(UD) With out prejudice "Your Signature"


PDA






ezoeni
January 2, 2003, 12:44 AM
How many people out there sign your government docs like this. Your drivers license, your pistol permit. others?


Just curious, and maybe there just might be a few legal types out there that can explain it better than me

If you enjoyed reading about "(UD) With out prejudice "Your Signature"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PATH
January 2, 2003, 01:14 AM
Could you please clarify and expound on this issue? I am a little lost on what it is you are asking.

ezoeni
January 2, 2003, 01:37 AM
Ill try I might not get it right. I was talking to a man about getting a CCW a years back. And he said whatever you do.

Sign it (ud) = under duress, with out prejudice - your signature


Now the UD is there for maintaining your constitutionally given rights to every American citizen. Meaning every one of us has the right to bear arms when we are a citizen in this country. If you sign a permit to carry a firearm you are signing a different agreement (state laws) and waving your constitutional rights.

Im not sure what "with out prejudice " was for but it was just as important

The same thing with the right to travel freely throughout the united states. But when you sign your drivers license. You agree to the restrictions of that document issued by what state you live in.

Basically the main thing I remember about the conversation was that most people dont even now about this and they sign there rights away on a daily basis.

The conversation I had was with a man that fought the ATF in a court battle and won. It was a impresive 15 minutes of listening

I need to talk to this guy again and have him run through it again. I thought maybe someone here might have more info as well.

Ill send a email over to him if I can find his card and get back here with more info

PATH
January 2, 2003, 01:59 AM
Thank you much. I am curious to know.

Blackhawk
January 2, 2003, 02:22 AM
Under duress means you're doing something that you wouldn't normally do if you weren't being compelled to do it.

If a gun's held to your head or your kid is being dangled over a vat of boiling acid unless you sign, that's one thing. But if you're applying for something or signing a tax return, it's something altogether different. In neither event does (ud) have any bearing on the fact that you signed something.

dinosaur
January 2, 2003, 07:44 AM
For years we signed our paychecks with "Under Protest" written above the sig. The checks even said something like if you don`t agree with the amount, sign it that way. This was because the OT and night dif were constantly wrong. It took months to get the overtime money.

Once they were computerized and we got the money in the next check, the wording on the check was dropped. I still signed all my checks that way until I retired.

2nd Amendment
January 2, 2003, 10:51 AM
If you're applying for a permit or signing taxes don't you have a gun to your head in a sense? I would never bother with a permit or taxes if the government wasn't holding the "gun" of imprisonment and financial disaster over me. All of this is accomplished by threat of force and thus literally under duress, no? The fact the government might not like you pointing this out doesn't change it. neither does the fact pointing it out won't help you a bit in a government court.

ezoeni
January 2, 2003, 12:24 PM
neither does the fact pointing it out won't help you a bit in a government court

Ive been thinking about that as well. I guess its a matter of principle.

It still gets a few of the LEO officers I have met a little PO'ed when they see it.

Apparently they dont like it.

Edward429451
January 2, 2003, 03:27 PM
Following is your recourse back into Common and Constitutional Law:

UCC 1-207

"A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest" or the like are sufficient."

UCC 1-207:4

"Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient such as "without prejudice."

This "Reservation of Rights" can be excercised by making the following notaion above your signature on contracts and agreements and other documents requireing your signature.

"All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" or "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207"

UCC Effect of Reservation of Rights 1-207:7 states:

"The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possess and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel."

Your greatest protection is provided by reserving your Rights in writing. However the code does state that it is not a requirement that such reservation of rights be written but they must be explicit:

UCC 1-207: 5 Form of Reservation, states:
"The Code does not impose any requirement as to the form of the reservation, other than it be explicit..."

(Explicit: Fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing implied.)

UCC 1-207: 6 Reservation by conduct, states: "Although UCC 1-207 authorizes the making of an express reservation, it is not to be deduced that there is no reservation of rights unless that section is followed. To the contrary, when the conduct of a party clearly shows that he has not waived any rights, the fact that there was no express reservation as authorized by UCC 1-207 is not significant."

The common debtor citizen, or someone interested in the Rights of American Citizens did not write the Uniform Commercial Code or its predecessors, the Law Merchant or The Negotiable Instrument Law. The history of this Code shows that it was originally created by barbarians to codify and give the semblance of legality to "robbery" by the creditors! These documents were written by and for the benefit of creditors, without any "seperation of powers" protections, without due process for the debtor, and without respect for any equity the debtor may have invested in property that the creditor may seize. Therefore, it is imperitive that you ALWAYS reserve your rights on all signed documents.

