President Obama says he supports the 2nd ammendment, Eric Holder the AGUSA does not. He can deny all he wants but look at regulations VCDL reports that he brings forward. The problem is really simple if looked at from afar.
I am a former police officer and at the time it was legal for people to own firearms in DC, Md was less restrictive (no waiting periods), Va was free as it has always been. I now work for a local utility in the metro area.
When dealing with the public, the vast majority of the people are law abiding citizens in all jurisdictions. The problem comes with the prosecution of criminals. Our legislators have complicated our judicial system to the point it is hogtied. Cases should be tried on the merits and evidence of the case and any technicalities that arise should be addressed at a later time. At no time should a violent criminal be released on a technicality or a case thrown out. If evidence directly related to the case was collected improperly then retraining is in order. That does not imply that evidence can be fabricated which is another crime in itself.
We as law abiding gun owners have to continue our fight for what is right but we also must support prosecution of illegitimate use of firearms, just as we would support the prosecution of a criminal that bashes someones head in with a hammer both are crimes both should get maximum time. We need to show our existing legislators new laws are not needed and some need to be rescinded to free up time for enforcement laws that are viable and serve the majority of Americans.
Sailorcurt's Response:
I agree that we as gun owners should (and I believe that we do) support prosecuting criminals to the fullest extent of the law.
However I disagree that "technicalities" shouldn't be valid justification for the dismissal of charges or the suppression of evidence.
The rules of collecting and processing evidence are a direct result of the rights endowed upon us by our Creator and protected by the Constitution. If "technicalities" are not used to suppress evidence or dismiss charges, then what safeguards are left to protect us against self-incrimination, illegal searches and seizures, denial of competent legal representation, etc? If we treat blatant violations of our most basic rights as mere administrative mistakes, remedied by "retraining", the Police would be doing a whole lot of retraining and citizens would have no rights and no recourse.
Liberty and Freedom don't come cheap. If protecting our rights means that some violent criminals go free, then so be it. Better that than a totalitarian police state that would inevitably result from a system wherein the Police are afforded virtually unlimited authority to violate our rights with no repercussions other than "retraining".