Under Disability was originally devised to nail small-time criminals because lesser crimes didn’t stick enough to provide deterrence. I’m not saying the charge serves no purpose. Most shoplifters don’t risk aggravated robbery by sticking a snub nose in their pocket with the rest of their ill-gotten gains. But making an add-on charge into essentially an unenforceable law is ridiculous.

‘Disability’ is simply a word. Its definitions can be amended and contorted to include just about anyone. I’d like to think that I’m not the only one this bothers, but disagreeing has somehow become the opposite of “common sense.” Who would’ve guessed?

comments

  1. avatar gastorgrab says:

    It’s technically the same thing as happens when someone is charged with a ‘Hate Crime’.

    It punishes you for having a particular motive when you commit a crime. It’s not just our actions that can be illegal, now our thoughts can also be.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Indeed.

      Just like if your thought is to protect our family, shooting is often legal. If on the other hand your thought is “I want that watch,” things differ.

      Deal.

    2. avatar rtempleton says:

      I am SICK of this defense being used by bigots for their bigoted behavior.

      ANY crime has an element of intent to it. That is largely the difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter.

    3. avatar James says:

      Ya Ya Ya and if anyone ever pays attention to the people in Government WHO WRITE these Laws and other laws like Hate Crime and gun controll Laws. You will see the same Names and they have the same Religion. Fact Check Me before you start with the Name calling. Let me help you with some names> Senator Howard Metzenbaum ,Senator Herbert Kohl ,Congressman Charles Schumer,Senator Dianne Feinstein,Senator Frank Lautenberg.,Senator Barbara Boxer ,Carl M. Levin, Senator Chuck Schumer and others. Just google …type in something like > Senator Dianne Feinstein gun law.

  2. avatar JusBill says:

    Isn’t it nice that being law-abiding makes you part of a new criminal class?

    1. avatar Bill says:

      Yes, they are making doing the right thing illegal. Now the legal thing is doing exactly what they want you to do, which is to give up personal responsibility and give in to their “utopia”. Which means give them complete control.

  3. avatar the last Marine out says:

    It is my understanding that Obamacare can give the government the right to label any person or groups any having medical disability, This is also very, very dangerous an we are now seeing how the IRS has been used to attack the Tea Party groups and other groups, and the open attack on the AP and taking e-mails etc to learn news sources …. This is a all out attack on all our Liberties … BAD NEWS for freedoms in America….

    1. avatar rtempleton says:

      Your understanding is absolutely, 100% wrong.

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        His understanding is absolutely, 100% correct. I have read the “Affordable Care Act” repeatedly, and it does direct healthcare employees to question citizens as to their firearms ownership, and it gives government the ability to designate individuals and groups as disabled. Not doctors. It also gives IRS direct access to the personal medical records of every single American.

        Now,r, spin and twirl and spew lies in defense of socialism.

        1. avatar rtempleton says:

          Show me the exact text where it says any of this.

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          You have been given direct links, at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=BSS&c=111, to the full text with all addendum and revisions, repeatedly. You refuse to read it and you refuse to accept reality.

          Now, spew more of your anti-human leftist sh*t, cuz that is all you got.

      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        Really? Have you read the 1,000 plus page Obamacare document? The one where proponents of the bill filed to be exempted from it? The one that is a series of 23 new taxes, yet reduces costs of healthcare?

        You can believe in the efficiency of the federal government overseeing healthcare, I sure as hell don’t.

      3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Here you go, yet again, since you are too stupid to use a simple search at Library of Congress.

        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdbjiM::|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=111|

        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~mdbsRk8lxH::

    2. avatar Hamilton says:

      If you have not noticed the government as well as municipalities have been slowly taking rights away and converting this into a communistic Country, Freedom that people serve the country and die to protect are being taken daily. No-one Seems to Notice.

    3. avatar cris chambers says:

      oh shut up. you sound mental and one of the ones we need to keep wapons from.

  4. avatar Matt in FL says:

    This is me waiting on matt to show up and call you names.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I’ve yet to hear of any thing that matt contributes to the 2a effort. He admits to being a non voter and I’ve asked him before and he’s never answered as to what pro 2a groups he contributes to. But he doesn’t hesitate to drive a wedge between people that are trying to find common ground to work with on 2a issues. He would make an enemy of all soldiers, all cops and all government employees.

      I guess he thinks he’s going to carry the day by himself.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Well matt and I aren’t exactly friends, but I agree with LC Judas yet again. Obamacare is a massive intrusion by the federal government into our private affairs. I’ve already had a doctor ask if I have guns I the house. That question is none of his damn business. Watch for additional “exclusionary events” to be added into Obamacare. This administration really does not want the populace to be armed, and has not proven itself to be worthy of our trust.

        1. avatar rtempleton says:

          Nothing in the PPACA “violates your privacy” and certainly none of it requires doctors to ask about guns. This has been repeatedly debunked.

          http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/medicare.asp

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          @ rtempleton,

          Bullshit. I’ve already had doctors ask me about guns in my house and how they are stored. Maybe the next thing you’ll tell me is “no one is going after your guns.”

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Wrong again matt. I was never a prison gaurd. I worked in a prison but wasn’t a gaurd. And being involved in the process is the way to get things done. I vote. I contact reps. I give money to gun rights groups. What of these things do you do?

      2. avatar matt says:

        I have such a fanclub here, possibly even more than MikeB. By participating in the electoral process in CA, youre consenting that in the event your candidate doesnt win, that people like Fienstein legitimately represent you and your opinion. And what exactly did you do for 2A? Oh yeah, as a prison guard, you ensured those who were convicted of gun control crimes, had the shittiest stay in a CA prision they possibly could. You enforced CA’s gun laws just like the LEOs do. At least a LEO has a option to exercise discretion, a prison guard never does.

    2. avatar LC Judas says:

      I’m actually short on the amount of ad-hominem I expected if you believe that. If 50% of the people reading this post read that laws like this are how you enforce Gun Control and passing one at the Federal Level after making ridiculous weapons limitations and adding as many different “disability” provisions as possible is how the Second Amendment would be oppressed…then maybe I’ll have done more good than evil as an apparent Nazi.

      Not like Nazis actually warned anyone what was likely to happen but that’s today’s title. Maybe matt will show up still…and call me something else. Who knows?

  5. avatar Bill says:

    I’m sad again.

