http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeS4nLd78eg

The Third Amendment is the Bill of Rights’ red-headed step-child, accorded as much respect as Brigitte Dugas at the Glyndebourne Opera Festival. Even so, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law” is an important Constitutional protection. As we pointed out during London’s summer Olympics, just because no one cites the Third Amendment doesn’t mean it doesn’t stop the Army from putting a missile battery on your roof without your permission. And yet . . . this story about a Nevada SWAT team “quartering” in a resident’s home without permission raises  an important point about America’s militarized police: have they become a standing army? If so, how do we stuff that genie back in the bottle?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

101 COMMENTS

  1. No they are not. At worst they have the same status as the National Guard. Posse Comitatus does not apply to the NG unless they are federalized. Generally when the Guard is called up in state service they are deputized as State Police. As much as I think Nevada was outside the law their actions are not covered by the Third Amendment. There are probably other laws that cover the seizure of the person house.

    • the national guard are considered members of the organized militia. So, if they have the same status, then they are a de facto standing army.

        • hows that? army national guard units are trained and equipped with the U.S. Army, and adhere to the same standards.

          If anything, ignoring the statute, since law enforcement have permanent govt jobs, while National Guard units are technically reserve units, law enforcement (like the DHS) has a higher “status” because they are on duty all the time.

    • Simply put, this story is not about “quartering” soldiers in a home, and therefore the “standing army” historical issue does not arise. Clearly there are 4th Am violations, and numerous serious torts.

      What stuns me is that the police were acting with such blatant illegality in order to further success in a Domestic Relations case (according to the article). No case is simpler to diffuse under current laws. Arrest of the (allegedly) offending family members would be unlikely to cause successful counter-litigation provided the PD actually had information from a reliable informant or family member sufficient to establish probable cause. Without such information, the PD would be even more at fault.

    • You must be kidding me. I don’t care about their allegedly legal status, let’s look at how they treat their employers and the gear they carry, they are also in no way under the control of an elected official with no feedback from the people they “punish and enslave” … I’m sorry I mean “protect and serve”.

      • In most towns the mayor is at the top of a direct line of command for the police. I don’t know about this town, but the mayor should lose his job over this.

    • Get pictures of the Boston Police from the lockdown to someone. Then get pictures of soldiers patrolling in the Balkans or wherever. Mix them up and have someone try to pick the pictures with soldiers. They can call them whatever they want, but the police are a standing army now.

    • If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck …

      When the police act as if they were an occupying armed force with no regard for the Bill of Rights, I would tend to call them a “standing [local] army.

  2. No.

    Police officers are still peace officers no matter the tactical stuff they may wear .A standing army actually has the ability to offensively engage an enemy:no disrespect to LE,but they’re not capable of resisting a determined enemy.See 1986 FBI shootout,the Tuscaloosa County final shootout at the roadblock,etc.

    • so its only a standing army if they are effectual or successful? How about the organized house-to-house search for the boston bomber?

    • There were no police at the time of the bill of rights were written and ratified. So for the purposes of the third I would say they are a standing army as they represent the authority of the government and are armed. Some times very well armed. As such, they don’t have a right to use your property for their needs if you tell them no.

    • There were no police at the time of the bill of rights were written and ratified. So for the purposes of the third I would say they are a standing army as they represent the authority of the government and are armed. Some times very well armed.

    • 99% of LEOs haven’t been “peace officers” for decades. Most of them are steroid addicted thugs.

    • Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? Call it what you want it doesn’t change what it is.
      You can call them “peace officers”, but they behave like military, look like military, just as equipped, and carry the authority of the government. Not the Sheeple. They are not a militia. They are in fact, ‘para’military. Unfortunately our boys in blue are in camoed tactical gear, with full autos, suppressors, grenades, armor, etc. They’re more like “obey these unconstitutional laws or we’ll f*ckin shoot you” officers.

      http://youtu.be/w-WMn_zHCVo
      I rest my case

    • This was not a third ammendment ciolation. It was an illegal search and seizure. The police seized his living room, deprived him of its use, and did so with out propper authorization or compensation. They needed a court order to do what they did.
      Welcome to the thugocracy, Obamunism, communisms retarded sibling.

  3. From the article:

    “The Mitchells seek punitive damages for violations of the third, fourth and 14th Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress.”

    Hope the City of Henderson has good insurance….

    • Why should the good citizens of Henderson pay for the actions of these armed government costumed thugs. Let them pay for it with there jobs, money and prison time. They took an oath and they knew there actions would have been illegal if done by anyone else, but they think they are gods with militaristic costumes on.

