They Don't Get It

Had a conversation with a friend recently. This person is a firearms instructor, current LEO, and former military - and yes, all of these things are important. He had created a YouTube video in which he articulated his opinions on what kind of weapons should and should not be banned from civilian ownership. He drew the line at weapons that required more than one person to operate - crew served weapons, missiles, nukes, etc. He asked my opinion. 

This is where the fun begins. 

I complimented his video. Good videography, B-roll footage, presentation, music, sound, etc. Of course, I disagreed with his imaginary cutoff, but I'm a big boy and am fine with that. He asked why and that's when it became more interesting. As to why, let me give you my main two points:

The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on Government, not people. We have a God-given right to any means to defend ourselves. He drew a line at "when that weapon could be used to enact tyranny." (his words, not mine) I would argue that a simple knife or handgun *could* be used to enact tyranny. 

My second point is this: if a weapon - any weapon - is too dangerous for an individual to possess, then it is FAR too dangerous for any government to possess. He argued the checks and balances with multiple people having to be in agreement to use that weapon. I argued that in the history of the world, every injustice and every tyranny enacted was done by men who were "just doing their jobs." The "check and balance" rationale simply does not float. 

As the discussion progressed, we came to impasse at the concept of how many law enforcement are corrupt. I suggest 30% or so, with another 60% that are either too weak of will or too stupid to do anything but follow the 30%. He was naturally offended at my suggestion that 90% are or might be tyrannical. He suggested 10% were corrupt. He refused my argument that we agree on everything except the proportion. 

Here is where it gets interesting. He asked what I would do to reform the system. We both agreed it may be too far gone to reform - that remains to be seen. My simple, yet admittedly incomplete list was:

1. End qualified Immunity now. 
2. Install 3rd Party oversight boards for allegations of police misconduct. No more "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing."
3. End Civil asset forfeiture. 
4. Reduce police forces by about 75% on average (that number may be somewhat flexible).
5. Eliminate quotas. 

This is where he went off the rails. His acted as if civil asset forfeiture and criminal asset forfeiture are the same. He opines that quotas are illegal in Tennessee and do not happen (despite overwhelming consistent evidence to the contrary). He is of the opinion that qualified immunity is not rooted in an action being legal for one person to do, yet illegal for another. And he stated he did not know what  3rd party oversight board would do. 

Of course, his claims came with allegations that I was being indoctrinated by leftwing sites and blogs. The irony (which is thicker than Kim Kardashian) is that the only consistent sources I know of that provide indoctrination are police and military. 

So let's revert to simple definitions to see who is right:

Qualified Immunity: 

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force—for money damages under federal law so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law.

According to the article linked, SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas has this criticism:

Thomas argued that the court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence “represent[s] precisely the sort of ‘free-wheeling policy choice[s]’” that are not within the providence of courts’ authority.

A civilian is held personally and legally liable for every action that is a constitutional violation. 

Civil Asset Forfeiture:

Civil asset forfeiture laws allow police to seize property, money, or assets if police merely believe it is connected to criminal activity. Police do not have to file charges or even establish guilt in these cases before seizing and keeping property and there is no limit to what police can seize.

Criminal asset forfeiture, on the other hand, requires a conviction of a criminal nature for the assets to remain seized. 

People, regardless of whom, that try to conflate criminal asset forfeiture with civil asset forfeiture, especially after being shown the difference, fall into only one of two categories:

1. Those not intelligent enough to understand the problem (a distinct possibility with a LEO)

2. Those who do not wish for you to understand - often because they have a "dog in the fight." You might say this category is the person with nefarious intent - and you'd likely be right!

Of course, a LEO might well be both - the only profession where there is a maximum IQ and they are trained specifically to lie. 

So, what did I do?

After the above interaction, I ended the conversation and wished him well. This person is either nefarious or too stupid to understand the error of his ways. And a wise reader would take this into consideration prior to claiming that "most of the LEO in my area aren't going to enforce gun confiscation."