  6. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    There’s only one firearms law necessary:

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      No, people do commit crimes with guns, so therefore there must be other laws regarding guns. Restrictions, registration and confiscation? No. Unless you have been a very bad boy or girl with a gun. Then yes. You need to be restricted to a local prison. Registered as a person who can never legally possess a firearm. Oh, yea. And your guns be confiscated. And being “a very bad boy or girl with a gun.” does not include incorrectly filling out a paper when you go to the doctor for your persistent heartburn, or who you vote for. It does include recklessly discharging a firearm and/or killing/injuring someone.

      We need to scroll back to the point that laws were enforced in a more sensible way. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Now what crime would it make a lick of difference whether the act was committed with a firearm or a knife or a baseball bat? Murder? Robbery? Assault? Are you more dead if you are shot to death than if you’re stabbed to death?

        As far as felons with guns, the first thing you need to do is accept the reality that criminals who intend to go back to their felonious lifestyles can and absolutely will obtain a firearm. If they can’t be trusted with a gun, they can’t be trusted, period.

        The one point I would concede is that there does need to be severe penalties for the theft of or knowing possession of a stolen firearm. Now I just got my CCW and took it upon myself to read the entire 15 page law. I learned that the theft or knowing possession of a firearm is a class D felony (in my state), which is good because otherwise it would be punishable according to it’s value, probably 4th degree theft, a simple misdemeanor. However, I personally know of one person who has 5 class D felonies and 1 class C felony on her record and never spent a day in jail, despite the fact that she nearly killed a 2 month old baby! (Talk about a plea deal!) If you steal a firearm you should be facing a minimum of 10 years in prison, no exceptions.

  7. avatar Rob says:

    “As a law enforcement officer I find that most laws have a purpose and a place. But whatever my opinion of a law may be, I have a duty to uphold those laws without question. That means laws on the books are enforced and carry corresponding charges and penalties.”

    Holy Smokes Batman!!!

    Sorry, but “I was just following orders…” doesn’t work.

    If you were ordered to round up all the Muslims in your community, and put them on a train, would you carry out that order because it was the law?

    If you were ordered to go door-to-door to round up all African Americans, would you follow that order because it was now the law to deport all African Americans strip them of their citizenship and ship them back to Africa?

    You have a badge, and the force of the state behind you backing you up. If you’re under the impression that you have “a duty to uphold those laws without question” then turn in your badge and gun now.

    At what point would you say: “No sir, I will not follow this order to enforce this law. If you don’t like it, shoot me now.”

    Unthinking officers of the state like you are the reason that the twentieth century is drenched in the blood of millions upon countless millions of innocents.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Read a little further into the article. That may be what he said at the outset, but it’s not all he meant. What he meant is more along the lines of applying the law equally to everybody.

      The very fact that LC Judas wrote this article shows that he isn’t one of those “unthinking agents of the state,” but a justice-minded individual who thinks about the consequences of the laws he enforces.

      1. avatar csmallo says:

        If he enforces 90% of the laws on the books now, then he is a Judas to the American people and just as bad as any NY State Trooper. If you wear a cop’s uniform, you are the enemy, PERIOD.

        1. avatar Carry.45 says:

          Wow. Talking about people who put their lives on the line every day to protect the people. Time for the ad hominem attacks. You sir, are a dirtbag. And god I hope they save your life someday.

  8. avatar Bob says:

    “I have a duty to uphold those laws without question.”

    I’m going to be very blunt here. If you truly believe this, that no matter what law they make you will enforce it, then the only difference between you and the Nazi who herded children into gas chambers is of degree, not kind.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I was going to mention this as well. We are all citizens of our nation and we all have a duty and obligation to respect our founding principles, our state and federal Constitutions, and our fellow citizens. That, in a nutshell, is what being a citizen means.

      A ginormous aspect of our founding principles includes our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Laws that violate our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property are contrary to common law, our founding, and our Constitution. Such laws have no moral authority and are null and void. It is WRONG to blindly enforce such laws.

      LC Judas, I implore you to question and prudently judge every law that you are tasked with enforcing. I ask this not only for your own well being, but also for the well being of our Republic.

      1. avatar LC Judas says:

        Officer Discretion. It’s what makes every one of us different. I take every situation into account. Don’t let the way the article opens let you believe I blindly enforce every law. If I did, I wouldn’t be warning you what laws would be your worst nightmare with just a few changes to the wording and some extra politics.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      I disagree. There are literally thousands of laws on the books, and some of them have no practical value. It is impossible for an LEO to know all of them, so therefore guidance by justice and common sense is necessary.

    3. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      What you fail to take into account is that an officer who stands on principle against a law is in violation of their oath, and therefor derelict in their duty.

      That said, LEOs refusing to enforce soe was is hardly unknown.

      Often they’ll side with the Constitution rather than local law. Nt always, but often.

      1. avatar matt says:

        Often they’ll side with the Constitution rather than local law. Nt always, but often.

        Really? Where in 2A does it say a drug addict or felon cant own a firearm? How often do you really think a cop will look the other way if either one of them is caught with one?

        1. avatar Carry.45 says:

          It doesn’t. But that is where common sense comes into play. Those laws may actually save a life. Gun free zones, 7 round mag limits, and assault weapons ban…. Not so much

    4. avatar LC Judas says:

      Bad laws and bad calls are not the scope of my duties. I can read you a charter and what they say every guy in my uniform is supposed to do and then I can tell you that every officer in every stop is different depending on the situation. The fact is, for applicable purposes, most cops are going to be wrestling with this and that this is the vehicle for justice that Gun Control is going to use. That’s the point and purpose.

      I don’t champion what this law means. I make my own calls and decide with discretion as also is a part of my duties. Don’t mistake reading the baseline rhetoric for a slice of my character. It is simply to set the context for the point the post is trying to make.

  9. avatar jwm says:

    Time for the drama queens to come out and play. Since when is enforcing unpopular laws the same as rounding up people and loading them on trains? Instead of reaching out to guys like LC Judas and working with them on doing something about these laws we call them Nazis? And since when is the 20th century the only blood soaked century? That’s pretty much the history of the hyuman race. Laying the guilt for all that at the feet of a guy that’s reaching out to us is kind of over reach don’t you think?

    1. avatar Bob says:

      He said it. He said he intends to uphold laws without question. His subsequent words did not retract.

      Over 200 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. All done by people “upholding laws without question”.

      Much, if not all of what Hitler did was carefully written into law. What the Jews needed most were German law breakers.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Would it serve our cause better to reach out to the cops and soldiers stuck with these laws we don’t like or do we start comparing them to murderous nazis and expect them to come over to our way of thinking? It spite of what alex jones may rant we’re a little ways from trains headed for death camps. Wouldn’t it be better to never get that far?