      • If the citizens of Henderson were indeed good, they would not have such an out-of-control PD. If, for example, they devoted one day a month to government oversight through attendance at meetings, requests for documents, and review of actions, the government (PD, but also Budget and Administration) would behave. Contracts would be negotiated more slowly and openly. Neighbors would look out for neighbors, greatly reducing routine policing costs. None of this happens. It can’t be done by a few people. The behavior has to become more widespread or those who are active will be seen as eccentrics and busy-bodies, rather than good citizens.

        • You are absolutely right. There are MANY DUTIES citizens no longer perform or are even taught. No longer teaching thrse duties helps the breakdown of society and Iis most definately deliberate. We must teach it ourselves as the criminals in charge of our miseducation system absolutely will not.

      • I’m with you, throw them in prison and deny their families welfare benefits so that they serve as an example to others not to violate constitutional rights. The Babylonian Empire would throw the person and their family members in the lions den, talk about an inhibitor, no one screwed up there. Something to be said for the good old days where you minded your own business for fear of getting eaten!!!

      • Agreed. I hope they lose their jobs. They deserve much worse.

        It saddens me that this is what the country’s coming to and it seems 90% of America could care less.

  4. Presumably the 3rd amendment has never been “incorporated.” As fans of the 2nd I presume we know how long that can take.

    • Correct, on a SCOTUS level. The Circuit Court that is over New York incorporated it against them…because of course it would be New York to be the first state to blatantly violate it and have the question raised.

  5. Are America’s Police a Standing Army? Let’s check in with Mike Bloomberg, America’s Mayor:

    “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world.”

    So there you have it. Henderson’s PD, with 391 sworn officers, several of whom are royal flaming @ssh0les, is not an army. New York’s PD is an army. It’s Mike’s personal army, but it’s still an army.

    The question isn’t whether a PD is an army, but whether cops should be considered “troops” for Third Amendment purposes. While I’m skeptical about the Third Amendment aspects of the case, it’s an interesting question. Unfortunately, the lawyers handling the case are criminal lawyers, not civil rights lawyers or Constitutional scholars, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

    • Since the constitution doesn’t mention them, are police even legal. Since we should only be allowed muskets, ….. you know.

      • They are not mentioned because the colonies didn’t have them when it was written. Clearly the purpose of the third and fourth amendment extend to police officers as much as to the military. Basically the government cannot force you to quarter or accept the presence of people working for the government on your property. Especially if you have not violated any laws.

        • Looking at the historical treatment of the Huguenots, this seems like the most reasonable intent. [see Edict of Nantes and Dragonnade]

          Most of the colonies were protestant in nature and supposedly Paul Revere was of Huguenot refuge descent. I would suspect that the colonists were concerned most about the power to intimidate by quartering troops.

          Quartering of police is that same kind of intimidation tactic as quartering troops.

          I would go so far to suggest the behavior of electronic spying on US citizens is similar in its intimidation, and ought to fall under the same 3rd amendment principle. Similar to the modern “right to privacy” language used in the past few decades.

        • But it’s not clear; it specifically says “soldier”. I’m only playing devils advocate, but when you start interpreting; you give gun grabbers and politicians room to interpret the Second Amendment. I think the sticking point for most people here is the little statement in the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed upon.” I think the sticking point with the question is the word “soldier”. It doesn’t matter if the police didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was written. Just like it doesn’t matter AR-15’s weren’t around in 1776.

          I think you can easily define a Soldier (or any other member of the US Military) as someone who can be identified by their Uniformed Services ID Card; which I still believe is some form of CAC card. There might be similarities between a Soldier and a Police Officer, but they aren’t the same. They might be a duck and a goose, but they aren’t the same thing.

          Obviously all of this is a NSA ploy to make you forget about the spying that it isn’t happening.

        • Then you’d have to specify what the founders were thinking of when they wrote “soldier” in the 3rd amendment. Who was being quartered in the colonies? Heshians and British troops. What was their job? Enforcing British laws on the colonies. Sounds like cops to me. There must be some letters from the founders on the subject, just like there are for the 2nd amendment.

    • Bloomberg doesn’t even come close. Just counting uniformed thugs, Bloomberg doesn’t even crack the top 50 of active duty militaries. If you count every NYC employee he still isn’t even in the top 20 of active duty militaries.

      But, if you take the number of cops nationwide, roughly 800,000 , they are the 6th largest standing military force in the world.

