Victory For The 2nd Amendment. Hutaree Militia To Get Their Guns And Ammo Returned.

I am personally glad to see that the judge ruled in line with the 2nd amendment and ordered that their firearms and ammunition be returned to them. No matter what anyone thinks of these people the fact is the charges were dropped therefore they were in legal possesion of said firearms. All total around 60 guns will be returned according to the source. I was surprised to see this happen but it seems the government may not want any more embarassment over the Hutaree Militia case.

Source.

Now that they've been vindicated, three Hutaree militia defendants are getting their guns and ammunition back.

The court concluded that they are entitled to get their 60-plus guns back, along with hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts filed an order Tuesday that would allow Thomas Piatek to get his weapons back. That includes 41 guns -- shotguns, rifles, handguns and an AK47 -- along with more than 100,000 rounds of ammunition.

The weapons and ammo were seized from his Indiana home during an FBI raid in 2009, which led to his arrest. He was imprisoned for two years on charges that he helped plot an anti-government revolt.

Let's keep an eye on this to see if they really get the guns and ammo back. It wouldn't be the first time a government agency simply ignored a court ruling.

Misleading title... Should read: "Victory For Christian Terrorists."

Originally posted by PinkAndBlack
Misleading title... Should read: "Victory For Christian Terrorists."

Like I said, whatever anyones opinion of them is they lawfully were in ownership of said firearms and ammunition and that is why the judge ordered them returned, to keep in line with the 2nd amendment. So I and many others will see this as a victory for the 2nd amendment but some won't and that's ok.

Originally posted by PinkAndBlack
Misleading title... Should read: "Victory For Christian Terrorists."

Irregardless the 2nd Amendment still stands!
Damn right

The Feds probably knew all along they hadn't done anything, but hey, the attention grabbing headlines shortly before the launch of "see something - say something" must have planted a few seeds.

I couldn't even guess how many will forever see them as domestic terrorists now without a scrap of evidence.

Less and less often the ghost of Thomas Jefferson gets to smirk.

reply to post by usmc0311

You're absolutely right on this. Personally, I think those guys are nuttier than the Mad Hatter. That makes no difference though, as you say. Absent a crime, what we think of them is entirely meaningless. They have the right to their property returned whether that's a room full of weapons or the contents of a commercial kitchen. Property is property and it's good they are getting back what was no crime to own.

I wonder what condition they get them back in... ? New Orleans PD stored all the guns taken from civilians during the floods as well. Had them all nicely stored too. It was just in a place with no humidity control and no climate control in any real sense. So.....under all that rust and rot, there once lay an enormous collection of confiscated firearms.

Hopefully they get theirs back in functional condition this time.

Yea right. They wont ever get em back. But, at least theres a paper somewhere in some office that says they should.

I got my Ak47 taken 4 years ago for a charge that was dropped months later. Filed everything I was supposed to and was cleared to get my firearm back.....................


Yea, will you guys lemme know when its here? I cant hold my breath any longer

i am stepping into an arena here that is sure to get me flamed, but there is a question concerning the 2nd Amendment that i had always wondered about:

while the spirit of the law seems necessary, especially in reaction to totalitarian government (which the Amendments were created as), the Arms of 1791 (when the amendment was made) are quite different than the arms we have nowadays.

the founding fathers could not have conceived of the weaponry & devastating power our technology has conjured nowadays. if so... would they have tempered this law? should the individual have access to such potent arsenals without any regulation? or, as the government's arsenal increases in potency, so shall the civilians?

in the same manner that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, no matter the first amendment protections, should there be any temperance of the 2nd amendment?

Guns in 1791 WOULD
...be made by a gunsmith.
...have rudimentary rifling.
...be single-shot weapons.
...be loaded through the muzzle.
...fire by means of a flintlock.

Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)


lord knows i'm not picking a fight with the 2nd amendment crowd... and i am not steeped in its nuances as no doubt many of you are, but the question of relative weaponry has always intrigued me.

i mean, how would Thomas Jefferson feel about an uzi?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by usmc0311

 

You're absolutely right on this. Personally, I think those guys are nuttier than the Mad Hatter.

"I've seen what I would have to become, to stop men like him, Alfred."
-- Batman, in reference to The Joker, The Dark Knight

The reason why I quote the above, is because although a lot of people think the militias are nuts, in my opinion, they're only as extreme in a pro-Constitutional sense, as they perceive that the government is in anti-Constitutional terms.