        1. avatar Bob says:

          I’m all for reaching out to cops (BTW, how would you do it?). I also support trying to educate them in a civil manner. But when someone writes that he will unquestioningly obey, I get justifiably alarmed. I might have been a little bit harsh, but I stand by everything I said.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Bob, first let’s recognise that the nazi tag is like a nuke. It shouldn’t be used lightly. And then look around you. How many people do you know that work for the state? How many current duty military or vets? All these people are conduits into the government. They are also part of our communities.

          Try to have a talk with them. Get to know them. If they’re non gun people try to get them interested. There’s lots of ways at a personal level to get a dialogue going.

          Us against them leads all to often to those bloody moments in history. Let’s try to make it us together.

          And no, I don’t expect us to join hands and sing Kumbayah but every positive contact helps to make our cause a little better.

        3. avatar Bob says:

          jwm – “Bob, first let’s recognise that the nazi tag is like a nuke. ”

          What would you rather I do, use Stalin’s law enforcers instead of the Nazi word? Godwin notwithstanding, or the “nuke” concern, the comparison, while mitigated in degree as I stated, is valid and I do not apologize.

          Frankly, I don’t get the Nazi reference sensitivity — again, when mitigated in degree as I stated.

          And for Matt in FL, I would also go as far as saying that calling a Godwin on this thread is approaching being a Nazi apologist. I again firmly stand by my words.

        4. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          My simpleton way of looking at and planning for possible future scenarios is that I do not include any possibility of asking for or depending on the assistance of any employee of any Government entity. Everything else is just words on the Internet.

        5. avatar Fingersoup says:

          ‘Just following orders’ that violate civil rights undermines liberties. No excuses.

      2. avatar Matt in FL says:

        BEEP BEEP BEEP

        GODWIN ALERT!
        GODWIN ALERT!

        BEEP BEEP BEEP

        1. avatar Bob says:

          What does this mean?

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          It means this thread is doomed to failure due to Nazi comparisons.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

      3. avatar LC Judas says:

        I said “it is my duty to uphold these laws without question” and I say that simply because that is what it is. Does that happen? Not likely. They didn’t hire a robot and officer discretion remains the most pivotal part of any day any of us are on the road.

        As it is, I made a deliberate attempt to help you understand the law that makes Gun Control legal if you add just a few provisions. That shouldn’t be taken in the context that I’m threatening to enforce anything, I’m telling you what to look out for. The law you should be looking for loopholes in if you’re ever a victim of an increasingly flawed system.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          Actually, I think most cops do uphold all laws unquestioningly. Witness New Orleans/Katrina.

          OK, so you say you don’t, I still find it a bit odd that you made that statement, it’s so unambiguous. How else was I supposed to take it?

          I do appreciate the WUD value of your post. That ‘unquestionably’ statement in my opinion was much more scary.

        2. avatar LC Judas says:

          Bob,

          I don’t post to talk about how I do my job or to impress anyone. Most of the people here are anti-cop for things I have nothing to do with and only a distant association with because it’s my profession. How you take how I read to you the things that we are taught versus the things that we as human beings do in the performance of my duties is immaterial. I don’t do my job with the intent of stomping out liberty, otherwise I wouldn’t be giving what advice I could that you can use to circumvent said eradication of liberty.

          A lot of people jumped to the same conclusion, you being among the top and guiding the topic downhill. I’m not going to worry about it if you’d rather wonder how I do my job instead of how WUD would make every single officer into someone cornered into enforcing an undeniably Fascist policy. The fact is I speak because other officers don’t. Some plug their ears because I’m a cop, some take it with a grain of salt, and some are shocked and want to tell me how to be a cop. The first means click the back button, the second is a good suggestion and the third isn’t going to work too well because I’m one of an extremely large and easily homogenized mass. I would take the good info that I give that you can use and see if it’s of any use. Your problems with the law aren’t likely to come from me personally and debating the fact that the police institution causes them doesn’t make me into more of a criminal because I speak out and present you with a target you can flame.

          I appreciate the discussion and I’m glad I reached you better than I obviously did in the beginning but…people will believe what they want. I’m not here to impress you, I’m here to warn you. That’s it.

      4. avatar John C says:

        Frankly I doubt LC Judas would do as the Nazis or would the majority of LEO’s.

        1. avatar csmallo says:

          They will do what they have to do to protect their bloated paychecks, platinum benefits, and early retirements. Don’t think otherwise. They showed they were of low morals and suspect character just by taking a government job.

    2. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Couldn’t agree more. LC Judas is giving us a nice overview of the dilemma that we face as civilians and as civilians that wear a badge.

      1. avatar csmallo says:

        You are a civilian. I am a CITIZEN.

        1. avatar Carry.45 says:

          No. You’re a dick.

    3. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

      If I were a cop, national guardsman, or some *insert alphabet soup agent here*, I’d rather spend three months in jail, lose my job, and maybe even face a God damn firing squad than live out my life knowing I chose to follow orders by terrorizing innocent civilians and confiscating their legally owned private property in the name of some nut job politician’s manifesto.

      I’m not going to blame the author of this post for stating what he did, it’s his right and he’s quite brave to do so given the tendencies of this crowd when cops are the topic. But to me, “Befehl ist befehl” doesn’t cut it when it comes to arms confiscation by police forces in today’s world. Police departments aren’t going to start curing the ranks of nonbelievers with bullets like a Red Army Commissar. Any authority figure who willingly volunteers to go on a Bill of Rights eviscerating confiscatory raid a la Katrina either drank the statist Kool-aid, is trying to save their job/ass, or is a sadist, period. I’m not trying to be crude and sling insults around to piss people off, but I will be brutally honest because thems the facts in today’s world of government overreach and showing of force in Joe American’s suburban backyard.

    4. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Unpopular laws, or unconstitutional laws?

    5. avatar LC Judas says:

      What we need is an attorney to point out this law and explain how it is the model for bad things to come. If you’re a cop and you enforce a law that someone doesn’t like, you’re a storm trooper Nazi. I haven’t even detailed a time that I personally have enforced this law and have made it clear it is an add-on charge but…it seems like the rest of the post isn’t getting read because people are challenging me “upholding laws” without imagining I have an iota of free will…nevermind that I haven’t seen any other cop trying to explain what the laws to watch out for look like.

      Thank you jwm, for trying. I appreciate it.

    6. avatar matt says:

      Well it is exactly the same, as jails are exactly the same thing as concentration camps; they concentrate a certain segment of the population in the same place. Although nowadays we have enough of them that we use busses rather than trains.