What does all this have to do with signing tickets, you ask?...

Edward429451
January 2, 2003, 03:54 PM
in any form, such as receipts, invoices, prommissary notes, financial agreements, contracts (of which tickets are a form of), checks and so forth are subject to the Uniform Commercial Code, period.

If there was a law that they could make you pay for speeding or whatever, then they wouldn't need your signature... Get it? By your signature on the ticket, you agree to the terms of the contract!

I always politely ask the LEO what would happen if I refuse to sign the ticket. They usually politely tell me that I would immediately go to jail. This has threatened my liberty and puts me in a state of duress or coercien. So I sign the ticket "under duress all rights reserved UCC 1-207"

Ever wonder why when you go to court the first thing they ask you to do is to waive your rights by signing different forms? If they ask you to sign, its red flag time, meaning do your homework first. If they could do it to you without a signature, they would, period.

How come if you murder someone in front of an LEO, he dont ask you to sign something? Hmmmm. There's a law that says Do not Murder, Thats why.

Theres a difference between laws and ordinances. Law says No Signature Required. Ordinances say: Sign Here, join our payment club. Most LEO's (No disrespect intended) are just glorified meter maids selling their product.

Homework done, Rant off.:cuss:

HTH's...

Wildalaska
January 2, 2003, 04:34 PM
Legally, the UD argument is worthless.

AK103K
January 2, 2003, 05:42 PM
I'll tell you this much, if you sign a contract with "All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice UCC 1-207", I'd be willing to bet that the people your signing with will refuse to do business with you, especially if financing is involved. I've already encountered this a couple of years back. A friend of mine, who still is fighting the IRS, and anyone else he can :rolleyes: had me try it to prove a point. It backfired and was my wife ever pissed! :) It was a contract for something she was buying. She eventually got it, but we had to go to a couple of places before we got the financing. When the boy at the bank saw that line above my signature, his eyes got wide, and he took the paper and ran out of the room. Came back in a bit with his boss and I was told that there was no way they could accept the document with that on it. He said if I wanted the loan, I'd have to sign a new contract without that on it or go elsewhere. I walked, and after trying two other places with the same result, gave up. If you want the money, you have to agree to their terms. As for the government and this issue, I dont know how it would work, unless it is tied to the commerical code.

Bill Adair
January 2, 2003, 08:45 PM
"under duress all rights reserved UCC 1-207"

Interesting.

Think I'll have my next order of checks printed, with that notation above the signature line. :D


Joking aside, why would signing any document forfeit your constitutional rights?

Can any legal contract (or document) abrogate your rights?

Bill

ezoeni
January 2, 2003, 10:46 PM
I dont know bill, thats why I posted this. For a discussion. and to learn.

Bill Adair
January 2, 2003, 11:51 PM
Well, I'm glad you did, as it's a pretty interesting thread.

Bill

AK103K
January 3, 2003, 04:29 AM
I believe that contract law has nothing to do with constitutional law. Your simply agreeing to the terms of the contract. Under the commerical code(UCC) you are agreeing to the terms of the code. Things have become so confusing anymore, you need a lawyer just to go to the bathroom with you to make sure the paperwork is correct. Just look at asset forfieture, its the government using civil law against you without benefit of constitutional law. I think you need to know what court your in at the time also, theres tax courts, contitutional courts, night court, kangaroo court, the food court..........mmm, I'm hungry! :)

Edward429451
January 3, 2003, 12:38 PM
Can any legal contract (or document) abrogate your rights?

Depends on the wording of the contract. You would think not but...lets just say you better read the fine print. In legal matters such as courts or traffic tickets, absolutely yes. They usually tell you this too..."Sign here, waive that, ben dover..."

I'm no legal eagle so you got to take this with a grain of salt and draw your own conclusions, do your own homework. I read this stuff, pretty much understand it, but is there loopholes for them? Presumeably so. Got a lawyer in the house? Hope so.

I've used this 'tactic' maybe 6 times over the years (in court) and its worked for me exactly once. They wouldn't admit it, did find me guilty orally, and gave no official recognition of any of my rights at all. I went on the record immediately saying I was denied due process and absolutely would not recognize the legality of the courts decision or pay the extortion (fine). I left, and never heard any more about it. No payment, no bench warrant, nothing. It never made the record, I'm paying the court for something else in payments and it never showed up on the record...Years ago. Judge with a bit of conscience?

