Sorry folks, but when I read more and more things like this, I just go out and buy another thousand primers or bullets or some other piece of reloading equipment, and then make a little donation to NRA-ILA.

Can you imagine where we'd be if there WERE NO Second Amendment? This kind of stuff would be happening with utter impunity and absolutely zero recourse.

Sad, frightening, disgusting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SWAT officers invade home, take 11-year-old at gunpoint
Police demand boy go to doctor because of fall during horseplay
Posted: January 7, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Nearly a dozen members of a police SWAT team in western Colorado punched a hole in the front door and invaded a family's home with guns drawn, demanding that an 11-year-old boy who had had an accidental fall accompany them to the hospital, on the order of
Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak.

The boy's parents and siblings were thrown to the floor at gunpoint and the parents were handcuffed in the weekend assault, and the boy's father told WND it was all because a paramedic was upset the family preferred to care for their son themselves.

Someone, apparently the unidentified paramedic, called police, the sheriff's office and social services, eventually providing Leoniak with a report that generated the magistrate's court order to the sheriff's office for the SWAT team assault on the family's home in
A mobile home development outside of Glenwood Springs, the father, Tom Shiflett, told WND.

WND calls and e-mails to Garfield County Social Services were not returned, and Leoniak, who earlier served as a water court clerk/referee, also was not available.

Sheriff Lou Vallario, however, did call back, and told WND he ordered his officers to do exactly what the magistrate demanded.

"I was given a court order by the magistrate to seize the child, and arrange for medical evaluation, and that's what we did," he said.

According to friends of the family, Tom Shiflett, who has 10 children including six still at home, and served with paramedics in Vietnam, was monitoring his son's condition himself.

The paramedic and magistrate, however, ruled that that wasn't adequate, and dispatched the officers to take the boy, John, to a hospital, where a doctor evaluated him and released him immediately.

The accident happened during horseplay, Tom Shiflett told WND. John was grabbing the door handle of a car as his sister was starting to drive away slowly. He slipped, fell to the ground and hit his head, Shiflett said.

He immediately carried his son into their home several doors away, and John was able to recite Bible verses and correctly spell words as his father and mother, Tina, requested. There were no broken bones, no dilated eyes, or any other noticeable problems.

The family, whose members live by faith and homeschool, decided not to call an ambulance. But a neighbor did call Westcare Ambulance, and paramedics responded to the home, asking to see and evaluate the boy.

The paramedics were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital's bills, the family refused to allow that.

"This apparently did not go over well with one of the paramedics and they started getting aggravated at Tom for not letting them have their way," a family acquaintance told WND.

"The paramedics were not at all respectful of Tom's decision, nor did they act in a manner we would expect from professional paramedics," the acquaintance said.

So the ambulance crew, who also could not be reached by WND, called police, only to be told the decision was up to the Shiflett familiy.

The paramedics then called the sheriff's office, and officers responded to the home, and were told everyone was being cared for.

Then the next day, Friday, social services workers appeared at the door and demanded to talk with John "in private."

They were so persistent Tom ended up having to get John out of the bathtub he was just soaking in, to bring him to the front porch where the social workers could see him, the family reported.

Then, following an afternoon shopping trip to town, the family settled in for the evening, only to be shocked with the SWAT team attack.

The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" and had made threats and "comments" over the years.

However, the sheriff declined to provide a single instance of the father's illegal behavior. "I can't tell you specifically," he said.

"He was refusing to provide medical care," the sheriff said.

However, the sheriff said if his own children were involved in an at-home accident, he would want to be the one to make decisions on their healthcare, as did Shiflett.

"I guess if that was one of my children, I would make that decision," the sheriff said.

But he said Shiflett was "rude and confrontational" when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.

The sheriff also admitted that the injury to the child had been at least 24 hours earlier, because the fall apparently happened Thursday afternoon, and the SWAT attack happened late Friday evening.

Officials with the Home School Legal Defense Association reported they were looking into the case, because of requests from family friends who are members of the organization.

"While people can debate whether or not the father should have brought his son to the ER – it seems like this was not the kind of emergency that warrants this kind of outrageous conduct by government officials," a spokesman said.

Tom Shiflett said when John was evaluated by the physician, "they didn't find anything wrong with him."

He said the paramedics never should have entered his home, but they followed his wife in the front door when she came in.

"My attention was on my son," Shiflett said.

He said the SWAT team punched a hole in his door with a ramrod, and the first officer in the home pointed a gun right in the face of Tom's 20-year-old daughter.

"I don't know where social services ever got started, or where they got their authority," he said. "But I want to know why we have something in this country that violates our rights, that takes a parental right away."

He said he saw a multitude of injuries in Vietnam, and while he recognized that his son needed to be watched, he wasn't willing to turn his child over to the paramedics.

With 10 children, most of them older than John, it's not as if he hasn't seen a bruise or two, either, he said.

"Now I'm hunting for lawyers that will take the case … I'm going to sue everybody whose name was on that page right down to the judge," he said.

Mike Donnelly, a lawyer with the HSLDA, told WND the case had a set of circumstances that could be problematic for authorities.