      The Nazis at least belived what they were doing was bettering society. As you can see from this post, LC Judas doesnt exactly feel the same way.

      Exactly, the Nazis arent nearly as bad as the Jews make them out to be. The entire history of humans is soaked in blood.

      1. avatar Carry.45 says:

        Prisons aren’t concentration camps. They are places for (usually) a well deserved time-out. Ever spent time in jail?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Why yes, yes he has. And he was an innocent victim of the system.

  10. avatar Hinshelworld says:

    I’m pretty sure this is just an ordinance in Ohio…

  11. avatar Paul53 says:

    I believe your first duty is to the constitution, second is to the law. Correct me if wrong.
    Disability? I have muscular dystrophy. That’s a physical disability which can be demonstrated with physical findings and tests. What worries me is psychological disability. Psychiatric diagnosis ultimately come down to just somebody’s opinion. There’s a can of worms if I ever saw one.

  12. avatar ChuckN says:

    Before everyone completely flips out at LC Judas’ comment
    about upholding the law; I’d like to point out that the only
    reason LEOs and other involved citizens are having to
    address this issue is that enough of the un-informed electorate
    voted for the politicians who sign utter garbage and self-
    serving legislation into law. As much as we might like vent
    at LEOs (not that it’s totally misplaced), we really need to
    focus on those so woefully ignorant as the culprits.

  13. avatar robin says:

    “I have a duty to uphold those laws without question. ” What about your oath to the Constitution? Your priorities as a United States citizen are somewhat twisted. I spent 25 years in the Army and never once heard a superior officer say something like that.

    1. avatar matt says:

      You never heard of Article 92 of the UCMJ?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Article 92 of the UCMJ says that servicemen are required to follow Lawfull orders, matt.

  14. avatar robin says:

    I am always there for law enforcement, if they need me. I’m also there for those who would violate civil rights. They might not like it, though.

  15. avatar JMS says:

    “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

    Pass enough laws and it becomes impossible to keep them straight and impossible to follow them all, and the government can nail anybody on some sort of crime and ruin their reputation, cost them a fortune defending themselves, and/or lock them away. Better stay in line and be a good subject or you’ll get railroaded on some random law.

  16. avatar John Boch says:

    “I have a duty to uphold those laws without question.”

    YOU SIR, ARE THE PROBLEM.

    People swung from the neck until dead after Nuremberg for their claimed “duty to follow orders without question”.

    If a law is unconstitutional, you are DUTY BOUND NOT to uphold it.

    John

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      The current place that the WUD charge sits is as an add on to other crimes committed with a firearm. However, if you were going to make Gun Control into an enforceable action you would make special pains to make this a good stand alone charge to give and base new, unconstitutional legislation on it.

      People are not being pulled for WUD by itself…yet. Let me make that clear that it is added to other crimes on the laundry list of charges but the nature of that charge is the exact same as trying to enforce Gun Control is in theory. I’m showcasing a connection here.

  17. avatar Mike in NC says:

    This issue is a great argument for the end of the era of the “law enforcement officer” and the return of the “peace officer”. If an LEO was actually upholding every law without question then all of their friends, family, co-workers and acquaintances would be locked-up for something within a few short years.

  18. LC Judas, you swore an oath. To uphold that oath your duty is to not enforce laws that trample the natural rights of man which the Constitution was supposed to help uphold. Laws are meaningless without foot soldiers to enforce them. Your approach to your “duty” is why the Constitution and our natural rights have been shredded in this country. Are you a man, or a mindless puppet for evil men?

  19. avatar Paul53 says:

    Uhm, can we go easy on LC Judas? He came here to inform us of how the people WE elected are betraying us with the laws they make. He was just explaining the lousy position that puts him (and all LEO’s) in. My take on the article is that he’s on our side. We should take responsibility by electing a better class of politicians. They seem to forget that power is granted to the government by the people. The government is powerless without our consent.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      While his intentions may have been good, he let a big one slip. His oath binds him to the people, not his agency and “…I have a duty to uphold those laws without question” suggests he thinks otherwise.

      Mike in NC put it best by pointing the transition from ‘Peace Officer’ to ‘Law Enforcement Officer’ out.

    2. avatar Ensitue says:

      Judas came here to inform us as to How he intends to violate our rights, Just as sociopaths inform their victims as to how they intend to torture and murder them (often in writing as a form of fantasizing). Note that Judas has CHANGED his OP as soon as he realized he had committed his intent to writing but he left in his fantasy about violently invading “upstanding citizens” homes with his fellow cops to enforce “weak laws”
      I hope RF is ready to reveal the details of this indivdual “Judas” in court as he may be called as a witness for the prosecution.
      Judas has profiled himself in so many ways I think he does not need anyone’s compassion

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        I don’t know if you’ve actually stepped over the “flaming others” line, but you’re close enough that if I was wearing a moderator hat, I wouldn’t quibble over the details. You’re a nasty, venomous, not to mention ignorant (because you clearly can’t read) jackass.

        And I’m not sure what the thing about him changing the post is, because I read it as soon as it went up and I can’t see anything that’s different now.

  20. avatar Michael B. says:

    “The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus,(7) etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs.” – Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

    1. avatar Paul53 says:

      Been thinking about that very same work of HDT lately. Remember an old Doonesbury cartoon in which DB is trying to explain the requirement of civil disobedience by the populace to “several hyperventilating state troopers.”

  21. avatar Gyufygy says:

    Holy smokes, mindless over-reactions abound! We rightly call BS when anti-gunners drool all over the “well regulated militia” part of the 2A (Prefactory Clause, maybe? Can’t remember) and miss the actual point. But here, when LC points out how a fairly low level criminal charge could plausibly be twisted to strip people of their rights, many people focus on one sentence only tangentially related to his subject. Disagreeing is one thing; prancing merrily off into Nazi-land at the drop of a hat and ignoring his entire freaking point is another. Maybe he phrased himself poorly, maybe his bosses read TTAG and saying “yes, I will disobey orders” in a public setting is a great way of catching hell before the situation demands taking a stand. Maybe it’s something completely different. Dunno. What I do know is such reflexive, unthinking lashing out reminds me of an anti-gunner.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    LC Judas is a stand up guy. No question about it. If you don’t get that, then you suck, not him.

    Unfortunately, if he’s one of the first blue meanies who come bursting through the door of an armed good guy in the middle of the night, he’d be among the first guys to get shot.

    That’s the world that Obama and his minions want for us. It’s despicable.