No one hardly ever excercises their rights in court so over time they got used to just operating the system without them. Technically speaking, this stuff is the truth but its like the 2nd, you got to have a high priced lawyer to stuff it down their throats and even then they may laugh at you. So in a practical sense, wildalaska is right. Its not a defense thats viable at this point in history. Unless you're very brave or have a high priced lawyer or both, it wont get you anything but surrounded by all their machineguns and maybe dead. Then they'll splash you on the screen as a bad guy extremist type and give themselves medals for taking you down.

It is the truth though! If they ask for your sig, there's more to it than meets the eye.

Edward429451
January 3, 2003, 12:45 PM
I believe that contract law has nothing to do with constitutional law.

It has everything to do with Constitutional law. Every scrap of paper that represents monetary value in any way is subject to the UCC...But you have to wade through the volumes of legalese to connect it just like the tax code. Lots of exceptions, exclusions, procedure and timing to be followed to the letter or you get laughed at and lose.:banghead:

hammer4nc
January 3, 2003, 02:10 PM
Good topic. There are several technical legal concepts that fall into this category, i.e.:

Your name in "capital letters" on legal documents = a legal entity that has no constitutional rights;

Gold fringe on court flags = military tribunal, not bound to observe US constitution;

United States citizenship, vs. citizen of a soveriegn state, relative to constitutional rights and governmental powers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the internet, you can find practitioners of these devices saying its the key to avoiding taxes, prosecution, or other laws they don't like. These are very interesting to read and discuss, yes?

On various bulletin boards, the pragmatists come forward to reject these arguments out of hand, and point to the poor idiots who have ended up in jail because they tried to use said devices. However, you will note that most of the pragmatists are members of the law-related industry (attorneys, cpa's, etc.), who make quite a nice living from the "status quo". Yet, they never seem to be willing or able to argue against the concept on a legal basis; only on the practical results. Hence disparaging references to "fringers" that some may remember.

Likewise, when someone raises these issues in court, you would think the judge would praise the person for taking the time to research the letter of the law, and provide a direct explanation refuting or supporting the argument. Instead, I have observed judges getting very irate, ignoring the question, and prohibiting any further discussion as "irrelevant", and very soon threatening a contempt citation!

All the above leads me to the conclusion that the "rule of law" is a term paraded by the establishment when it suits their purpose; in reality "the law" is no more than what they want it to be...these days measured in revenue generated, or behavior required.

And the second conclusion, is the law is only as good as what can be forced on the population, which makes the second amendment so important.

AK103K
January 3, 2003, 02:41 PM
Lots of exceptions, exclusions, procedure and timing to be followed to the letter or you get laughed at and lose.
This pretty much sums it up. If your not up on every little thing, you will be bit in the ass, and it can be a very hard bite. I still dont see that its truly tied to Constitutional law though. If you have to waive a right in the "letter" of the contract, and the other party wont accept your "without predjuice" signature, you either walk and do without or sign and get(and loose, at the same time). Its all a game, its all tied to money, that part I'll agree with, then again, everything is about money, the more someone denies this, the more its true. This also goes for all the people pushing you to "bail out, stop paying taxes, etc. There is a lot of money being made with these, for lack of a better word, "scams". I've seen a number of them, and know people involved with them, some are in jail, or have gone to jail, and some dont pay taxes, and so far havent gone to jail, but they are playing that dangerous game of cross the "I" and dot the "T", and for their sakes, I hope they win, but at this point, it will be a hollow victory as they are loosing their health due to the battle, and have already lost most of their friends and familys. If you want to play at this, be ready to commit everything you have to it, your time, health, money, family, and friends. You may win(some of, or maybe all) the battles, but in the long run, I think you'll lose the war.

Wildalaska
January 3, 2003, 03:03 PM
WARNING WARNING WARNING to new readers, the above thread contains dubious legal theories that are COMPLETELY unrecognized and indeed totally WITHOUT SUPORT in law....

Use them at your own risk....:)

AK103K
January 3, 2003, 03:13 PM
Use them at your own risk....:)

Better yet, get someone else to use them at theirs first! :)

KP95DAO
January 3, 2003, 03:34 PM
Actually, I know a number of people who do this very thing.

They also all happen to be Federal inmates.

Edward429451
January 3, 2003, 05:53 PM
yeeeah, they're inmates, but inmates because they're wrong or inmates cause they didn't cross their t's in the proper order?