"In Doe V. Heck, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that parents have a fundamental right to familial relations including a liberty interest in the care, custody and control of their children," he said.

He also said many social services agencies apply "a one size fits all approach" to cases, regardless of circumstances.

I strongly suspect there is more to this than was reported. Frankly, I think the refusal to make sure the child was properly cared for was irresponsible and apparently raised concerns from the authorities. Did they oversteptheir bounds? Maybe! In the post Ruby Ridge and Waco world, police are very leery about such things reoccurring.

Would arming oneself have prevented or solved this incident. NO!!! it would have just exacerbated it, potentially resulting in someone getting seriously injured or dead.

I think the best way to handle this is through the courts. Sue the people for jumping the gun and invading a home. Show the authorities there will be civil penalities for precipitous actions.

It’s an absolute tragedy; I expect more than the judge will pay for their bad judgment. But then, everyone knows how bad those “HomeSchoolers” are.:p

Smell that? That's what a lawsuit smells like.

"I strongly suspect there is more to this than was reported."

Probably. When has ANY news source ever gotten the full picture across?

"I think the refusal to make sure the child was properly cared for was irresponsible and apparently raised concerns from the authorities."

I agree. However, their alleged "irresponsibility" was somewhat countered by a) the man's experience with dealing with injured folks before; and b) the fact that as a parent of multiple children before this one, he (as do I and all other parents) have a degree of learned sense about what constitutes a serious enough injury for an ER visit and what doesn't. Not all the time, but enough of the time.

By the logic of this magistrate, the SWAT team could've come into MY house every time one of my boys knocked his head on something. As it is, only one time was I concerned, and I called our pediatrician at his house (we're friends from high school days), and he said it was OK, and told me what else to watch for. Then, feeling anxious (and needing a beer and a break from his wife), he came over to the house, where he spent more time on his beer than he did on my son, because he saw right quick that the injury was nothing. BUT, by this guy's logic, the SWAT team should've come.

"Did they oversteptheir bounds? Maybe!"

Maybe, hell! Absolutely! This smells strangely like the Elian Gonzalez (Cuban refugee boy) case from the RenoReich.

"Show the authorities there will be civil penalities for precipitous actions."

Just curious: What happens if (or when) the authorities in question begin telling the citizens to stick their suits where the sun doesn't shine, that THEY are the authority and WE are not? What then?

Should anyone be surprised? Parental rights - as I've pointed out many, many times in the last few weeks - are an endangered species. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other major medical groups recommend that doctors question their young patients without parental consent (http://www.liberator.net/articles/McElroyWendy/DoctorsQuestions.html) and with little if any justification, on such things as "Is there a gun in your home?" Is it any wonder that some paramedic would get his panties in a wad and take it to the extreme?

Parents are no longer parents, they're suspects, and all these left leaning groups (including the worst among them, Planned Parenthood) are actively engaged in undermining parental rights and "empowering" children.

Anyone in their right mind knows children have certain right, should be protected from abuse and should receive needed medical care, but if I had a young child I'd be very leery of taking him or her to the doctor after a fall - especially in Colorado if this report is true.

In general, I agree with you about government intrusion on what has traditionally been parental domain. However, I don't believe it is fair to lay the whole blame at the feet of liberals. Consider other causes, the abuse and neglect of such a large % of parents for their children. Then there is the minority religious right that has invoked prayer as a substitute for medical needs. How is it that so many parents come to neglect, or abuse their children? The answer to that may well be what we should be focusing on.

In general, I agree with you about government intrusion on what has traditionally been parental domain. However, I don’t believe it is fair to lay the whole blame at the feet of liberals. Consider other causes, the abuse and neglect of such a large % of parents for their children. Then there is the minority religious right that has invoked prayer as a substitute for medical needs. How is it that so many parents come to neglect, or abuse their children? The answer to that may well be what we should be focusing on.

DC, of course the blame doesn't lie entirely with the left, but you don't find many on the right advocating the erosion of parental rights do you? And I think that "minority religious right" you're referring to is less than minuscule. I know we conservative evangelicals invoke prayer - but we also praise God for the miracle of modern medicine :)

I have yet to hear anyone on the left or right ‘advocating the erosion of parental rights.’ Might I remind you that those words are an “interpretation?” Were it that the whole of parental neglect and abuse was as minuscule as those who invoke payer for medicine- would there even be an erosion of parental rights…I don’t think so. On that basis it could be argued that it is the Left who want to protect the rights of children and the Right who want to protect the rights of the parents.

We poor Theologians just don’t know which God to pray to.:p

Would arming oneself have prevented or solved this incident. NO!!! it would have just exacerbated it, potentially resulting in someone getting seriously injured or dead.



Completely agree Scott. NO WAY!

We don't have Second Amendment laws where I'm from and this thing doesn't happen.

Can you imagine where we'd be if there WERE NO Second Amendment? This kind of stuff would be happening with utter impunity and absolutely zero recourse.


It doesn't where I'm from. Id be saddened to think that it would where you are too!

I have yet to hear anyone on the left or right ‘advocating the erosion of parental rights.’ Might I remind you that those words are an “interpretation?”