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      It’s not even about the cops. I mean I’m less than happy with the prospect but I’m trying to give decent intel here. I mean I speak to say…if you look at what I’m saying, this is the vehicle you’ll see Gun Control using. Legislators are not original creatures. Mimicking and making laws again is standard fare and this is the one I would expect a really screwed version of if any Gun Control gets passed so that it would get enforced.

      This law is a harbinger. Screaming at one cop, who takes the time to try and warn you, because laws get enforced whether he does it or not irregardless of discretion is basically drowning out that message.

  23. avatar Ryan says:

    I don’t understand what you are getting at here. If you are a prohibited possessor, it doesn’t matter if you already owned guns or acquired them after becoming a prohibited possessor, you are violating the law by owning a gun.

    The scenario you describe (a person going to buy a gun, having their 4473 declined because they are a prohibited possessor, get’s in trouble because the are know to already have other guns) is exactly what should happen…

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      Not exactly the only way the charge could make your day bad.

      If they make registration a mandatory event, you could be subjected to a background check to register items you own. Upon failing this check because you took a trip to a pharmacy or whatever reason you are no longer vetted like you were, you now Possess Weapons Under Disability if you own other weapons and are subject to said charge even if you weren’t doing anything illegal with said firearms.

      My best guess is that they will add more teeth and perversions to the statute as an object lesson to deter and better punish gun crime and totally botch a lot of decent cases by making the law essentially a red-herring when it snags every decent citizen with a firearm in it.

      1. avatar Ryan says:

        “Upon failing this check…even if you weren’t doing anything illegal with said firearms.”

        This was my point. If you fail the check (for any reason) then you are doing something illegal with said firearms…you are possessing them when you are a prohibited possessor.

        The only issue I see with this whole scenario is if what makes you a “prohibited possessor” (and therefore fail a background check) changes to include something inappropriate. At present, I think the items that make you a prohibited possessor (both at the federal level and at the Ohio state level) are reasonable.

    2. avatar LC Judas says:

      I’m describing a hypothetical event like registration being mandated. Then if you change and add to the definition of the word “disability” that it can apply to anyone. Then, when you are obeying the registration law you are caught in a felony charge.

      This is what Gun Control would have to look like to get enforced by the rank and file. There’s a law that’s strictly an add on charge now but could become stand alone so that Gun Control gets real teeth added to it if it were to be passed. That is the point of what I said.

      1. avatar Ryan says:

        “…if you change and add to the definition of the word ‘disability’ that it can apply to anyone”

        Well, yeah…

        The definition is pretty clearly laid out in the Ohio law you cite (2923.13) as 5 very specific things. Again, if you meet any of those qualifications, and own guns, you are breaking the law, weather you get caught or not.

        Obviously that list could change to include something ridiculous (like “has two eyes”) which would make everyone a prohibited possessor and all current gun owners felons. But the definition of “Driving Under the Influence” could also be expanded to include the “influence of oxygen” and instantly make it illegal for anyone to drive.

        I realize that ^ just sounds like a snarky comment, but think about it for a moment; why are we concerned with them doing some loophole, shady redefining of “disability” when the anti-gun crowd is clearly attacking gun laws head on. Sure, they could do what you describe (though such a move would likely not stand up to judicial review), but why bother when it’s much easier to just attack us head on and pass a new law that says “No guns allowed”?

        1. avatar LC Judas says:

          My point in this is simple. A law that already exists being modified is harder to attack and will sound “reasonable” and in addition to that idea that it is “reasonable” it does not mean they won’t just go for gold and try passing another attempt at laws that are flat out ridiculous.

          Offering “minor changes to existing law” as an olive branch after another M-T or similar go round would sound much better than it actually is. Legislators are not original and taking any archetype and claiming it “works and needs teeth” wouldn’t be a bad claim to uninformed who shoot down outlandish stuff at the federal level like the newest AWB attempt.

          I imagine multiple angles is how they would win the battle and this one, given the Obamacare tie in mentioned further up, could be tin foil hat material or…a pretty bad bet. I’ve never been one to bet on hoping for the best and showcasing the possible and probable angles is better than waiting for the shot and trying to dodge.

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Because history is full of legislators “redefining” laws after they’re passed to include language that never would have passed scrutiny if it’d been in the original bill. In most locales “No guns allowed” wouldn’t stand a chance of passing, but “reasonable restrictions” and “common sense solutions” can get the votes. Why do you think virtually every proponent of Citizen Disarmament legislation that you’ve ever heard speak uses that language? Then you just go back later and “adjust” the “reasonable restrictions.” It might take more than one adjustment, but the ultimate goal is to get it to the point of the language that couldn’t pass on its own merits.

        3. How does one find out if they are under disability under Ohio law. 2923.13 (4) . you can’t..u just get charged. its entrapment and perverted. laws are no longer written to protect society they are written by weasels or sociopaths to be interpreted by weasels or sociopaths.so if a person has had a dui or more than one and is court ordered treatment are they under disability? there is no answer only a costly legal battle if you are charged for not doing anything to harm anybody just protecting your family..so i think they want to just throw shit at walls and see if it sticks . its became a business has little to do with justice. LOL its not funny but really under disability for ” being in danger of drug dependence” WTF does that mean?.your dad or Mom wa drug dependent so you may be? Cop heard from a credible source you tried dope once? it’s ridiculous. its a way to charge someone with a felony that didn’t do anything to anybody. If one serves laws for the sake of upholding the law with out regards to ethics that person is either brain washed or a sociopath plain and simple

  24. avatar Big B says:

    As a Buckeye, I have seen the charge of “weapons under disability” used a lot (in the news) but it was ALWAYS when some idiot was carrying or using a weapon while drunk or high and never when someone owned a gun but left it at home when they got in that drunken altercation.
    Also the whole “I have a duty to uphold those laws without question” is a bit of a stretch. That would mean that you give tickets to every single driver who you caught going over the speed limit. There is a thing called officer’s discretion.

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      I have been trying to make that clear. The duty to uphold the laws without question takes the fact that we are people not robots into account. The biggest part of any and every job is personal discretion but I would be ill-advised to explain this as people don’t want to hear about it and would rather take the one line that everyone is using like a money shot and swing it around instead of make the connection that I’m trying to make for you here.

      If Gun Control advocates had an agenda to grab guns by making it harder to own them, the law they will pervert will probably look a lot like this one. Much like the NY SAFE Act and Feinstein AWB were models for other states gun control laws. It is one of those “let’s think critically” moments but people are taking the opening and basically destroying the rest of the message.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        LC Judas,

        I want to thank you for raising awareness about the “Weapons Under Disability” angle that the gun grabbers could play. I believe most people reading fully understood that part of your message and its implications.