I assert that all of these 'fringers' cant be wrong. They're just too many of them for all of them to be wrong. There's something to this liberty talk but it'll likely take a full on revolution to get it recognized as valid.

So where's that leave us? Do we hike up our britches and stand in their face or pull down our britches and ben dover?

AK103K
January 3, 2003, 06:09 PM
I find it interesting you cant find any lawyers, or at least law educated people to help out with this. All the lawyers I've ever talked to pretty much shoot down most of whats discussed here. And before somebody says the standard response..."they are part of the problem, or they cant reveal this or that, or, they are members of the bar...." etc, thats all well and good, but if this was good as it sounds, there sure as hell would be lawyers there cashing in on all the big bucks to be made filing motions for us poor dumb peons. How about any lawyers out there jumping in and explaining the pros and cons of all this, instead of the same old stuff over and over thats always "just one little thing short" of being all there. Any takers?

Edward429451
January 3, 2003, 06:48 PM
If a gun's held to your head or your kid is being dangled over a vat of boiling acid unless you sign, that's one thing. But if you're applying for something or signing a tax return, it's something altogether different. In neither event does (ud) have any bearing on the fact that you signed something.

With all due respect sir, I'm not sure I get your point here. If you do not sign your tax form, you get threatening letters toseize your property, wages, etc., and if resistant or unresponsive to the threat letters, we all know they'll eventually show up with guns and kill you or wreck your families life at the least. So its all UD. Unless I missed your point somehow?? How is it different?

terry1164
April 27, 2005, 12:37 AM
I used All rights reserved UCC 1-207,1-103 on a traffic ticket and the rent a cop had no clue.When I went to court the judge (the head lizard)said who ever wanted to go to trial please step forward and one pinhead marched right up and signed away his rights by transfering jurisdiction.I just sat still. when the judge called my name I stood up.The judge asked me If I understood the ticket and I responded with a "no" he then asked if I understood that I could have an attorney and I stated "yes" and then he asked If I wanted to take this case to trial and I said "yes" Boy did his eyes light up.I then ask to address the court and he answered "NO" (He knew I was going to explain the UCC 1-207,1-103 on the record and he did not want that because when anything is signed with UCC 1-207 IT CAN NOT BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORED)your business with this court is finished please see the officer in the next room to transfer jurisdiction to the county court.The officer said just sign right here and well get you to trial.I just smiled when I saw what they were trying to do.This form had an order allready signed by the judge at the bottem , I wanted to have some fun Sooooo I scrached out the word defendant and then wrote all rights reserved UCC 1-207,1-103 above where my name was going to be and the officer said "Stop you cant do that"and I said are you giving me legal advise she reponded with your the defendant right and I said "No Im a witness".I asked for a copy and she gave it to me.Thats the last thing Ive ever heard from them.

cracked butt
April 27, 2005, 12:51 AM
With all due respect sir, I'm not sure I get your point here. If you do not sign your tax form, you get threatening letters toseize your property, wages, etc.

From a person who has made a mistake on a tax form and has been contacted by the IRS about it, they do not send you threatening letters, only a letter or form to sign to correct the problem. No threats to burn your house down, deport you, or otherwise have jackbooted thugs bring the heavy boot of government down on yur neck.


and if resistant or unresponsive to the threat letters, we all know they'll eventually show up with guns and kill you or wreck your families life at the least.

Not at all. They will send you something much more vicious your way- legal forms and lawyers. Like it or not, and in most cases for most people (NOT), paying taxes is an obligation of being a citizen of your country. We all have freedom and priveledges, but with those comes responsibility.

WARNING WARNING WARNING to new readers, the above thread contains dubious legal theories that are COMPLETELY unrecognized and indeed totally WITHOUT SUPORT in law....

I should have stopped reading at WA's post. Its about the only post that makes any sense.

Alex45ACP
April 27, 2005, 12:51 AM
Why are you just telling me about this now, this info could have come in handy earlier today... :banghead:

gc70
April 27, 2005, 01:16 AM
Take OFF the tinfoil hat...

If there were really super-secret little phrases that you could write on documents to let your avoid the law, or not pay taxes, or not honor contracts, don't you think that those secrets might leak out and become common knowledge?

Better yet, don't you think that big, sophisticated companies with battalions of high-priced lawyers would use those super-secret phrases to trump every deal they entered into? But you won't find it happening and it is not because they wouldn't do something like that if they could.