Of course not, few would be so bold as to come right out and say so, but every expansion of confidential services directly to children, such as health and contraception services, is one more step in that direction. But some are so bold...


Another judge in Massachusetts has ruled against parental input (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59248) regarding the education of their own children, this time deciding that a district's special education program for a 13-year-old can move forward even though his parents refused to sign an authorization for the additional monitoring and counseling.

As WND reported, it was a year ago when U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf of Massachusetts dismissed a civil rights lawsuit by a parent, concluding it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

That case, involving parent David Parker, recently was argued on appeal of Wolf's decision, which essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by several homosexual-advocacy groups. They said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…"

The actual quote:


“the scope of the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children, as asserted by the plaintiffs, would undermine teaching and learning in the Lexington public schools.”

This is based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child's assertion that parents are a good thing, but "the best interest of the child" is what matters. Sure it matters, but the problem is, who is better at deciding what's best for the child and what is the standard?

I've already pointed out that Planned Parenthood makes a show of support for parental involvement but makes no bones about fighting consent laws and advocates naming siblings, aunts, uncles, clergy or apparently just about anyone if a child wants their services and needs consent.


Were it that the whole of parental neglect and abuse was as minuscule as those who invoke payer for medicine- would there even be an erosion of parental rights…I don’t think so. On that basis it could be argued that it is the Left who want to protect the rights of children and the Right who want to protect the rights of the parents.

Personally, I'm for protecting both children and parental rights.

That is of course why I am glad we are in the US and follow the US constitution, not UN Law.

And of course planned Parenthood is a sad excuse hiding behind its name to be not much more than a abortion mill. Breaking the laws of states, giving abortions to under age children, arranging for children to be taken across state lines and more. They are the last place I would ever recommend anyone to go.

But yes in the us, school boards and states are violating the rights of parents , esp those of home school almost on a daily basis. That is way many home school families all belong to a legal support group. I would perosnally advice any home school parent to belong to this, so they have legal defense when the state knocks at their doors.

https://hslda.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1

I agree. However, their alleged "irresponsibility" was somewhat countered by a) the man's experience with dealing with injured folks before; and b) the fact that as a parent of multiple children before this one, he (as do I and all other parents) have a degree of learned sense about what constitutes a serious enough injury for an ER visit and what doesn't. Not all the time, but enough of the time.


But were the authorities aware of his experience? Did he try explaining when they first came to talk to the child. There have been a few cases of parents refusing medical treatment for injured kids because of religious beliefs or fear of government, etc.

What it comes down to is do we risk the life of a child to protect the rights of parents? I would rather err on the side of the child.

Hello:

I'm bothered too, by the Gestapo tactics of the cops. However, it doesn't END where YOU'D like it to end.

Of course, right wingers think that if a social agency interferes with parenting, it's not good. However, they don't seem to mind when a police agency does.

A 12 year old boy is going to be tried as an adult in Florida.

I don't understand how right wingers can want a smaller government, but a bigger police force. To me, they're the same.

If you give the state the authority to try YOUR child as an adult, then I suggest you also tacitly give them authority over YOUR child's health care too.

excon

That is of course why I am glad we are in the US and follow the US constitution, not UN Law.That's funny, what I took from the OP is "Thank god I *don't* live in the US." :)

Ex


"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." [Ron Paul 1992 ]

Hello tom:

I don't know. I've never thought of myself as a lockstep kind of guy. Actually, I think the world should be moving in lockstep with ME - not the other way around.

Are you trying to say that because I like Ron Paul and he disagrees with me, then I must wrong?? That's typical right wing wrongheaded thinking.

excon

Al-AP reports that the kid had according to the caseworkers had a "huge hematoma" and a sluggish pupil. A doctor examined him, and told him to drink some fluids and take a Tylenol. So bottom line the father was right. Use of a SWAT team because the father is a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" is troubling . The show of force as stated by the Sheriff was more about Shiflet's political beliefs than his child's welfare.

A 12 year old boy is going to be tried as an adult in Florida.

If you're referring to this story (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbjuviemurder0108sbjan08,0,6271129.story?coll=sfl a-news-nat_...), that's apparently yet to be decided.

Use of a SWAT team because the father is a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" is troubling .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't all Americans be "self-proclaimed Constitutionalists?"

What's wrong with holding to the ideals and standards and LAWS set forth in the Constitution?

It seems to me that the Constitution is becoming more and more an instrument for the government to enforce its will, and less and less an instrument of the people to hold that government in check.

Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree with you at all. The cops have WAYYYY too much power. The sheriff too. But, who gave it to 'em, and who lets them keep it? Why it was the right wingers, of course. You thought they were only going to use their guns on the bad guys. Well, guess what?

When you give them the power to try your children in an ADULT court, then you shouldn't be surprised when they think have control over your children's health care too.

I think they should stay OUT of child rearing all together. If a kid get's into trouble, you treat him like a kid. If a parent wants to treat their kid, let 'em.

excon

But, who gave it to 'em, and who lets them keep it? Why it was the right wingers, of course. Really ? Was it not Clinton that used Federal Agents to torch the Branch Davidian compound ? Or to take Elian Gonzalez at gun point ?