        I believe you are getting many additional comments simply because many people who support our right to keep and bear arms are “sharp” people. That means we notice everything that is dangerous to liberty. There is no question that people elected and appointed to government are dangerous to liberty because of the laws, orders, and policies that they implement or could implement, such as the New York SAFE Act or the “Weapons Under Disability” approach that you listed. The other half of that equation, however, is enforcement. The immoral laws that violate common law and unalienable rights are only an issue if someone exists to enforce them. The Armed Intelligentsia recognize this and talk about it — just like they talk about everything else.

        I believe your commentary was an excellent opportunity to learn about “Weapons Under Disability” clouds looming on the horizon. It was also another opportunity to review the role of police officers and who they are supposed to serve. I am pleased to hear that you serve your fellow citizens. Sadly, there are many others who serve their police chief or legislature. Those are the officers we need to reach.

        1. avatar LC Judas says:

          You can’t list the guys who do their job the way it was originally intended. They’re the ones you won’t notice. There’s guys like me…then there are guys that make you hate cops. A lot of people are the latter and will find a reason to disregard and disparage what I say on principle and the words “uphold” and “duty” were the vehicle for that. I appreciate you thinking about what I said.

          If I had a suggestion for a takeaway from this post, it would include checking see what stupid firearms laws exist in your jurisdictions and see about getting them reviewed or repealed before they blossom into worse things. Things tend to go with gravity and downhill is never good.

  25. avatar Shenandoah says:

    “As a law enforcement officer I find that most laws have a purpose and a place. But whatever my opinion of a law may be, I have a duty to uphold those laws without question.”

    People are making too many inferences from this statement. LC Judas never said he WOULD enforce every law without question, he stated it is his DUTY to uphold those laws–there is a subtle yet important difference. His duty, i.e. his job description, is to enforce the law, not judge Constitutionality, practicality, usefulness, etc. Now obviously we know officers can and do use their wits to decide which lawbreakers are worth booking, but more importantly this piece serves to remind us that it is vital that we stop unconstitutional or overbearing laws from being enacted in the first place.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Shenandoah,

      Your comment gets right to the heart of the matter: what exactly is the duty of police officers?

      I argue that their duty first and foremost is to serve fellow citizens. And how do they do that? They capture and occasionally stop criminals. And who are criminals? Criminals are people who violate the life, liberty, or property of others. In other words bad people who attack citizens.

      Unfortunately, many police officers blindly enforce all laws and orders that their legislature or executive director issues. That is the sticking point. For example police officers in Illinois will arrest a citizen, a good person with no criminal record, for the “offense” of having a loaded handgun in a holster on their hip on a public sidewalk. This hypothetical armed citizen has harmed no one and has expressed no intent to harm anyone. They simply happen to have a plastic and metal object on their hip as they walk down the street. Why in the world is that a crime? Why do police officers arrest such people?

      Look at the parallel with respect to juries. The duty of juries is to serve justice — even if that means finding a defendant not guilty who clearly broke an immoral law. (The quasi-technical term for this is “jury nullification”.) Myself and many others are simply arguing that it is high time for “enforcement nullification”.

  26. avatar Todd says:

    Here is my problem with it: Even if LC Judas uses judgment and enforces the law as he sees it, whats to say the next uniform does the same thing? This equates to unequal protection under the law. For the record Judas, I appreciate what do and thank you.

  27. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    Without soldiers, their could be no wars.

    It wouldn’t matter how vile any particular legislation is to liberty if there were no people to enforce those laws.

    LEO’s of the world… DISOBEY! Then we can all be free.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      There… not their. Duh!

    2. avatar LC Judas says:

      Note the trend of Sheriffs Offices that don’t play good political ball. That is key, if this stuff gets hairy. There’s a division in the rank and file everywhere, depending on where you look, who you ask and why.

  28. avatar Scot says:

    “I have a duty to uphold those laws without question.”

    I would contend that your first duty is to uphold the constitution, i.e. The Law of the Land.

  29. avatar Kirk says:

    A poll of officers has been conducted about enforcement of gun laws. It is very heartening that they do not support it. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/34-jurisdiction/513-front-line-officers-favor-resistance

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      A lot of us don’t support it. It is simple bull. But watching how it’s going to divide cops isn’t going to bode well for the people we serve in any event.

      Stopping laws from mutating into something that can’t be contested and essentially strips liberty is the goal at this point. That’s why I’m pointing at the vehicle gun control will use because even if we all quit, others will come, laws get enforced. Stupid, tragic things happen. I suspect federal agencies more than local ones would gladly step up to strip “prohibited persons” of “illegal firearms” and make examples out of the people in question.

  30. avatar KCK says:

    I don’t want to assume anything and I feel like a newbie.
    Say I own guns, while getting divorced, my wife and I argue (no threats) but she is afraid of my guns. She files a restaining order. If I want to buy a gun I can’t because of the question on the 4473. Thats federal. Am I supposed to turn in all my guns because of the restraining order?
    Am I now “disabled” ?
    Depending on where I live, state law may say I have to turn them in but by the check boxes on the 4473, am I prohibited by the feds to possess or just not purchase?
    BTW
    I was divorced amicably 16 years ago my Sig Other of 12 years carries her PK380, 365, so we’re good.

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      This is a perfect question to illustrate why Gun Control is bad. Not a newbie one at all.

      She filed a restraining order, your future gun rights are now…pretty much gone unless she rescinds it. Under current law that is the end of the story. You are “disabled”.

      You keep your current guns. If you are caught with a firearm you will get a WUD charge if you were committing another crime. However, even if that is confiscated the rest of your guns are safe as long as you aren’t talking about your extremely large collection and giving probable cause for searching your home. It is the possibility of change to current law that this post was addressing.

      Under Gun Control as envisioned and they’re working towards, they want to register your guns so that in the even of a disqualifying event like this…they can come knocking (knock is a loose term for kicking down the door) and come get your entire registered inventory of now illegal firearms because you had a “disqualifying event” and are now a “prohibited person”. California actually has had LEOs knocking on doors to come get firearms after people have had what they deem “disqualifying events” so that is the method that they would use.

      You follow?

  31. avatar Ensitue says:

    “I have a duty to uphold those laws without question.”

    Judas here’s a Heads Up, your duty is to protect the citizens and the US Constitution
    Not take the same position as those tried at Nuremberg, though you may believe as they did it will not sheild you from justice!
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      You know how I can tell that you didn’t read or actually understand the original post or any of the comments (or followups by the author)?