      Modern LEOs are exactly what the Founders were warning us about when they talked about standing armies.

      • Why all the discussion of standing armies? They are not forbidden. Quartering in private homes during peacetime is. We have very large standing armies. The problem is that we have no standing morality. Taking drugs, especially alcohol and opium derivatives, was a common practice when the Constitution was written, and for a hundred fifty years afterward. It is not, in itself, immoral. What was condemned (by work houses, vagrancy laws, and short periods of hard labor) was refusing to attempt to earn a living through possibly quite hard work, or committing physical violence or theft against others.

  7. This question has had developing implications, but today, I believe there’s little or no question the militarization of police have effectively rendered them a standing army. Especially in the sense of “standing”, i.e., the (now-paramilitarized) police are on duty, and do NOT have to be mustered from the countryside as a response force.

    Sadly, yes, they are.

  8. The problem that I see is when TSHTF, these guys are our neighbors and friends. Will they shoot us on orders from dear leader Obama or will they turn and stand with us as we fight back? Any LEOs care to answer this?

    • They will shoot us on orders of who ever signs their pay check. Obama, Bush the Third, or Hitler’s long lost great grandson.

      • It’d come down to each individual officer and department. The more thuggish and slow-witted of them, whom I understand are hired in greater numbers these days than ever before, will undoubtedly follow their authoritarian orders, without question. Smaller towns and departments might fare better, because it’s less likely that the chief is as beholden to his government masters as in a place like NYC.

  9. Semantics matter little to truth. In the end all that matters is who’s side they are on, ours, or the other side. Once that’s made clear, it makes it a lot easier to know who to shoot.

  10. I’m more concerned with the TSA getting metal badges and authority to arrest. The instance in Henderson demonstrated remarkably poor judgment. And it is being fought and likely will result in legal win.

    The police are generally not supportive of such tactics, in my experience. Capt. Nick at GuardAmerican sees a rough distinction between officers east of Illinois, and west of there. Fuzzy (thin blue) line, of course. And the Henderson case looks like an exception.

    • I agree. Most LEOs would not violate a persons civil liberties for no reason. Now if you question their authority they may get mad and violate them to screw with you. But in this case the Henderson PD clearly acted in an overly aggressive way and intentionally violated the rights of those citizens.

      • Just every time they arrest someone for a nonviolent drug or gun charge or when they take part in “checkpoints”. No, they won’t violate our rights. Get real, that is why they are government employees, so they can violate people and get paid for it.

        • I often disagree with you, Chris, but on the drugs issue the point is well taken. A large ‘value’ to authorities of the the ‘drug war’ is the criminalization of a vast number of people and a large extension of budgets, personnel, and judicially-approved tactics. These same authorities can’t manage to pursue criminal charges against Steve Cohen, SAC Capital, but they can conduct the absurd activities described in the article. All balance has been lost, and it is purely about money. If you have plenty of above-board money, you simply don’t get treated that way.

  11. The SWAT teams receive military grade weapons, military training and military equipment.

  12. No. While SWAT teams may receive specialized training and military grade weapons; America’s police departments are not a standing army. Have you ever seen the pissing match that happens between different agencies, jurisdictions, and departments? For such having such a strict and literal interpretation of the Second Amendment, you’re playing pretty fast and loose with Third Amendment and the difference between the police and the Army. Soldiers are not Police Officers; Police Officers are not Soldiers. Unless they are Military Police and even they have a pretty strict set of rules when dealing with the military and civilians.

    • You mean like the pissing matches between the Army and the Marines? Or the Marines and the Navy? Or the Navy and the Air Force?

      They are armed government employees and should be treated as such.

      • While there may be pride and ego between the different branches of the military; the chain of command is firmly entrenched and job gets done. Military personnel also swear Oaths upon enlistment or commissioning, can be sent to war, and ultimately answer to the Commander in Chief. Law Enforcement officers do none of these things. Also, how should armed government be treated? Do you mean City, County, State, or Federal Government?

        While I may not agree with what happened; if you want to argue a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment than you have to apply that to the entire Constitution. If you try to argue that the Founding Fathers implied something else than you open the Second Amendment to the same thing. I don’t see how the Third Amendment applies to this.

    • If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

      Too many police agencies these days view themselves as a standing army in conflict with the rest of us. That’s why they seem to think they need to patrol our streets in Kevlar helmets and full battle dress with military grade weapons. What opposition are they actually expecting to find out on those streets to justify that?