Really ? Was it not Clinton that used Federal Agents to torch the Branch Davidian compound ? Or to take Elian Gonzalez at gun point ?

Now tom, it's hardly fair to raise the specter of Clinton's "absolute power (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22515)" years... or considering the candidates we have, is it (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784)?

I guess the people have reached their limit with the abuses at the top. Let the revolution begin! Of course all bets seem to be pointing to american citizens just rolling over and taking it ever so gently.

Hello again:

Guys? Can you stay on point? I know you want to blame Clinton and the Goricle for everything. But, Dudes. This is about the LOCAL cops - not the politicians.

And, PLEASE don't tell me that your right wing dudes on the Supreme Court don't side with the cops all the time. That's exactly why you want them there. You're just bummed that the cops turned their guns on these people. All I'm saying is, you shouldn't be surprised.

excon

Really ? Was it not Clinton that used Federal Agents to torch the Branch Davidian compound ? Or to take Elian Gonzalez at gun point ?
I don’t believe it would have mattered which administration was in office, the results would have been the same. What took place was intuitionally ingrained.

I guess the people have reached their limit with the abuses at the top. Let the revolution begin! Of course all bets seem to be pointing to american citizens just rolling over and taking it ever so gently.

Not all of them.

Hello again:

Guys? Can you stay on point? I know you wanna blame Clinton and the Goricle for everything. But, Dudes. This is about the LOCAL cops - not the politicians.

And, PLEASE don't tell me that your right wing dudes on the Supreme Court don't side with the cops all the time. That's exactly why you want them there. You're just bummed that the cops turned their guns on these people. All I'm saying is, you shouldn't be surprised.

Well excon the justice mon, I've had mixed experiences with law enforcement. I have a kid in a California prison, a brother that's a Sargent in the local Sheriff's department and I've had both pleasant and unpleasant experiences with the locals. I'm actually for balance, and I certainly don't approve of locals gone wild - whether it's SWAT turning their guns on a family for apparently no good reason or little Johnny law writing tickets with an attitude. They do - or are supposed to - work for us.

As an aside, you'd probably get a kick out of our Sheriff's election this year. The current sheriff and his former top deputy running against him are both under indictment (http://www.amarillo.com/stories/010408/opi_9295489.shtml). I can't believe this idiot got elected in the first place, but I hope our good citizens will have the brains to make a different choice this time.

Steve,

They sound about as sharp as some of our guys. Did you hear about our SWAT team debacle a few years ago where one of the team members shot his buddy in the back of the head during an op?

I figger if it's up to these guys to keep me safe, I'll take my chances on my own, thank you very much.

Steve,

They sound about as sharp as some of our guys. Did you hear about our SWAT team debacle a few years ago where one of the team members shot his buddy in the back of the head during an op?

I figger if it's up to these guys to keep me safe, I'll take my chances on my own, thank you very much.

I either missed that or forgot about it. Our guys are just corrupt, they're not shooting each other - yet.

My local police operate on an entrepreneurial basis, it works, for them.

My local police operate on an entrepreneurial basis, it works, for them.

Sounds like how New Orleans used to be.

From my EMT days, I happen to know that the EMTs/Paramedics had no right to enter the home without permission.

I also know that its not hard for a parent who is also a paramedic to take care of his own kid when he gets hurt. A paramedic would know when he's over his head and when to get his kid to the ER.

Furthermore, after social services (notice the initials of those words) saw that the kid was fine (they called him out of the bathtub fer godsakes), their job was OVER. Their job is to ensure the safety of the kid. They did that. Mission accomplished, let's go get a beer. Once the safety of the kid was established, they had no reason or right to petition for police intervention.

The judge granting the warrant did so without proper cause. There was no evidence that the kid was in any sort of trouble, no evidence of any sort of danger or criminal activity, and thus no probable cause for a warrant.

And even if the warrant was in order, I see no reason to call out SWAT to handle a situation that could just as easily have been handled by regular police. There is nothing in this article that talks about a danger of weapons in the home, or the father being anything other than verbally beligerant... not physically, just verbally.

So by any reasonable standard, this was a case of unwarranted and illegal government intervention in a private domestic affair.

That's scary.

As to the question of whether being armed would have helped that situation or not... let's put it this way: if someone wants to invade my home illegally by busting through the front door, I would want to be armed to protect myself. Who wouldn't?

Furthermore, I truly believe that such incidents would be more prevalent and more common if nobody were armed. Cops and social services, and anyone else with a modicum of "authority" would conduct illegal raids every day, without having to worry about their own personal safety. If only the government can be armed, then nobody can ever stop that government from doing anything it wants with impunity. But half a million or a million civilians with guns in this country are the check-and-balance that keeps the government from usurping authority that way.

So would a gun have helped in this specific situation? I don't know. Probably not, based on what I have heard. But gun ownership DOES keep such an occurrence from becoming more common. And THAT is the point of the Second Amendment.

Elliot

Furthermore, I truly believe that such incidents would be more prevalent and more common if nobody were armed. Cops and social services, and anyone else with a modicum of "authority" would conduct illegal raids every day, without having to worry about their own personal safety. If only the government can be armed, then nobody can ever stop that governement from doing anything it wants with impunity. But half a million or a million civilians with guns in this country are the check-and-balance that keeps the government from usurping authority that way.