  32. avatar littlegunguy says:

    SO JUDAS, YOU UPHOLD THE LAW NO MATTER HOW YOU INTERPRET IT? SO IF A LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC JUDGE STEPS ALL OVER OUR CONSTITUTION AND PASSES A LAW, YOU UPHOLD IT. I GUESS YOUR LAST NAME TELLS IT ALL. TYPICAL COP.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      MAYBE READ PAST THE SECOND SENTENCE, AND PERHAPS SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND FOLLOWUPS.

      IT MAY HELP YOUR COMPREHENSION IF YOU STOP SHOUTING.

  33. avatar HolyDiver says:

    You are confronted with the difference between citizens and state employees. I am employed and answer to a boss, as do most of us. The LEO’s boss is the State, a messy and disorganized employer who is however still an effective boss. This boss has granted said LEO with a certain amount of “power” and work responsibilities. The thing is though that this LEO is not a robot, he is a person just like all of us are, he has feelings, emotions, and responses. All of which are subject to change based on numerous factors. How was his breakfast? Did his coffee taste like shit? Kids failing math? Beyond these though deep down he/she has been endowed by thier employer with a sense of “power”. The thing about power is that a great man once said “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, as most of us have heard many times. Now LEOs do not have absolute power, for the most part. So not usually absolutely corrupt, now partially corrupt is no better, but its something to work off of. Once the taste of this power hits thier lips, assuming it tastes better than a medium-rare filet mignion, all hope is lost. Run that up the ranks from beat cop to commisioner and at every level that juicy steak tastes that much better. The degree of which this power/curruption battle plays on an officer is based on how much resiliance they have and the sad thing is, as I’ve even witnessed, personally with friends, the steak always wins. And this is what we as the citizens have to deal with. When that power sets in it automatically turns from US together to US v. Them. They are the enemy, they are the problem, We are thier enemy, we are thier problem(if we weren’t why would we need cops in the first place(other than obvious reasons), and beyond that why would one ever need an M4/M16 to “deal” with us?). There is a division amongst us and I do not believe there is a bridge large enough for the task.

    1. avatar Ensitue says:

      People who crave power seek out opertunitys to exploit whatever power they are given just like child molestors seek out jobs that put them near children (Castro). American goverment is full of sociopaths who seek power to victimize it’s citizens, just look at the 1st paragraph of Judas’s OP, he is confessing to his MO by saying that he has “No Choice”, he’s just a bystander, just as Obama said today about the IRS and Bengazi

  34. avatar the last Marine out says:

    What we need to understand about Obama care , YES it will impact on your 2A , first will be home checks under Obama care , and yes the government will class your medical conditions , not always your Dr. and doing these checks if some conditions do not meet government standards, you can loose your 2A, your medical coverage, and your disability will be classed by the FED’s not the doc,s , your children could be taken too…it goes on and on… This is real bad news, for Liberty, and you better have a gun safe and guns under lock and key… this can and will be enforced with FORCE!!!!!!!!

    1. avatar Ensitue says:

      Enforced by the IRA (S)

  35. avatar O.E says:

    I have read that Americans find shooting and owning guns therapeutic and a great settlement for a troubled mind during these troubling times.

    So why do Americans like Farago et al demand that people who are struggling with or have record of being troubled in the mind have their constitutional and therapeutic rights denied.

    Have you ever seen a caged starving animal being teased by a child with a juicy beef burger before?

  36. avatar Ensitue says:

    Amasing the coward removed the text from his article, I guess he saw how incriminating it was but nowhere did he state that he would refuse to enforce such unconstitutional laws in fact: “it would place every police officer in the position of having to enforce the law on people who are otherwise upstanding citizens. I haven’t run an official poll, but I sincerely doubt my stopping by to raid your gun safe with my friends, using force, would be welcomed. I would venture enough people would take the forcible entry of my colleagues into their homes with search warrants for relatively weak felony charges would lead to potentially fatal altercations.”
    This is a re-statment of his intent to enforce “weak laws” using violence on “upstanding citizens”
    talk about red flags!

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      Zero text has been removed from the article to my knowledge. I have a day job and am not an editor here or even in possession of a guest posting tag. I do not have a reason to edit my article and nothing to prove or gain by doing so. However, continue thinking that I have your worst interests at heart. Obviously you need something to do.

      I thank you for gratuitously deciding that me stating a fact that people would get shot enforcing stupid laws means that I send up red flags when I’m trying to warn you about the very laws that could tip in favor of the Gun Control lobby if slightly altered. I sincerely doubt an officer interested in kicking down your door would offer as detailed a warning about what would go wrong and why the system would create such a stupid quagmire for its enforcement agents. But, obviously me mentioning government oversight getting cops killed means I want to kick down your door. Got to love simple logic.

      Thank you for your nearly useless takeaway from a post designed to make you think about how the system works and has been working and is moving towards changing. If you would like to continue ad hominem attacks and suspicions on how I perform my duties, please do so. I make no references to anything I have or have not done and will not make such references. If speculating on my actions or inactions makes you happy, continue on. I could suggest a better hobby though.

      1. avatar Ensitue says:

        Since you chose the moniker Judas I’m not surprised by your response, you put your words and belief system on the internet and then belittle those that see your words for what they are and take them as a literal representation of your assumed self importance
        keep your day job

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          “…and then belittle those that see your words for what they are what my fevered brain wants them to be…

          Fixed it for ya.

  37. avatar Jerryboy says:

    “As a law enforcement officer I find that most laws have a purpose and a place. But whatever my opinion of a law may be, I have a duty to uphold those laws without question.”

    WRONG!

    you DO NOT have a duty to uphold laws that are unconstitutional and/or wrong. for example, the “law” which states that ex felons cannot own a gun. once someone serves their full time in prison and becomes a free person they become a Citizen again, with ALL their rights restored to them. denying them their natural right to keep and bear arms after they’ve been released from prison is CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, thus unconstitutional, thus lawfully unenforceable.

  38. avatar Carol M. Simpson says:

    I’m on disability for asthma. I have no mental afflictions. Is it still illegal for me to own a pistol for protection?

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      For the moment it is.

    2. avatar LC Judas says:

      No it is not.

      Disability, as the context of the ordinance states, is any condition that exists in your past that prevents you from owning a gun and you having one as an additional penalty. So unless you fail a 4473 or other ordinance that would be a disqualifier you are not breaking a law.

      The point of this post was to illustrate the capricious capacity of adding criteria to the context of “disability” as it refers to rights to gun ownership. Because being a felon is not the only disqualifier by a long shot and adding other things only will make it worse.