The DHS are expecting a civil war. They know whose side they're on. If you want your Constitution to survive at all, over the next few years, then you're going to need people as mad as the militias, Wrabbit.

Originally posted by mythos
how would Thomas Jefferson feel about an uzi?

From what I've read of his writings, he would most definitely felt like taking on the whole force of redcoats.

reply to post by petrus4

Well, it may be important to be a little clearer in what I say on this topic.

Those specific militia people, from all I read and saw related to their arrest and statements, are nuttier than the Mad Hatter.

On the other hand... The Militia for South West Missouri trains to work with Law Enforcement and is available for call up as volunteers on search and rescue or other tasks where manpower with at least basic training is needed. I understand the one south of St Louis has been out on SAR jobs with the local Sheriff's Offices in that area. So..I don't mean to besmirch Militia in general. By no means. Like anything else though, there are good and bad...

Originally posted by mythos
i am stepping into an arena here that is sure to get me flamed, but there is a question concerning the 2nd Amendment that i had always wondered about:

while the spirit of the law seems necessary, especially in reaction to totalitarian government (which the Amendments were created as), the Arms of 1791 (when the amendment was made) are quite different than the arms we have nowadays.

the founding fathers could not have conceived of the weaponry & devastating power our technology has conjured nowadays. if so... would they have tempered this law? should the individual have access to such potent arsenals without any regulation? or, as the government's arsenal increases in potency, so shall the civilians?

in the same manner that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, no matter the first amendment protections, should there be any temperance of the 2nd amendment?

Guns in 1791 WOULD
...be made by a gunsmith.
...have rudimentary rifling.
...be single-shot weapons.
...be loaded through the muzzle.
...fire by means of a flintlock.

Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)


lord knows i'm not picking a fight with the 2nd amendment crowd... and i am not steeped in its nuances as no doubt many of you are, but the question of relative weaponry has always intrigued me.

i mean, how would Thomas Jefferson feel about an uzi?

Lord knows you are picking a fight with the second amendment. Lord also knows that your telling lies to justify your anti gun message which brings up the million dollar question: Who are you trying to enslave, or who are you trying to wipe out? As every single roll back of gun rights immediately led to a loss of civil rights/liberties or outright genocide.

Now that we got that out of the way, let's examine why you are beyond wrong on this issue. The second Amendment doesn't exist to guarantee sportsman or huntsman the right to own a fire arm. It was created to give insurance to the States, and the American citizenry, the ability to defend themselves from both a foreign threat and a domestic threat: aka and abusive government.

If the second Amendment was actually being enforced, law abiding American citizens would have access to military grade fire arms. But we know that genocidal maniacs and those who wish to bring back the peculiar institution, have been attacking gun rights for a very long time now.

reply to post by korathin


Though I am not from the Unites States, I would have to agree that the 2nd was written to protect it's citizens and as government's weapons evolve so should it's citizen's. A single shot breach loader would provide no voice against a Soldiers assault weapon (saw).
Coming from a person who does not own any weapons other than a BB gun!
brice

reply to post by korathin


Very well put. Yesterdays musket is todays assault rifle. I think this picture sums it up pretty well.

I am 100% sure,Eric Holder pissed his diaper in Anger,with this decision.

They deserve to get their weapons back........

reply to post by mythos


The Second Amendment is there to protect the citizens, even from the government itself. Would a crook use a muzzle loader to rob you? The weapons covered in the Second Amendment are non specific for a reason. They have to be by current standards to protect us from current threats. Otherwise it would quickly be useless and outdated.

Originally posted by PinkAndBlack
Misleading title... Should read: "Victory For Christian Terrorists."

edit on 16/5/2012 by PinkAndBlack because: fnord

yeah, yeah, anyone with a gun and a strong conviction in something is considered a terrorist these days, its pretty sad. I really don't care who these guys are, all I care is that they got their guns back, and a win for the 2nd.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by PinkAndBlack
Misleading title... Should read: "Victory For Christian Terrorists."

Irregardless the 2nd Amendment still stands!
Damn right

Slayer wow nice avatar! talk about being afraid of the old lol he looks like he could kick the crap out of you old fashioned style

Originally posted by mythos
in the same manner that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, no matter the first amendment protections, should there be any temperance of the 2nd amendment?

That's pretty wrong right there.

There's nothing illegal about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
What's illegal is inciting panic. I cnt shout "fire!" all day long and if there's no panic, if I am ignored, there is no crime.

So to compare the 1st to the 2nd properly there's nothing wrong with having a rocket launcher over your shoulder. It's becomes "wrong" when you take aim with it.