That is the answer, and I don't think confusion would play any part here.

If the kidnapping victim in this scenario somehow survives, they'll surely be held in custody pending trial. When it comes to legal firearm use, they would need to make the case that A) they reasonably felt in imminent danger for their lives, and B) that they acted to eliminate the threat. Even in an ideal world where a jury acquits them, they still get to live with "I killed someone".

If you're carrying, you have to have already been doing everything right before any incident where you are forced to eliminate a threat to your person. If you did anything provocative, you're fucked. After the threat is eliminated, you need to stop shooting, because if you take any harmful action after threats have been eliminated, you're fucked.

But the fact is that if you're in that situation, where you have to draw and fire, there's going to be multiple people (threats) on you. The odds that you are able to eliminate all of those threats before being killed yourself are low.

Beats a death camp.

Justified and legal in Indiana: https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/indiana-stand-your-ground-law

Oh, no. They would be shot.

Well great, cause I suddenly can’t remember ever firing my gun, must have just lost some ammo while walking around.

I mean today ICE even tear gassed a bunch of Chicago cops who were trying to clear a path out for them. The ICE thugs are cowards and will turn on local police in a heartbeat. (See also capitol police beaten on Jan 6.)

Yes

Yes, but they are obliged to. Police has no duty to protect or serve anyone, as per law.

sure it can take precedence, but they need to be able to show federal id to the cops to get that pass.

IANAL but the precedence means that federal laws supercede state laws in the case of a conflict or ambiguity. It doesn't (legally) mean feds can just do whatever the fuck they want with no interference from state LE.

Now, maybe there's a federal law that says certain federal vehicles don't require license plates. In that case, the federal law could override state laws requiring them. I have no idea if that's the case though.

Federal doesn't really allow them to do anything* they want. States actually have laws in place laying out when federal law enforcement can act. My state only allows them arrest powers in felony level crimes, as an example. If they really wanted to push back, they could cause quite the little row. Another example is driving without a driver's license. My state explicitly allows certain individuals to drive without one, such as military members. Even if you're a federale, that doesn't let you do whatever you want.**

*barring our current bitches in the feds not caring about what laws they break, and no one holding them accountable

**again, current practice is to seemingly ignore anything limiting actions

As someone already mentioned, federal takes precedence when there's a conflict between the laws. Federal agents don't just have immunity from local law. They still get arrested when driving drunk, even if they're on the job at the time.

in some places, but not where i live.

Hopefully easier to shoot.

Hopefully also harder for them to complain back.

This is why they only harass blue states. ICE wouldn't dare pull this shit in Texas. So many of them would get shot simply for stepping on someone's property.

"We" the collective population will never admit that. We were raised to believe that we are the good guys and the benchmark of freedom. Tyranny is something done by other people, different people, who aren't good like us.

So when 1,200 detainees disappear from one of our concentration camps, "we" can just tell ourselves they were probably JUST deported without due process. Or maybe it's just burocratic handoffs without a transparent paper trail. Surely none of them died in custody... We're all sure of that... Right?

Run with what skills and money?

Except most of the 2nd amendment people are kissing the dictator's ass and are willing to do it's dirty work... Even if you own 1500 guns, I doubt there much one could do against the biggest army of the world, in the era of drones, massive surveillance and AI.