That's the point I was hoping to get across.

Furthermore, I truly believe that such incidents would be more prevalent and more common if nobody were armed. Cops and social services, and anyone else with a modicum of "authority" would conduct illegal raids every day, without having to worry about their own personal safety.

Elliot

They aren't down here. Never heard of such a thing happening here. That's not a personal belief like your is either. Its fact!

They arent down here. Never heard of such a thing happening here. Thats not a personal belief like your is either. Its fact!Same where I live. It would be interesting to see what would happen if these internet tough guys did in fact start shooting at cops and federal agents.

Same where I live. It would be interesting to see what would happen if these internet tough guys did in fact start shooting at cops and federal agents.

Besides sounding like a rather warped curiosity, if you're referring to the experts here making the point it's a rather insulting image being painted of a couple of good guys.

Steve
P.S. And it isn't "half a million or a million civilians with guns in this country," almost half the population owns at least one gun so it would be more like 150 million armed citizens. That is a force to be reckoned with.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if these internet tough guys did in fact start shooting at cops and federal agents.

My aunt is a retired DEA agent, before that she worked for the U.S. State Department. My brother is a former federal agent (U.S. Marshal's Service). Two of my best friends are cops, one with a Sheriff's Dept. and one a local cop. I myself spent about a year working with the DEA in Panama and California.

I say all that just to say this: the amount of power these agencies have is frightening. What's more frightening is the fact that they have it not because of the Constitution, but in spite of it.

I'm no historian, but it seems to me that before any country went fascist, communist, socialist, or whatever other negative "-ist" you choose, there was first a surge in the authority and scope of not the military, but the nation's police forces.

I'm not saying that is what's happening here, but one does well to know a little bit about history so the warning signs (if there are any) can be seen.

I hope and pray there NEVER comes a day when an American citizen has a need to draw down on a cop. I love cops, but I hate what they (as an overall group) are becoming.

In some areas, I think the term "brownshirts" might not be too far away.

In some areas, I think the term "brownshirts" might not be too far away.Hello Dennis:

At one time or another, regardless of one's political persuasion, the advent of the police state becomes obvious to those who care to look.

Right now, your co-horts on the right champion the police and especially the DEA because it suits their political agenda. What they don't realize is that when the rights of the unpopular get trampled upon, their rights are next.

Some of the people here think that insuring the rights of the downtrodden is coddling them. You hear the cry here all the time. The drug war would be successful if we only cracked down a little harder... Little do they know, that if they don't guard those people's rights,, well, you get my drift. Cracking down, of course, means giving the DEA even MORE power.

Then, the Patriot Act gave them even MORE power than that. If torturing a terrorist works, how long before they decide to torture our ordinary prisoners? What if they think one of them has information that can save lives?? Isn't that the justification??

In my view, I think the term “brownshirts” is UPON us.

You see on television every day how your ordinary cop operates. They stomp on peoples heads, they wack them unmercifully with their nightsticks. They throw them to the ground. I'm not talking about the "liberal" news, either. I'm talking about the popular cop shows.

I think the kind of behavior we have come to accept, is unacceptable. I truly think that most of us view that behavior as abhorrent and an anathema to our values as a nation. Course, I would have said the same thing about torture, and I would have been wrong.

It's possible that fascism lies just underneath our skins. Didn't somebody say that when it arrives, it will be wrapped up in the American flag and the Bible??

I'm going to stop now. I only wish to say, that's it's refreshing to see, that you can actually see, and you see it from within. Maybe Texas ain't so bad. Both you and speech are cool dudes.

excon

It seems as if it were just too simple of a fix to have had a doctor (with equipment available) to respond along with the social services people... If the judge wanted to order something, he should have looked into having the county foot the bill for a qualified person to visit the home... It doesn't sound as if the "authorities" were ever prevented from access to the child in question. The father did allow others to see the child, but to what means... The social services people were evidently not doctor's qualified in making any medical decisions...

I think there was some over zealous behaviours by people who believed in what they were doing. Thankfully, the situation did not lead to serious bodily harm to anyone. In an environment where some parents are willing to have their children suffer to say the least, I can understand the feelings of wanting to prevent that with all necessary force. I think that the problems that arise in this particular case point to a need to work toward better options being available for the authorities to use in fairness to both sides. I do not think it means that guns and bullets should be purchased to further escalate situations. Rather than make that kind of proposal, it would be better to work toward reforms via legal means. If the father in this case is successful in his legal endeavors, it would seem that the agencies will take notice, and perhaps have better solutions the next time.

it would be better to work toward reforms via legal means.

But what if the legal system IS the problem, then what?

They arent down here. Never heard of such a thing happening here. Thats not a personal belief like your is either. Its fact!

Skell,

We've discussed this in the past. Legal gun ownership in Australia is UP not down. There is a very large segment of the Australian population that is armed. That is why it can never and will; never happen there.