      That being said, I seriously doubt that any local police force, no matter how thoroughly militarized, can be under the restrictions of the 3rd Amendment which, like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, is rather specific as to what natural right is being protected.

      Even so, it would be very interesting to see this go to SCOTUS for a determination as to whether or not a police force that acts like a standing army in an occupied country can be considered as such in relation to the 3rd Amendment.

      Whatever happens on that level, I hope that these thugs and their supervisors get soundly thrashed in the courts, but I don’t believe it will happen.

  13. The 3A is one heck of a stretch here. It’s seems as if it were included either to illustrate a political point about police militarization or to raise a novel legal issue, sort of lawyer geeking, or even perhaps both. Then again, the outrageousness of the incident may simply have the attorneys dotting I’s and crossing T’s to avoid allowing wiggle room in the defenses case.

    However the 4A does specifically address the situation. It would seem that regardless of the intent of the officers involved their actions effectively constitute both unlawful search and seizure of people, personal effects and real property. The documents cited and of which I am aware tell a very problematic story for the officers involved. I’m not a lawyer but what follows is a brief dissection of the case as I see it.
    Defendants (the police involved) have the desire and intent to deprive plaintiff of his property for purposes of their own. When plaintiff indicates he will not abandon the property at their request, defendants decide to harass plaintiff, agreeing that if this strategy fails they will then falsely arrest and imprison him, seize his goods, and his real property. In carrying out this plan they used physical restraints and even pepper balls to effect compliance.
    I do not see any warrant or any effort at articulating probable cause. I think that the fact of the defendants being police officers is obscuring the issue. I’m not even certain that the 4A was even meant to cover such a situation precisely, rather that a laundry list of criminal code sections apply more closely to the actions taken during the incident by defendants.
    I see criminal conspiracy, extortion, assault (2x), battery (2x), armed burglary, kidnap (2x) and that’s in only a short read. In fact the only way (based on the limited facts I’ve seen) that the department could possibly avoid both massive punitive damages in a civil suit, and criminal prosecution for federal civil rights violations would be to disavow the officers legitimacy and throw them under the criminal bus for what is by any standard clearly criminal behavior.
    If a single officer had taken it upon himself to do this I’d suspect he was seriously confused, unbalanced or gone rogue. That a group of officers could conceive and execute this plan suggests a pervasive lack of supervision and oversight on the part of the department, lack of training regarding police powers, and an obscene disregard for civil rights and the rule of law that suggests itself to be rampant within the department involved.
    I’d really like to see one of our resident attorneys opinion of my take on this and more so their own dissection of the events. Anyone want to put their prosecutor’s hat on and take a shot at this one?

  14. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a duck.

    Any group of armed individuals that report to the executive branch of government, carrying “dangerous and unusual” weapons like automatic rifles and flash-bang grenades (especially those geared for offensive use like grenades), and being transported in unusual vehicles like tanks and troop transports with gun turrets, is an army.

    • Which works if you are talking about Federal Agents (DEA, FBI, ATF, BLM, ICE…. I’m sure I missed more of the alphabet), but local law enforcement (state, county, city) don’t report to the Executive branch of the US Government. Maybe not all ducks are created equal?

      • but they report to the executive branch of the state. is there a distinction between a federal standing army and a state one?

        • In this case, Yes, there is. The U.S. Constitutional Amendments only apply to the Feds until they are “incorporated” by a court. Then, and only then, does a particular amendment apply to the states. Most of the amendments have been incorporated, the 2nd being the most recent in either Heller or McDonald, I think. The 3rd hasn’t yet been incorporated because, well, it hasn’t exactly been an issue.

          Not a lawyer, may be talking out of sphincter, blah blah blah.

      • When was the last time you saw any local LEO standing and stopping any action of the federal costumed goons. They are usually falling over themselves to help. They might as well work for the feds.

      • Funny Story, Dave… You should read up on some past EO’s. Law enforcement, all the way down to the municipal level has been brought under the DHS umbrella under “emergency” circumstances. All for fighting terrorism and in case of hurricanes and stuff *cough katrina cough*

        Pin Tails and Teal don’t look much alike, but they’re all still ducks…

        Link

  15. http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_23622365/torrance-denies-liability-christopher-dorner-related-confrontation-redondo

    Torrance police officers thought they were confronting Dorner when they rammed Perdue’s pickup truck with their cruiser, fired three gunshots through his windshield and forced him to lie spread-eagle on the ground.