  39. avatar Moe says:

    I’ve noticed a lot of sane and responsible gun owners in the news for shooting family members over anything from financial pressures to fear of government takeover. I’ve also read many news articles about owners accidentally shooting themselves or family members. I’ve read about some supposedly sane and responsible gun owners having their children accidentally kill a family member after receiving a gun at a young age as a gift, or their child getting ahold of legally owned family weapons and committing crime or causing accidents. Not all school shootings are done by insane criminals. if I were an officer of the law I’d personally want more gun control. The fact is that aside from those facts criminals, mentally ill, and angry persons do get or own guns and sometimes sane people go off the deep end.

    I personally think gun ownership beyond a hunting rifle or shot gun should require the same licensing as fully automatic weapons. If you want an assault rifle or hand gun you should be more scrutinized and penalties should be harsher for breaking those rules. I’m not anti-gun but most sane and responsible gun owners who collect these weapons typically shoot more paper at insane cost just to own a ton of weapons in the guise that it protects them from evil government and criminals – these are the same guns that sometimes get stolen and passed out on the streets. I have a nice P08 replica that fires BBs and it shoots paper targets real nice, and I don’t have to worry about it killing anyone or getting into the wrong hands. I’ve taught my young child gun safety with this relatively safer weapon so if he ends up in a situation where he finds himself in the presence of a real gun he knows how to handle the situation. I leave it to him whether or not he owns real guns in the future.

    Now I bring up news articles but I’ve also seen this personally. I worked with an ex-military guy who owned guns. He had a great job for years and ended up in prison when he got upset over a divorce. My wife’s father, who was retired, in his sixties, ex-military blew his brains out with a gun. Perfect examples of responsible gun owners using weapons to solve their problems.

    I’m sure most of you don’t want to hear this, but it’s my two cents considering no one brings up the negative side of gun ownership and how to deal with it’s issues.

    I personally think there’s a lot of paranoia here so to me that’s a warning flag… I’ve never had a doctor ask if I own guns and I look like someone that would – perhaps another warning flag that he sees something a paranoid person would not see in themselves. I’ve not had an officer of the law do anything bad to me, other than giving me a ticket. I have yet to see Obama take one weapon. If you want a reality check, it was the Bush admin that got the ball rolling on control after 9/11.

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      You have noticed two gun owners in your personal narrative. Assuming those exist it does not qualify as “a lot” on any scale, calculator or abacus I’ve ever seen. Furthermore, I see no connection to this concept of sane school shooters or other fictional characters and mythical beasts. Because the day you show me a sane school shooter who purchased guns legally ahead of the news network alphabet soup will be the day I resign the Internet. Read ten minutes on Gun Control and you would understand such a unicorn doesn’t exist and if it did the media would report it far more thoroughly and often than your single comment on a months old post on a pro gun blog.

      You purport that sane gun owners do stupid things all the time. That a long list of children given guns do stupid things. Considering that you want to blame the gun for someone committing suicide and suddenly, somehow not note that “suicide” is a GIANT red flag for not normal mental and emotional function I do not expect actual citations of any of these things but if you want to be taken seriously then provide them.

      You claim mass shooters are not all disturbed. You offer no evidence of this but your supposed arbitrary notation of same. Save it unless you have hard evidence. Even the media agrees they’re nuts and they’ve tried every other common factor and have next to nothing but insanity.

      You don’t seem to understand that saying something and believing it doesn’t make it true. Also, your belief that cops only give tickets and that everything that is not a rifle or shotgun needs licensing like automatic weapons goes against your own narrative. Because three shooters in recent times I can think off off the top of my head…Seattle and the Navy Yard sticking out most but Colorado also…used shotguns. So…shotguns work pretty well. Just like any other gun. And the AR-15 is a rifle. Try looking it up hunting with one. It’s a big deal.

      As for your pot stirring and personal opinions of cops and what you would do if you were law enforcement, save the speculation and angel act for folks looking for a good smoke blowing act. Gun Control has been on the rise since Clinton and the AWB that did precious nothing as admitted by the very people who designed it. If cops only gave tickets then…it would be a world where no one ever committed other crimes because that’s not all that goes down in Law Enforcement.

      The world through your eyes is extremely short sighted because the “you have not experienced it then we are paranoid” mindset does not account very well for more than just you and if your claim of not being antigun actually was going to hold water then you would need to hold off on the whole smearing legal gun ownership wholesale, without a second thought and so repetitively.

      So drop the “reasonable” premise, read what you comment on and learn something while you visit the blog. Or crawl back under the bridge you crept from under and save us the patronizing under the guise of good will.

    2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      You anti-gun America haters do nothing BUT spew “negatives” about guns, 24/7/365. It is all you have. Tell you what, skippy, how abouts you post REAL news articles that show responsible gun owners being criminals? Oh, yea, all you have are lies and innuendo. Never mind, liar.

  40. avatar cris chambers says:

    never been asked by any doctor or surgeon about my guns lol. where do you people live to come up with these lies? i had open heart so i have seen many, many, many of them over the last 11 years. go back to bed so you can wake from your dream.

  41. avatar cris chambers says:

    zimmerman ring a bell. cops shooting unarmed black men. wow. talk about spewing bullcrap. i can go on but you are to stupid to understand. mouth breathers. lol.

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      And yet another sh*t and lie spewing Democrat Party f**k toddles in to spew the same Democrat Party lies and sh*t. F*ck you.

  42. avatar Larry Daniels says:

    Another problem area for “Weapons Under Disability, at least in Ohio, is that you may be guilty of WUD if you are…

    “drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic.”

    The use of the word “drug” is vague. Does it include prescriptions drugs that have been legally prescribed to you by a practicing physician for a medical condition problem you actually have?

    I mean, if you have a chronic blood pressure problem and you’ve been prescribed lisinopril, norvasc or any other drug used to treat high blood pressure, you could be deemed guilty of WUD if you own a firearm. Why? Because you are “dependent” on that “drug” to keep your blood pressure stable or else you risk death or major complications from your high blood pressure.

    Some say, no. That “drug” pertains only to recreational use of a drug (street or prescription). Maybe so, but that isn’t made clear…maybe probably on purpose. The word “drug” is used to describe both illegal and prescription drugs in American English. By not defining the word “drug” or using another term that would exclude prescription drugs (taken legally), the law is open for interpretation and enforcement by those who do not have your best interest in mind.

    Stay safe folks.

  43. avatar Larry Daniels says:

    I could be wrong, but from my little bit of research on Google, it appears that Ohio is the only state that has a “Weapons Under Disability” law.

    Can someone chime in about this?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email