In Germany in the 1930s, where guns were completely illegal, except for government officials (police, military, SS, etc.) that sort of erosion of rights was the norm. Nazi officials could (and did) literally raid any home they wished with impunity because nobody could fight back. However, in the one case where civillians did get their hands on guns, they fought back... the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The only problem with that situation is that there weren't ENOUGH civillians armed to make a difference.

Or take Cuba, for example... civilian gun ownership in Cuba is very low, practically non-existant. That is why a leader like Castro, who is practically on his deathbed, is able to maintain power, despite his despotic ways. There's nobody there to stop him. His underlings can and do raid any home they desire, with or without reason, because they are armed, and the civilians are not.

I could go through other examples... the Soviet Union and communist China being the clearest examples. But you get my point.

Where there is legal gun ownership in significant numbers, individual rights are protected from organized government. In places where there is no such legal gun ownership, organized government inhibits individual rights.

Elliot

Skell,

We've discussed this in the past. Legal gun ownership in Australia is UP not down. There is a very large segment of the Australian population that is armed. That is why it can never and will; never happen there.


I can assure you that that is not the reason it deosnt happen down here at all. 100%. Perhaps looking at why it doesn't happen down here one should concentrate on why it DOES happen up there.

Your assertion that there is a very large segment of Australia that is armed is just plain and simply wrong. And the reason being is that, as we have discussed before, legal gun ownership is up in Australia is because illegal gun ownership is so far down. A lot of the previously illegal guns are now legal. But legal gun ownership down here does not allow guns to be kept in the home (except in rural areas for farming). It is illegal to keep a gun in the home and people simply can't do this legally.

So how is it that legal gun ownership prevents this from happening down here if legal gun ownership means that a gun isn't to be kept in the home but rather at a rifle range? That doesn't stack up!

Anyway, its going over old ground.

I can assure you that that is not the reason it deosnt happen down here at all. 100%. Perhaps looking at why it doesn't happen down here one should concentrate on why it DOES happen up there.

Your assertion that there is a very large segment of Australia that is armed is just plain and simply wrong. And the reason being is that, as we have discussed before, legal gun ownership is up in Australia is because illegal gun ownership is so far down. A lot of the previously illegal guns are now legal.

According to the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA, which I have been told is your country's largest gun-ownership advocacy organization, roughly similar to our NRA) there are currently 764,518 gun licenses in Australia, and over 2,165,000 registered firearms. Considering that your ADF only has about 52,000 people at present, and your federal police force is only another 5-6,000, I would argue that 765,000 private gun owners is a "significant number". Private gun owners outnumber military and federal police by roughly 13:1.

Do you truly believe that the fact that private gun ownership in your country outnumbers the military and police by an order of 13:1 has nothing to do with keeping your country's government honest? I'd say that it most certainly has an effect on keeping your government from usurping your rights.


But legal gun ownership down here does not allow guns to be kept in the home (except in rural areas for farming). It is illegal to keep a gun in the home and people simply can't do this legally.

So how is it that legal gun ownership prevents this from happening down here if legal gun ownership means that a gun isn't to be kept in the home but rather at a rifle range? That doesn't stack up!

You apparently do not know your own country's gun laws. There is no prohibition of keeping firearms in the home. They must be stored in a safe made of the appropriate materials, and that safe must be bolted to the building that houses it with two bolts. But there is no prohibition of keeping weapons in private homes. Queensland doesn't even have the requirement that the safe be bolted to the building, as long as the safe weighs more than 150 kg when empty. In fact, Queensland even permits type R firearms to be stored in private homes. Type R firearms include machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, 50-calibre BMG weapons, etc. If you can get the license you can store it in the home. Getting the license for a Type R weapon is kind of tough, though.

So in short, your understanding of Australian gun laws is flawed. I suggest that you read up here. (http://www.ssaa.org.au/newssaa/securitylegislation/storetransport.html#act)


Anyway, its going over old ground.

Yes it is, but it clearly bears repeating.

Elliot

Fair enough Elliot. So given the fact that you say our guns laws is what makes this sort of thing never happen in Australia and then why don't you support the adoption of our gun laws given the fact that this sort of thing does happen in your country? That would make sense to me!

Skell,

Gun laws that allow any citizens to own any guns they want as long as they are properly stored? All for it. In fact, that is what I have been arguing for since day one. That's also what the NRA is in favor of. And just about any pro-gun person I have ever met.

That's what they have in Israel too... they have storage laws and legalized gun ownership for any citizen without a criminal record. And just about every citizen in Israel is armed (full carry is common there, by the way). They have lower crime rates and lower gun accident ates than anywhere else in the world.

So I'm all in favor of the types of gun laws that allow ownership as long as storage is done properly. Yeah, I'd adopt a system like the one in Australia that I have described... one that allows the citizenry to be armed to the same level as the military. Why would you think otherwise?

Elliot

I just find it astounding that one of your main arguments for gun ownership is to ensure you and your families safety, yet you now claim to support guns being locked away and stored as above. You claim that guns is what prevents crime on the streets. It prevents intruders entering your home. It prevents you being mugged in the street. It prevents rape and violent crime. You claim that guns are needed to be carried by the public in order to shoot down the mass murderers before they kill many more. How can this be done if the guns are locked away safely in storage as described above? That doesn't stack up.

