2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: mauidog on May 29, 2016, 02:00:02 PM
-
If you don’t believe the government wants to take away guns, this might open your eyes.
I was at a handgun training course on the mainland last week. Standing in a line to have CCW papers notarized, I met someone with an interesting story. The man is a Deputy Sheriff in California near the LA area. He’s a Chaplain, so he’s not required to carry on duty. He does, however, think it’s important to carry for self defense, plus he believes we need to take advantage of 2A before we can’t.
His story began with his brother-in-law having early onset alzheimer’s. The county adjudicated the BIL as mentally unfit to own and possess firearms. According to the law, he has to sell or transfer his collection of 2 dozen weapons, or surrender them to the state. He wasn’t sure they would sell in the time allowed, and he had no relatives interested in taking them.
This deputy took his own time to drive the collection out-of-state, The guns were transferred to an FFL who was asked to sell them on commission. The deputy also kept all transfer records.
A few weeks later, DOJ officers called and asked him to meet 20 miles from his work to “talk” about the guns. He said he was on duty, and would meet them at his station. They tried to force him to meet at a place of their choosing (far away from his office and any witnesses, he believed), but he told them to meet at the Sheriff station or nowhere. In hindsight, he believes they were hoping to claim he committed a crime (use your imagination) during the meeting which their crew would willingly back up with no independent witnesses to contradict.
The DOJ officers interrogated him alone in an interview room for an hour, trying to get him to make inconsistent answers. He finally told them to stop the questions. He asked them why they are treating him like a criminal and to say what was on their minds, or he’d call a lawyer. They said there was a gun missing from the collection they wanted to account for. He asked which one? They said a Black Hawk .44. The deputy pulled out his paperwork, and that was #1 on the transfer list (of course it was a lie that it was missing, but first on the list was first one to come to the DOJ officer's mind). They backtracked and said they weren’t sure which one. It was all a story to try and pin a crime on him, or at least make him believe he’d mistakenly done something wrong. When he asked to leave the room, they finally told him the real reason they had a problem with what he did.
They wanted to make sure no one else in his office advised or assisted anyone in transferring weapons out of state because THEY (DOJ) WANTED THE GUNS!! The DOJ could not find any laws the deputy had broken, but that was irrelevant. The laws are written so it’s more likely the guns will be surrendered for destruction, which is what lawmakers and DOJ intended. Keeping the guns in the hands of the public goes against the government’s plan, and they were trying to punish him for it.
The deputy told me flat out he will never trust our government after what they did to him and what they tried to do with his family member’s guns.
-
Thanks for the interesting story. BTW, great to see you posting again. Aloha
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
-
Thanks for the interesting story. BTW, great to see you posting again. Aloha
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
I'm sharing an important story from a source we probably would never see/hear otherwise.
-
People have to be careful when talking to federal agents. It is a felony to lie to a federal law enforcement officer even if the lie is not of consequence! If I had to talk to one I would record the conversation and I would be on a hair trigger to be ready to ask for a lawyer.
-
Thanks for sharing this, MD. BTW, good to see you back even for just a bit.
-
Thanks for sharing this, MD. BTW, good to see you back even for just a bit.
I agree. Thanks MD and good to have you back even if it is limited.
-
Do not talk to them without a lawyer. Period!
And "they" do want to take your guns:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/must-see-5-specific-times-democrats-wanted-confiscate-guns/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/foghorn/debunking-the-myth-that-no-one-wants-to-take-your-guns/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/01/01/reminder-sen-feinstein-said-she-wants-all-guns-banned/
-
What guns?