by Mike Martin
Clash Daily Guest Contributor
[Editor: the following should not be taken as legal advice and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff of Clashdaily.com.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A 4th amendment violation of not being subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures is involved in some states where they have passed legislation to seize weapons” ex-parte” in a violation of the due process clause (14th Amendment – Section 1) and as such fully justifies the use of your 2nd amendment rights to use lethal force stop this confiscation!
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note, this may get you or the individual doing the unlawful seizure killed, but a jury will determine the outcome if you survive. If you don’t survive, a jury will not hear or decide if the seizure was unlawful — not if done by a “policeman” since they are rarely held to account for their lethal actions whether they are lawful or not. I consider any lethal action that a policeman would not be tried for to also not be taken to send me to trial and vice versa. As a matter of fact, I believe that “trained officers” should be the model of restraint!
If I am making a “citizen’s arrest” on someone I see vandalizing my car and he turns around holding a phone in his hand, am I justified in shooting him/her? If I’m not justified because I didn’t take the 1/2 second longer to “see” it was a phone and not a gun, then neither should the police. If he is justified, then I should be justified too. Too many times a “Grand Jury” will fail to indict an officer for an action that they would indict a non-officer over. Then a jury would decide both cases.
I am of the further opinion that due to their “superior” training that they should avoid even the appearance of taking a life without just cause. I thought he had a gun in his hand even though it was only a cell phone should never be accepted from a “trained officer”. It is his duty, which he volunteered for, to protect life and not to take it unless fully justified.
Consider that he will probably be found “not guilty” or no “bill of indictment” issued if I am carrying a gun, it should, in my opinion, be reciprocal that if he pulls a gun/rifle/weapon on me that I also have the right to defend myself. First law of survival is to live and that requires neutralizing the threat regardless of where that threat originates.
The Constitution states that all men are created equal…and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . If a man pulls a gun on you, he is a threat to your life. Statistically, you are ten times as likely to be shot by accident by a policeman than from a licensed concealed carrier.
All this is to say that the police can have you arrested and not have to file charges for twenty-four hours by my understanding. Once arrested, they can with have you committed for a psychiatric evaluation at which point they can keep you committed, if you are a threat to yourself or others. If you are not a threat of yourself or others, then there is no need to confiscate your weapons. One problem is that the Constitution gives us due process rights and the right to “confront” our accusers. Therefore, you would need a due process hearing before you could be arrested on a third party compliant. The police have the right to arrest you if they witness unlawful behavior which can include making threats in their presence.
Living by the Constitution is not easy. Living without the constitutional becomes the survival of the fittest which will eventually devolve into a tyrannical form of government?
To paraphrase, Asimov’s Third Law of Robotics (must survive unless conflicts with the first two laws) becomes the First Law of self-preservation: I must survive nor can I thru inaction allow others to negate my survival.
Please note that it is not my intention to be giving the readers advice on what to do, rather I am telling you what I may do and the arguments I make to myself (my thinking) about why or why not to take an action. It is my hope that this article will cause you to think about what you would do ahead of time in a given situation. Only you can decide what you are willing to spend your life on should it become necessary. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will endeavor to do my duty. You will decide what your duty requires you to do.
Lord please grant my prayer that I shall never have to use my weapons for self-defense. I pray that you protect both myself and family and the police that are obeying the Constitution. In Christ’s name I pray, Amen.
Image: Excerpted from: https://pixabay.com/en/united-states-america-constitution-1524261/
Mike Martin thanks you for the opportunity to express “different points of views”, and if you were to ask his family they would probably tell you that he’s as different as they come….