Regarding the banker who wouldn't take loan documents with the super-secret phrase written it: he was not scared of the supposed legal impact of the phrase, he was only acting out the role of the normal front-office robot who can't handle anything out of the ordinary. You can get the same reaction by going to the post office and declaring that you want to mail a bananna to Tanu Tavu - there is no vast government conspiracy against mailing fruit to that country, but the postal clerk will go a little crazy trying to figure out what to do.

thorn726
April 27, 2005, 06:47 AM
hehehehe AK103k - i gotta say- hahaha you tried this on something where someone was lOANING you MONEY?? are you kidding? what are the implications there??????

oh well, although this is all pretty interesting, seems like in the end, it isnt going to do much but raise eyebrows

BeLikeTrey
April 27, 2005, 12:17 PM
:)

LawDog
April 27, 2005, 12:48 PM
If there was a law that they could make you pay for speeding or whatever, then they wouldn't need your signature... Get it? By your signature on the ticket, you agree to the terms of the contract!

No, your signature on the ticket is a PR or OR bond to appear in court. By signing, you promise to appear before a judge.

I always politely ask the LEO what would happen if I refuse to sign the ticket. They usually politely tell me that I would immediately go to jail.

That's because by not signing, you have refused to sign a bond, and they can't release you.

How come if you murder someone in front of an LEO, he dont ask you to sign something? Hmmmm. There's a law that says Do not Murder, Thats why.

No, it's because most jurisdictions won't release someone accused of Murder on a PR or OR bond. If a person accused of murder posts a surety or cash bond, then he signs that bond and is free to go until his trial.

Theres a difference between laws and ordinances. Law says No Signature Required. Ordinances say: Sign Here, join our payment club. Most LEO's (No disrespect intended) are just glorified meter maids selling their product.

No, according the Black's Law Dictionary an ordinace is a law passed by a municipality.

LawDog

dustind
April 29, 2005, 07:04 AM
gc70: Signing something as under duress is not that secret, or complicated to understand. Of corse no buisness would do buisness with any person or buisness that claimed to be under duress, the contract would truley not be valid.

bmn2
December 14, 2008, 01:50 AM
Take OFF the tinfoil hat...

If there were really super-secret little phrases that you could write on documents to let your avoid the law, or not pay taxes, or not honor contracts, don't you think that those secrets might leak out and become common knowledge?
Yeah courts and lawyers do it all the time. When you go to court they already have all their pieces on the chess board
i gotta say- hahaha you tried this on something where someone was lOANING you MONEY?? are you kidding? what are the implications there?
Banks don't actually loan money, your signature on the loan paper CREATES the credit.

gc70
December 14, 2008, 02:21 AM
ZOMBIE THREAD :eek:

Banks don't actually loan money, your signature on the loan paper CREATES the credit.

With that epiphany, you can skip the middleman (the banker) and just put your signature on your own paper to credit money.

John E.
December 14, 2008, 03:17 AM
With that epiphany, you can skip the middleman (the banker) and just put your signature on your own paper to credit money.

Sure, there just remains the issue of finding someone who will accept that paper in exchange for goods or services.

JohnKSa
December 14, 2008, 03:36 AM
I assert that all of these 'fringers' cant be wrong. They're just too many of them for all of them to be wrong.The lemming theory...

Frank Ettin
December 14, 2008, 04:11 AM
Well as a lawyer and member of the bar, I'd want no part of this sort of thing. It would be a wasted of time and energy. And the Uniform Commercial Code applies only to types of transactions covered by it. If your going to pay your taxes or get a driver's license or cash a check or apply for a loan or borrow money, etc., sign the thing and get on with your life. If you don't want to sign, either skip the thing or fight it in court.

At the first opportunity, I'll unsubscribe from this thread so that I can put away my tin foil hat.

Treo
December 14, 2008, 04:19 AM
You can get the same reaction by going to the post office and declaring that you want to mail a bananna to Tanu Tavu - there is no vast government conspiracy against mailing fruit to that country

As a matter of fact there is an anti fruit mailing to Tanu Tavu conspiracy. The New World Order is trying to starve them into submission.

That said, I am now going to put my own super secret little code phrase above my sig line. It looks like this

IBTL :D

cassandrasdaddy
December 14, 2008, 11:25 AM
ed brown and friends get computer access from the house of many doors?

Maelstrom
December 14, 2008, 12:13 PM
I guess it's cute in theory.

COP: Sir, you are under arrest for lighting a school bus on fire that was full of blind, underage nuns holding puppies.