    The city, however, said Perdue’s injuries were the result of his own “negligent or deliberate actions.”

    They’re more like the mafia if the mafia was full of incompetent morons, state-funded, and charged with enforcing the laws.

    However, I think Don Corleone might be a little upset if his wiseguys shot up an innocent old lady newspaper carrier and some innocent guy. The idiots who did that might even wind up sleeping with the fishes.

    Instead, the police have unions to back them up. WUNDERBAR.

    • As long as you paid them, the Mafia would leave you alone. The LEOs take great pleasure in abusing citizens.

      • This is why the Mafia has endured to this day. People would rather be protected by the relatively “just” @ssholes they know than the incompetent government @ssholes they don’t know.

  16. Ah, cop are cops. I’ve got some good friends in law enforcement and they all say that some of the guys they work with scare the crap out of them. Couple of notes – a guy I grew up with came home after a year or so in the MPs with a good enough discharge to apply for (and, after the psych eval) get turned down by every major cop shop in the area. So he wound up on our little hometown 6-officer force, and after a few months on patrol it turned out he had a major thing for slapping handcuffs on teenage girls. (“Smelled alcohol in the car, they must have dumped the evidence.” Cuffing the stone-sober niece of a county judge was not a good career move.) And the cops I know say that giving in to those of their brethren who want to play infantry with auto rifles and fatigues is a really bad idea when it comes to resolving a domestic dispute.

  17. The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” William Pitt The Elder

    A shame we don’t have these protections any longer.

  18. Far as I recall, there is no qualifiers that define what is a standing army in the Constitution.

    This is why we are allowed to have a standing Military, because that wording is so vague.

    Do not fool yourself into thinking our militarized police forces are incompetent to repel a foreign attack. They have MRAPs, Armored Trucks, Military Grade small arms, Drones, and train in basic Infantry Tactics. If the Taliban can give us a fight, I think the Police have not only the ability to fight a foreign attack, but repress civil unrest.

    I would argue that militarized police violate every tenet of the 3rd Amendment by operating with military equipment, weapons, and tactics on American soil against American citizens. While the Active Military may also violate the intent of the 3rd Amendment, it is at least (usually) directed outwards.

    It is one thing to have AR15s and shotguns available for extreme circumstances, a whole other to have one in the trunk of every police officer.

    • If we were being strictly Constitutional we would not allow any Army enlistment of longer than 2 years. Congress is only allowed to budget the Army for 2 years at a time, so how can we sign a contract with someone promising them a job for 4 years?

      • The contract is contingent on the government’s need. If they decide after 6 months they don’t need you then they discharge you. So, if for some reason the Army budget got zeroed you would be out whether your enlistment was up or not.

  19. look at how quickly boston was turned into a police state with full suspension of constitutional rights………of course america’s police are a standing army.

    And if your not one of them…….your a suspect, to be suspected of doing, thinking and planning suspicious things, the most suspicious thing you can do is……….want to be a free american.

  20. Some of you say Police officers are peace officers, give me a break. Ask the people of NewOrleans.

  21. They, LEOs may not be much good at doing what a for real designated “Army” can do offensively. But just look in the basement of One Police Plaza in NYC and tell me that’s not equipment fit for an “ARMY”.
    They sure as heck are an army of ………………

  22. No cop should be issued, or be allowed to carry on duty, anything more than a pistol and a shotgun. Their vehicles should not be armored more than required to stop a 30 – 06 and body armor should be limited to what can be worn under normal shirts and pants. If anything more than that is required they should leave the scene and call up the citizen militia.

  24. 1) Are the police issued AR-15 and similar weapons?

    2) Have AR-15 and similar firearms been classified as “Weapons of War” by the Civilian Disarmament Folks?

    3) If the answer to #1 and #2 are in the affirmative, then it is only possible that someone in possession of such a weapon is, by definition, a “soldier”.

    • Yes, this.

      In addition, they are granted special protections to carry and use such weapons, and even kill American citizens(whether legal or not, these protections exist). That sounds an awful lot like our military, who are not brought to trial for killing in a war zone.

  25. Since when does the Third Amendment have anything at all to do with “standing armies”? The Constitution does not prohibit them, and as written, was designed as protection against governmental abuse, as Mecha75 correctly noted, ” because the colonists were not only forced to accept a red coat living with them, but they also had to feed them and tend to their laundry.” Wasn’t a rather lengthy ABA monograph on this issue posted on this site not very long ago?