You present a nice case above with respect to gun laws in Australia. But you only present a small part of the case. The small part that involves Storage and Transportation of LICENSED fire arms.

You fail to present the case that outlines the Act in relation to gaining that License.

"1. Licensing requirements

Section 12 of the New South Wales Firearms Act 1996 sets out a comprehensive table detailing the "Genuine reasons for having a license". Included are the following:

* Sport/target shooting.
* Hunting/vermin control
* Primary production.
* Vertebrate pest animal control.
* Occupational requirements relating to rural purposes.
* Animal welfare
* Firearms collection."

Citizens can not own a gun or obtain a License for self protection or uprising against the Government which has always been your main argument for gun ownership.

And even those with Hunting Licenses can only use it on privately owned land and for the purposes of pest control.

I know my countries gun laws Elliot. In fact I know ALL of it. Not just the small part you tried to present as evidence of guns in every home. That's just simply incorrect.

But I'm glad Elliot that you are happy to have laws similar to ours implemented in the US. That is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. It just means that you will also be happy to give up that assault rifle you carry, or at least obtain a license to use it legally for sport shooting at a Rifle Range or on your farm to keep those pesky rabbit numbers down.

Other than that you simply won't be allowed to legally own it.

We're making progress though Elliot. I never thought I'd sway you that's for sure. :)

P.S. I don't like to take my statistics from Shooters Associations. They are biased and irrelevant in most cases. I much prefer to use the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other much more respected organisations such as I have when presenting you with the numbers and crime statistics previously.

So Elliot are you really willing to have the US implement laws like this? Im interested.

The 2nd amendment is very clear about both the right of individuals to "bear arms".....AND the right of the states to regulate them ("necessary to the security of a free state" Elliot is right .The 2nd amendment guarantees primarily the right to stage a revolution against a State that is no longer free.

BTW ;the Bush Adm .made a terrible blunder this week in their Amicus Brief of District of Columbia V Heller http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf

The lower court ruled in favor of the individual to own guns ;the DC law had banned all hand guns and rifles in the district. But the question remained ;which weapons were permitted and which laws could the locals could adopt.

The court had ruled based on the the weapons ordinary people owned in the Founding eraaccording to the second Militia Act of 1792 that :

"It follows that the weapons described in the Act were in 'common use' at the time, particularly when one considers the widespread nature of militia duty.. . [T]he Act distinguishes between the weapons citizens were required to furnish themselves and those that were to be supplied by the government . . . The Act required militiamen to acquire weapons that were in common circulation and that individual men would be able to employ, such as muskets, rifles, pistols, sabres, hangers, etc., but not cumbersome, expensive, or rare equipment such as cannons." The court went on to say that
"The modern handgun -- and for that matter the rifle and long-barreled shotgun -- is undoubtedly quite improved over its colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller's standards. Pistols certainly bear 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' They are also in 'common use' today, and probably far more so than in 1789."


The court also ruled that Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to carry a concealed weapon that gun registration and proficiency testing are acceptable. Prohibitions on gun ownership by people who exhibit "insanity or felonious conduct" don't infringe a constitutional right.

So the Bush Justice dept ;interested in maintaining Federal Assault Rifle bans write in the brief the following .
"The court's decision could be read to hold that the Second Amendment categorically precludes any ban on a category of 'Arms' that can be traced back to the Founding era. If adopted by this Court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns."
(I will not get into the absurdity of this argument .If machine guns aren't traceable to the weapons of the 18th century then neither is any other modern rifle.)
In other words ;according to the Justice Dept. some guns are "lineal descendants" and some aren't .

Further when discussing which regulations are acceptable the Justice Dept argues that
courts "should consider (a) the practical impact of the challenged restrictions on the plaintiff's ability to possess firearms for lawful purposes (including the nature and practical adequacy of the available lawful alternatives), and (b) the strength of the government's interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction." In other words the courts should consider what degree of infringment of the 2nd Amendment is acceptable.
The Bush adm. Has had a pretty good record regarding 2nd amendment issues. But with this brief they should consider turning in their NRA cards .

Skell,

I fail to understand your confusion over the idea that when a gun isn't being used it should be properly stored.

In Israel, everyone is armed. And yet they also have strict gun-storage laws that require double locks, never leaving a weapon unattended, etc. Violation of those laws is subject to some pretty severe punishment, inluding long prison sentences. If the weapon is not currently on your person, it should be stored properly. Storage laws do not prevent full carry.

I have no problem with such laws in the USA. When a weapon is not being used (carried) it must be properly stored in lock-boxes or safes. What's confusing about that?

But the key part of the law is that full carry should be permitted. One should be able to carry any weapon for which one is licensed. (After all, as you point out, what's the use of getting a license for a weapon that you can't carry with you. Kind of pointless to not have the weapon on your person when you need it. You can't exatly tell a mugger or rapist, "Wait here, I have to run home to get my gun.")

Australia clearly has such provisions, and three quarters of a million people (roughly 4% of your population) manage to obey those laws.

Again, I can't really understand your confusion.