YOU: O.K. but I'm signing any paperwork you give me with a "UD" in front of it.

COP: Well, in that case, you have yourself a nice day sir. You're free to go.

JImbothefiveth
December 14, 2008, 12:44 PM
If you sign a permit to carry a firearm you are signing a different agreement (state laws) and waving your constitutional rights.
What rights do you give up?
The current interpretation of the second according to SCOTUS does not give you the right to carry a gun outside your home. It may or may not be correct, but that's how they interpret it, so that's the law.

Getting the permit lets you do so, with some restrictions, but does not restrict anything you would have without the permit.

JImbothefiveth
December 14, 2008, 12:49 PM
The same thing with the right to travel freely throughout the united states. But when you sign your drivers license. You agree to the restrictions of that document issued by what state you live in.
Again, what restrictions?

And the "right to travel" isn't even mentioned in the constitution.

Art Eatman
December 14, 2008, 01:24 PM
Looking at Post #27, I'd bet the judge just didn't want to waste tax dollars on a trivial matter. Regardless of all this guardhouse lawyer posturing, it costs money to do a jury trial, and even if the finding is "Guilty", the fine is a bunch less than the court costs.

Odds are, you go to futzing around with UD games when you go for a CHL, you're gonna not get a CHL. The sheriff will answer a question about not signing off with something like, "He's too nutzoidal to be allowed to tote."

DMF
December 14, 2008, 03:19 PM
The conversation I had was with a man that fought the ATF in a court battle and won. It was a impresive 15 minutes of listeningReally how about info on whether it was a criminal or civil case, and most importantly what federal district and case number, so that we can look up this case in the public record and verify whether his case had anything to do with how he signed documents.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that information.

DMF
December 14, 2008, 03:23 PM
Legally, the UD argument is worthless.Quite true, and until I saw that this wisdom came from WildAlaska I didn't realize how old this thread on tinhattery was.

Tamlin
December 14, 2008, 11:33 PM
A lot of people don't understand the simple rules of court procedure. If a judge is asking you if you want to take the case to trial, the ONLY thing that will be decided at that time is whether you want to go to trial or not. That's it. It's an Either/Or situation. If you say Yes, I want to go to trial, the judge says fine and sets a trial date. If you say No, then you will be pleading guilty in some form or fashion, either with or without the benefit of a plea agreement. End of discussion for today. Today is NOT the trial. Why would the judge waste his time (and every one else's) by letting you address the court on legal arguments, whether they have merit or not? There is a time and place, and procedures, for getting your legal arguments heard. File a motion with the court and ask for a hearing. You will get a special court date set aside just for you to make your arguments. The rules and procedures are in place not to disenfranchise people, but to make the court run as efficiently as possible. It's not hard to learn the rules - pretty much every court has them online.

average_shooter
December 15, 2008, 12:23 AM
Odds are, you go to futzing around with UD games when you go for a CHL, you're gonna not get a CHL. The sheriff will answer a question about not signing off with something like, "He's too nutzoidal to be allowed to tote."

And how does that work with shall issue states where the sheriff does not have that discretion?

Rob G
December 15, 2008, 12:53 AM
Odds are, you go to futzing around with UD games when you go for a CHL, you're gonna not get a CHL. The sheriff will answer a question about not signing off with something like, "He's too nutzoidal to be allowed to tote."

And how does that work with shall issue states where the sheriff does not have that discretion?

I'm just taking a stab in the dark here but I think the sheriff would likely say that the form was filled out incorrectly and therefore the whole thing is invalid.

Art Eatman
December 15, 2008, 01:28 PM
average shooter, even shall-issue has to get past NCIC. I figure a sheriff might call in about what he thinks is a person who shouldn't be allowed to tote, and at the very least there'd be some red-tape delay...

The subject of this thread reminds me too much of guardhouse lawyering and tinfoil hattery. What sort of border around a flag in the federal courtroom and all that stuff. I've been hearing this stuff for over half a century, and about all I recommend is adding to the amount of Reynolds or Alcoa in your stock portfolio.

I'd expect it from the sorts of folks who dreamed up the "Montana Militia" and the "Republic of Texas" con games. Out of touch with reality, and absolute misinterpretation of the meanings of the various laws. Or, looking at laws which have been wiped out by later legislation.

Jeff White
December 15, 2008, 02:44 PM
And with Art's final comment this one is closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "(UD) With out prejudice "Your Signature"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!