This is a well-meaning but not terribly useful bill, Mike. I think the confiscating US Officer needs to be held personally liable, including criminal penalties, and it should permit deadly force resistance as justified homicide - provided, of course, you were in fact not a felon or other disqualified person. Otherwise, what does it really do? We give worse penalties than fines for other civil rights violations, don't we?

A civil penalty doesn't mean much to me anyway. You're not taking my guns in the aftermath of a hurricane and leaving me and mine defenseless, Mr. Government - that's why I have them in the first place. You can't try me if I'm dead, so I'll take my chances with a jury. I'd feel a lot better about those chances if Rep. Jindal's bill had my conditions in it.

Thanks to Bivens v. Six Unnamed Federal Agents, civil liability means more to federal agents, than to you. I don't think it would be wise to grant an absolute right to posses arms under all conditions anyhow. I'm happy with a law forcing the feds (or those working in a federalized emergency zone) to have a statutory basis for confiscating weapons prior to doing so. For the most part, a warning shot was needed here, not a hanging.

" I want to make pederasty punishable by death."

shit...there goes the Catholic church. Oh, well, at least we'll have "The 700 Club".

Bivens v. Six Unnamed Federal Agents kinda says it all, doesn't it, Al? So, if you survive, you can sue an unknown federal agent for violating the Constitution? Yippee. I can get some of my own tax money back! Unless, of course, I'm dead.

A warning shot? This needs a hanging, shooting, stabbing, then run over by a truck prohibition, Al; the Fed track record (Ruby ridge, Waco, etc.) demands it. Federal agents who know they can be shot with inpunity if they're the ones violating the law would certainly be more inclined to respect our 2nd amendment rights. I don't see how a fine paid by someone else is going to mean anything to them at all, or provide any kind of deterrent.

Otherwise, like I said, this is just a Republican window dressing to cover their blunders elsewhere.

Joe, as long as there have been police, there have been abuses of police power. I'd submit to you that enforcement of the laws meant to deter the abuses - whether the enforcement comes by way of criminal law, or "private attorneys general" as plaintiffs in constitutional tort claims have been described - is the way to remedy police abuses. If you want to see some really itchy trigger fingers, start telling the DEA and FEEBs and ICE and Secret Service that they are

Federal agents who. . .can be shot with inpunity

I guess we can tell Agent Smith's wife, "Don't worry, Joe blasted your husband in the good faith belief that the raid was wrongful."

It works two ways. You can't undo the harm of a blown raid, but establishing a statutory right to blast away any fed found raiding your home is in the nature of declaring war on federal law enforcement, and contrary to the popular rumors, the vast, vast majority of federal agents spend the vast majority of their time raiding the right place and sweeping up people who desperately need to be swept up off the streets.

I have met very few federal agents in my prior law enforcement or current legal career with a cavalier disregard of the law, and most agents show far more respect for the law (and more consciousness of the results of potential abuses) than the average citizen. I am incredibly sensitive to the problem of police abuses, I actually know a bit about it as a professional matter, but I don't think that a license to kill issued to citizens is going to fix the problem. Bad management descisions, botched warrants, over-reliance on unnamed sources, and institutional bureaucratic errors are typically more at fault than the average GS-11 agent who gets sent up to kick the dooor in.

And read the damn act, ferchrissakes. All it does is amend the Stafford Act to prevent the needless confiscation of firearms during declared emergencies - i.e. Katrina & Rita, and the like. Ought we tell the good citizens, "If you feel like FEMA is wrongfully making you give up your weapons prior to entering the hurricane shelter, they are in violation of the law so blast away "with impunity."

About botched raids:

Liddy, some time ago, got into trouble because the usual suspects misrepresented his point.

He'd said if the law enforcement types raid your home wrongly, let them do it, stand aside and keep careful memories of the facts.

Nothing wrong with that.

He also said, though, that if they come in shooting, the best place to fire back is at the head on account of the body armor, and that your only choice anyway is to shoot.

Predictably, he was represented as saying you should always shoot at cops who come into your home.

So, if they come in shooting, at the wrong address, what does the householder do?

C'mon, Al. Don't truncate my statements to make strawmen. I purposely bolded Federal agents who know they can be shot with inpunity if they’re the ones violating the law would certainly be more inclined to respect our 2nd amendment rights. And I also specified ... and it should permit deadly force resistance as justified homicide - provided, of course, you were in fact not a felon or other disqualified person. I don't see how you conflate this to "establishing a statutory right to blast away any fed found raiding your home". I would consider it more the right to self-defense against Federal officers acting illegally.