    I am not saying or suggesting that the militarization of the police is not a timely and important issue; just that it is not a Third Amendment issue. The police are the natural development of the original policing services provided by the Militia of the several states, or as the case may be, towns. In every human society of which we have records, there has been a need of such services, provided by an organized and armed force. The larger the society, the greater the need for large, well organized, and well armed forces. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect against a (federal) force gaining to much power in the exercise of its domestic activities. There is strong evidence that this battle between “security and freedom has been rejoined.

    • “Who will guard us against the guardians?”

      That, I believe, is the most important reason for the 2d Amendment. If you cannot shoot the SOB trying to quarter in your house without your permission, whether he’s a soldier or a cop or some vagrant or squatter, how can they be stopped?

      In most jurisdictions if an armed person enters your home against your will you can legally shoot them to protect yourself and your property. How do the actions of this police department give them any status better than any other thug who wants to take over your residence? They in no way had any legal authority to do this and as such need to face the full extent of the legal ramifications for ALL of the laws and rights they violated.

      • You cannot shoot a police officer in this country period. I also doubt you would get a fair trial if you did because the police would make you a target. The only thing you can do is what this family is doing. Sueing the department and hopeing IA will strip them of their badges and guns. But if I recall IA cleared them of any wrong doing. So our elected leaders need to step in ( fat chance at that )

  28. My opinion police are not an army but they play dual roles as Peace Officers and militia members. They keep the peace (such as it is) and are available for local, state and national emergencies.

  30. When My Dad & Brother-in-Law were members of NYPD, it was described as a Para-Military organization. I would think that’s pretty close to a standing army.

  31. My first argument is that for law enforcement agencies to not be
    considered a standing army/militia they cannot be allowed to use
    weapons or devices banned for the average citizen.

    Second, law enforcement cannot be afforded exemptions from the
    law. This can be either written or in practice. As many have seen,
    LEOs involved in anything from rights violations to homicides
    are rarely held to the same high standard as a regular Joe. By
    openly or quietly holding these differences, law enforcement is
    given a special status under the law. This leads to them being
    treated as a different strata than standard citizen. It is this
    difference that forces the need to reclassify law enforcement as
    something of than civilian peace officer.

  32. How often have you heard cops refer to us peasants as “civilians?” They certainly think they’re a standing army. Remember, garrison troops who aren’t very well trained or equipped compared to front-line units are still soldiers.

  33. They are not a standing army. There aren’t enough of them. They are just heavily armed trespassers.

    But if the world is so dangerous they need full auto M-16s and tanks, it’s certainly dangerous enough for civilians to own semi-auto ARs.

    One gets the feeling, though, that a certain few elements are most afraid of the least dangerous and most productive citizens in this country. Theirs can’t be a fun job.

  35. After writing The Constitution, the states representatives were worried that citizens could be abused by the government. To prevent this abuse, they wrote the first 10 amendments, what we know today as The Bill of Rights. Police were unknown at the time. To me there’s no doubt that the LEO’s involved most certainly violated the intent of 3A, if not the specific wording. The family had no due process, and were forced to house armed government employees.

  37. There’s no such thing as Rights.

    There is only a constant struggle for power between the People and the EVIL CORRUPT TYRANNICAL INCOMPETENT Government.

    .

    • Amen! The entire purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government to only that which the people grant it. The people have the power, ultimately in the vote. Government will naturally try to be the power, but only if citizens allow it. Too many politicians haven’t studied our countries’ history, and get the process backwards. Are you listening Cuomo and Bloomberg? At least 2 state officials being recalled in Colorado, Sheriffs in multiple states refusing to enforce laws that are unconstitutional.

  38. The police are, indeed, an army. The primary purpose of the police is to protect the haves from the have-nots – they are the guardians of economic and social tyranny. Ralph’s point about Bloomberg is right on.

    • I don’t approve of the tase first, comply or die attitude. I don’t approve of cops as cashiers of the open road. They are an army. But if you’d stop glaring at the police long enough to see the violent, thieving dregs of the world those police are keeping in check that guardians of tyranny moonbattery would embarrass the hell out of you.

      Taking away the cops only leaves you with Sweden in a room full of Swedes.

  39. For Constitutional purposes, a standing army is one continually employed and under the diret control of the Federal government.

    We have that, but the police ain’t it.

    Even the War Between the States did not involve a standing U.S. Army — at least not at first. The Indian Wars did, and then it shrank until WWI, in which a bunch of state armies, militias and so on were welded together into what we have now.

Comments are closed.