Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Change in antigun tactics | Main | A good shot »

A question I wish Rand Paul would raise now

Posted by David Hardy · 7 March 2013 11:53 AM

His flibuster got the White House, rather reluctantly it would seem, to state that a President does not have "authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil."

Nice to know. Further question: do situations like Waco or Ruby Ridge constitute citizens having "engaged in combat"?

At Waco, the government deployed an M-1 Abrams and armored personnel carriers, military aircraft, and even a battlefield robot (which kept breaking down).

UPDATE: the "incident commander" had an Abrams. The building was broken up and gassed by Combat Engineering Vehicles, while APCs contributed CS gas projectiles.

· General con law

6 Comments | Leave a comment

CDR D | March 7, 2013 4:48 PM | Reply

Do Waco and Ruby Ridge situations constitute "engaging in combat"?

I don't think so. Ruby Ridge was the result of entrapment by the government.

Waco was not a federal issue, unless one is to believe that unregistered automatic weapons were involved and I've never seen anything conclusive about that.

The issue of child abuse at Waco was a State, not federal, issue.

So no. I'd say they were issues of self-defense rather than engaging in armed combat against the government.

JMHO.

wrangler5 | March 7, 2013 8:41 PM | Reply

Won't the feds just show up, wait until a shot is fired, then claim shots were fired at federal officials which makes it a federal matter?

(Me? Cynical? Nah.)

Jim K | March 8, 2013 8:47 AM | Reply

I don't remember a M1 being involved, the vehicle I remember smashing into the compound was a M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. The M728 is based on the M60 series.

Tom in Seattle | March 8, 2013 10:17 AM | Reply

Does the term "weaponized drone" include armed Federal agents?

Barbara Grant | March 8, 2013 3:42 PM | Reply

Jim K is correct that the M728 is built up from the M60. I don't know about other vehicles being used there.

Phiriuspimi | March 12, 2013 7:55 AM | Reply

There are actually undoubtedly lots of details like that to take into consideration. Which is an excellent point to bring up. I supply the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the 1 you bring up exactly where essentially the most valuable factor are going to be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if perfect practices have emerged about items like that, but I'm certain that your job is clearly identified as a fair game. Both boys and girls feel the impact of just a moment's pleasure, for the rest of their lives.


[url=http://cheapchinajordans.is-best.net/]cheap jordans online[/url]

http://cheapchinajordans.iblogger.org/

Leave a comment