Yes, I would have no problem with storage laws in the USA. I would also have no problem with a requirement for a weapons-safety course before licensing, similar to a drivers' education course needed for a drivers license.

What I have a problem with is the arbitrary banning of guns because "guns kill". Or even more idiotic, the banning of CERTAIN guns because they kill more than other guns... and then using such things as length of barrel, configuration of hand-grip, etc. to determine WHICH guns you will ban.

Here are some of the idiotic criterion that determine whether a weapon is an "assault weapon":

A detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds (5 rounds for shotguns).I had no idea that the military only uses 10 rounds at a time. And here I thought that a typical assault rifle used by the military uses a 30-round magazine. So why the arbitrary 10-round limit, which has NOTHING to do with assault weapons?

Military-style appearance, including semi-automatic replicas of military selective-fire assault rifles and machine guns


So if it LOOKS like an assault rifle, it's therefore more deadly than other weapons? Huh?

A folding or telescoping stockI have never seen anyone shot by the stock of a rifle. What does the configuration of the stock have to do with the deadliness of the weapon?

Attached grenade launchers such as the M203 or rifle grenadeNever seen a street-crime take place with a grenade launcher. Not even an illegal one. Have you?

On rifles and shotguns, pistol grips that extend vertically from the stockNever seen anyone shot with a pistol grip either.

A bayonet lug
Not the actual bayonete... just the ring to hold it. And for some reason adding a knife to a gun makes the gun more deadly? Might as well just carry the knife, then, since by itself there's no ban on the knife.


Threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, muzzle brake, or sound suppressor
I have no idea what makes a weapon with a silencer more dangerous. Suppressors slow the speed of the bullet, decrease the range of the weapon, and make the weapon harder to hide. What part of this makes the weapon deadlier?


Weapons that include a barrel shroud
Huh? This one makes no sense to me whatsoever. Are they saying that if you take the barrel shroud off an AK-47, and wear gloves instead to protect your hands, that AK is no longer an "assault weapon"?

On pistols, those on which the magazine attaches outside of the pistol gripNever seen a weapon shoot from the magazine either. Who cares where the weapon keeps its bullets?

A forward mounted pistol gripAgain, never seen anyone shot by the weapon's grip.

What is NOT talked about is the size of the round (except in California where weapons that fire the .50 BMG round are specifically prohibitted), rate of fire, muzzel velocity, effective range of the weapon, or anything else that actually determined the lethality of the weapon. The criterion above are completely arbitrary and are NOT indicative of the lethality of the weapon. Banning weapons based on those criterion is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. Banning any gun as "more deadly" than any other is ridiculous. Dead is dead, and one gun is not going to make someone MORE dead than any other.

Here's a hint. No gun has ever killed a single person, ever. Guns don't kill. PEOPLE kill. Guns are just the tool that people use to do their killing. Sometimes people kill by accident, by leaving a weapon unattended. But it is still the PEOPLE that kill. Banning the guns won't stop the people from killing. They will either get the guns illegally, or they will find another implement, like knives, sticks, stones, or bare hands. Banning guns neither decreases the number of people killed, nor decreases the amount of crime.

But guns, when owned and carried by responsible people who are trained in both their safety and their effective use, can prevent those people from being victims of crime. It can also prevent government abuses of their rights and freedoms.

BTW, your government in Australia allows individuals to apply for a class-R license, which includes personal ownership of machine guns and other assault weapons. If we implement Australian gun laws here, it wouldn't require a ban on "assault weapons". For that matter, as I mentioned in a prior post, the Class R license allows for ownership of BMGs, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. And no, there is nothing in the law that says that they are only for use at sport shooting ranges. Basically, if you can afford it, you can carry it, if you have the license.

And I don't carry an assault weapon on my person. Wish I did, but somebody decided to ban them. Based on the idiotic criterion mentioned above.

Elliot

What's your definition of "being used"? Shooting someone, or just carrying for self protection?

You ignored my point about reasons for which one can obtain a license and down here self protection isn't one of them. Did you read my post?

So no, you don't support our laws. You only support the part about Storage. And that is insane, because as you say, you need it for self protection against muggers and rapists. So therefore you need it all the time. It would never be stored, so a law on storage would be pointless. That's what confuses me.

Or are you saying when you get home at night you lock it away and just pray to god you don't have a home invasion from a gun yielding maniac that you claim roam freely everywhere?

You want people to carry guns for self protection but you also want them stored when not needed. Tell me when exactly that is please Elliot?

My previous post deals with reasons one can obtain a license and the restrictions to Licenses. Its quite clear. Our law does not allow one to carry a weapon simply if they have a license and can afford to buy it. That's simply incorrect.

Sorry Elliot, my knowledge on weapons isn't up to your standard because of the simple fact that I don't own one. I don't need to. We don't need to. But I also know we do have laws relating to knives too.

Your argument gets weak when you bring out the old "guns don't kill people, people do".

No banning guns won't stop people killing people. I never said that. But it will help stop the slaughter of innocent kids sitting in a class room minding there own business like at Virginia Tech. Ive proved that to you time and again using statistics that show gun laws significantly reduce mass murders which are presently at an unprecedented level in the US.

Have a nice weekend.