Now, should Joe prove wrong about who is acting illegally, then we can indeed tell Agent Smith’s wife, "Don’t worry, Joe blasted your husband in the good faith belief that the raid was wrongful - and Joe's going to fry in the chair for it." On the other hand, I also want to be able to tell Joe's widow, "Don’t worry, the Fed who blasted your husband Joe in that illegal raid is going to fry in the chair for it." Or "The Fed who took your husband's gun and left him defenseless against the looters who killed him is going to jail for a very long time." I'd be ashamed to tell Joe's widow, "You'd better worry. The Fed who killed your husband still has his badge, and he's not happy you're suing him over Joe's wrongful death." Isn't that pretty much where your argument winds up? Where are the death penalties for Waco, et al? Where's the accountability - a fucking fine, fer crissakes?

The state has too much power already, dammit. I don't like giving supraconstitutional powers to cops - Federal, State or local, and protecting them from the consequences an ordinary citizen would face for the same acts is doing exactly that. And by my lights we can fry the "Bad management descisions, botched warrants, over-reliance on unnamed sources, and institutional bureaucratic errors [that]are typically more at fault" right along with "the average GS-11 agent who gets sent up to kick the dooor in." I'm fed the fuck up with our unaccountable government.

Look Joe, few people are tougher than me in wanting to impose accountability on law officers - Mike and I have discussed this offline, and he can probably tell you where I sit on some topics like this. But you don't do it by reducing a bust situation to a shoot/don't shoot for the person being seized - even if the search/seizure is wrongful. When a cop says stop, you stop. If the cop is wrong, sue him until his eyes bleed. Bivens lets you take his house and car. That is a *significant* deterrent.

Now, defending yourself in a wrongful shooting incident (such as where the cops come in firing) is a wee bit different. There is a big legal distinction, however, between offering a legal excuse for doing something that is generally wrong in the eyes of the law (e.g. self defense in shooting a cop) versus establishing a right to shoot a cop. How, exactly, is the cop supposed to distinguish between Joe Q. Citizen angry that his house is being invaded by 50 cops, and Joe. D. Druglord, who knows he is going down but would like to take a few of the pigs with him? It looks exactly the same to the cop coming in the door - "man with shotgun."

I know that's an imperfect situation, and no solution, just a band-aid; but the way to impose accountability on law officers is through the political process and the legal process, not by inviting Joe Public to shoot if he thinks its a wrongful raid. That path leads to various nightmare scenarios I'd rather not think about.

Bivens lets you take his house and car. That is a *significant* deterrent.

House and car? I read it was a $15,000. claim against each agent. I'm not a lawyer, Al so I don't know how to find the current status of this, or what the overall level of damage awards is in this kind of case, but it doesn't affect my argument anyway. I repeat: I have to be alive for you to try me, and he's welcome to my house and car if he proves to be right.

When a cop says stop, you stop.

Of course. That's not really under discussion; it's the escalation to seizure of a legally owned and/or carried firearm we're talking about, especially during natural disasters or civil disturbances. I claim the right to resist what is in fact an illegal act in violation of my constitutional rights as basic to those rights. It's the citizen version of a soldier's right to disobey an illegal order, or resist an unlawful arrest. Without this right, Al, we have no support for the right to keep and bear arms - it becomes meaningless. Are you really advocating that the feds can confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens for any reason, and that we should submit, surrender our arms, and then attempt to recover them through the courts? Hillary might still have that AG slot open, if you hurry ...

The right to sue does not substitute for the right to live, my friend. Among us non-lawyers, anyway.

There is a big legal distinction, however, between offering a legal excuse for doing something that is generally wrong in the eyes of the law (e.g. self defense in shooting a cop) versus establishing a right to shoot a cop.

True, but I'm not claiming a right to shoot a cop, I'm advocating a right to resist government agents when they are acting illegally.

In re polygamy: The late, great Jimmy Durante once quipped that he would never have wanted to be King Solomon of the 500 wives, because "When you get up in the morning, who wants to see a thousand stockings hanging in the bathroom?"

Ba-da boom!

" I don’t think it would be wise to grant an absolute right to posses arms under all conditions anyhow." - Al

Wise or not, the absolute right has already been stated, not "granted". Unless "shall not be infringed" in a document designed to outline the strict parameters of government power has a different mening in the dictionaries on your planet.
The Constitution doesn't "grant" rights, it recognises them.

You think it's "not wise", then the pathway to rectifying that's already been spelled out: ammend the constitution and repeal that ammendment. IF you can get a large enough majority to agree with you, and if those who don't believe their right comes from a peice of paper are willing to let you.

"That path leads to various nightmare scenarios I’d rather not think about." - Al

Have you perused Codrea's "The Only Ones" files at War on Guns? We're already on a path that's painful to think about.

*shakes head*