Red Flag Abuse In Vermont

Abuse? It worked as designed. And it wasn't designed to reduce gun violence. Hey VT if I was ever going to commit a crime(I'm not going to) I would get my guns from the police cause they have the best stuff. Since the idea is out there you might want to lock up all those dangerous large capacity law assault enforcement weapons.
 
wahsben said:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTLeWbWGbe4
Click to expand...

I take issue with his statement that the ends never justify the means.

There are countless examples where a principled person, doing the wrong thing for the right reason, is morally on the side of the angels.

As applied to law enforcement, in this case, I agree, but there are times where you need to cross a societal line to accomplish the moral goal.

It was unlawful for Catholic Orders to shelter Jews in Axis occupied Europe. The ends (saving countless thousands of human beings) damn well justified the means (falsifying documents, smuggling, sheltering, etc), and I question the humanity of anyone who would disagree.
 
new guy said:
Combine this red flag bullshit and a leaked or hacked listing of the registered gun owners in the area and things will get messy fast.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even have to be a leaked list. You go to the range with the Neighbor Man, a fact known to Neighbor Boy. Neighbor Boy mentions dad's and your range habit to Nut Boy.
 
AHM said:
Here's the epitaph etched on the tombstone for Vermont Man's civil rights:
He must be so proud that his nitwit nephew knew he owned guns.
Click to expand...
I knew what relatives had guns when I was growing up. Some even let me shoot them. The problem is the kid and government, not the uncle.
 
wahsben said:
I knew what relatives had guns when I was growing up. Some even let me shoot them. The problem is the kid and government, not the uncle.
Click to expand...
This.

ERPOs were sold as a means of protection against someone who was in imminent of harming himself or someone else. Was the uncle? How? For that matter, the punk had been snagged, so neither was he. This smells stinkily like a fishing expedition fishwrapped in an ERPO.
 
Darksideblues42 said:
I take issue with his statement that the ends never justify the means.

There are countless examples where a principled person, doing the wrong thing for the right reason, is morally on the side of the angels.

As applied to law enforcement, in this case, I agree, but there are times where you need to cross a societal line to accomplish the moral goal.

It was unlawful for Catholic Orders to shelter Jews in Axis occupied Europe. The ends (saving countless thousands of human beings) damn well justified the means (falsifying documents, smuggling, sheltering, etc), and I question the humanity of anyone who would disagree.
Click to expand...

I’ve always applied a negative connotation to the expression. The otherwise unjustifiable means are supposed to be morally offensive standing on their own (usually tainting the ends to some degree in the process). Protecting Jews from the nazi machine and breaking those laws isn’t getting you coal in your stocking. But you’re right - sometimes it just doesn’t matter how bad the means are.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully, like the Cape Cod case where the dude shot the dog biting him & had his guns "taken for their own protection" and then supposedly got them back, this fellow will get HIS returned to him post-haste. I hope so for law enforcement's sake, lest they get the everlivin' feces sued out of them.
 
StevieP said:
Hopefully, like the Cape Cod case where the dude shot the dog biting him & had his guns "taken for their own protection" and then supposedly got them back, this fellow will get HIS returned to him post-haste. I hope so for law enforcement's sake, lest they get the everlivin' feces sued out of them.
Click to expand...
Don't be so quick to think he wont get charged.

I bet the found a few "hi-cap" mags in the mix.

Aren't they illegal now?
 
The police involved in this made a statement that was terrifying. The fact they extended their “power” beyond what the law allows and for away with it is just crazy. Hopefully the guy has a good lawyer and is able to not only get his firearms back but file a lawsuit against the local authorities and VT. This does beg the question, what if the kid said he could steal firearms from Dicks? Or another store? Do they confiscate the entire stores stock? I would expect they would be compelled to with this precedent.

“ Hanley said. “They were locked up (in the home), but one of these kids said he had access to them and could get them. So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed. We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this.”
 
Woodsy said:
“ Hanley said. “They were locked up (in the home), but one of these kids said he had access to them and could get them. So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed. We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this.”
Click to expand...

...rather than, say - Oh, I don't know - call the uncle with a heads-up that nephew-boy was just popped for a plot, and he might want to be sure his stuff is in order/nothing missing? (I mean, if the kid had already been popped... how, precisely, was he going to gain access?)

Good job, Wiggum. You just proved our case for us on the potential for abuse.
 
SpaceCritter said:
ERPO => warrant.
Click to expand...

Does the ERPO not come delivered as a warrant? I guess I never looked at that. If they don’t have a warrant does the order still give them the same power to come in search for all firearms? Seems expansive since if they are searching they could also “look” for other issues not related to the ERPO. Wondering who will be the first person to say no, get a warrant. My guess is that would be followed up with and immediate Breach the Door order “to make the world safe”.
 
Woodsy said:
Does the ERPO not come delivered as a warrant? I guess I never looked at that. If they don’t have a warrant does the order still give them the same power to come in search for all firearms? Seems expansive since if they are searching they could also “look” for other issues not related to the ERPO. Wondering who will be the first person to say no, get a warrant. My guess is that would be followed up with and immediate Breach the Door order “to make the world safe”.
Click to expand...

You Got It!! and the Thugs of many of today's various Constabularies are all in favor.
 
Ok so the Searxh Warrant is implied in the ERPO

“The law enforcement officer shall take possession of all firearms belonging to the respondent that are surrendered, in plain sight, or discovered pursuant to a lawful search.“
 

Similar threads

National Red Flag
Replies
3
Views
249
Matt_SERE
Matt_SERE
Affordable Red Dot
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
2K
Agnotology
Agnotology
‘Unconstitutional’: DOJ Announces Red Flag Center For Gun-Grab Operation Against Americans
Replies
16
Views
660
Nick Fury
Nick Fury
Red Raven Defense
Replies
19
Views
581
RPLHVAC
R
Need Advice - Red Dot for P320
2
Replies
40
Views
578
jkelly1229
J
Back
Top Bottom