Saturday, January 16, 2010

You can pass a law, but you have to prove I broke it....

I had seen this article and it held my passing attention but when TOR sent me another link for my reference, I decided to post.... Here is the article that he sent.


Here is my opinion - the law states that it is illegal for me to fortify my home against possible entry by LAW ENFORCEMENT. Fine - I am thinking that this law is meant to tell crack heads that their meth houses can only have a deadbolt.


But what about the average prepper.....anyone who has read The Patriots....anyone who fears the end of civilization (I am kidding on this last one....sort of).....?? Does that mean that they have to leave themselves defenseless? I dont think so....

I believe that for someone to be prosecuted under this law, The Law would have to prove that you fortified your home against said Law Enforcement. I dont think a prepper applies.... We fear roving gangs, golden hoards, opportunistic thieves.


This law also specifically references the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. Meaning just what I said above - if you make Meth - sell anything that falls under this Act, and you fortify your home, you are breaking the law....


As a fellow Prepper.....I dont fear this law and will do what I see fit according to my dwelling.....


Pray - Praise - Prepare

10 comments:

Mayberry said...

The way I read it, it only applies if you're cooking meth. For now... But these things have a way of ballooning in scope. Which is easy to do once the basic law is in place. But I don't care what any law says, I will do to my property whatever I wish. I will do on my property whatever I wish (nothing that would harm anyone else in any way). Nobody will take my rights away from me, not with any law, nor show of force. That's my line in the sand...

Jim Fisher said...

If your cooking meth, why would you care if your breaking more laws. There got to be something else here.

Samuel Adams said...

Anymore, laws such as this are nothing more than legal tanglefoot designed to trip up the law-abiding citizen when TPTB cannot charge you with a legitimate crime.

Brad K. said...

Pearls,

1) I would be concerned that a bar across the door - certainly more secure than a deadbolt - would count. Or any kind of security bars or security grill or door.

2) I would also be concerned, that entry would be obstructed - and you would be liable - if they mistakenly *thought* they had the right place for a drug bust.

3) My own reading of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is that citizens have the responsibility and right to keep and bear arms, as deterrence against corruption and tyranny in government. That is, we are supposed to be able to defend ourselves from governments and police running amok, operating beyond the constitution, or otherwise threatening the basic premise of the US Constitution. At the same time, it has to be realized that *using* any weapon or tactic *does* violate the law of the land.

I think this is a horrible, horrible law. Obstructing an officer in the pursuit of duty, negligently hazarding an officer in the line of duty, and assault on a peace officer in the line of duty should provide all the legal means needed to cover any such incident as this law applies to. I would be surprised if these laws aren't already in place. In addition, preparing to repel or obstruct law enforcement officers in defense of criminal activity should be evidence of planning - that is, conspiring and premeditating to harm law enforcement officers in pursuit of their duty. Such aggravating circumstances should be pretty simple to prove, and provide enough stick that anyone that cares about another law, would be swayed.

What they should be doing is legalize the stuff, and send the IRS and Treasury agents after them to collect taxes. That will keep police out of the line of fire, anyway. Plus, like the tavern-keeper laws, it would allow friends and family to sue the distributors to recover damages caused by customers while under the influence. At least the lawyers would have something to do.

Western Mass. Man said...

" What they should be doing is legalize the stuff, and send the IRS and Treasury agents after them to collect taxes. That will keep police out of the line of fire, anyway."

With all due respect Brad K.,
so you remove the police and than substitute IRS and Treasury agents. Whats the difference? IMHO, taxing drugs, just ends up using those taxes for rehab houses and gives the gov't more power in your life. A viscous circle.
What happens when taxes keep going up on drugs? At some point, taxes may surpass the cost of growing or brewing drugs unless it's tied to sales tax. Just my 2 cents.

Sp00k said...

Pearls, you seem to have missed the fact that the way the System seems to work nowadays in this country is that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent (completely 180 degrees opposite to what it's supposed to be).

Samuel Adams said...

“The law states that to “fortify an access point” means to willfully construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed to injure a person upon entry or to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock or deadbolt.” That does not show the intent that “the fortification is for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer, or to harm or injure a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties.” Armed home invasions happen in the ‘hood, suburbia, small towns and in rural areas and it pays to take precautions.

The only way this law would be tested amongst the law-abiding would be if LEOs either mistakenly raided that address or fabricated some BS reason (i.e. numerous unpaid fines for failing to mow the grass) and then charges would be justified after a search “discovered” some planted evidence or analysis of the home owner’s computer “discovered” some recently downloaded child porn or “terrorist” web sites that were visited.

theotherryan said...

Doubt you and yours are going to get any flack for say having a heavy steel 'screen door' or the like. It was clearly targeted at meth maggots but this part "or attempted, and the fortification is for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer, or to harm or injure a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties.” did concern me a bit. Seems sort of vague.

In any case I try to send friends articles that seem pertinent to them.

Chief Instructor said...

As Jim Fisher noted, does anyone really think that a meth cooker is going to be bothered with a law against barricades?

This is akin to restrictive gun laws. They only harm the law abiding citizenry. The crooks don't give a damn about ANY laws.

GunGeek said...

It's like that law that prohibits hiding places in your car if they were put there for hiding illegal substances.

It's not that these laws are there to use against otherwise law-abiding folks when they can't find something better to use. These type of laws are there to use when they mess up on the real charges so they have a backup crime they can charge the criminals with.