Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Oregon: SO It Begins: FBI uses RFL to seize guns from former Marine

  1. #1
    specops56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    631
    Rep Power
    291

    Oregon: SO It Begins: FBI uses RFL to seize guns from former Marine

    The FBI exercised Oregon's new "red flag" law to confiscate firearms from a former Marine who allegedly said he would "slaughter" antifa protesters at a demonstration in Portland earlier this month, according to the Oregonian.

    In July, Shane Kohfield threatened to kill antifa members who he feared would take up arms against right-wing activists. He made the threats on a loudspeaker while donning a "Make America Great Again" baseball cap with a knife and a copy of his concealed carry permit strapped to both shoulders.

    "If antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, Im going to kill them next," Kohfield said outside of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler's home. "Id slaughter them, and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out antifa."

    FBI's Joint Terrorism Task responded within days to seize all of Kohfield's weapons. Agents cited the red flag law to temporarily confiscate the guns, though Kohfield had not committed a crime.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/....aughter-antifa


    Since when does the FBI have the authority to enforce state law? What crime did this man commit other than exercising his Constitutional right to free speech? When is the FBI going to start taking the weapons from all the ANTIFA terrorists that have not only made threats but committed actual violence?

    This is what Trump and the NRA wants to force up our arses!


    Terry
    " And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
    -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787

  2. #2
    Senior Veteran Ghoulardi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    PARMA!!
    Posts
    564
    Rep Power
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by specops56 View Post


    Since when does the FBI have the authority to enforce state law? What crime did this man commit other than exercising his Constitutional right to free speech?

    free speech???? threating to kill people isn't free speech. same as yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater, or threating to kill the president, congressmen etc.... isn't free speech
    STAY SICK! AND TURN BLUE OVA-DEY!

  3. #3
    Senior Veteran The War Wagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    sw PA
    Posts
    356
    Rep Power
    151

    Angry

    The new city motto of Portlandia...


    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. - John Adams, 2nd U.S. President -

  4. #4
    Senior Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    3,830
    Rep Power
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghoulardi View Post
    free speech???? threating to kill people isn't free speech. same as yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater, or threating to kill the president, congressmen etc.... isn't free speech
    Bull.

    These were not specific, credible threats, it was hot headed talk, which more often than not is empty. Everyone does it, very few follow through.

    The fire in a movie theater chestnut is so old I'm amazed anyone uses it still. Just more bull used by authoritarians to turn your rights into privileges revoked on their whims.

  5. #5
    specops56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    631
    Rep Power
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghoulardi View Post
    free speech???? threating to kill people isn't free speech. same as yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater, or threating to kill the president, congressmen etc.... isn't free speech
    So, are we now all content to allow the government to define for us what is and isn't our right to say? Nowhere in my copy of the Constitution does it grant the government the authority to limit my God given, natural rights. I guess if it's okay for them to limit what we can say then it must be okay for them to limit what arms we can keep and bear. Oh wait............. they already do.

    I'm not defending what he said or how he said it, I'm defending his RIGHT to say it. What crime did he commit that justified the government confiscating his guns without due process first? He said IF they start killing us, THEN we'll start killing them. He made no threat against any individual. I bet if I searched this forum I would find plenty of posts saying virtually the same thing. I guess any of you that have ever said or posted anything similar need your guns taken away, right? The only crime he committed was wearing a MAGA hat while he said it.

    Terry
    " And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
    -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787

  6. #6
    Senior Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    3,830
    Rep Power
    493
    For the sake of clarity, the flaw in the "fire!" line is that intentionally false speech is not protected under the 1st amendment. The mistake the left makes in using this particular example for the purpose of placating new infringements on your freedom of speech is that they focus on intent to justify the restriction rather than a more clear cut metric such as falsity.

    Only a mean, horrible, terroristic person would yell "fire!" in a crowded theater after all.... so they claim that restrictions "for the greater good" are acceptable, just as they will claim that in the case in Oregon restrictions on free speech better keep the peace of the community as a whole and are for the greater good.

    However, the more clear and repeatable way of looking at this particular example is to focus on the fact that the person who yells "fire!" may have thought there really was a fire, or they may have done it for a malicious reason, or just being an idiot getting a thrill. Although these touch upon intent, they will also be more generally supportable metrics than "the greater good". The left doesn't like supportable metrics because they are harder to bend to the needs of the moment, such as confiscating the weapons of anyone who makes wild threats against a preferred group such as antifa.

    One of the other ways of looking at the 1st amendment is that popular speech generally needs no protection - just look at antifa and the current state of the media & social media - but unpopular speech does need protection, not from the mob so much as from the .gov so eager to kowtow to the mob it perceives as a majority. This is all the more pressing currently when unpopular speech is decried as "hateful", "enraged", "racist", or "homophobic" when in fact it is most often just unpopular with the children on twitter.

  7. #7
    Senior Veteran jbruney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    3,436
    Rep Power
    330
    They push too far.
    Joe
    COG#1453

  8. #8
    Senior Veteran sdk1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,055
    Rep Power
    356
    the farce of "taking someones guns" saving everyone...... i just never make it past that part to the rest of the junk they say/do.
    say what you mean & mean what you say!
    TEC Tactical=SOT/07 i work there.

  9. #9
    New Recruit SheepDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    21
    Rep Power
    58
    Feds can't enforce state and local laws. Locals can't enforce fed law. The JTTF is a task force 'managed' by the FBI, but is composed of fed, state, county, and local officers. When the JTTF conducts an investigation, the case officer is from the appropriate agency, and brings charges, if any, to the appropriate court. That being said, why is a 'Terrorism' task force terrorizing law abiding citizens? Seems they would have plenty to do if they would actually investigate pAntifa.
    I stand with Kohfield. Hear that JTTF?



    And an article by Matt Bracken 'Dear Mr. Security Agent...'
    Last edited by SheepDog; 09-07-2019 at 09:29 AM.
    The environment in which were living has changed; therefore adapt and adjust accordingly.

  10. #10
    Cavalryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    865
    Rep Power
    192
    Part of the story is that he actually said that "If Antifa starts killing us" then he has a plan to slaughter them. As a conditional statement, it doesn't legally constitute a threat, which is why he wasn't charged with a crime. Which begs the question if a person doesn't commit a crime, what's the justification for confiscating their property?

Similar Threads

  1. Feds seize 1500 guns from man
    By RicePaddyDaddy in forum Current Events/RKBA
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-02-2013, 11:09 AM
  2. German police seize old weapons
    By RicePaddyDaddy in forum Current Events/RKBA
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-29-2010, 11:49 PM
  3. PSG clone begins..
    By texlurch in forum Cetme/HK
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-04-2009, 07:48 PM
  4. FEDS to seize Mosque
    By franks71vw in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-13-2009, 05:30 PM
  5. Anti-seize lube for fluted chambers
    By sbw9056 in forum Cetme/HK
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-21-2009, 10:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •