[BHPshooter]

Now before any of you fly off the handle, just let me clarify that this is just for hypothetical discussion. That's all.

I am not considering carrying illegally, nor have I, nor will I. This is just for discussion.

Okay... Now that that's clear. I just read about Ohio's refusal to obey the constitution, and it disturbs me greatly. So, what if your friend, John Smith, decided that he wasn't going to be a state-guaranteed victim, and was going to claim his rights as they were intended -- he straps on his sidearm, and carries on his life as usual.

I know this would vary according to your state, but what would be the consequences if he were "caught" exercising his God-given right? Would he be arrested? What would be the "usual response" to his carrying a gun?

How would you feel, knowing that your friend is carrying a gun "illegally?" Would you support him in his decision, join him, separate yourself from him, turn him in, what?

I am just curious. I hope this can just be a light-hearted "what if" thread.

Wes

[TallPine]

What John Smith does is no business of mine, as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else.

But if he is really carrying concealed, then I shouldn't even know about it either.

[cslinger]

Well my take is this. You takes your chances you pays your debts.

If one did this, safely and responsibly, then they will still get arrested if caught because they are breaking a law. Whether a law is stupid or not does not mean you will not pay the consequences for breaking said law.

Now breaking the law peacefully could be a form a peaceful civil disobediance in an attempt to both garner attention and make another attempt in court to overturn said law. Now here is where the dice are rolled. There is a small, albeit, tiny chance you will actually make change and said law will be ruled unconstitutional and the people will rejoice.

Unfortunitely the reality is chances are you are going to the pokey and depending on the laws regarding the carrying of a firearm you may lose your rights to own any firearms.

So you takes your chances and you pays your dues no matter the outcome.

Whatever John Smith does he must make his personal decision and then if he decides to break the law he should do so as carefully, safely and responsibly as possible. He should also prepare to be well spoken and ready for discourse regarding his decision to pursue civil disobediance and not simply yell "hell yeah" it's my right praise the Lord and pass the ammo.

Now me personally, I think John Smith should get a nice knife and learn how to use it.
Chris

[MacPelto]

IMHO, for what that's worth...a man does not harm me at all, merely by carrying a gun.

So, hypothetically, if someone that I knew was carrying without the proper 'permit', particularly in a state with a situation like that, I would not castigate him - it is his decision, between him and the state, and he is the one who must live with the consequences. I will not second-guess, nor would I shun him because he values his life over the law.

[Mark Tyson]

In my area they don't take too kindly to the commoners arming themselves without master's permission. There would be serious legal consequences. I would tell John Smith to only do it if he's in serious peril.

[brownie0486]

Thefumegator :

Ask yourself what happens when you get caught breaking the law and it's a felony.

There's the answer to your question.

Yes, carrying illegally and being caught will bring about an arrest, most likely felony charges. If convicted, time in prison, criminal record at the least of it, and if not prison, probation.

Now use the unauthorized/unlicensed firearm to defend with and get caught. More charges will follow as a rule.

As to hangin with them? Nah, everyone I know has a permit that carries. I don't want them around me [ I am licensed to carry ] when they are violating the law.

Quick scenario,

Your friend and you are on the streets. You are licensed, he is not, you are both packing heat.

Something goes down, you both draw and discharge the weapons, or maybe do no have to fire them but witnesses call the cops who arrive on scene.

You show the permit, he has none. He is charged accordingly with numerous violations. It goes to court, you testify as you were part of the scenario and need to tesify as tothe circumstances. The DA finds out you knew your friend was armed with no license.

The chief hears about it, calls you into the station and asks for your permit and rescinds same for the very reason you knew you were in the company of a person committing a felony.

Bad judgement on your part he says, and now can't depend on your judgement skills and rescinds your license at that time.

See where this can go?

No thanks

Brownie

[Edward429451]

Ask yourself what happens when you get caught breaking the law and it's a felony.

Uh huh. Now ask yourself what happens when you get caught by a scumbag gangsta type with a cheap 9mm jonesing for a fix, and all you have with you is your 'lawful knife'.

I'd rather be broke & locked up than dead. My family thinks so too.

Maybe your widow could sue the man for poor judgement in not allowing you to defend yourself.

See where this can go?

No thanks.

:neener:

[Gordon Fink]

Now breaking the law peacefully could be a form a peaceful civil disobediance in an attempt to both garner attention and make another attempt in court to overturn said law.

I need a permit to carry a gun? :confused:

In all seriousness, though, I have often wondered why local and national RKBA groups don’t sponsor actions like those described by cslinger. Following the lead of other civil-rights movements, well-funded, non-violent demonstrations and protests could lead to success.

Why doesn’t this happen?

~G. Fink

[ceetee]

Tallpine said it best. Where I live, even if you dod have a permit to carry concealed, "concealed" means "concealed." If anybody happens to catch sight of your iron, even if you have a permit, it's called "reckless or unlawful display of a firearm," and you can go to the pokey.

I'd give up a bit of rapid access to gain complete concealment, and never let it be seen. And hope I'm never in a car accident.

What I choose to carry around with me is my business.

[B_Scott]

So that we are all on the same page and I can give you my (highly sought after) opinion - Does anyone know if it is a felony or a misdemeanor if John Smith is caught?
In Louisiana it is only a misdemeanor. If Ohio is the same then I would say that your friend made a good decision.

So really - I guess I would make a decision based on the consequences.
Would I join him? Hypothetically, yes. Really, no.

[RWK]

Presuming John Smith is detected carrying -- and he should not be -- a LOT will depend on the State (Ohio) law, on the attitudes of local law enforcement and local prosecutor, on the reputation and influence of Mr. Smith, and on local community mores.

For example -- and I am speculating, since it has been 35 years since I lived in Ohio -- let’s first assume Mr. Smith is a highly respect citizen of a small, rural Ohio village, who knows the Sheriff and the County Attorney, and who has never had any “criminal complications”. Under these circumstances, I would not be surprised if Mr. Smith was strongly cautioned not to carry ever again, but was not arrested or prosecuted.

However, now let’s presuppose Mr. Smith is an unknown, working class guy, who lives in downtown Cleveland. Further, let us presume the applicable State’s Attorney has political aspirations -- many do -- and the Chief of Police is firearms-intolerant. In this case, I fear Mr. Smith would be vigorously prosecuted and might go to prison, since there’s lots of potential media attention for the State’s Attorney and the Police Department in “being tough on gun crime”.

No one ever said life was fair . . .

[Erik]

"Would he be arrested?" Certainly. (Many LEOs will ignore if they can. Not all though.)

"What would be the "usual response" to his carrying a gun?" Arrest, prosecution, conviction of a misdemeanor; possibly a felony. (Familiarize yourself with the laws of anywhere you may be carrying.)

"How would you feel, knowing that your friend is carrying a gun "illegally?"" I have no friends who have admitted to carrying legally - see Brownie's post. (I also never ask.)

"Would you support him in his decision, join him, separate yourself from him, turn him in, what?" I would seperate myself from th individual - again, see Brownie's post.

Those willing to challenge via civil disobediance, more power to you.

Those merely breaking the law, the odds of you coming out as the criminal are higher than as the good guy. Just make an informed decision, and realize the consequences.

[Bigjake]

in ohio, any effective knives are banned as well.4 inches or better becomes a concealed weapon too. My stance is, if i feel the need, i'm carrying the dang thing and to hell with anyone who would take away my means of defence. I'd rather duke out the reprocusion in court for shooting some scumbag than be getting burried the same day.

[oldfart]

Interesting scenario. But I just happen to have a bit of experience with a similar situation.

I got mugged a few years ago by three hispanic gentlemen. They did a good job and I was leery of going out at night for quite awhile. Then I started carrying. I didn't see why I should have to ask permission to defend myself, so I didn't.

Eventually, my shirt rode up at an inopportune time and I suddenly found myself looking down the barrels of three Glocks. I was arrested and taken to a holding area where I watched TV until about 4 am, when my wife came to pick me up.

I was charged with carrying concealed without a permit. When the time came to go to court, the DA declined to pursue that charge since the gun wasn't concealed (if it had been, they wouldn't have seen it), but they did go ahead with a charge of carrying a loaded firearm within the city limits, a misdemeanor.

I explained to the judge about my experience with the muggers and that my neighborhood wasn't the safest place in town to live. He sat back and listened to me and then ordered me to take a two-hour gun safety course. He included, as part of the court order, a_statement that I was to be allowed to possess guns, though not concealed.

So, your Mr._Smith can probably expect anything from what I got to what some others have suggested he might get. It will all depend on the circumstances, the DA and the judge.
As a_side note, when the arresting_officers were 'taking me down', I was flat on my face on the sidewalk with my hands outstretched. One of them pressed his Glock against my head and told me that if I moved, he'd blow my head off. That's when he took my gun out of my belt. I remember thinking to myself; "With a Glock, he might not be close enough."

[grampster]

oldfart,

The IT guys at my office are sending you the bill for the keyboard cleanup and rewiring due to the short circuit from the coffee I spit up after innnocently being drawn in by your final comment. ROTFLMAO

grampster.

PS: I once transferred an older gentleman to the County "hotel" so that he could attend "classes" for a 30 day stretch for CCW. I asked him why he was carrying as he had never been arrested b/4 for anything, not even a traffic ticket. His reply......"Officer, I would rather have you catch me with it, than to have "them" catch me without it!"

[Keith]

When I lived in San Diego some years ago I carried illegally. The statute of limitations is long past, so...

Anyway, I had a compact 9mm S&W (don't remember the model) that I shot very badly - which was OK, because the gun generally jammed after a few rounds anyway...

I started carrying it after a very frightening experience on a freeway off ramp with some insane person who appeared to be freaking out on speed or pcp or something. I was able to evade that situation, but after that I kept the gun in my car, hidden out of sight but within quick reach. Or, at times, in my waistband at the small of my back - with no holster or anything. I didn't know much about handguns back then, but I knew I should have one!

It's a risky thing to do. At the time I was in the Coast Guard and I knew that cops would generally treat me pretty good in a traffic stop - they wouldn't dummy up some excuse to search my car since I was (sort of) in law enforcement, or at least military...

I figured I could get away with it, and I did.

And I would guess that if you look clean cut and have a late model suburban "white guy" car, you can probably get away with it as well. If you're black or hispanic or have long hair or something, you probably shouldn't try it.

Keith

[triggertime]

What someone chooses to do based on their own decisions is really no concern of mine. Sure, you can attempt to interfere and state your concern, but unless you are in that persons shoes, you really shouldn't interfere at all and you should just mind your own business.

Carrying illegally isn't really 'illegal' according the Second Amendment, it is just 'illegal' according to some misguided soul's interpretation of their own reality and the politics that accompany that interpretation.

As I see it, Bureaucrats work on the precept of ego and the emotions and the unnecessary fears of their insecure constituents. All of which should NOT apply to politics or to the laws that attempt to 'govern' us.

We are a diverse nation that shouldn't be mommied due to the irresponsibility of those who are unable to act responsibly or for someones inability to accept responsibility for their own personal safety. In otherwords, instead of depending on or expecting some outside party to rush to your aid in times of personal crisis, you should accept that responsibility yourself.

Now, I don't condone carrying illegally due to the ridiculous ramifications that accompany getting caught, but I'm not going to sit here and tell you to risk death or serious bodily injury either just because some egotist Bureaucrat thinks that you are automatically a danger to society the moment that you decide to accept responsibility for your own personal safety and go armed.

Life has many choices. But it is up to YOU to decide which path you choose to follow.

[Detachment Charlie]

Several years ago, I had a business office in one of Eastside Cleveland's more interesting neighborhoods. Leaving the office very late one night (1:15 a.m.), the Cleveland Police were in the parking lot. One patrolman noticed I had a S&W Mod. 10 tucked in my belt. The only thing he did was mention to me that I was probably a "little under-gunned" for the area.:rolleyes:

[Top_Notch]

I'm not sure exactly what the consequences would be, but if I get caught I'll let you know.

-Illegal in Illinois.

[hd1.]

I thought my state would never have a "shall issue" law.
To make a long story short (you can guess the details), I ended up being charged with "possession of an unregistered handgun". A misdemeanor here. Then,
twenty years later , we get the "shall issue law". One of the disqualifing misdemeanors is, you guessed it, weapons offenses. Fortunately for me, they only count against you from the previous eight years.
A lot of the states are closer to getting "shall issue". It would be a shame to be disqualified from legal carry by "jumping the gun".
But each person has to make his own decision. Like the man said "We take our own chances and pay our own dues".

[Dave P]

Grampster - do I have this right? This man was locked up for 30 days because he was carrying? I sure hope there were extenuating circumstances that warranted such a stiff penalty. Was this in MI? When?

Dave

[Okiecruffler]

I would have never carried illegally, that's just wrong. And it certainly wouldn't have been a Colt Pony in an Uncle Mike's pocket holster with a spare mag in in my back pocket. Nope it sure wouldn't have been.

Hey, concealed is concealed. If your caught carrying concealed then you're not very good at concealing. Like mama always said, "practice makes perfect."

[outdoorman63]

i used to live in illinois and we know illinois will never have a ccw..my job put me in a position of having my life and my family's life threatened on numerous occasions....did i carry illegally ..yes....did i like it ...no...but my and my familys protection came first....now i live in missouri and in a couple of months i wont have to worry what is illegal and what isnt...sometimes you have to do what you have to do whether you like it or not and pay the debt if you get caught...sucks but is fact of life

[Balog]

brownie0486 wrote:
Ask yourself what happens when you get caught breaking the law and it's a felony.

There's the answer to your question.


The difference is that carrying a weapon to protect yourself is a fundamental right acknowledged by the Constitution. A law contrary to the Constitution is illegal, and the citizen is under no moral obligation to obey. It is, however, true that there might be severe repercussions for doing so. The situation is similar to a soldier who is issued an unlawful order. Theoretically he doesn't have to obey, but he might be shot if he doesn't. D@mned if you do, d@mned if you don't.

He also wrote
As to hangin with them? Nah, everyone I know has a permit that carries. I don't want them around me [ I am licensed to carry ] when they are violating the law.

And what if our benevolent government should make it "illegal" for us [the citizens] to exercise other of our supposedly "inalienable" rights? If Islam or Christianity is outlawed, would you refuse to associate with anyone "packing" a Quran or Bible? If "population controls" similar to China's are put in place, would you refuse to associate with any woman "illegally" carrying a child?

See where this can go?

P.S. Remember that this country was founded by a group of "radical criminals" breaking the laws which infringed on those rights granted them by God [or by the natural law for the atheists :) ]. Rights like the ability to carry a weapon for defense.

[Penforhire]

I guess I understand what drives people to carry illegally. You can't take lightly the whole thread of "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." I am sad that many regions, like mine, make it near-impossible to carry legally. It is like insurance. For 10,000 days I may not need a firearm in my public travels. But on day 10,001 if I need it and don't have it, I just lost one side of the insurance bet (and possibly my life). On the other hand, if you are arrested for illegal carry you just lost the other side of the insurance bet (and possibly some or all of my freedom).

I don't buy the 2nd Amendment responses because that's getting into semantics. Either the law is clear or it is not. This law may not be a good one but it is clear. If you do so for the sake of civil disobedience, better you than I as a test case.

[WonderNine]

Brownie, I'm pretty sure that in most states if you use a gun in a self defense situation, you cannot be charged with a crime regardless of whether you had a CCW permit or not.

Anyways, I don't pay much attention to stupid laws. I'll have my day in court if it comes to that, so I'm not going to worry about it. I value my life and the lives of others far more than worrying about being charged with a misdemeanor. And as said above, concealed means concealed. Nobody should know anyways. There are plently of good powerful pocket guns out there that you shouldn't have to lug that Glock around IWB at work all day for somebody to notice.

[Edward429451]

Illegal in Illinois.

I believe the correct terminology would be Quasi-illegal...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes a law valid and legal? The man?:rolleyes: No my friends, We the people do. If you shirk your citizen responsibility to stand up for your rights, country and liberty, then yes, the law is legal to you. If you stand up and be counted as you have the responsibility to...then they better not try and staple an unconstitutional law to your forehead. We call that treason against the Constitution. Uh, there's lawful repurcussions in place for treason against the Constitution.

If you know the laws are UnConstitutional and choose to give in to the bully instead of fight, there's terms for that too.

Lets keep the playing field level. ;)

[BowStreetRunner]

tell your um, :::cough::: friend that it is a felony i blieve in OH
sad
:scrutiny: :barf:

[ceetee]

WONDERNINE: I'm pretty sure that in most states if you use a gun in a self defense situation, you cannot be charged with a crime regardless of whether you had a CCW permit or not.

It's better still to know the law in your jurisdiction... Where I live, if an armed intruder enters your home to commit a felony (i.e. burglary) and you have a way to escape (out a back door, say) you, the homeowner, are obligated to retreat.

The only time you are legally allowed to shoot him, armed or not, CCW holder or not, is to prevent a "forcible felony" (read this to mean a violent crime like rape, or murder) where you have no reasonable means of retreat...

The good thing is that Florida law is full of phrases like "reasonable and proper" and "where a reasonable person might believe"... so if you can sell a jury your story, you're okay. You're still going to do time in jail awaiting trial, though.

The old days of "If you shoot him outside, then drag his a** back inside" are over!

[Standing Wolf]

I've been carrying for a year. No one's ever noticed. No one's ever questioned me. I haven't received any speeding tickets, so I haven't spoken with any law enforcement officers, but I'd guess I could have received a speeding ticket without an officer noticing I'm carrying. I haven't committed any crimes. I haven't even mentioned the gun to anyone face to face, still less drawn it, still less fired it.

I don't mean to seem to encourage anyone to break any laws; conversely, I've never seen anything in the Second Amendment to justify those laws.

[Politically Incorrect]

In Ohio, I believe it is a fourth degree felony just above a misdemeanor. Of course, I've read a few accounts in the past were instead of plea bargaining, a few were acquitted of carrying a concealed weapon.

But with this new :cuss: ruling, I'm sure cases will tend to be prosecuted and DAs will try to force you to plea bargain for a unconstitutional law.

edited to add "If you plea bargain to a misdemeanor, you keep your guns"

Ohio Constitution on right to bear arms:

§ 1.01 Inalienable Rights (1851)

All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

[WonderNine]

I suppose in a state like Ohio I'd be a little more worried about carry concealed without a permit, but I'd still do it anyways until I got one. Around here? Please, I don't even think about it. I'll get a concealed permit when I get around to it....money is tight right now.

[Bill St. Clair]

In New York state, possession of an unloaded handgun without a permit (and registration of the gun) is a misdemeanor with a 1 year maximum sentence. Loaded (except in your home or business) and it jumps to a felony with a 7 year maximum. Loaded means that both gun and ammo are in your possession. Possession includes anywhere in your car.

[WonderNine]

"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" :rolleyes:

[RWK]

WonderNine,

I do not argue with your decision nor do I disagree with your stance. However, I must differ with your statement: “I'm pretty sure that in most states if you use a gun in a self defense situation, you cannot be charged with a crime regardless of whether you had a CCW permit or not.”

I haven’t done a state-by-state analysis and I do not have “the numbers”, but I can guarantee you that in MANY states your quotation (above) simply is not accurate. We all know that the “real anti” states (NY, NJ, CA, MD, DC, IL, DE, and so forth) have very strong “no firearms” laws. In DC and NYC, for example, it is a felony just to possess an unlicensed/unregistered handgun, even if it were clearly used to save an innocent’s life. Now, please don’t misunderstand, I believe these laws are an abomination, but they do exist and they are enforced.

Even in many of the “gun friendly” states – including several “shall issue” venues – a firearm cannot be legally used in ALL defensive situations. For example, in Virginia (a relatively pro-gun state) there must be an immediate danger of grave injury/death for lethal force to legally be utilized. MANY other states have similar statutes. Now, an individual prosecutor might – or might not – decide to pursue criminal charges, depending on the precise circumstances, the local political climate, his personal attitude and political aspirations, and several other variables.

There may be a few states (TX and SC ??) where a presumption exists that – regardless of the exact circumstances – if a criminal enters your home, deadly force can always be employed. However, these are more the exception than the rule.

With respect and regards -- Roy

[brownie0486]

"But your honor, it's an inalienable right to protect myself, see, it says so right here in the second amendment in the BOR."

"Yes sir, I'm aware of the BOR and the second amendment. Now let me show you the statute that you were charged with. "

"Now that you have seen the law which you violated, let me ask you another question, do you feel it is wrong and someone should be arrested for yelling fire in a movie theatre??

The guy answers in the affirmative. The judge asks him if he feels that yelling fire in a movie theatre is wrong and knows the law says so, why does he feel it's wrong as the first amendment states the right to free speech.

Using the second amendment as a reason to break the states law is no reason at all. If everyone used that reasoning, everyone would disobey the law when it suited them stating it was an unjust/unlawful law [ in their opinion, which then makes it okay to break the law ].

Don't think so.

As to using an unregistered/unlicensed gun to save your a$$, in this state you will be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawfully discharging a firearm within restricted area [ possibly ], and unlawful possession of ammunition.

Lets take one closer look at an analogy again with some thinking caps here.

The gangbanger gets caught carrying illegally as well. He uses the BOR 2nd amendment as his defense that the law is unjust. Are we to let the bangers carry illegally as it is their right to protect themselves?

No difference whether it "Joe Upstanding" or the "banger" on the street.

See where this goes? The logic of some here escapes me sometimes.

Don't tell me the banger doesn't have the right to the same self defense as yourself if he has a criminal record. In your minds, that would be another unlawful restriction wouldn't it?

So we can then presume the mindset of those who carry illegally and say "to hell with the laws" have no problem with every inner city youth and banger carrying illegally as well.

Don't think so.

Brownie

[B_Scott]

brownie0486 said, " The gangbanger gets caught carrying illegally as well. He uses the BOR 2nd amendment as his defense that the law is unjust. Are we to let the bangers carry illegally as it is their right to protect themselves?
No difference whether it "Joe Upstanding" or the "banger" on the street."

I see nothing wrong with a gang member carrying a gun. It is when that gun is used in an ILLEGAL act that is wrong.

A rebuttal (attempted) at the FIRE thing:

Everyone has the ability to scream fire and that cannot be taken away by the government. It is wrong when you USE that ability to harm others.

The government is taking away our ABILITY to scream fire.

[TallPine]

Don't tell me the banger doesn't have the right to the same self defense as yourself if he has a criminal record. In your minds, that would be another unlawful restriction wouldn't it?

1) Okay, I won't tell you that. :D

2) Yes, he/she should be in prison, or the right to possess a gun could be taken away as part of the sentence or parole conditions.


You just hate arguing with us constitutiionalists, don't you ...? :D

[Balog]

Sorry Brownie, but that doesn't work. According to the people who founded this country, by merely existing I possess certain rights. Unless I use those rights to harm others, I cannot legally be deprived of them. This is not my opinion, but the thought process that was used to create the BOR and all other Founding documents. If the government can punish you simply because you might do something illegal, where is this going to end?
Would you support a system like the old Soviet one, where the State controls your money for you? If we let people control there own money with no governmental oversight, they could use that money to do something illegal. They could buy drugs or explosives or guns the government doesn't like ["assualt weapons"] or even participate in the resurgent slavery trade. Shall we have all males after the age of puberty wear chastity belts because they might commit rape? Shall we force car makers to put regulators on all new cars that prevent them from exceeding the "speed limit"? Shall we make all parents take tests to prove their competence? Shall we take children from low income families because they can't provide the "standard of living" the State deems appropriate? Where will this crusade to protect the people from themselves end?

Crime cannot ever be eliminated. All the government can do is punish wrongdoers. What you are saying is that the government should punish you for something you might do. For having the ability to harm others. This is so fundamentally wrong I can't fully express my abhorence of the idea.

And you still need to answer my questions.

If a soldier is issued an order, does he not have the right to refuse it if he judges it to be illegal? He may be punished, but isn't that his duty? The people at Nuremberg thought it was. Doesn't a citizen have the same duty?

If other of our supposedly inalienable rights, for example the right to freedom of religion, are infringed, would you say it is our duty as citizens to obey? If the Bible or Quran is made illegal, shall we get rid of them all because the State tells us to?

[Balog]

Oh and Brownie, how do you define "gangbanger?" Is it by their clothes, their music, and who they hang out with?

Shall we then ban from owning weapons people who wear turbans, listen to Arabic music, and hang out with ex-patriate Saudis? After all, they might use their guns to hijack a plane, right?

[oldfart]

Better check your shoe, Brownie. I think you stepped in something.

[tiberius]

Its up to you to decide what if the risk is worth the protection of carrying. You'll proabably get away with it until you actually have to use it.

There may be a few states (TX and SC ??) where a presumption exists that – regardless of the exact circumstances – if a criminal enters your home, deadly force can always be employed. However, these are more the exception than the rule.

This is a good point and it reminds me why I am happy to be in Texas. Note below our constitution and statutes on when lethal force is justified. My favorite is:” To prevent … criminal Mischief at night” and to “prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary..” which means you CAN chase them out of the house with authority! :evil:

Texas State Constitution, Article I, Section 23
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense
of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate
the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.


§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[Balog]

How does one go about finding the relevant statutes? I can obtain a copy of the state constitution fairly easily, but I'm unsure of the proper avenue to research for our lethal forces rules. If anyone here has advice for my state [Arizona], I'd love to hear it.

[tiberius]

I don't know ehere you live, but Texas' are here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html


You can try www.packing.org. Its a great resource and has links to most states' relevant laws.

[tiberius]

Oh Arizona (Doh!) try: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp

[Edward429451]

Brownie, WADR, you're not thinking outside the box. That by the book cop mentality is dead wrong, please make an effort to think independant of your training for the sake of discussion and enlightenment.

Us Constitutionalist's are defending the individuals right to think and act for ourselves. All human action should aim at creating, maintaining, and increasing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. Actions are right when they do that; wrong when they do not. (There goes your yelling fire in a theatre, and your gangbangers right to carry with criminal intent.) A good society is one in which the greatest possible number of persons enjoy the greatest possible amount of happiness and liberty. One of the most important ways a society can ensure its members will be able to contribute their maximum to creating, preserving, and increasing their happiness and liberty is to extend to them the right to think and act for themselves.

This is not a defense of irresponsibility. The phrase "Think and act for yourself" does not mean "Think and act as you please." It is a protest against external "authority." It is a protest against groups, governments, or institutions which would tell people what to think and what to do, refusing to leave them to work these thing out for themselves. When people are so dictated to, they are deprived of individual responsibility for their beleifs and actions. Thinking people object to this. No need to argue these precepts as irrevalent in todays society, these precepts are old, granted, but seem to be even more timely in todays society than back in 1776 or whenever.

Nowadays, there is a large and increasing number of groups, institutions, and governments, that exhibit a tendancy to discourage individuals (understatement of the year!) from thinking and acting for themselves. This is true in morals, religion, education, economics, and politics. Sadly, there is also, today, on the part of individuals, a tendancy to accept this discouragement and surrender their right to think and act for themselves. This is tragic and the cause/effect of such discouraging laws is in fact the problem with America. Repeal the government and society will automattically adjust to more individual responsibility and acceptable behavior. Carrying a CCW quasi-illegally does not equate to the right to yell fire in a theatre, and to argue the point is to be seriously shortsighted.

Bang. You have been refuted, sir.:scrutiny:

[brownie0486]

In response to others replies,

B_Scott : You see nothing wrong with a gangbanger carrying a gun. That should explain much to others about your mindset on the issues.

TallPine : Are you saying you should lose your inaliable rights if you are a convicted criminal? If they are inalienable, they can not be taken away by anyone unless done so illegally according to others here.

So you do agree there are circumstances that should/would dictate taking inalienable rights away from citizens? I don't think it can be both ways.

The premise is that a person who has done his time and paid for his crime once released. You are saying he loses rights forever due to a criminal record? Doesn't seem fair to the banger after he has paid his debt to society and reenters the real world does it?

So I'm to believe that yes, there are times you would restrict ones inalienable rights, and times you would not? This would be through legislation and making law on this? If it is indeed inalienable, they can not be legislated away under any circumstances according to some here. Which shall it be, the law is wrong to restrict an inalienable right at all, or they can restrict some portion or all of that right under certain circumstances?

Balog: You have the inalienable right to bear arms. I didn't mention or inference anything that would lead one to believe that something should be restricted due to ones possibly doing something wrong.

Church and state do not conflict or step on each other by law. No chance gov't would ban the bible or Quran, moot point. You inferenced "what you are saying" several times. Those statements are your interpretation of the posting. Show me anywhere that I made statements that you say " so what you are saying". If I didn't specifically state it myself, that then becomes an interpretation of ones meaning, which can most assuredly be lost in the translation.

A soldiers personal interpretation of an order being unlawful and thereby being not complied with is again an interpretation. The order may in fact be legal, the soldiers opinion of the order may be incorrect. As a soldier, you follow orders, you do not question command [ at least in the Marine Corps I'm familiar with ]. Other branches may have their own issues and ideas of what orders to follow or not, the Marines follow orders, and jump to it real quick. It's all in the training. If the soldier is wrong, did he have the right to question command and refuse that order anyway based on HIS belief it was illegal? Don't think so unless that soldier knows the UCMJ inside and out and happens to be an atty as well. He may have a leg to stand on disobey/ignoring an order if he can cite the regulation that makes it illegal at that time. If he can't he better do as he's told until he can make his case it is illegal.

Definition of gangbanger: One who looks like, smells like, dresses like, acts like, hangs with other of the same type as a "club" or organized unit based on location within a cities limits, is a member of an organized group of people whose primary goal it is to wreck havoc in society, ignoring all laws with impunity, and on and on and on. I think you get the idea thought.
If you have never seen one, you may still recognize them when you do, unless you have lived in a cave or the country and never ventured into the inner cities of the US.

I don't create their image, I don't dress them in the morning, they dress and act the part quite well on their own. If they are not a banger belonging to a group of bangers solidified by turf control, they are wanna be bangers that dress the part, act the part, and smell the part. Ever got close to a banger yourself, I mean up close and personal? Touching them?

More importantly, it's the banger attitude/mentality toward society as a whole that gives them this distinction.

I don't think I stepped into anything really. If it is inalienable, it can not be legislated away or lessened in any way or it is illegal. Give the banger who has done his time his inalienable rights, they can not be denied anymore than anyone elses if it's inalienable. Of course this is being ridiculous, but that the point. Others always come out with their rights are being violated as they are inalienable. If that true in it's purest form everyone [whether they have done time or not ] has the right to carry a gun illegally as the law is illegal that bans them from doing so, just like law abiders. It can not be one way for some and another way for others. All for one or none for all.
Oh, you say there are exceptions? Well thats what a law does, it makes exceptions for some and not for others.

The gangbanger MAY be carrying with criminal intent, but we won't know that intent until he shoots another unlawfully. He has the right to carry for his self protection [ it's inalienable after all right folks? ], as well we can not determine intent until an action has happened, the problem with that is that people can claim to carry for protection and consequently due their inalienable trights like the rest of us, according to some here, and have subversive thoughts and ulterior motives for doing so at the same time.

Brownie

[brownie0486]

"This is not a defense of irresponsibility. The phrase "Think and act for yourself" does not mean "Think and act as you please."

Wish the bangers/others thought that way on the street. You and I and other law abiders may know the difference, I am not so sure we can trust the inner city youths to understand, let alone, abide by that statement.

Brownie

[TallPine]

Are you saying you should lose your inaliable rights if you are a convicted criminal? If they are inalienable, they can not be taken away by anyone unless done so illegally according to others here.
Well, a person's liberty gets taken away for a length of time upon conviction of a serious crime.



The premise is that a person who has done his time and paid for his crime once released. You are saying he loses rights forever due to a criminal record?
No, I didn't say that at all - I said (or meant) exactly the opposite.

A person's right to liberty and to possess firearms is suspended while incarcerated. If/when released on parole, the person is subject to certain conditions for a period of time. After that, IMO, rights should be restored.

It might be constitutional for a judge to impose a firearm restriction on an individual specifically as part of a sentence.

We certainly should not have ex-post-facto laws restricting someone who was convicted before the law was enacted. That is blatantly unconstitutional but no one seems to even care.


I know I may sound radical, and I am certainly not pro-crime - rather, it would be better if some citizen blew the lights out of some of these scoundrels when they try to break in, rob a store, etc.

[brownie0486]

Tallpine,
Understood. I don't totally disagree with that thought process.
Thanks for the clarification.

Brownie

[TallPine]

I am not so sure we can trust the inner city youths to understand, let alone, abide by that statement.
Which is why we need the un-infringed right to protect ourselves,

Not asking govt for the priviledge ....

[brownie0486]

Of course that also means the inner city boys have the same rights?

Give them open season on carrying under 2ndA and watch how many people die on the streets then.

All for one or one for all. No restrictions on anyone or restrictions on everyone. Free for all as everyone carries as their inalienable right to do so, or restrictions of some kind [ which others here are adamantly stating is against the BOR/Constitution.

Brownie

[Gordon Fink]

This all depends on how we define the word criminal, doesn’t it?

And, yes, the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable. Even inmates in maximum-security prisons manage to acquire or make weapons.…

~G. Fink

[Balog]

All quotes belong to Brownie unless otherwise noted.

Church and state do not conflict or step on each other by law. No chance gov't would ban the bible or Quran, moot point

Like they wouldn't ban the Ten Commandments? Ok, they may allow you to own them, as long as you don't tell anyone about it. That might offend someone.


You inferenced "what you are saying" several times. Those statements are your interpretation of the posting. Show me anywhere that I made statements that you say " so what you are saying". If I didn't specifically state it myself, that then becomes an interpretation of ones meaning, which can most assuredly be lost in the translation.


Definition of gangbanger: One who looks like, smells like, dresses like, acts like, hangs with other of the same type as a "club" or organized unit based on location within a cities limits, is a member of an organized group of people whose primary goal it is to wreck havoc in society, ignoring all laws with impunity, and on and on and on.

The gangbanger MAY be carrying with criminal intent, but we won't know that intent until he shoots another unlawfully. He has the right to carry for his self protection [ it's inalienable after all right folks? ], as well we can not determine intent until an action has happened, the problem with that is that people can claim to carry for protection and consequently due their inalienable trights like the rest of us, according to some here, and have subversive thoughts and ulterior motives for doing so at the same time.



So I can't follow your arguments to their logical conclusion because I might misinterpret you; but "gangbangers" shouldn't be able to protect themselves because you know what they are thinking based on the way they dress and the friends they have?

You have the inalienable right to bear arms. I didn't mention or inference anything that would lead one to believe that something should be restricted due to ones possibly doing something wrong.

I do? What if I'm a "gangbanger?" Since you're definition of that type of person is completely subjective, maybe I'm one. You mention the law. The law must be objective and enforceable. "He smelled like a banger" is not a justifiable reason to deny him his rights. That's why I like "shall issue" laws. Notice where I said Unless I use those rights to harm others, I cannot legally be deprived of them.

I never said that our inalienable rights were permanent regardless of our actions. I said that until we did something to infringe on the rights of others, we can't be denied our rights. By definition, a law which proscribes a right not because of previous conduct that harms others [which is what denying guns to violent criminals is] and instead proscribes that right because the person might commit a crime with that gun [which is what making it illegal to carry without a permit does] is just as illegal as a law which would regulate peaceful religious practices.

Let me say it again. If you do unjustified violence to another person, you have forfeited your right to carry. Until then, it is unalienable. Regardless of how you look or smell or who you're friends with.


As a soldier, you follow orders, you do not question command [ at least in the Marine Corps I'm familiar with ].

This is the defense used by some Nazi war criminals tried at Nuremberg. "We had to throw those Jewish children into the furnaces, we were ordered to!" This was ruled an inadmissable defense. They were punished for following orders, because the orders were illegal. If a Marine in Vietnam had been ordered to torture a VC or NVA prisoner to death, he would have had a duty to disobey that order. Because that order was illegal. What Lon Horuchi [sp?] did was illegal even if he was ordered to do so.

[Balog]

Brownie said Of course that also means the inner city boys have the same rights?


If they haven't committed any violent felonies, then yes. What basis would you have under the law to refuse them their rights if they hadn't committed any crimes sufficient to be denied their rights.

Brownie also said Give them open season on carrying under 2ndA and watch how many people die on the streets then

So they would obey a law preventing them from carrying, but they wouldn't obey the laws against shooting people?:scrutiny:

[Double Naught Spy]

Thefumegator,
Not carrying a gun does not make you a victim, although believing that not carrying a gun will make you a victim certainly might. Note that many of the pro-gun folks who complain that they can't carry in their respective locations is somehow akin to not being allowed to defend themselves is just plain wrong. Most are too darned lazy to pursue other avenues of self protection that might involve a little time, training, and sweat on their part in order to become competent. If you (the royal you) are depending solely on a concealed carry handgun for self defense, then you are already a loser as handguns are poor choices for defense.

Oh, and God never gave humans the right to carry guns. Even by analogy to swords, God never granted humans the right to carry swords. He does not condemn such acts, but he never granted those acts as rights.

[Balog]

Let me try and fully state my position here. Any person, by the simple fact of existence, has certain rights. The right to carry arms, the right to own property, the right to individual determination of religion. The person has these rights until they do something to infringe on the rights of others. At that time, they are subject to a reasonable reduction of these rights. This might include imprisonment, confiscation of property, or loss of right to own arms.

The BOR says that the right to arms cannot in any way be infringed. Infringing on a person's rights based on their harming others is lawful. Infringing on a person's rights by making it illegal to own certain types of arms or by making the person qualify for a permit to exercise that right is illegal even if the government does it. If the government passed a law making it illegal for a person to freely practice a peaceable religion, that law would be illegal. Anyone enforcing that law is committing a crime. Just because they have the power to punish you doesn't mean it is lawful for them to do so.

[WonderNine]

Don't tell me the banger doesn't have the right to the same self defense as yourself if he has a criminal record.

Yes the "banger" does have that right. If you've done your time, then why must you keep paying for the crime?

In your minds, that would be another unlawful restriction wouldn't it?

Yes it would.

So we can then presume the mindset of those who carry illegally and say "to hell with the laws" have no problem with every inner city youth and banger carrying illegally as well.

Yes, that's correct. All adults should have their full rights if they've done their time.

[WonderNine]

At that time, they are subject to a reasonable reduction of these rights. This might include imprisonment, confiscation of property, or loss of right to own arms.

Ahhh you forgot the loss of the right to vote. You don't realize how slippery that slope is. There is no "reasonable reduction of rights". If this person is a danger to society they should not be out of prison and this gutting of their rights and stigma attached to being a felon that's currently part of our police state makes it that much more difficult for them to go strait.

And how is confiscation of property considered reasonable?

[WonderNine]

Most are too darned lazy to pursue other avenues of self protection that might involve a little time, training, and sweat on their part in order to become competent. If you (the royal you) are depending solely on a concealed carry handgun for self defense, then you are already a loser as handguns are poor choices for defense.

Oh, and God never gave humans the right to carry guns. Even by analogy to swords, God never granted humans the right to carry swords. He does not condemn such acts, but he never granted those acts as rights.

Oh boy :rolleyes: Elitism at its worst. Yea, people who rely on pistols (which we all know are terribly inefficient compared to swords :rolleyes: ) are all lazy out of shape and don't know how to use them. :rolleyes:

God gave humans the right to self defense using the most efficient means available. If to you it's a sword because you don't know how to operate a handgun than so be it. :rolleyes:

[MyRoad]

So, what if your friend, John Smith, decided that he wasn't going to be a state-guaranteed victim, and was going to claim his rights as they were intended -- he straps on his sidearm, and carries on his life as usual.

If I were "John", I'd move to another state. That may sound stupid, but that's what I'd do.

[Balog]

And how is confiscation of property considered reasonable?

If it is done in compensation to the victims. If you burn my house down, I feel it's reasonable for the state to confiscate you property to compensate me. I could be wrong tho', not an aspect of the law I've dwelt on.

[Balog]

If I were "John", I'd move to another state. That may sound stupid, but that's what I'd do.

And what would you do if it was made a federal law? Move to Switzerland?

[Pain]

Banger........I find that Definition Quite amusing. When I was Growing up in a Not so affluent Part of South Dallas, After Several a$$ beatings, It was Put To me This way " you are in the Game or you are in the Way" Take that how you want , But I took it as Join us, or the next time it wont just be a beating. So I did.... The daily a$$kickings stopped, and Life went on. But I was Now a member I still Bear the tattoo.... So By your incinuation That makes me Sub Standard In society. WRONG
I spent the Next 4 years of my life studying, taking in any kind of knowledge i could to get myself out of that situation. And I did I spent the next 6 in college. Im 30 yrs old I own my own Home In a Nice neighborhood far away from that place, And I have a great Job. These days I don't want for much except more guns. But I did it on my own and without the help of people like you Judging Me by the crowd I kept, or the clothes I wore. Other than maybe speeding I have always, to my knowledge abided by the laws of this country. Never had a speeding ticket, never had a parking ticket, and the only police stations I have ever seen inside were on TV. Finally My point is this: A gangbanger has the same rights as anyone else in this country, besides that is merely a label. But the moment that Said Gangbanger Infringes on others rights, then he forfeits his. Plain and Simple, that is his debt to society. Seriously Open your eyes a little wider, Just because one looks a certain way does'nt mean they are!!!!

[Penforhire]

Double Naught, since when are handguns poor defensive tools? Compared to what, long guns? For something you can conceal upon your person a handgun is the top of the food chain as far as I know. When you need lethal force at close quarters anything other than a firearm is a poor substitute.

Tell you what. You go train someone in whatever karate, kung fu, krav-whatever hand-to-hand (or pocket-tool) skills for a decade or more. I'll give Joe-nobody on the street a few hours of training with a 357 Mag snubby. Then let Mr. "I trained for a decade" attack Mr. Magnum. The statistics seem obvious. It happens to plenty of martial artists. I know you get what I'm saying here. The line ends with "... and Sam Colt made them equal" and is as true today as it ever was.

[brownie0486]

Ever seen a banger in church?

Bangers smell, that wasn't the only criteria I listed [ just the one of many in concert toward the overall picture, you chose to use as a standalone comment ] and they, in concert with the other indicators I listed give me an indication of their thought processes and attitudes on the streets and being bangers. They dress the part, they talkl to part, the play the part, and commit crimes, they want you to know they have the hood [ bros ] behind them. If they are making themselves stand out by doing so, am I then not allowed the opinion they are a banger? or am I being subjective.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, perhaps it's a duck. I could be wrong but I bet a DNA sample would show it was a duck. Course his mother will testify he is a good boy and wouldn;t hurt anyone. Right.

Pain: ever commit crimes as initiation to the hood? Any crimes at all? Seems unreasonable to me that they would force you to join and then allow you to continue to go to church on Sunday if ti wasa real "hood". Or maybe they were wannabes, I don't know. Sems if they wanted you in the group, it would not be to become an alterboy.

How can you say a banger loses his rights if he steps on yours? See, thats the point here. If they are inalienable, no one can take them away for any reason at all ever. Now if you agree with that, which apparently you do not from your comment, perhaps we have come to an impasse here as inalienable is not something that can be legislated away by any law. The banger has every right to carry to protect himself no matter what, OR, restrictions can be imposed through the courts [ laws ] on those same rights. Which is it going to be? It can't be one way for you and I and another way for anyone else. Remember, if your position is that your rights can not be taken away legally as they are inalienable, then they can not be taken away because you are a convicted criminal. The criminal still needs to be able to defend himself in jail, and it's inalienable, right?

I don't think so myself, I think rights should be taken away/resricted under certain circumstances. The point is that people here decry their rights being illegally restricted by law and that it is illegal to do so for any reason. Those people are in effect telling everyone the bangers should be allowed to defend themselves no matter their criminal activities.

How about this one? A mentally retarded person is denied a CCW, they have the right to self preservation as well don't they? Think the mentally ill should all be carrying guns on Thorazine? If the answer is no, you have then stated a view of restricting someone of their god given rights [ according to some here ]. You either can restrict for certain reasons, or you can't. If you agree that some people should not be allowed to be able to defend themselves, then you are agreeing that restrictions, any restrictions, are valid to some degree.

If we can then say under certain circumstances restrictons are prudent and ought to be in place, are we not then denying them their rights to the means to protect themselves in some way? If you agree a restriction may be warranted in any scenario at all, you ahve then agreed that restrictions can be lawful/should be lawful.

Theres the crux of the matter in a nutshell. No restrictions for everyone or we then argue what restrictions are lawful and which may not be. Now thats subjective, who decides when and why a restriction may be placed? Now it's only a matter of who feels certain restrictions are unlawful. I bet you that the mentaly ill person denied a permit to cary a gun feels the law unjust. Would it the be acceptable for them to carry illegally? Some think so, I do not.

I didn't say bangers were substandard. I know others who are in no way bangers who smell as well. thats a hygeine issue, not a class issue, but if the shoe fits the bangers profiles, so be it.

But I will make this leap of faith for you. While you were in the "hood", I bet you were not a productive citizen. That you turned yourself around, good for you. That has no bearing on when you were a banger and causing others sufferage, or was this group who beat you till you joined some religiuos cult who harmed no one but their own as the "way of god".?

No labeling, a banger has been described in an earlier post. You dress the part, act the part, talk the part, well-------back to the duck analogy.

Brownie

[tiberius]

Ever seen a banger in church?


What is the significance of this statement/question?

[brownie0486]

The significance of the comment was to show the duck analogy.

I was accused of being subjective in my opinion of bangers. I've seen them on the street corners doing the deals, committing mayhem, vandalism, rape, murder, but I've never met one in church praying for his soul to be redeemed.

I have seen them in church, they were there robbing the priests, perhaps I missed their prayer session before they robbed and beat the priest that day.

Looking at the facts of banger life on the streets in the cities and stating your observstions doen't mean you are not being objective.

Brownie

[Gordon Fink]

If they are inalienable, no one can take them away for any reason at all ever.

There is one way … and also many other lesser degrees of suppression.

~G. Fink

[brownie0486]

Gordon Fink:

Would that one way be death?

Lesser degrees of supprresion? Is that statement a play on "restrictions"?

Just wondring about both comments.

Brownie

[seeker_two]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, perhaps it's a duck. I could be wrong but I bet a DNA sample would show it was a duck. Course his mother will testify he is a good boy and wouldn;t hurt anyone. Right.


Duck's got as much right to fly as any other bird....:D

[Hot brass]

California has the few can get a CCW law. I know people who carry and do not have a CCW.

[brownie0486]

seeker_two:

Ducks can fly over me all they want. They start dropping turds and they get the same treatment from me as bangers.

Brownie

[Pain]

Hey Brownie, I'm not going to debate with you. First it's pointless, second I did'nt join this Forum to quarrel. Im taking the High Road Thanx. As far as Wanna be's.... I was a Wanna Leave.. Had No choice... And No I never Ever participated in any Initiations .... saw quite a few. Never sold Drugs, Never robbed anyone. I'm guilty of drinkin a few 40's and pourin some beer on the curb for my dead Homiez. Thats about it..... Take it easy seems your opinion is the only acceptable one, so why try to Sway you?? Gotta Run I cant stay in my office here too long Because the Gangsta Smell might irradiate this CRT I'm on and then I could'nt read any more of your ignorance. Good Day !!!

[tiberius]

Never mind.

[Bostonterrier97]

In Kalifornia..(assuming you aren't caught carrying on Federal Property or on School Grounds, or in a Court House, etc.)

It is a "wobbler". It is a misdemeanor only if the handgun is registered in your name, and it is your first offense. Otherwise it is a FELONY. And you will lose your "priviledge" to own a firearm.

(In Kalifornia, Gun Ownership is a Priviledge; not a Right)

[Bostonterrier97]

Oh, and God never gave humans the right to carry guns. Even by analogy to swords, God never granted humans the right to carry swords. He does not condemn such acts, but he never granted those acts as rights.




He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
- Luke 22:36

[Gordon Fink]

Would that one way be death?

Lesser degrees of supprresion? Is that statement a play on “restrictions”?

Brownie, yes and yes. The only way to truly and completely deprive someone of his rights is to kill him. We can legislate away the right of felons to bear arms, but they will still carry weapons … even while incarcerated. We can outlaw anything we wish, for that matter, but as long as potential “perpetrators” still draw breath, they can violate such laws almost at will.

In all other respects short of death, rights can only be suppressed to one degree or another. Naturally, such suppression is most effective on law-abiding subjects. True criminals, of course, have no compunction about breaking laws that are unquestionably moral and just, so we should hardly be surprised that they wouldn’t even think twice about breaking the many immoral and unjust laws under which the law-abiding normally labor.

~G. Fink

[Ryder]

I was arrested for a carrying a loaded pistol in a vehicle. The car was parked but the law considered this as a concealed weapon. I was told it was a mandatory 5 year felony sentence. Left without any choice I indicated that I would plead innocent and see what the supreme court thought about infringement. They blinked and I was offered an "illegal transportation of a firearm" charge. Plea bargained to 1 year of probation and a clean history. Too good to refuse considering family oblligations and the fact that the judge guaranteed a guilty verdict along with a maximum sentence before the trial even began.

I believe my case had a lot to do with intent. I was enroute to hunting, never mentioned anything about self defense, and they had no probable cause to believe I was looking to commit a real crime or injure anyone in any manner.

Your situation may vary.

[ceetee]

Whew! I see this thread went on quite a long way without me... I had a whole bunch of catching up to do!

Something I read about halfway through, it was all about telling people what they could think, and what to believe in.

It reminded me of something I heard yesterday... I was listening to this radio talk show host recap the recent Democratic debates. He would play some question, and the response, and then he would talk for a bit about how he felt about that particular response. He went on to say (I'm not making this up!):

"Folks, I realize that you good people may not have time to actually watch the debates yourselves... That's okay! You don't have to. You have me here to watch the debates for you, and I'll tell you what to think...

Funny... I don't need Rush Limbaugh to tell me what to think...

[Edward429451]

Give them open season on carrying under 2ndA and watch how many people die on the streets then.

On its face, this statement sounds ludicrous. But if you think about it, maybe not. Possibly its just a matter of perspective. This man is a cop and gets to deal with the scummiest bags you haven't ever imagined, and real regularly I'd bet. Us Constitutionalists hardly ever have to deal with the caliber of scum that they do. Our problems generally come from cops instead. If cops are getting attacked by 'attack dogs' everyday, then one day a 'nice dog' comes across his path, can you really blame the guy for being jumpy or 'better safe than sorry'?

Of course you can, this is my rights and no small matter, and therein lies the problem. Can we presuppose that he have ESP and see us as nice dogs instead of the bad dogs he's used to dealing with? Looks like a duck does work to a certain extent, but there is no absolutes in profiling. How many cops have been killed by clean cut looking fellows? Hmmm.

Couple the mindset with a poisonous political agenda and bam you have cops and good citizens facing off for no good reason and yet the best reasons which are wanting to survive unmolested...The scum probably dig this and laugh their fool heads off.

Wish the bangers/others thought that way on the street. You and I and other law abiders may know the difference, I am not so sure we can trust the inner city youths to understand, let alone, abide by that statement.

This is a reasonable point Brownie. But wherein is the solution? You did your job, arrested the scum, delivered him to the jail. The Aministration regurgitated him back onto the street! Why? Money.

Crime does pay. For the Criminal who has little fear of going up for a long time b/c he knows he can plea bargain or good behavior and get out again fast (er). And for the administration, who gets grants from the coffer for processing the scum through the system. They don't want crime to go away, they make too much profit at it. So us good citizens get to foot the bill and live with the scum, and fear the police while they're busy trying to make through the end of the shift and get back to thier families.

Very neat scam. The citizen foots the bill, loses their right slowly, and the lowly peon cops get to brave the real danger and take the heat for being bad to the good guys. I hear the administration laughing also, at us and at the cops.

Sadly, there is also, today, on the part of individuals, a tendancy to accept this discouragement and surrender their right to think and act for themselves.

I see cops and citizens alike doing this. The Sheeple..."Its not worth the risk!"...And the cops..."It's the law"....and so forth.

Unless the people get to pick the juries, and get a closer relationship with the cops (Citizen ride alongs with every cop!) (gangbangers wouldn't do this), there will be (more) gunfire between good cops and good citizens.

Not a good future. The us vs them is wrong, its really we the people vs capitol hill. Not at all unlike a good chess game where each move could cost you the game or turn the tide.

I ramble. Sorry so long.:scrutiny:

[Edward429451]

I give Brownie 'brownie-points' for one thing...unlike some other regulars (cops) on the board, he hangs in there and continues to discuss and think.

We'll win you over yet, Brownie!;)

[pax]

Hmmm. This started out as a pretty good General Discussion question, but the whole thread has kind of morphed into a Legal & Political thread. I think I'll move it over there ... hang on, folks.

Oh, and you're all doing a pretty good job keeping it lively without insulting each other. Keep it up. :)

pax

[Stinger]

Frankly, Brownie, I don't care if your are a cop, or the Pope...

Your logic is not only extremely flawed, it is downright ignorant.

Give them open season on carrying under 2ndA and watch how many people die on the streets then.

Do you believe that gangsters don't carry weapons because of the law? Yeah, right, just like they don't kill people because it is illegal. Or how they don't rob people because it is illegal.

Fact is, my rights should not be infringed because some gangbanger might misuse his rights. Cops have murdered people also, so why should you be able to carry a firearm?

Our right is not given by the gov't, merely recognized by the gov't. 2A is not to let the people know what they can/can't do, but to let the gov't know what we WILL do.

To be honest, you sound like one of the elitist few who think that only they should be given rights and priviledges. :cuss: Elitists!!!

Stinger

[brownie0486]

Stinger:

Guess you missed the main points I made earlier. I have no problem with 2a and everyone carrying for protection, never said differently, and please show me where I did. Didn't touch on the subject at all, so far.

I pointed to those who claim everyone should have the right to self defense based on the premise it is inalienable. And that if that were true, even murderers and bangers would then not be restricted, nor could be restricted, as it is inalienable and could never be taken away by mere mortals [ if that were true ].

Thats where the flaw is. No restrictions on ANYONES inalienable rights is wrong according to some. Taken to the extreme, as I was pointing out earlier, the dregs of society have the same rights to carry under the guise of self protection, as well as the mentally ill, the criminally insane, and so on.

If you agree with that, then we disagree.

If you believe that certain elements can be restricted based on criminal past, mental illness, and a host of potential other disqulaifiers, then you are in effect saying it's not inalienable and therefore can be altered by mere mortals.

Can't have it one way and not the other. All have the right whether society or you and I think so, or there are circumastances where a logical conclusion may be made that it would be in the interst of others to not have them legally have the right to carry for self protection.

Now get down and give me 20 for not paying attention and making accusations and assumptions about what you thought I had written.

Oh ya, I didn't mention I was a cop. In fact that is incorrect. I am a retired police officer. I've probably done more to further the advancement of the 2A through my actions as a police officer on the street based on my beliefs than yourself, unless you were in the same positions I have been in to make decisions that affected people in a positive way.

Stay safe.

Brownie

[tyme]

(brownie) If you believe that certain elements can be restricted based on criminal past, mental illness, and a host of potential other disqulaifiers, then you are in effect saying it's not inalienable and therefore can be altered by mere mortals.
How do you verify whether someone's legal? Would you ask everyone you run into whether they're carrying, then make them disclose their name and go run it through the system to make sure they're "clean"?

[keederdag]

If he's a friend, and he thinks he need's to carry I'd support him. Heck I'd even post his bail if he got caught. I help my friends. If I feel I Need to carry I Carry. PERIOD. I'm not looking for trouble, or involved in any criminal interprise, so the chances of me being caught are very remote. If I'm in an area where I think I NEED to take the little risk, to defend against the Big risk. I could care less what John Q Law thinks. Obviously he's not doing his job. I have a CCW, so I don't have to worry about it, but some are not so lucky. :mad:

[brownie0486]

tyme:
If you are asking if I run a state check on citizens, no, I don't have to. This state issues permits. If you are oberved possessing, carrying in public, found to be so during a search during a traffic stop, out at the local gravel pit, etc. I merely need see the permit that allows you to carry legally.

Can't produce it? I run the check if you say you are licensed. No ccw, gotta haul you into the station and charge you accordingly.

I am not out there to catch you with an illegal gun in your possession. If it happens based on contact for whatever reason, thats when you will need to be "legal" in order to keep your freedom and not be charged.

Never did ask traffic stops if they were carrying, never thought about it actually as thats not what I was on the road for.

We found em carrying illegally on ocassion, they were charged, made bail, and appeared in court, not unlike any other major violation agaonst the states statutes.

Keeterdag: "I could care less what John Q Law thinks."
Thats just how the bangers and felons feel as well. I am not so sure thats the correct thinking process one should have as a law wabiding citizen, as the consequences can be life altering for the person so inclined when they are caught doing so. You take your chances [ not you specifically ] and run the risk of becoming a felon.

We all have decisions to make daily which affect us one way or the others at times. If you can do the time, by all means do the crime.

Brownie

[Bill St. Clair]

Brownie,

First off, nice tactical folders site!

I think we're rapidly approaching a time when a large number of people will realize that the government is no longer bound by its constitutional cage. America has changed from a constitutional republic into a pure representative democracy. The legislatures are accustomed to making any law they desire, and the courts very rarely declare anything unconstitutional. Yes, it happens on occasion, but not over anything important.

If you are asking if I run a state check on citizens, no, I don't have to. This state issues permits. If you are oberved possessing, carrying in public, found to be so during a search during a traffic stop, out at the local gravel pit, etc. I merely need see the permit that allows you to carry legally.

For folks that don't know this, Massachusetts, where Brownie lives, requires all handguns to be registered, and all handgun owners to have a permit. So does New York, where I live.

"Found to be so during a search during a traffic stop"? This is one of the big places where the courts have failed us completely. A search is supposed to require a warrant, with a citizen witness who swears under oath that there is a reason for the search, that a crime has been committed by the owner of the property. A police traffic stop doesn't qualify. But they get away with it all the time, usually because idiot drivers grant them "permission". Don't ever give a cop permission to do anything. If he has to ask, it's only because he has no authority to act without your permission.

Personally, I have completely lost faith in the courts. I've seen them run over too many honest, peaceful, people. I have not completely lost faith in the police, since most of the guys I've personally met are decent, but I'm close. If we ever see regular highway search stops at state borders or anywhere else, that line will have been crossed, for me.

And if you can't trust the police or the courts, what have you left? You've got to rely on yourself and your friends for defense against criminals, organized or otherwise, uniformed or not. It will not be pretty.

I think that Rick Stanley has the right idea with his Second American Revolution Militia Mutual Defense Pact (http://www.stanley2002.org/mutualdefpact.htm). That doesn't mean that I think everyone should join his organization, though I think it's worth considering. It does mean that I think it's time to join together with fellow patriots with the intention of protecting each other should the government or anyone else attack one of your members.

The problem with our Constituion and Bill of Rights is that there is no enforcement mechanism. Legislators who pass unconstitional laws and police who enforce them are criminals. But there is no effective way to bring them to justice. Since the Constitution includes no Bill of Rights Enforcement (http://lneilsmith.com/bor_enforcement.html), we must create it ourselves.

[TallPine]

You won't ever see me in church (again!) either, Brownie.

Adios, now I know where you are coming from.

[tiberius]

I see that some here think that "some animals are more equal than others" :banghead:

[Sodbuster]

Bad judgement on your part
I find most bad judgment comes from the government, and from all three branches.

[brownie0486]

Bill St. Clair:

Hi there,

Just to clarify for others, if I found the gun in the car, it was incidental to a lawful search for another reason. Usually, it was for open containers of booze visible from the drivers window, yes people are that dumb [ gives reason to search any area that may have such an item also stashed and not in plain view, and is completely legal under the fourth amendment restrcitions and guidelines within the Commonwealth], or the smell of marijuana eminating from the vehicle [ which then develops probable cause to search for evidence further, or a number of others reasons which may lead to probable cause evidence may be within the vehicle which the possession of may be deemed ilegal.

During these searches, we would find guns stashed about at times. Permits please? None?, gotta go downtown, sorry about that. The scope of a search is considered reasonable by the courts as long as the search is not considerd intrusive. That means if I am looking for drugs, I can basically search anywhere in the vehicle they can be stored [ and thats everwhere I can think of under that guideline ].

Sometimes we found a gun incidental to an arrest for DUI, where we impounded the vehicle and did an invetory of it's contents [ which is also mandated by the dept./town and lawful and considered prudent by the state.

I made in the vicinity of 12 stops a shift average, maybe a little more dependant on what assignments I was working that day. I certainly never had to "try" to find reason to search vehicles, there are plenty of people driving who have no common sense and "give" us reasonable suspician to search aplenty.

Just to be clear for others who inference some elitist atttitude on my part, I never violated the rights of others as a police officer. Stopped cops from doing so in my presence a few times, and never wrote a ticket unless the driver did not know why I had stopped the car. The idea was that if he knew what he had done wrong, I wouldask he not do it again in my town and he was on his way, barring anything I saw at his window that warranted further action on my part. If the party said they didn't know why, the were issued a written citation which gave them their answer.

I understand there are abuses by officers nationally. I also understand the citizen questioning the officers motives after recognizing there are abuses at times. What I try to get across to folks here that think that way is that there are a lot of good cops out there doing their job, upholding the laws which is their mandate, and attempting to bring about some harmony within the communities.

Many here rag on cops as if all of them were suspect. When I pulled them over,or had to involve myself in anothers life, they were treated equally, with courtesy, respect, and dignity. Just the way I want to be treated myself.

Those who showed respect for the uniform and me personally as a human being got the same in kind. Many had preconceived prejudices and their demeanor was not conducive to a pleasant experience after that usually.

I found most people fed off my demeanor at the initial contact for whatever reason. Course no one likes to go to jail, so demeanors would change sometimes during the contact. What they and others here need to remember
is that I had a job to do.

I'm sure no one here would advocate the police turn a blind eye to unlawful acts, and if they would like the officer or expect the officer to do so, I wonder if the officer should then cut the drug dealer a break and ignore the drugs?

I did my job, advanced good relations with the public and treated others the way I would be treated on the streets. If people have a problem with authority, there isn't a damned thing I can do about it.

Brownie

[tyme]

(brownie) Can't produce it? I run the check if you say you are licensed. No ccw, gotta haul you into the station and charge you accordingly.
No, you don't have to do anything. If you have reason to believe they're carrying a gun for nefarious purposes, chances are they've committed a more serious crime, and you should take them downtown and charge them for that. If that crime didn't involve a gun, you shouldn't be able to confiscate the gun, but should only be able to keep it until the alleged criminal (when set free) or another free, authorized person asks for it back. Property that isn't involved in a crime and isn't required for payment of a fine shouldn't be confiscated.

Cops with your attitude are the ones who create cases where relatively law-abiding citizens get their lives screwed up because of idiotic laws.

You're assuming people with guns are guilty, of a rather pathetic law I might add, until proven innocent. If that weren't enough, possession of firearms happens to be protected by the Constitution. I don't see how you manage to conclude that you're doing the right thing. Yes, you can stop some gang-bangers this way. So what? Why not randomly pull over cars? After all, you don't know who has insurance, who may have drugs in the trunk, etc. That driver -- yep, the one in front of you to the left -- may not even have a drivers' license! Pull him over and check! It's for the children!

If you're wondering, some ordinary citizens here rag on cops because of cops with beliefs like yours, who will put them in jail for carrying illegally, even though they're doing nothing wrong and even though their actions are protected by the Constitution. If police on this board started saying "nope, we don't arrest people for illegal carry and nobody in our department does either," think what that would do for the average THR member's opinion of police! As word got out, everyone would start respecting cops more, and we could stop worring about idiotic gun laws and focus on other important social issues like how to fix the drug war, what U.S. foreign policy should be, and how to pay off the national debt.

[brownie0486]

Tyme: "cops with beliefs like yours, who will put them in jail for carrying illegally, even though they're doing nothing wrong"

You hear yourself here? The above quote from your last post says it all. They are carrying illegally, yet doing nothing wrong? Got it there sir, now I know where you ocme from with the remarks.

First they are doing something illegally, then I'm the bad guy as they are doing nothing wrong, got it. A little flawed, that statement, don't you think? Explain how one can be doing something thats illegal and not be doing soemthing wrong to al of us if you would be so kind.

The rest of your suggestion that I ignore the violation and look the other way, would that be for you, the gangbanger, or someone else to your liking? Is the law to be selective in it's enforcement as you suggest? Take them from the bangers and not from you or someone else?

You either obey the laws, whether you agree wit them or not, or pay the penalties incurred through the courts for your actions. Isn't that what law enforcement is about? Are there stupid laws on the books? Sure , we know that.

Would you then have me ignore my responsibilities to the community, to uphold the laws fro some and not for others? You must not realize that it's one of the mandates we had, to uphold the laws as written.

What you seem to be saying is that any officer should take his/her own views about any law and enforce it to his liking based on his personal preference.

I'm not assuming anything, you have a permit and are legal or you do not, where is your thought process that leads you to think I'm assuming he is guilty. In my state, if you are not permitted, and you are carrying, you are breaking the law. Thats looks pretty cut and dried ans something that would be a logical conclusion and not subject to supposition on anyones part.

I found your statements and expectations of me letting you go after you have violated the law to be entertaining, to say the least.

And if police across the country started not arresting for felonious illegal carry as mandated because the law was unjust in their minds, would it stop there, or would we then have the aclu and others up our butts clamouring that we should also ignore laws which affect them and which they feel are unjust?

Whether YOU deem it unlawful is none of my business personally. Whether you flaunt the law, ignore the law in some personal protest which makes you feel "better" is also none of my business personally. It becomes my business when I'm in uniform and see you are violating a law.

When you are speeding over the posted limit, is it because you are flaunting the law? Are you not taking the chance of being ticketed and punished if you are caught? You speed and take the chance of being stopped. You carry illegally and you suffer the same potential of being caught. If you are caught, your suggestion I let you go based on some belief the law is unjust and so I'll just ignore my responsibilities and look the others way border on the ridiculous, unless you want me to ignore the bangers as well. Thats probably not the best idea you have had lately.


Brownie

[Edward429451]

Tyme's making excellant points.

Cops being 'mandated' to think by the book instead of for themselves is a serious wrong, and is largely instrumentel in the destruction of America, any lingering good attitudes towards the cops, and the construction of the Us vs Them mentality.

I feel as if it IS an Us vs Them thing if cops can't or wont think for themselves.

THR is teaching me to not 'cop an attitude' in discussions. The place for that is the street where it counts. In discussions on the board, elitist attitudes only serve to widen the gap, and such is not the goal of said discussions...

Cops do display elitist attitudes on the board. So do Constitutionalists.

Of course the Constitutionalists are right.;) But its hard to win people over to (correct) our way of thinking with;

"Oh, Yeah?!"
"Why you little..."

kind of talk. Being provacative is the worst way to try and get someone to see your point. It may only serve to harden them in their illogical position.

[Sergeant Bob]

Tyme is correct, however so is Brownie (not trying to single anyone out). It's a pity we can't all meet somewhere in the middle (metaphorically, and no I'm not talking about singing Kumbaya).
But, alas, instead of the law existing to serve man, it seems that man now exists to serve the law.

[brownie0486]

Edward429451:

Cops can at times in my state think for themselves, and do. There are two types of laws we follow in Ma.

May laws and shall laws. May laws mean I have discretion on the streets [ like not giving tickets when I could ], the shall laws mean I will act in a certain manner regardless of the circumstances on the street, and if I fail to do so, I may be fired, charged with crimes myself for nonfeasance/malfeasance or misfeasance, and lose my own freedom potentially.

Where I had discretion, I used it to create good will with others, when I did not have discretion, it was by the book, or be fired, charged and start life over doing something else.

The way to effect change is not to bash the cop for doing his job [ as long as he is dong it properly ] but to change the law. Many officers feel the same way as others in that they feel everyone should be able to carry, that doesn't mena they then ignore the law themselves as law enforcement officers.

It is a hard time being LE. You answer for everything you do and not do to both sides at the same time. Always there will be some whom feel injured by an LE's actions. The little old lady who thinks it's good to get the guns off the streets will praise you, the 2A's will cry foul, it's wrong and I should be ashamed of myself. The LE on the other hand [ if he is doing his job ] makes decisions that will be monday morning quarterbacked on a daily basis. Cops make mistakes, so does everyone else, the cops mistakes seem to be more severe as they affect others lives most of the time either for the good or to their detriment.

Right now, it's the little old ladies out there who have more say in the way the vote to make the laws. If the 2a's get strong enough, times will change, but that requires more numbers and commitment and voting accordingly for people who will pick up the staff and run with it, getting elected in enough numbers to affect change.

I think most LE will applaud the change, but until then, they have a job to do. Those who would say, well, change jobs have to realize there will be enforcement of laws always, and so the laws need to be changed, not have all it's citizens breakin/ignoring, flaunting the laws, including the LE's based on their personal opinions of right and wrong.

Hope that helps, I'm not here to rebutt, and if you look closely, I never disagree with the 2a's thought processes and in fact have stated otherwise. That doesn't change my responsibilities while in uniform, unfortunately.

Brownie

[Edward429451]

Explain how one can be doing something thats illegal and not be doing soemthing wrong to al of us if you would be so kind.

Thats easy. Corrupt administration passes laws it has no business or authority to pass, un-constituional and non-valid from the get go, and declares them to be lawful and legal. People ignore said laws seeing them for what they are and KNOWING that they're not wrong in what they do.

Duh. :D

The rest of your suggestion that I ignore the violation and look the other way, would that be for you, the gangbanger, or someone else to your liking? Is the law to be selective in it's enforcement as you suggest? Take them from the bangers and not from you or someone else?

:banghead: Brownie, You've pretty much lumped us in with criminals and pronounced us guilty before we're even 'caught'. The law shouldn't be selective per se but rather correct in it's enforcement. Why do you always sound like the sky would fall if cops tried to be reasonable?

You either obey the laws, whether you agree wit them or not, or pay the penalties incurred through the courts for your actions. Isn't that what law enforcement is about? Are there stupid laws on the books? Sure , we know that.

You're fired.:D , NO, thats NOT what law enforcement is all about. You admit the stupid laws, yet don't care a whit about doing what is right? Get a grip, buddy.

Would you then have me ignore my responsibilities to the community, to uphold the laws fro some and not for others? You must not realize that it's one of the mandates we had, to uphold the laws as written.

Doubletalk. Just who is this 'community' that you have a responsibility to, the department? Your tone suggests that the only ones who count is the criminals and the cops. "Uphold the laws as written?" (Pardon, your crack is showing). After admitting the existance of stupid laws, you adhere to your mandate knowing full well it is wrong. Shades of a robot, sir.

What you seem to be saying is that any officer should take his/her own views about any law and enforce it to his liking based on his personal preference.

Yes, that is your responsibility as an American citizen, a member of 'We the People'., but I'd reword the last part to read...based on what is right. Have you not read your history, sir?

I'm not assuming anything, you have a permit and are legal or you do not, where is your thought process that leads you to think I'm assuming he is guilty. In my state, if you are not permitted, and you are carrying, you are breaking the law. Thats looks pretty cut and dried ans something that would be a logical conclusion and not subject to supposition on anyones part.

Thats what they want you/us to think, that its all cut & dried. Not subject to supposition on anyones part is an inane falsehood, and totally out of line with the principles that this country was founded on. Unless the 'We the People' part was repealed somewhere.:rolleyes:

And if police across the country started not arresting for felonious illegal carry as mandated because the law was unjust in their minds, would it stop there, or would we then have the aclu and others up our butts clamouring that we should also ignore laws which affect them and which they feel are unjust?

WADR Brownie, that 'The sky would fall' argument is pretty old and weak at this point. You cling to your cop mandates like superglue. There is life beyond mandate.:)

[tyme]

Brownie, if there were a MA law stating that anyone discussing the merits of totalitarian regimes in public must have a license, or would receive the same punishment as someone illegally carrying a firearm (whatever that punishment is), would you enforce that law?

[Edward429451]

May laws and shall laws. May laws mean I have discretion on the streets [ like not giving tickets when I could ], the shall laws mean I will act in a certain manner regardless of the circumstances on the street, and if I fail to do so, I may be fired, charged with crimes myself for nonfeasance/malfeasance or misfeasance, and lose my own freedom potentially.

So let me see if I'm reading this right, you would desert your countrymen and enforce what you know is wrong, if you could potentially get in trouble for it yourself?

Of course you would get into trouble, such is the nature of the beast to those who oppose them. Don't jump in and save the drowning lady b/c the potential exists that you could drown...Gotcha.

THATS whats wrong with America, and why they're winning.

[brownie0486]

Didn't say I agreed with some of the things I had to do. Yes, the job has gotten robotic in it's enforcement. It had to as both sides are looking closely at the officers actions and scrutinizing from both points of view.

The officer is fired for not doing his job. His personal views, once entered into the equation give him subjectiveness where objectivity is required so that justice is equal and the laws are enforced equally as well.

Would it not be a given that of all officers counted in the US there would be some that were naturally anti 2a? Of course, I think that we could agree on that. If we allow the 2a LE supportors to look the other way and interject their personal views into the situation at hand, thereby thinking subjectively, can we then not expect those anti 2a LE's to be subjective as well in their interpretation of the same laws? I think that letting anti LE be subjective does more harm than the pro 2a LE can do good in the long run.

Objective enforcement of the laws. I would entertain ideas otherwise and any ramifications which may ocurr once the laws were enforced subjectively by the hundreds of thousands of LE across the country.

The laws need to be changed. Blaming LE's for the situation we find ourselves in relative who can and can't carry and in what states they can under what guidelines is a legislative problem. It's not an enforcement problem, to think otherwise is to blame the spoon for Rosie being fat.

And let us not forget, the little old ladies are winning the war or the laws would be changed. Why is that? Whose to blame for this? Why of course, we the people. We have not been enough in numbers yet to keep the laws just and true from those who would control/restrict others rights. Gain the numbers necesary to change the laws or suffer from those who outnumber you until you do.

Scenario is as follows:
I stop a clean cut middle aged man and for some reason he has an unregistered handgun in the car. I'm a 2a proponent, he seems pleasant enough and I look the other way while he fractures the law as I think it unjust anyway, and let him go on his way.

An hour later, the man is caught killing his exwife and lover at the local motel with the gun I knew he had, that I had let go on his way.

Question for everyone who cares to reply.

What are the ramifications of actions by all players in the scenario. Is there any liability on any of the players? If so, how do you feel about the outcome?
Could the outcome of the scenario have been different?

This should be interesting

Brownie






























Brownie

[tiberius]

While I sympathize with LEOs just trying to earn a living, it cannot be denied that the enforcement of an unjust law makes the enforcer guilty of oppression. (See Nuremburg trials)

[tyme]

Brownie, so you would enforce a law requiring a permit to discuss merits of totalitarian regimes in public?

About your scenario. Tragic, especially for any relatives of the victim. Do you incur liability? No. Do you feel terrible whenever you see something like that happen? Yep. Should we infringe on people's rights because we might feel bad about some tragic and preventable happenstance later? No.

[Edward429451]

Didn't say I agreed with some of the things I had to do. Yes, the job has gotten robotic in it's enforcement. It had to as both sides are looking closely at the officers actions and scrutinizing from both points of view.

I disagree with the 'It had to' part. Yes yes, dirty job that someone has to do and all that but I've walked away from doing what I was expected to do before in my job. (plumber) Like when some people will not stop using a toilet when they know its stopped up. I expect a certain amount of crap to be present, but when its heaped up and a nasty biologically dangerous past the point of reasonableness, I apologize for the wasted time and walk. Some people understand, some don't, but its my subjective opinion that counts. Some have said "you're the plumber, you have to"

No, I don't.

[brownie0486]

tyme:

You enforce the laws whether you agree with them or not unless you are given discretion by that law.

The law should never have been inacted to begin with, but enough people voted for it to make it law apparently.

Becoming the majority to be able to affect change of views and understandings of what the country was founded on has to happen before the laws can be changed.

You have a lawfull society or you have an unlawfull society. Not just on the 2a issues but in all laws. They will be enforced, that will not change. What can change is becoming the majority and changing the enforcement of laws through votes and supplyig candidates from the 2a ranks until they have a majority.

It won't get better until then.

Brownie

[DFBonnett]

Thefumegator....wrote
"Concerning carrying illegally...
Now before any of you fly off the handle, just let me clarify that this is just for hypothetical discussion. That's all.

I am not considering carrying illegally, nor have I, nor will I. This is just for discussion."

Don't be a wuss. You couch your words too carefully. I do what I need to do when I need to do it. If that means carry in this "you can't carry here" gulag, then so be it. It is unfortunate that in my state the political class is so terrified of free men that they have unleashed their running dog lackeys to punish those who choose to live as free men. I hope that one of them, in his final seconds, never forces me to defend myself from them.

[brownie0486]

Edward429451:

You walked away because you could. Your job description wasn't to take the bad with the good and deal headlong into something you'd rather not do.

I didn't have those choices, I had to deal with the problems, good, bad, ugly or otherwise. We respond to things others do not want to involve themselves in, we get paid to do it and we are expected to do it regardless of the unpleasantries involved.

It's not even close to being the same. I'm the cop, I have to [ and they are right ]

Brownie

[Edward429451]

I don't buy that Brownie. You don't have the choices b/c you choose to do it their way. I lost one job over too much crap walk away. Know what? I was lookin for a job when I found that one. Other jobs have respected my subjective opinion when I walked. The good Lord hasn't let me & my family miss a meal yet.

And if law enforcement has to be so objective, then lets strike that "I thought I smelled marijuana" probable cause thing from the books.

[tyme]

Brownie, the Constitution is not just a piece of paper.
You enforce the laws whether you agree with them or not unless you are given discretion by that law.
Don't generalize. You, Brownie, enforce laws whether you agree with them or not. Don't think that you set the rules that others must or should follow.
It won't get better until then [when the idiots are voted out of office].
You're right, it won't get better, but it has nothing (or very little) to do with idiots in office. It has a lot to do with law enforcement attitudes like yours.

[Devonai]

It seems to me that if you're not prepared to enforce laws you don't agree with, you shouldn't become a police officer.

[Bill St. Clair]

I understand where Brownie is coming from. It's not really his job as a cop to decide on the legality of the laws. I would applaud him if he did, but can see that this would be difficult for most non-saints (and saints don't usually work as cops). This is too bad, since it means that as the laws get more and more unconstitutional, more and more tyrannical, a time will come when it will be necessary to declare open season on the police, all of them. Wish it weren't so.

And I hold very little hope that the laws will get less tyrannical. Too many of the sheeple are too used to sucking at the government's teat. Too many of them have been trained to believe that their personal security is somebody else's job. We who remember that America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, are now a small minority. Quoting the Bill of Rights is now considered extremist. The majority doesn't even know that anything is wrong. They probably won't notice until the bullets start to fly. And even then, the story they'll get from the nightly news will make it all look under control. Until their lights go out, and never come back on. Wish it weren't so.

[Edward429451]

How succinct and somber, Bill.:(

Wish it weren't so indeed.

Heinlein had a point in my top sig.

[brownie0486]

tyme:

Please now show me where I said I make the rules. I'll wait patiently while you find that quote for me. When you don't find it, I'd certainly appreciate it if you would then make assumtions as to my demeanor unless specifically mentiioned.

And yes, I enforce the laws I have no choice in by the letter of that law. That means many who have run into me have been treated very well, with respect and as an equal. I looked upon the job as a way to help the community, keep the general piece, and make sure everyone was treated as fairly as possible to the letter of the law [ including their various rights ], you look upon the LE's job as something other than that for some reason.

Your "It has a lot to do with law enforcement attitudes like yours." is a little presumptuous at best. Show me where I have stated an attitude other than to uphold the laws as sworn to do. That shows an objective, unbiased set of actions. I'm sure I have protected more peoples rights, as I was in a position to do, than you or a host of others who seem to want to banty back and forth it's an LE attitude issue that brings people to be "illegally" arrested for a variety of issues re: 2a here on the forums.

I can say I have had a direct effect in a positive manner in hundreds of peoples lives through what I did for a living, and furthered a betterment of understanding between our citizens and their opinions of LE's through my demeanor toward others while wearing the uniform.

I don't have the choice because I choose to do it their way? Their way is law. If thats a bad way, I suggest others get off their duffs and effect a change of the laws to better suit their needs.

You see, through all this no one has cared to answer the question I've asked over and over. Seems no one can answer it without some sort of illogical conclusion. That question again would be, do I let you go on the streets carrying illegally [ by the letter of the law ] and then ignore the gangbanger as it is also his inalienable right to protect himself?

It's either I enforce the law objectively or I do not. Ones [ right ] to defend himself and carry a gun to do so is either never restricted as it's inalienable or it can be restricted for various reasons. If you are of the camp that thinks it can be restricted to some [ mentally ill, crimianlly insane, etc ] than you are denying them their rights under 2a as well.

Kinda paints one into a corner doesn't it? You answer ya, restrict the insane, the mentally ill, then you agree you want to deny an inalienable right to another yourself.

If you are of the camp that thinks they have the right to carry, even prisoners in jail, [ after all, they certainly need protection and could use a gun excercising their inalienable rights as well ], then you are at extreme way of thinking and we will disagree.

I're brought this up a few times and I see everyone ignoring the statements and questions. Instead I see one trackness against the evil doeers in blue whose attitudes are directly responsible for the problems with laws.

Go figure.

Brownie

[brownie0486]

Bill St. Clair:

There will come a time when the gov gets too out of hand and there is rebellion in the streets.

That rebellion will not be citizens against the cops. It will be citizens including cops against the UN peacekeepers on our soil to further a gov agenda and squash any rebellion. Thats a far away place right now, but it may be inevitable.

The majority of cops [ line tropps ] support 2a and the peoples rights to bear arms. They won't be the ones going door to door, from street to street. They'll be home protecting their families like the rest of the citizens who would arm against a foreign bodies attempt to disarm the populace.

And therein lays the difference between a storm trooper and a police officer, even though some have alluded to thats how we are looked at.

Brownie

[Bill St. Clair]

Brownie,

I hope you're right that the line cops will be on our side when the excrement hits the spinning blades. I really want cops to be on my side, and, as I said earlier, the cops I've met in person have been straight arrows. Maybe it's mostly media responsible for painting the police in such a bad light. They only tell us about the bad apples. Still, I find you, and the cops I've engaged in discussion with on ar15.com's LEO forum, to be pretty much blind to the conflict between your oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the blatantly unconstitutional laws that you feel it is your duty to enforce. Then again, what's blatant to me may seem subtle to you. Easier to let the courts decide, eh? Certainly less dangerous.

To answer your question about restrictions on 2a rights. My personal opinion is that if we can't trust an ex-con with self-defense tools, we shouldn't let him out of prison. If we can't trust people who were once judged mentally ill with self-defense tools, we shouldn't let them out of the asylum. I could live with a short probationary period, while the ex-con or ex-crazy proved that they could live within the rules of peaceful society, but after that, their records should be expunged and their rights completely restored.

If the felonious or insane actions were not violent in nature, then the probationary period would not be necessary. Forever banning ownership of all firearms because of past possession of a long gun with a barrel that was half an inch too short is ludicrous.

Neither convicts nor the institutionalized mentally ill should be allowed to be armed while in captivity. Suspension of rights during periods of slavery is allowed by the Constitution. I think we'd do well to replace much of our imprisonment with restitution, but that's another discussion.

[oldfart]

Brownie said: "I didn't have those choices, I had to deal with the problems, good, bad, ugly or otherwise. We respond to things others do not want to involve themselves in, we get paid to do it and we are expected to do it regardless of the unpleasantries involved."

Sorry, Brownie, I can't buy it. Regardless of what you think your motives are, whether truly altruistic or simply to protect your pension, you DO have a choice.

Unless there is some higher power threatening to kill your family if you don't do as he says, you can always simply walk into the station-house, turn in your badge and gun and go look for another job. In today's employment climate, it might very well be a terrible hardship for you and your family, but it_might be better in the long run for both you and them since I've read several posts here and longer articles_elsewhere, that point out that-- in the probable event of any sort of massive civil uprising-- the first targets would be police officers and their families. When the unhappy day comes that the people do rise up and strike back at their oppressors, the 'Nurenburg Defense' won't fly any better than it did in 1945.

As to whether you should allow a "gangbanger" to carry if you also permit ordinary citizens to do so-- the answer is "Yes".

If you believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees the same rights to all citizens, you shouldn't differentiate according to any preconceived ideas regarding their appearance or economic class. If the gangbanger or the citizen misuses his gun the full weight of the Republic should come down on him. But as long as all he is doing is carrying it with no attempt to use it illegally, anyone should have the right to carry.

We can all invent unlikely scenarios in an attempt to illustrate our own point of view. Guns for prisoners falls within that classification. Instead of resorting to such tactics, we might be better served to look at history and search for parallels with our own society. JPFO has thoroughly documented what has happened to people who have allowed the central government to assume too much power. In every case the local_police were the first line of offense. Only if they proved to be unequal to the task did the military take over. In the America of today, the line between the police and the military is becoming very indistinct, making it all that much easier for the powers-that-be to take that final step toward total tyrany.

[Ed Brunner]

I don't have any figures on this, but most people do not get stopped and searched in their lifetime. If an average person were to illegally carry a concealed firearm, it is unlikely that it would result in arrest because it is unlikely it would ever be discovered by police.

[brownie0486]

So I quit my job and another steps in to perform the same function.

There's no solution there, as thats not where the problem stems from.

I made the choice to go against a chief in another town who was a criminal. Proved he was a thief of quantity over 10 years. Got him good too. It cost me dearly as well.

It cost me the job and pension, so don't talk to me about my motives about protecting my job. That all sounds good but it doesn't wash here. I have stated I am retired and no longer active. I make these statements under the same restrictions as the next person in this state. Isn't that surprising hey? There was life before the badge and there is life now.

So, I think I have a somewhat better perspective, having worked as LE for 9 years, and now back to the private sector where I was before life as a PO. I wouldn't work that job again for any amount of money.

See the problem is I DON"T DANCE. I knew what the potential outcome was when I started down that road. Thing is, I would have left it alone but the chief was atttempting to put a buddy of mine in prison illegally. One thing led to another and in the end, the truth was known about the friend and the chief. I actually went back into PI mode [ where I had come from and where I am today] and developed the case against the chief then took it to the State Police.

I worked with some jerks, and I worked with others that were great. I didn't expect them to put their carreers on the line for me and they didn't. Thats to be expected, and I obviously hold no ill will toward them.

You people expect the cops to turn an eye for you when you break the law as you feel that law is unjust and illegal. Thats not going to happen for reasons you apparently will never understand.

You inference and inuendo that they are not true patriots if they uphold an unjust law in any way. You are wrong for even suggesting it, relating them to
storm troopers following blindly, and inferencing as well that their families and themselves will be targeted first when the time comes.

Pretty radical statements and predictions of a possible future. Those that have discussed killing cops and their families, anywhere, or agree with those who do make such statements, need to get a grip on reality.

Your perception of law enforcement is jaded, subjective and void of objectivity or reasoned thinking. It appears you can not get past the notion that you are somehow being fatally injured by a bunch of conspirators in blue uniforms who are out to chase law abiding citizens until they can get something on them out of some power hungry elitist attitudes toward the general public.

To tell you the truth, I don't worry too much about a bunch of supposed patriotic yahoos assaulting my home under the name or guise of anything they want to call it if there is civil unrest. I see it more like my neighbors will be attempting to arm themselves with my weapons and ammo to ward off the ones who will be taking advantage of the situation and looting, killing, and causing mayhem just because they can for awhile.

People in my neighborhood besides myself who have any skills with a firearm number very few. Those that have them don't have enough ammo to support them when the time comes.

Yes, it's more likely I'll be targeted for supplies than targeted for death by the neighbors.

Brownie

[tyme]

Please now show me where I said I make the rules. I'll wait patiently while you find that quote for me. When you don't find it, I'd certainly appreciate it if you would then make assumtions as to my demeanor unless specifically mentiioned.
You made the assertion, "you enforce the laws whether you agree with them or not." To whom were you referring if that wasn't a generalization? I'm not a cop so presumably it wasn't directed at me.
Your "It has a lot to do with law enforcement attitudes like yours." is a little presumptuous at best. Show me where I have stated an attitude other than to uphold the laws as sworn to do.
Unfortunately the Constitution doesn't seem to be one of those laws... are you sworn to uphold it? Either way, the problem with your philosophy is your total disregard for the Constitution as anything but a piece of paper that might have the occasional good idea on it, but that otherwise ought to be recycled.
I can say I have had a direct effect in a positive manner in hundreds of peoples lives through what I did for a living, and furthered a betterment of understanding between our citizens and their opinions of LE's through my demeanor toward others while wearing the uniform.
Congratulations. You do have a point. At some level, you're actively involved in society rather than being a cog in the machine. That's good and respectable. But don't expect people in this forum to gloss over your disrespect for the Constitution just because you help people. There are many indirect ways to help people, as well.
You see, through all this no one has cared to answer the question I've asked over and over. Seems no one can answer it without some sort of illogical conclusion. That question again would be, do I let you go on the streets carrying illegally [ by the letter of the law ] and then ignore the gangbanger as it is also his inalienable right to protect himself?
As already answered in regard to the scenario where a non-gangbanger later kills someone after being stopped while carrying illegally... yes. You let the person go, gangbanger or not, unless he's committing some real crime (i.e. not illegal ccw... let's avoid the issue of drug laws, etc.).
It's either I enforce the law objectively or I do not. Ones [ right ] to defend himself and carry a gun to do so is either never restricted as it's inalienable or it can be restricted for various reasons. If you are of the camp that thinks it can be restricted to some [ mentally ill, crimianlly insane, etc ] than you are denying them their rights under 2a as well.
This is, of course, a good point, and what should be a corner case that could be dealt with rationally by policy makers. Unfortunately half of the people on this board could be classified as mentally ill, so you run into real problems if you restrict firearm ownership based on that classification. If some people are dangerously insane, they probably shouldn't have firearms, but more importantly they shouldn't have knives, arrows, or much of anything else. That's why they're generally in psychiatric hospitals. There are, of course, plenty of people who don't really need to be in such places, but the people who do should remain there, and shouldn't have firearms or voting rights or cars or anything else. The people who don't need to be there should be released.
Kinda paints one into a corner doesn't it? You answer ya, restrict the insane, the mentally ill, then you agree you want to deny an inalienable right to another yourself.
I have no problem restricting inalienable rights of those who are in prison or in hospitals, as long as we think much more carefully and reasonably about who belongs in such places. Both are essentially communes for people who don't fit into society, rather than what they should be - places to punish and places to help people. It's all very complicated and I don't claim to have any good solutions. But maintaining restrictions on rights of people who are currently free to walk the streets with knives, tire irons, illegal guns, etc. seems not only futile but retarded and a waste of effort and resources.
If you are of the camp that thinks they have the right to carry, even prisoners in jail, [ after all, they certainly need protection and could use a gun excercising their inalienable rights as well ], then you are at extreme way of thinking and we will disagree.
Strawman. Does anyone think prisoners retain the right to carry guns or have guns in their cells? No.

[WvaBill]

I do believe that when a LEO takes an oath to defend US Constitution, it is in the abstract--as implemented and interpreted(sp?) by the three Constitutionally enumerated branches. As a member of the executive, the LEO must perform his duty to the constitution as defined by the Legislative, Judicial, and higher Executive authorities.

If you carry illegally, you are breaking the law(By definition). If the law is unconstitutional, take it up with the Judicial Branch, not the LEO from the Executive who enforces the law of the Judiciary. If one is not convinced that the judicial branch will rule in his favor, then why should he expect the LEO take the chance?
What if the Executive(DOJ) decides to not prosecute the possession of a firearm in commision of a felony? Does this not regularly hppen? Does not more than one RKBA org tout Project Exile? If the RKBA is truly inalienable, not only is Exile unconstitutional if the weapon is only carried--bg might have to lawfully defend himself on way to/from scene of crime.

In my contact with LE, I have only been searched one time. It was a trumped up stop when I was 17 by game wardens looking for dope. It was the 70' and my hair was in the long style and we were on a very untraveled road. As it turns out I did have a long gun in my vehicle illegally. The court dismissed the case due to lack of probable cause--there was no "..smell of drugs or alcohol stated..." and I was not asked to give permission. I was told what to do and complied. I found it interesting a game warden less interested in a center fire rifle in deer and turkey country than drugs.

Oh well, the only other times I have been stopped or dealt with LE I have not been searched nor has my weapon been commented on, if detected. At least I can produce a CCW permit if needed.

Brownie, TNX to you and all the good LEO's with the s*** end.

Original question
If I had to decide it would be a hard choice. Not always. Constant risk assesment going on.
I have carried my SIG in MD when I unexpectedly ended up in Cumberland for the night. Lucky for me it was not detected. I try to keep local travels to states with reciprocity.

[brownie0486]

tyme :

The statement "you enforce the laws whether you agree with them or not." was referring to LEs on the streets.

Of course I have sworn to uphold the consitution, I have also sworn to abide by the restrictions set forth by the state, cities and towns within a certain jurisdiction. Apparently it is your impression that LE have only one mission in life and thats to defend the sacred BOR. You are of course wrong in that presumption. Thats not the real world, never has been nor will it be till the laws are changed that put restrictions on the BOR to rest.

Keep in mind I didn't as an LEO make the laws that are restrictive in nature or the laws you deem unconstituional. You did by voting those who passed the laws in the first place. Any of you people running for office on the BOR platform anywhere in your areas? If not, you are just as much to blame as any LE it would seem.

Comments that I'm either part of the problem or part of the solution also fit your profiles. I can and have taken a proactive approach to addressing the issues on the streets. What have you people done in that same venue other than support the 2a, NRA, Goals of the world? Oh, I suppose it is so easy top sit in the arm chair at ight and blame the LE's of the country for the sorry state of affairs. The thought process goes something like this--"if only the LE's would abide by my wants and desires and adhere adamantly to the BOR, then our troubles would be gone"--okay then, I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that.

Speaking of which, how many actually have picketed their town halls asking the local police dept. to not enforce unjust laws? How many have petitioned their selectman and town moderators, the mayors, held rallies that the evil LE should be restrained from enforcing the "unjust" laws?

If you haven't, perhaps it is your inactions that have contributed to the sorry a$$ state of affairs we find ourselves in on the 2a issues nationwide.
No, it is easier to sit at the computer on this forum and other venues and denigrate the LE community as being the cause of the unjust laws as they are the ones enforcing them in lieu of actually getting out there and making it change through running for office, getting into the state gov arena and becoming vocal with numbers that will support the laws being changed. I don't see it from you people anywhere in my area. But what I do see is citizens who will blame anyone other than themselves for the ills of society. Nice try, it doesn't wash well and is certainly not worn well.

I had an obligation to society as a whole, not compartmentalized groups with special interests and agendas. Thats why it is important to stay objective in the enforcement of the existing laws. App[arently there are more people who believe there should be restrictions than feel there should be none where the BOR is concerned. This didn't happen overnight folks. All of you who decry the cops for enforcing unjust laws ought to take a clear look at yourselves, you are the people who allowed the laws and restrictions to be passed by the majority.

I'd rather think of it like this---you have forced me to enforce an unjust law by letting the restrcitions be passed in the first place, making my job that much more difficult in the final analysis. Look to yourselves for the way we live today. LE's didn't make it that way, the people spoke in enough numbers to make the changes as a majority. Don't like it, change it, become the majority, but ragging on the cops for their enforcement ofthe existing laws is the easy target. Off that duff now with you, go out and effect the changes to the laws I am forced to uphold.

To say I disrespect the constitution is to tell me I'm not a true American. How dare anyone thionk they can get away with that crap. I'm a combat veteran, having served in the Corps, I fought alongside many who died protecting your "right" to exist. I've been on the frontlines on the streets of the USA fighting crimes against my fellow men and women in an attempt to make the american dream come true for everyone.

What exactly have you done lately in that regards except sit at the computer and rag on LE's because you can get away with it and it sounds oh so good to be able to single out one particular group who you will blame for all those bad things that happen to you in life. "If only the LE's would uphold the BOR, everything would be rosie in whoville"--ya right.

I find it appauling that you state "I have no problem restricting inalienable rights of those who are in prison or in hospitals, as long as we think much more carefully and reasonably about who belongs in such places"

Do you realize they have the same inalienable rights as you to protect themselves and you are willing to restrict their right to self defense? So finally we get an answer ffrom someone. And that answer is, yes, there are times when it may be prudent to restrict in some fashion.

How can you live with yourself after making that statement when you know full well they have the same "inalienable" right as yourself which can not be denied under any guise or for any reason according to your own words in the past.

So, lets see, the idea is no one should be restrcited as it's inalienable, but then you would restrict those who may be a danger to themselves or the community in general. As there are thousands on the steeets who should be locked up and not roaming around that is not a viable solution as you suggest.

"Communes that don't fit into society" Is this a new catch phrase? Are you saying these same communes that don't fit society are not entitled to inalienable rights? I hope not, as you wil have admitted to the idea it is lawful to restrict in any manner if you deem it reasonable. You are then no better than you accuse me of, and worse, you are the ones willing to restrict others under certain guidelines.

Thats the point, you can not restrict an inalienable right or you can. To say they stay in jail or mental wards and off the streets is good. But to make that the answer for restrciting them from an inalienable right is no better than the laws that restrict you yourself. You have now put yourself into the same league and category of those you made the restrictions on the BOR.


"Strawman. Does anyone think prisoners retain the right to carry guns or have guns in their cells? No."

You don't think the inmate who is being banged by bubba has the inalienable right to self defense with a gun? What is that you say? Denying anyone their inalienable rights is wrong, you say so yourself yet would restrict someone under certain circumstances. What makes you any better than the law makers who have restricted your rights? So we now know there are double standards to your thinking, those same double standards you claim the LE community carries. Makes one feel all warm and fuzzy knowing the loudest proponents of the BOR here would restrict others themselves. Put up or shut up, buy don't cry wolf when given the same option to restrict where you would deny ANYONES rights to self defense.

Double standards around here from people who cry when they feel the cops are operating in the same capacity.

Nice try, but it doesn't wash here with me. You have finally been exposed for what you are. A potential restricter of anothers inalienable rights. Don't cry to me about my not protecting your rights when you admit you would deny others yourself.

Brownie

[Tamara]

I'd rather think of it like this---you have forced me to enforce an unjust law by letting the restrcitions be passed in the first place, making my job that much more difficult in the final analysis.

Hmmm... How unjust does a law have to be before the policeman is justified in using his own conscience? Following this line of reasoning to its reductio ad absurdum winds you up in the docket at the judicial palace in Nuremburg.

[brownie0486]

Nuremberg was about a class of people who did not vote the laws into effect democratically with the will of the people [ the majority ] behind the law as in the US.

Not even close to an analogy. It sure sounds good and may even feel good to some to make the analogy the cops in the US are of the same flavor as the gestapo/nazies.

There, the laws were orders from an oppresive entity where no one had recourse, here the laws are based on the majority rule. And the people can and do have a voice in changing the laws.

Geesh, how hard it is to understand it isn't even close to the same thing.

Brownie

[Bill St. Clair]

Hmmm... How unjust does a law have to be before the policeman is justified in using his own conscience? Following this line of reasoning to its reductio ad absurdum winds you up in the docket at the judicial palace in Nuremburg.

Certainly true, but I think that Brownie and a lot of other cops, certainly the ones I've encountered at ar15.com, would stop short of Nuremberg style offenses. Most would refuse to go door to door confiscating weapons. It seems to me that we're really talking about a matter of degree here. I believe that it is already the case that thousands of laws are unconstitutional on their face, hence should not be enforced. Most cops don't think we're there yet.

One of the big problems is that you don't have standing to challenge a law in the courts unless you're fighting an arrest. So somebody has to be the fall guy, put his life on the line, in order to get rid of unconstitutional laws through the courts.

The reason we have constitutions is supposed to be to drastically limit the domain of our legislatures' law-making power. We're not supposed to have to convince a majority to uphold our rights. The Constitution is supposed to protect the smallest minority. If only one person in America thought it was important to keep and bear arms, the second amendment would still protect his right to do so. Unfortunately, most of our elected "representatives" no longer care, nor do many judges, who routinely rule that "compelling public interest" can override individual rights.

That's why the tree of liberty needs to be periodically refreshed. But it won't be long before saying this will get you arrested without warrant and held incommunicado on suspicion of terrorist intentions.

There's nobody here but us individuals. Our rights may not be infringed. Ever. Otherwise they're not rights, they're priveleges, granted by government and just as easily taken away.

Just as the war on (some) drugs really has nothing to do with drugs, the war on terrorism really has nothing to do with Muslims blowing up buildings. Both are just convenient excuses for restricting our rights and stealing our money.

[Tamara]

I didn't say that the cops in the US are Nazis; look up "reductio ad absurdum."

However, your statement about "Nuremberg was about a class of people who did not vote the laws into effect democratically with the will of the people [ the majority ] behind the law as in the US." is incorrect; the Germans most emphatically did vote that government into power, and it did enjoy the support of the majority. The sanction of the majority cannot transform wrong into right.

We can move this closer to home: Should a policeman have listened to his conscience if it told him not to arrest a runaway slave or not to throw Rosa Parks off the bus?

[Molon Labe]

An imaginarily discussion between me and a judge:

Me: “Your honor, when I carry a concealed weapon, who’s the victim?”

Judge: “Excuse me?”

Me: “There is a law against carrying a concealed weapon in Ohio, correct?”

Judge: “Of course. That’s why you’re here.”

Me: “If I understand correctly, laws are written to protect innocent people (i.e. victims) from harm, correct?”

Judge: “Correct.”

Me: “So when I carry a concealed weapon, who’s the victim?”

Judge: “Well, um, it’s not a matter of who’s the victim. You broke a law.”

Me: “But I would assume the law was written to protect victims from harm. So please, your honor, I would really like to know who’s the victim when I carry a concealed weapon.”

Judge: “Well, um, society is the victim.”

Me: “So when I carry a concealed weapon, society is victimized? How is that?”

Judge: “Um, well, um… look, Mr. *****, the court finds you guilty of breaking a law. And that’s that.”

Me: “Fine. But I would still like to know who the victim is when I carry a concealed weapon.”

Judge: “Um, well, um…”

[tiberius]

I doubt you'd find a judge that easily stumped. :)

[brownie0486]

The answer is "we all suffer the law breakers"

Your example conveniently used a judge who didn't have the answers.

The above answer is of course correct. We either have a lawful society or we have an unlawful society of lawbreakers.

In your scenario, I'm the victim as well as others of that courts jurisdiction. You are eating up the courts time and consequently the resources which the taxpayers are footing the bills for.

And that is just off the top of my head real quick, I bet I could write a thesis for an answer if I had the time.

Any other questions?

Brownie

[Edward429451]

I asked the courts once if I could face my victim (in a traffic case) and the issuing officer said "I represent the people of C. Springs...":rolleyes:



We either have a lawful society or we have an unlawful society of lawbreakers.

The lawgivers, i.e. judiciary, is unlawful in and of itself, with a lot of the laws, as well as irresponsible in it continuing release of criminals back onto the street. Clear cut breach of contract, aka treason against the Constitution and the citizenry.

We all know what happens when one gets out at a traffic stop and points a weapon at a cop...

What happens when a cop pulls you over and points an unlawful law at you? Same difference, criminal is criminal. The quasi-authority cannot not be held responsible for their unlawfulness.

You reverting to the cop almost out of gas argument, that we voted them in is predictable, funny, and inane.:D

[Keith]

I'm the victim as well as others of that courts jurisdiction. You are eating up the courts time and consequently the resources which the taxpayers are footing the bills for.

Well, you've convinced me! People should be willing to be beaten, raped, robbed and murdered if it means saving the taxpayers a buck.

Keith

[brownie0486]

Is that a round about way to say you are not to be held accountable for your actions?

Ya, I know, it's always someone elses fault you were fracturing the law [ by state law ], you are in one of the 50 or so states in the union I hope.

Excuses are like *********s, everyones got one and most stink.

"Honest officer, my mommy told me it was okay to carry this gun because you enforce a law that is considered unjust by others in her mind." She thinks the law stinks, and I always do what my mommy says I should do.

"Laws?, Laws?, we don;t need no stinkin laws [ or something like that right fellas?

Brownie

[brownie0486]

Keith,

The weapon is between your ears, not the implement/object you hold in your hand.

To hear some of you, you would think life ends as we know it if their gun is not involved in a defensive scenario.

I CAN carry in several states presently. I hardly ever carry a gun on a daily basis and work in a major city where crime is on every corner. I'm armed alright, I just don't need the gun at all times as a crutch to allay fears I may be injured or killed if I don't have several roscoes strapped about my person.

If the only self defense you can muster is a gun, you are either lazy, disabled, or a fool.

Without a gun, I stand a good chance of not being beaten to death. I also stand a good chance of not being succefully robbed or murdered. Thats because I have other options available through hard work, training, and sweat. The gun is the easy way out for many who have no desire to really learn combative skills but want to feel watm and fuzzy by having one as a security blanket.

Don't hold the gun as a crutch mentally so that you feel impetent/helpless without one.

Forethought goes a long way here.

Brownie

[Keith]

I break laws every day - and so (very probably), do you!

I don't get into a moral quandary every time I drive without a seatbelt or stick a high cap mag into a post-ban gun, or whatever. I don't worry about it. In most cases, I don't worry about it because the risk of getting caught is low - or the consequences not very serious.

When I lived in California I carried a gun, illegally. The consequences of such an act were heavy, but my military salary forced me to live in a marginal neighborhood. I reasoned that the risk of being a crime victim outweighed he risk of being caught by the police. I also reasoned that my duty to my family outweighed any other considerations. I acted accordingly.

It isn't moral issue - it's a practical one! The law is unjust. In California the law allows the rich and well-connected to carry (even those with criminal records - Sean Penn), but denies the same right to those of modest means. There is no moral compulsion to obey such a law any more than there was a moral compulsion for Jews to wear legally required yellow stars in 1939 Germany.

It's a decision for the individual to make based on his own circumstances and needs. Is the risk of being caught by the police higher than the risk of being unarmed? That equation is going to be different for every man and woman based on their neighborhood, income level, race, etc.

Keith

[Keith]

Brownie,

You are allowing yourself to fall into the one-size-fits-all mentality.

It's not up to you (or me, for that matter) to judge the needs of another. I like to use a fictional character when arguing subjects like this with liberals. My character is an unmarried black woman with a couple of kids who works as a cocktail waitress in a marginal neighborhood on the weekends. She's struggling to make ends meet and can't afford to move to a safer neighborhood. Nor can she afford to quit this relatively lucrative job. She's young and attractive (hence subject to rape), and has to travel home (alone) several nights a week at 4am carrying $100 or $150 in tip money.

Would you deny this woman the right to own and carry a gun? Would you advise her to just "suck it up" if the law says she can't have a pistol permit?

There are millions of women just like this one. Drive through any seedy neighborhood late at night and look at the people who are there making a living as best they can.

Life is tough, but there's no reason for us to make it tougher.

Keith

[Sergeant Bob]

Would you deny this woman the right to own and carry a gun? Would you advise her to just "suck it up" if the law says she can't have a pistol permit?
Now Keith, she deserves whatever she gets because she's obviously too "lazy, disabled, or a fool" and refuses to get the proper Ninja training to properly defend herself from attack.:rolleyes:

[BHPshooter]

Don't be a wuss. You couch your words too carefully. I do what I need to do when I need to do it. If that means carry in this "you can't carry here" gulag, then so be it.

Well, I can respect your opinion, but there is nothing wussy about desiring to stay out of jail. That is one definition of Freedom -- less altruistic than the one we generally think of, but it is a definition of Freedom nonetheless.

Now, if I had the choice to die/be maimed/etc. or carry and use my gun, I would certainly use my gun and not look back. But to go to jail simply for getting caught carrying a gun like a peaceful citizen is sacrificing your freedom in vain. It will probably profit you nothing, and if/when you get out of jail, you certainly won't get your "privelege" to arms back again.

I surely wish I could carry my gun without having to fear the law. I am a peaceful person, and no one has anything to fear from me, unless they threaten me with violence. But to be jailed for being fearful of my fellow man is something that I'm just not quite prepared to do yet.

As for couching my words, I have no clue what you're talking about. I said what I meant and meant what I said -- I'm not going to carry illegally. I posted that "disclaimer" so that no one would preach to the choir (me) about the possible ramifications of carrying a handgun without Big Brother's permission.

Cheers,
Wes

[tiberius]

I CAN carry in several states presently. I hardly ever carry a gun on a daily basis and work in a major city where crime is on every corner. I'm armed alright, I just don't need the gun at all times as a crutch to allay fears I may be injured or killed if I don't have several roscoes strapped about my person.

If the only self defense you can muster is a gun, you are either lazy, disabled, or a fool.

*

I think someone's superiority complex is showing.



*Edited to add quote for clarity.

[BHPshooter]

I think someone's superiority complex is showing.

:confused: Was that for me? Not trying to be confrontational, just confused.

[tiberius]

No not you , I'm not trying to insult ANYONE either, but the thought that anyone needing a gun must be crippled, lazy or stupid is just ridiculous.

[tyme]

(Ignoring Brownie's "you're not doing enough, and how dare you tell me I'm disrespecting the constitution")

Yes, when people disobey the law, in the ideal world, the person must accept punishment to uphold respect for and consistency in the law. That doesn't mean your enforcement of certain provisions of law is justified, however. Nobody had to haul Socrates before the court for trial, but once it ruled on his case, he felt obligated to accept the decision.

There is no absolute arbiter of the Constitution, and the Founders were of the belief that should a situation like this arise, revolt against those enforcing unjust laws would be moral and justifiable. You consistently ignore the fact that the Constitution is part of the law, whether you like it or not. You cannot uphold the law by ignoring the Constitution.

There's also the notion that nobody can justly expect a person to be willingly confined or killed. And that's why giving prisoners firearms, regardless of any inalienable right to self defense they may have, is not a good idea. Someone like Ghandi may not use it to escape or kill others unnecessarily, but unlike society where there's a definite minority of people who use firearms for unfair gain, in prison that becomes a substantial majority. I think that part of the reason there's an understood right to self defense that encompasses ownership and carry of firearms is that, by nature, the vast majority of people will not kill, maim, or violently threaten each other.
(brownie, of course) If the only self defense you can muster is a gun, you are either lazy, disabled, or a fool.
If car insurance is the only defense against moronic drivers you can muster, you are either lazy, poor, or a terrible driver.

[brownie0486]

Car insurance is not the only way, you could stop driving. Alterantives exist, it's whether you can see the alternatives and live with them or take your chances on the streets in public.

I agree with that giving prisoners guns for self defense as a constituional right thats inalienable is the wrong idea as well. The point is if you restrict at all, to anyone, for any reason, you are in effect denying them their rights [ which no mortal can take away as they are inalienable according to some who post here].

And there was where I was going. It's inalienable to some but they would restrict regardless certain classes of citizens [ like murderers in prison ]. Thats a good thing, it's prudent. The ones to claim no one shoud be denied based on need and that an inalienable right can not be taken away from anyone lawfully need only look to themesleves when they agree to deny to certain individuals [as being a criminal we can not take their inalienable right away from them or restricted in any way]. Either there can be restrictions or there can't. One or the other. If you set guidelines at all to restrict then it is a mere matter of personal belief who can and can't exercise the right lawfully.

Yup, she's a fool if she can't carry in the state she works in and puts herself in danger through the locale where she works. She has choices, remember, I was told that about my job not too many posts ago. It does';t hold the same for her? Double standard there folks? Thats what I thought, tell me to change jobs and then tell me she doesn;t have the same choice. WOW--who would have believed it hey?

And giving her a gun, will she be capable of defending herself adequately? Maybe, then again most people who own a gun rarely get the training necessary to be proficient with it so we still have not solved her problem have we by handing here a gun. There's the mindset, if you have a gun all will be well in whosville automatically, and it just isn't so. Nice thought, but not correct. The gun does not solve her potential problems automatically as some here would suggest. It MAY help her and it may also not even come into play if she is attacked. Too many variables to spew that all would be well if only her rights were not denied. But it seems to be a common theme among some here, that they can take on the world if only they had a gun.

Granted the gun MAY give her a better chance of fending off the attacker IF she knows how to use it, IF she has received some formal training, IF she can access it in time, and IF she hits the perp and not some bystander. It's not a given the gun will make her any safer on the streets, it MAY but not necesarily.

The crux is I would deny no one the right to carry concealed upon their person. I, however, do not make the rules, I enforce them as directed by the state through statutes which were passed long before I was around. Now if you do not like the current situatiuon, get out there and change it.

I'll stay objective in the enfoecement of the laws of the Commonwealth. Unjust, just, you can find both proponents for and against any law as being just. It's a matter of changing the laws.

As it sounds, you would have all police officers quit their jobs in protest rather than deny someone their just rights. Yet you do not consider the lady in the scenario can do the same thing? Seems lopsided at best to me.

I have a choice but the lady doesn't have a choice, how clever.

BTW---if you want to revolt, go to Washington and march on the front lawn, say about 5 million ought to do. Thats where your efforts will affect change, not ragging on the cops for enforcement of those laws. They can not make the changes you desire, the pols in DC can.

Now when can I expect all those here to get this started, hell I might march myself, if I'm not out catching bad guys to make your community safer while you are there.

Brownie

[Molon Labe]

Keith:

You hit the nail on the head. I agree 100%.

Ask yourself this: What if the law is wrong? Do I have a moral obligation to follow a law I know is wrong?

Let me give you an example. Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white man. In doing so, Rosa broke the law and was subsequently arrested.

Was it the right thing for Rosa to break the law? Yes. Was she courageous? Yes.

Is there anyone on this board who possess the same courage as Ms. Parks?

I (for one) will not follow immoral and/or unconstitutional laws, as doing so would be traitorous to Almighty God, whom we are forever thankful for giving us freedom in the first place.

[tyme]

I agree with that giving prisoners guns for self defense as a constituional right thats inalienable is the wrong idea as well. The point is if you restrict at all, to anyone, for any reason, you are in effect denying them their rights [ which no mortal can take away as they are inalienable according to some who post here].
Obviously nobody can "take away" an inalienable right. There are clearly, however, situations where people are effectively denied the ability to exercise their rights. And in some such circumstances, preventing people from exercising rights may be just.
If you set guidelines at all to restrict then it is a mere matter of personal belief who can and can't exercise the right lawfully.Of course. The CJS is a fairly arbitrary system of punishment. There could be others. But the CJS (in general) is accepted by virtually everyone, so I don't see any need to defend the restriction of rights of prisoners, or their incarceration.
Yup, she's a fool if she can't carry in the state she works in and puts herself in danger through the locale where she works. She has choices, remember, I was told that about my job not too many posts ago. It does';t hold the same for her? Double standard there folks? Thats what I thought, tell me to change jobs and then tell me she doesn;t have the same choice. WOW--who would have believed it hey?
Whether the woman carries or not doesn't affect anyone else. Police enforcement of non-laws affects others very much. So there's a distinction in the degree of effect.

Police enforcement of ccw restrictions is very much active. CCW is active only when you put the gun on in the morning. While someone's out walking, out of the clear blue sky, he could be involved in a situation where he gets searched and thrown in jail, based on enforcement of CCW laws by police like you, which is very much not up to chance, but is up to you and your colleagues.

Both highlight the major distinction: carrying a firearm is covered, at least in part, by privacy rights (as well as by the 2nd amendment, but that's irrelevant to the point). Your enforcement of laws is very much not a private matter, and therefore is subject to much harsher scrutiny.

[brownie0486]

"Is there anyone on this board who possess the same courage as Ms. Parks?"

Not unless they are strapping their shooting irons on in plain view and walking around town in defiance of the unjust laws, getting arrested, and doing their time they aren't.

Lets see some of those here get on the bus and carry in defiance where the world can see they are breaking the unjust laws, and not skulking around hiding their shooter from the law, taking the consequences of their actions knowing full well they will be arrested and jailed.

Anyone here done that? If not, I guess Rosa must have more intestinal fortitude than those on the forum here who would break the law in defiance and then hide the fact as they don't want to get caught.

Step up folks, take the bat in hand and go win one for the gipper. I'll certainly think more of you for that than ragging the cops are at fault for the ills of world.

Brownie

[brownie0486]

"And in some such circumstances, preventing people from exercising rights may be just."

OOPs, you stepped into it now I think. How can you as a mortal deny an inalienable right from anyone?

Oh, I agree that you can, this is for those who stand tall and proclaim no man CAN be denied the right to self protection. You have agreed in certain circumstances resrictions may be valid, now it's only a matter of perspective as I see it. The majority in the country have voted to restrict in some fashion that right, not unlike your suggestion relative the prisoners.

Does their restrictions have any less merit than yours? Perhaps you think so, but I bet the prison populations could make a case that they are being denied their rights as well.

Inalienable, that which can not be taken from you under any law. Thats the thought process here, and you have now put yourself right into the same camp they are in. Willing to deny soemone of their rights for any reason.

And if you deny, you are then effectively restricting.

Brownie

[Keith]

Yup, she's a fool if she can't carry in the state she works in and puts herself in danger through the locale where she works. She has choices, remember

She has to make choices based on the cards dealt her. Maybe quitting the job means moving her children to an even cheaper apartment in an even crappier area of the city. Maybe it means giving up the college courses she takes to create a brighter future for herself. Maybe it means giving up and going on welfare.

At any rate it's her decision - not mine or yours! One size does not fit all and she has to make the decisions that affect her own life. I would not arrest such a woman for carrying a gun. I would not convict such a woman for carrying a gun. And if asked, I'd lend her a gun to carry - I have plenty!

Disobeying a bad law does not make one a bad person.

Keith

[brownie0486]

"Disobeying a bad law does not make one a bad person."

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. But lets finish it for the rest of the fokks here.

"Disobeying a bad law does not make one a bad person, it makes then a criminal in the courts eyes when they are caught"

The point about the mother was meant to show those who would tell me to find another job in lieu of violating anothers rights without any concern for my situation or families needs yet hold the mother at a different status.



Brownie

[gunsmith]

I would get the permit,I am not sure of Utah law,but in FL
which has pretty good CCW it is a felony to carry without a permit.
here in PRK it is a serious misdemeanor...so alot of folks do carry without a permit.
here in the peoples repub of frisco,unless your really FUBAR
chances are you won't be searched by the cops.
my cop friend told me if I have to shoot in self defense just leave...
I carry a revolver so I don't have to police up the brass.

[brownie0486]

gunsmith:

That will be good advice from the officer until you leave and get caught later.

Then you are in more trouble for leaving a shooting, to the point it almost admits guilt automatically.

Risks, take them, no problem. Don't cry foul after you are caught, thats all.

You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well. Does that then mean someone starving has the right to steal food? [ so they can live?]

Brownie

[tyme]

Oh, I agree that you can, this is for those who stand tall and proclaim no man CAN be denied the right to self protection. You have agreed in certain circumstances resrictions may be valid, now it's only a matter of perspective as I see it. The majority in the country have voted to restrict in some fashion that right, not unlike your suggestion relative the prisoners.
Fine, you want to revolt because imprisoned criminals can't carry firearms? Be my guest.

The people who are affected by "no guns in prison" are the ones who need to decide whether to revolt. And guess what. Some of them do, and sometimes they succeed.

It makes much less sense to deny me rights, because other rights you don't deny me enable me to kill people I disagree with, though such killing may or may not be morally right or justified. People prevent prisoners from exercising rights so that they cannot harm society, to teach them a lesson, and maybe to rehabilitate them (ha!). You're preventing the citizens of MA from exercising their rights... why? Presumably so that they won't harm society, right? But if corrections officers do their jobs well, the prisoner won't get to kill anyone even if he wants to. Not so in the real world. Push people hard enough and they push back. If police are going to push people, the people they push had better be incarcerated or there are bound to be tragedies.

The basic premise is that you cannot deny people rights without imprisoning them. There are some edge-cases like immigrants-not-yet-citizens and such, but most are easily resolvable. Does someone, as an immigrant, have an inalienable right to vote in a country in which the person isn't [yet] a citizen? No. Do ex-cons have a right to vote? Are they citizens? Yep. They have freedom to walk around, buy illegal guns, and kill people, but you're not going to let them vote? What kind of nonsense is that?

I suppose this puts a discussion on probation just ahead, but I'll ignore it for now. :)

[brownie0486]

But I'm not saying nor have I ever stated I would deny you your rights.

"You're preventing the citizens of MA from exercising their rights.."

Not so, I'm upholding a law that others feel [ rightfully so ] an unjust law.

I'm not denying them their rights, they can carry to their hearts content, but if they are found to be in violation of a state law they will be arrested, thats the law.

Change the law so I'm not mandated to arrest for such foolishness. But do not blame me for the way the laws are, as others want to lay the blame on the cop for enforcing laws objectively.

The constituionalists are barking up the wrong tree, they need to look elsewhere for permanent relief from the what they believe is unjust.

I'll ask again, you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Is the man who is starving guilty if he steals food from a grocery store?
It is his right to life we are talking about afterall, and he needs nourishnment to sustain life.

As to prisoners succeeding in revolt, that success is always short lived and rarely successful. Know why? Because enforcement will ultimately put the revolt down and they are back to their cells.

We need permanent relief, not something temporary and a quick solution. That won't ever come from the ones who can not make a change [ the cops ].

How far do we carry these ideas?

Brownie

[WvaBill]

the Germans most emphatially did vote that government into power.

Yes, they voted in record turnout. The "government" they voted into power then became a totalitarian dictatorship without the consent of the governed.

It's inalienable to some...

I thought the Constitution was about natural rights that could be infringed...after due process. I do not believe that denying cirizens rights by law meets due process. Remember, those in prison have been given INDIVIDUAL due process. The abridgement of rights is based on behaviors proven to have been committed by the prisoners. Only in staes with non-permit CCW or must isssue, is due process met.

This does not allow individual agents of ANY branch of goernment to selectively enforce the law.

[Stinger]

I'll ask again, you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is the man who is starving guilty if he steals food from a grocery store? It is his right to life we are talking about afterall, and he needs nourishnment to sustain life.

Okay, I'll bite...but this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Is he guilty, yes. We all have the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. But by stealing, he has violated someone else's rights. You do not have access to your rights at the expense of someone else's.

I think we've reached an impasse. Brownie, no hard feelings, I respect your opinion (even if it's wrong :neener: ) because you are willing to discuss it and don't become angry or upset (unlike others such as myself).

Alright, break it up, nothing more to see here. :cool:

Stinger :p

[Tamara]

Anyone here done that? If not, I guess Rosa must have more intestinal fortitude than those on the forum here who would break the law in defiance and then hide the fact as they don't want to get caught.

You never answered my question.

Back when you were still a LEO, would you have arrested Rosa Parks? When is a law unjust enough that your conscience would forbid you to enforce it? Or would you enforce any law passed by the duly constituted authorities? When does the conscience override the Criminal and Traffic Code book?

I'm sincerely curious to hear your take...

[tyme]

Stealing causes harm. Carrying a firearm does not.

But I'm not saying nor have I ever stated I would deny you your rights.
Well forgive me for reading into your evasive answers. After answering Tamara's question, could you please clearly address whether you'd enforce a law making it illegal for unlicensed individuals to discuss totalitarianism? Since my earlier assumption was that you would, it seems you would deny me my rights in that case if I were discussing such matters within earshot, as well as if I moved to MA and you managed to find cause to search me while I was carrying a firearm illegally.
I'm not denying them their rights, they can carry to their hearts content, but if they are found to be in violation of a state law they will be arrested, thats the law.
Being charitable and presuming you wouldn't arrest Rosa Parks, what difference do you see between Black Codes and CCW laws? Both are horrific laws, but both do, to some degree, address, or attempt to address, or might seem to address, the problem of crime.
Change the law so I'm not mandated to arrest for such foolishness. But do not blame me for the way the laws are, as others want to lay the blame on the cop for enforcing laws objectively.
So we're back to this again. Yes, let's put people elected by the majority at the helm. Anyone who doesn't like the direction in which we're sailing will be thrown overboard. Everyone agreed before boarding that there were certain directions we wouldn't sail, but hey if we sail towards those places anyway, our only recourse is to vote the idiot away from the helm?
The constitionalists are barking up the wrong tree, they need to look elsewhere for permanent relief from the what they believe is unjust.
Where should we be looking? You keep speaking frustratingly about elected officials, but elected officials are just dictated to us by the majority whether we're in the majority or not. I suppose if the majority elect representatives who believe and pass laws that police should to murder anyone they see, you'd go along?

[Edward429451]

Lets see some of those here get on the bus and carry in defiance where the world can see they are breaking the unjust laws,

Because standing up for ones rights does not mean forgetting ones responsibilities by unnecessarily upsetting the general populace. I would think that you, an LEO would be capable of better sense than that.

and not skulking around hiding their shooter from the law, taking the consequences of their actions knowing full well they will be arrested and jailed.

Misplaced consequences by an unlawful oppressive rogue government, worthy to be resisted on all levels. We was born into the late stages of a war and you dare to blame the war on us for realizing the truth and saying so? If voting could really change anything it'd be illegal. You're being very narrow minded about all of this.

Why do you seemingly refuse to acknowledge the existance or validity of the Constitution? How can you? Are you calling your elementary school history teachers liars?

[brownie0486]

I think you would have realize that Rosa Parks upset the general populace quite a bit with her actions on the bus.

Thats what defying an unjust law is all about, making the statement through your actions in the general public calling attention to yourself and the general situation you find intolerable [ if you have the conviction ].

I don't see the members here who cry foul and defy the laws of carryng a firearm standing on street corners being arrested for their convictions, bringing attention to themselves and the issues in furtherance of their cause.

Course I do see them posting all over the internet forums about how they will fight the unjustness in their lives, fracture the laws whenever they please in their defiance of an unjust law.

Seems not many here have the conviction of Rosa and are willing to be the case that breaks the camels back and rescinds these nasty, evil, bad laws.
Complain about it, rag on LE's for enforcement of the unjust laws, ya thats the way to effect change [ not ].

I have plenty of sense about the constituionalist here. They'll cry foul, and rightfully so. They'll rag on about the enforcement of the unjust laws, and how the the countries police dept's should stand up against the unjust laws with them, and if they won't then they are deemed against the constitution, won't enforce it's BOR to the letter, how it's all LE's fault because if they refused to enforce the laws the lawmakers would have no teeth.

And though their statements about LE's enfocing something unjust may be valid, they are barking up the wrong tree, as LEO's do not make the laws, thats where the change comes from.

Edward429451: I don't believe I have stated anywhere that I blame those in your camp for anything other than continuously stating the ills are a result of the enforcement, and not the lawmakers themselves.

Are you saying voting doesn't change anything, can't get laws rescinded?
Can't change anything? Well now, that sounds a little defeatest to me sir.
Giving up on the system are we? Better to state your case here on the internet where it is safe to do so than to be proactive and go out and make your case to the lawmakers, replacing them if they do not follow your cause with ones who will, and taking a stand all across the country like dear old Rosa.

Do you think hiding your defiance will effect change? Seems not many here who decry the way things are unjust do much about it except give lip service on an open forum where others with like agendas can commisurate with each other. And thats a good thing, not saying it isn't. You won't be meting your goals ragging about it on an open forum. Look elsewhere to effect change.

Stealing may cause harm, would that be physical harm, monetary harm, what harm. He's hungry and has a right to live, if thats his only means of surviving [ in his mind ] than is he wrong?

Tyme, How am I going to be able to address your question or Tamaras when it would be hypothetical and a guess based on information provided and the circumstances at the time of the incident. No one really knows what they will do until they are in that situation. Therefore I can not address the questions you and Tamara asked, as it would only be hypothetical.

If you and Tamara are going in the direction I think you are looking to go with this, I'm not biting, nice try.

I didn't blame the war on you folks, you are the ones who post and point blame at the nasty LE's who enforce the laws as written. You post we are to blame in some way for the situation in this country relative the 2a.

I have not seen many LE's posting about sh$thead citizens and ragging on any particular group as you folks do taking pot shots at the cops.

I say it again, stand up, be a man/woman, state your case, be a Rosa Parks, carry illegally as it is your right, show the world you won't stand for it any longer and are willing to be the case law that may bring about the desired changes. Matter of fact, why don't some of you get together in PM, make it a date to meet with all states represented, armed to the teeth, guns showing in plain view, take your case to the press [ there certainly would be some don't you think? ], and let the chips fall.

Oh, wait, I should not expect you to do that as you have a family and loved ones who rely on you for their financial support. That would put a hardship on you and yuour family. Not willing to stand up and be a Rosa? Than I guess you'll all have to just sit back, pull up a chair at the nearest monitor and rag on the open boards with each other.

Unfortunately, I somehow do not think you will be effecting change through this venue. Instead, you'll continue to cry foul and how bad the cops are for not going along with your agenda and views. Thats surely the way to working together to change the ways things are.

Continuing to accuse the LE community of complicity in enforcing unjust laws will surely not be conducive to either side, creates animousity in some and makes the gap between the two entities wider. That is not the most efficient way to bridge the gap between them.

So go forth, become the Rosa's of 2a, get arrested, make case law, take it all the way to the supreme courts on appeal once you are convicted, make them listen individually or in numbers, let the media be your ad managers, bring forth the light and errors of their ways.

But don't skulk around town packin heat illegally, then cry foul and that I'm the bad guy for arresting you.

Brownie

[tyme]

Brownie,

Your lack of committment to a position doesn't afford you any protection from debate. Haven't you already admitted that the Constitution is no barrier to enforcement of ccw laws? What's different about laws mandating racial discrimination that would make you think twice before enforcing them? Is the 14th amendment more clearly written than the 2nd? Is the 1st amendment more clear than the 2nd?

Because nobody posting on this thread has been arrested for illegal ccw (which may not be true, but if it is), nobody should take the position that enforcement of ccw laws is unconstitutional and morally reprehensible?

It's not very easy to become a Rosa Parks by illegally carrying a firearm. Generally you have to announce that you're carrying. Otherwise you can't create a public spectacle. People have tried marches while carrying firearms. Generally such events get ignored, and have very little effect on legislatures.

[Bill St. Clair]

It's amazing to me that Brownie, along with many other cops, doesn't get the purpose of the Constitution. It's supposed to make all but a small number of enumerated powers off limits to legislation. But because there has been no penalty associated with making or enforcing unconstitutional laws, the legislative and executive branch members have no motivation to stay in their constitutional cage.

I'm going to quote from another thread that's been pretty active recently, discussing pretty much the same issues. This is a post by Sam Adams (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=513580#post513580). I think it makes it crystal clear that the right to keep and bear arms has second class citizen status in our once free country.

"Does 51% of the population have the right to strip you of all Liberties?"

Thats an easy one, of course not. But you miss the point, its how that right is interpetated. At one time it was legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Then some people died in a false alarm and the man who shouted the word was brought to trial. Using the 1st amendment as a defense was rejected by the courts, their interpetation was different from his, he went to jail.

No, YOU miss the point. FYI, I'm a lawyer (try not to hold that against me, esp. since I do estate and business planning, not the ambulance-chasing thing or the criminal defense thing). Because of that, I know that you STILL have the right to shout "Fire!" in a theater, crowded or not. However, your right to do so will be balanced against the rights of others there. If there was, in fact, no fire, and people are hurt as a natural result of your actions, you will have to pay a penalty. However, you will not lose your right to Freedom of Speech, nor will your mouth be sown shut because you could shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor will your tongue be cut out for the same reason. Nor will you have to get a license to speak, or be imprisoned for speaking without a permit. You see, most people (even judges) understand what Freedom of Speech means. As such, laws that impose "prior restraint" on the exercise of a basic right have been ruled to be unconstitutional.

That, however, is far from the case with firearms. Because someone or some several dozen people might commit crimes with guns, various ignorant and anti-liberty legislators and executive branch officials on all levels of government have decided - for our own good, as if we are a bunch of children - that your basic right to be armed in defense of yourself, your family and your liberty is subject to licenses, taxes, security checks, fingerprinting, etc., etc. Various judges on all levels have backed up that outrageously unconstitutional premise, so much so that people like you think that it is the law. In short, our precious right to keep and bear arms has become a mere privilege, to be revoked at the whim of our supposed masters. People like you seem to think that it is just fine for us to have less rights in practice than did our parents or grandparents (never mind those 200+ year old ignorant white codgers), just so long as some slick-talking, power-hungry pol comes up with a catchy reason like "its for the children." Tell you what: most of us here disagree with that premise and, therefore, you. While you are perfectly free to disagree with any or all of us - thoughts are not yet controlled by the government - you might want to re-examine your views on this issue.

[brownie0486]

Tyme: "It's not very easy to become a Rosa Parks by illegally carrying a firearm"

It's extremely easy, strap one one with no license and walk around the town/city for awhile. Thats not easy? I'm sure someone citizen will call it in and have a cruiser meet you on the street. From there, you have become visible to LE community and if you had a camera crew called in to watch the expected resultant action of the cops, hell, you'd be on the national news at 6pm that evening. You know how the media is about guns, they'd be happy to interview you and get your message out, great headlines and about a guy with a gun and an agenda.

I suppose those who have not worked in LE may not be able to understand the concept. An officer may believe that a law is unjust, he still has a job to perform based on state guidelines and statutes. He has an obligation to the state/town and county within his jurisdiction to uphold the state laws.

Federal laws are upheld by federal agencies. We do not involve ourselves with federal laws. Now I know some will chime in here that I swore and oath to uphold the constitution as well. Thats is not exactly correct. I believe [ from memory ] that I swore an oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth. I may be wrong, I would have to check with the dept. on that, though I believe at this time the Consitution was not in there except the states constitution.

I have no problem with anyone taking the position that the ccw laws are unconstitutional in the least. I believe they are as well. That does not mean I seek employment elsewhere due to my personal beliefs however, nor will it ever enter into the equation where earning a living is concerned.

It was my choice to join the force, one I joined to provide for the general safety of the citizens who were within my jurisdiction, one where I expected I would be able to make a positive difference in peoples lives personally, as well a difference in the quality of life for the neighborhoods who had been taken over by the "boys in the hood" and gangbangers.

I was approached to join due to my background, I accepted. In accepting the position, I did not undertake to be the spokesperson or become case law over the 2A debate and it's merits, right or wrong.

I concerned myself with the bangers, buying drugs undercover, performing sting operatins, surveillances on suspected bankrobbers, stakeouts to prevent arson of dwellings during the nighttime, you know, the kind of stuff no one really wants to be involved in unless they have to.

I had more to think about than the 2A issues to be sure. I did my job and had many successes getting the idiots, thieves, druggies, muggers, etc off the streets. There is more to law enforcement than this subject, a lot more.

BTW--"Your lack of committment to a position doesn't afford you any protection from debate."

A debate is usually between two or more people with differing views. The protection from debate is self evident, if you do not participate, you are not part of the debate, correct me if thats wrong. It takes willing participants to debate, I'm not willing to debate Tamara or you relative the question asked, hence, no debate, seems like a good way to protect from debate to me, just don't participate.

Hell, I've asked many questions here hypothetically, had to ask more than once as well on every one of them. People shyed away from answering [ getting into the debate I sought ].

Any difference between my not responding in kind to a question?

Brownie

[Keith]

The point about the mother was meant to show those who would tell me to find another job in lieu of violating anothers rights without any concern for my situation or families needs

I don't know what you are referencing. But there is a big difference between violating anothers rights and violating the law to protect yourself.
The mother is not violating anyone's rights. She is only defending herself and her children.

Keith

[brownie0486]

Keith,

The mother story, the point was made she had no choice but to work in the area where she was likely to become a victim of crime. I made the counter point she had the option to not work there after others told me I could just quit my job and do something different in lieu of violating someones 2a rights by upholding an illegal law.

She can find another job and has choices as others have suggested to me.

That was the point. SHE had no choices [in the example ], and I did have a choice acccording to these same people not to work in LE.

We both would have choices where others atemptedto make the point she didn't but I did.

Hope that clears that up some for you.

Brownie

[Tamara]

An officer may believe that a law is unjust, he still has a job to perform based on state guidelines and statutes. He has an obligation to the state/town and county within his jurisdiction to uphold the state laws.

I asked you a question regarding that statement in all sincerity, and only received indirect responses in replies to others' posts.

Is there any law, passed by a popular government, that it would be justified for the LEO to not enforce?

[tiberius]

I suppose those who have not worked in LE may not be able to understand the concept. An officer may believe that a law is unjust, he still has a job to perform based on state guidelines and statutes.


The Nazi soldiers were just carrying out orders based on “state guidelines and statutes” when they were filling those ovens in Auschwitz as well. At what point does an unjust law become too extreme to enforce? Or does it ever?

[tiberius]

Yeah, What she said.

Looks like Tamara is faster on the draw than me. :)

[Keith]

Brownie,

Perhaps I didn't articulate my reply very well. I was attempting to point out that her actions harm nobody. One could very well argue that her stance results in a net good to the greater society, especially if she puts a hole through some thugs head. And she is certainly within her rights in the greater constitutional sense.

That's quite a different thing than violating peoples civil rights and defending it as a a duty to your family. That would make a better argument for the criminals she is defending herself from - that they were robbing her as a duty to THEIR family...


Keith

[brownie0486]

Keith, her stance harms everyone if she uses the illegal gun to kill a perp.

The aftermath of her actions will be a burden on the courts, the DA's office, the dept's officers who arrested her for her illegal actions at the scene, and the taxpayers foot the bill for her court appointed atty.

All that money wasted on a trial, defense attys. paid fro with tax dollars and as well, the time involved for everyone once her actionable response of breaking the law is committed.

Resources are spread thin enough as it is in the courts. Our taxes do pay for that system right? My money is beeter spent in her obeying the laws or using her choices to remove herself from the situation she finds herself in.

People balked at that suggestion, then uturn around and expect myself and other LE's to quit our jobs as though it would be somehow less of a problem than hers to do so. Shows trhe mentality of some here doesn't it?
Okay for her to excuse her breaking the law as she can't move but I can pick up and go at a whim to protect ones 2a rights in principle? Hardly equitable I would think and shows ones bias toward the LE's in stating such.

tiberius :
"The Nazi soldiers were just carrying out orders based on “state guidelines and statutes” when they were filling those ovens in Auschwitz as well. "

Are you comparing the US LE's to nazi's again as others have done? Lets see how they differ briefly so you are not under any dillusions that they may even be close to the same. Pay attention, it gets stated once only.

LE's do not round up citizens and train them to gas chambers enmasse.
LE's do not enter homes and drag people to gulags daily enmasse
LE's do not seperate women and children from their dads/husbands/brothers so the males can be sent to work camps.

Need I go on to show you the error of that thinking? The above should probably stop the insanity of referring to US LE's as nazis in nature and deeds.

Tamara "Is there any law, passed by a popular government, that it would be justified for the LEO to not enforce?"

I would have to guess yes, there would be. In the scope of my job I did not run into any during the 9 years on the dept.


Brownie

[Tamara]

Keith, her stance harms everyone if she uses the illegal gun to kill a perp.

The aftermath of her actions will be a burden on the courts, the DA's office, the dept's officers who arrested her for her illegal actions at the scene, and the taxpayers foot the bill for her court appointed atty.

Dang! You're right! It'd be so much cheaper for the taxpayers to let the perp kill her. :uhoh: ('Cause the courts, DA's actions, arresting officers, and PD are free for him, right?)



Here, I'll try again:

Is there any law, passed by a popular government, that it would be justified for the LEO, as guided by his conscience, to not enforce?

[Keith]

Keith, her stance harms everyone if she uses the illegal gun to kill a perp.

Nope. Killing a perp is good thing.

The aftermath of her actions will be a burden on the courts, the DA's office, the dept's officers who arrested her for her illegal actions at the scene, and the taxpayers foot the bill for her court appointed atty

Oh, I see your point! It's her civic duty to be raped, beaten and strangled to death so as not to burden the cops with unnecessary paperwork...

Can I lend you a bigger shovel?

Keith

[Bill St. Clair]

Brownie: Tamara "Is there any law, passed by a popular government, that it would be justified for the LEO to not enforce?"

I would have to guess yes, there would be. In the scope of my job I did not run into any during the 9 years on the dept.
Tamara, Looks like he answered your question, though he didn't give any examples. Apparently Brownie believes that performing sting operations to enforce the laws that forbid the possession of certain vegetables is just hunky-dory. He also believes that jailing people for possessing a metal pipe that is half an inch shorter than some know-nothing legislator proclaimed a long time ago is also hunky-dory. And he would deny a low-income mother, doing the best she can to support her children, the best known tool for defending her life.

I can't for the life of me see the victim in any of this, except the welfare mom. If she's hurt because, in order to abide by the "law", she didn't carry a handgun and couldn't protect herself when attacked, then the legislators who made these "laws" and the cops who enforce them are responsible, criminally responsible. They have engaged in a conspiracy to deny this woman her right to life. Sounds like a major felony to me.

No victim, no crime.

[Edward429451]

I'll ask again, you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Is the man who is starving guilty if he steals food from a grocery store?

I'll stick my neck out on this one and say no. Eating is a life drive. Food only, were not talking cartons of Marlboros, or even caviar though. It does violate the supermarket owners rights though, so if caught he should have to work it off, and if the thief won't do that then he wasn't really hungry and should be locked up for it. A hungry man will welcome a work for food deal.

LE's do not round up citizens and train them to gas chambers enmasse. LE's do not round up citizens and train them to gas chambers enmasse.

Only b/c the so called lawful order hasn't been given yet. You've already admitted that if its the law, you're there with enthusiasm. If this is incorrect, then where do you draw the line? This is what Tamara is asking that you wont/haven't answered.

Whoops mis pasted there, see below and add to list of above quotes.


LE's do not seperate women and children from their dads/husbands/brothers so the males can be sent to work camps.

[MyRoad]

This is an interesting subject, but I don't really think its purely black and white. While I can see both sides, I'd like to add this thought (and hopefully it wasn't added pages ago, and I've missed or forgotten it): While I do believe that no one, regardless of their job or position should do something they consider immoral or illegal... we're all human, and like in any other profession that represents a cross section of society -- LE are not always the brightest bulbs in the box, and as individuals, their morals may be less than average in some cases. Do we really want to encourage LE to pick and choose which laws they uphold, and which ones they don't?

I know that some things seem perfectly clear as right and wrong - or even unconstitutional, but I've heard this argument before, and arresting someone for carrying a gun illegally is not the same as pulling them from their bed at night and executing them... my folks are Jewish, I'm not insensitive to the Nazi references.

[brownie0486]

How facitious of you sir.

The stings were related to MV parts stolen and taken off at chop shops. Ya, imagine that, I got some ladies corvette back before it was completely dismantled, thereby stopping that crime in that time and thereby rducing evryones overall insurance rates. Thanks for the appreciation.

Next time pay the damned high ins. bill and find your own car, or better yet, pick up the pace and put yourself in harms way for others by risking your life while you are performing the stings.

Didn't mention a pipe anywhere but I suppose it fits your needs well here so hey, why not use it as an extreme example right Bill?

And I am not denying anyone their right to self protection, the law does that, I only enforce the laws the citizens enacted, citizens like you.

Actually the case could be made because none of you will step forward and take up the cause you so zealously pronounce as the prime reason for existance that the mom in that scenario has her rights denied, where if you all would be so kind to have yourself arrested and bring it to a head in the courts right to the top at the supreme courts level, get that law overturned, she would be able to carry the gun legally to begin with.

It's your fault for not stepping forward and shirking your responsiblility to the mother who needs to protect herself by getting the law overturned by having yourself be the lamb to slaughter and your name as the landmark case whichever way the decision went in the finasl analysis.

I've been fairly docile all alone here for the most part during this thread against many, if it turns nasty as it seems some are getting by their recent responses, I can certainly get nasty with the best of them, don't believe me, lets begin.

You want to cvililly discuss the merits of the present thread , fine, I can adhere to an adult conversation.

You want nasty? Bring it on. I can get nasty with the best of them. Actually have wanted to for awhile here but kept my end of being an adult and having an adult discussion. Throwing jabs will only get you right crosses and then the thread has turned to S$$t and pointless to continue.

On second thought, the thread is closed to my thinking as of now. I don;t need the nastys thrown my way nor the aggravation to become the same relative this thread.

Go make your case to the courts. Break the law, go to jail. Don't like it, change the law.

Everyone have a nice day now.

Brownie

[Edward429451]

arresting someone for carrying a gun illegally is not the same as pulling them from their bed at night and executing them

Not par se, but history has shown that its a precursor to it...

[Tamara]

And I am not denying anyone their right to self protection, the law does that,

Right. And a piece of parchment chucked Rosa Parks off the bus.

Without willing enforcers, unconstitutional, unprincipled, and immoral laws are toothless. There never seems to be a shortage of those willing to enforce them, however, solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution to the contrary.

Good day, sir.

[tiberius]

Are you comparing the US LE's to nazi's again as others have done? Lets see how they differ briefly so you are not under any dillusions that they may even be close to the same. Pay attention, it gets stated once only.

Are you comparing the US LE's to nazi's again as others have done? Lets see how they differ briefly so you are not under any dillusions that they may even be close to the same. Pay attention, it gets stated once only.

LE's do not round up citizens and train them to gas chambers enmasse.
LE's do not enter homes and drag people to gulags daily enmasse
LE's do not seperate women and children from their dads/husbands/brothers so the males can be sent to work camps.

Need I go on to show you the error of that thinking? The above should probably stop the insanity of referring to US LE's as nazis in nature and deeds.


Don't be silly, or sillier I should say. No need for the pedantic tone either.

Pay attention now! - I never "referr[ed] to US LE's as nazis". So please read more carefully next time.

YES I am comparing US police to Nazi's, but I am NOT equating them. There is a difference. You see things that are different can be compared even just for the sake of pointing out the differences.

You stated that “he still has a job to perform based on state guidelines and statutes”, so I carried the point to absurdity (a common debating technique FYI) to see how far you feel “just following orders” should go. You have probably answered this as much as your going to in your response to Tamara, so I guess that this issue is closed.

I stand by the conviction that enforcing an immoral law makes the enforcer guilty of oppression and the excuse of “Its just my job” is just that, an excuse.

[Bill St. Clair]

Brownie,

I guess I made my examples too obtuse.

If you were shutting down chop shops, I salute you. Real crime. Real victims.

But you said something about catching drug dealers. The war on drugs criminalizes the possession of certain vegetables. If someone sells drugs to minors, fine, arrest them. Adults own their own bodies, so they have the absolute right to put anything they want into those bodies. No law forbidding that is valid. Drug dealers are merely selling vegetables to willing consumers. No victim. No crime.

By a tube that is too short I was referring to the laws that make it illegal to possess rifles and shotguns with barrels shorter than some arbitrary length. The BATF measures barrel length. 1/2" too short and they arrest you. Your statements on this thread lead me to believe that you're fine with that.

I stand by my characterization as felony crimes the making and enforcing of so-called "laws" that make it difficult for a welfare mom to defend herself by obtaining and carrying a handgun, always and everywhere, without asking anyone's permission or signing a single scrap of paper.

[oldfart]

"I have no problem with anyone taking the position that the ccw laws are unconstitutional in the least. I believe they are as well. That does not mean I seek employment elsewhere due to my personal beliefs however, nor will it ever enter into the equation where earning a living is concerned.

Ah yes, the same rationalization used by every other common whore.

I don't know what the moderators are going to do, but as far as I am concerned-- this thread is closed.

[chickenfried]

Just found this thread at 3am after playing some poker. Very interesting. I've read through all the posts. I'm wondering if brownie gave a direct answer to the following question, especially the first sentence? Sorry if I missed his post answering the question. Back when you were still a LEO, would you have arrested Rosa Parks? When is a law unjust enough that your conscience would forbid you to enforce it? Or would you enforce any law passed by the duly constituted authorities? When does the conscience override the Criminal and Traffic Code book?

[fjolnirsson]

I also read through all of the posts. Very entertaining, and many good points were made. I forgot where I was going with this, so I'll shut up now.

[boyscout]

I believe in the second amendment. I do have a carry permit, but I carry wherever I go regardless of the laws. I am trying to be legal as possible but I will not jeopardize the saftey of myself, my family or my friends. I carry in other states that do not recognize my permit as being legal. I say that the constitution and the bill of rights are the supreme law of the land. I do try to be descreet as possible. boyscout out.

[Edward429451]

I think its in poor taste that Coronach closed the other thread in which I discussed carrying quasi-illeaglly and left this one open. No consistency.

Very disappointing and not something thats consistently respectable.

I would hope that his judgement on the street is more consistent than his moderation judgement...:uhoh:

[Derek Zeanah]

I would hope that his judgement on the street is more consistent than his moderation judgement...I would hope that members here realize that moderators: Moderate on their own time. They don't get paid for this, and do it as a service to this community.
Have lives outside of THR. Mods generally never have time to read all the posts here (there were 1636 yesterday, and we're up to 900 today), and aren't watching every thread constantly -- once per day isn't that uncommon.
Often react to threads that are brought to their attention by members before they see the thread in question themselves. Users using the "report this post..." functionality play a vital role in moderation.
Generally allow for some leniency in thread appropriateness, drift, or "gun-relatedness" (especially in this forum). Occasionally people will completely forget about the rules, the focus of the forum will start to drift, and strict adherence to the rules is required for a few days or so. This looks like an inconsistency, but is in actuality the best way found to date to keep this place running smoothly. Feel free to PM if you've got ideas you think are better (remember, many of our mods have been doing this non-stop since TFL days. They're good at this.)
React to specific posts, and then the threads that contain them. Advocating illegal activities is a no-no. Comments like "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" are generally allowed to pass. Where to draw the line is a judgement call. As with all judgement calls (including those in the NFL where 6 cameras are also used to as backup), you never get everyone to agree. Tough, because...
The moderator has the final say. This remains one of the most useful forums on the web because of the quality of the moderators. They ain't perfect (and will often entertain arguments as to why closed threads should be reopened, or why banned members should be readmitted, though more times than not their instinct was right), but they are a vital part of the experience that is THR.In the future, it probably makes more sense to PM a mod and ask a question about a perceived inequity. It might be because the mod hasn't seen the thread in question, and will be glad to close it. It could be that there was a "call to action" forming in the other thread that was crossing the line between saying "my life is more important than some stupid unconstitutional law" and "you're a sell-out and an enabler of the Jack-Booted-Thuggery that we have to endure daily if you submit to get 'permission' from your masters before you drop that J-frame in your pocket." It could be that you weren't communicating effectively. It could be that an otherwise solid member of the forum was about to cross a line and get hisself banned (as often happens with abortion and religious threads, but can happen anywhere that someone's emotions get caught up in an argument.) It could be that personal attacks were coming out of a thread, the offenders were banned, the posts were removed, and the thread was closed as it looked likely to cause the same to happen again.

If memory serves, all of these have happened here in the last couple of months. Regardless, you'll do better to PM a mod to get your issues addressed than you will by attacking him in a pseudo-related thread.

[JShirley]

I have no problem with anyone taking the position that the ccw laws are unconstitutional in the least. I believe they are as well. That does not mean I seek employment elsewhere due to my personal beliefs however, nor will it ever enter into the equation where earning a living is concerned.

So, you're willing to make a living doing things you do not believe in...that you believe are wrong. What moral high ground can you now claim? You can't even attempt the Nuremberg defense.

[Art Eatman]

John, that seems a bit too strong. Many of us have put feeding and sheltering the wife and kid ahead of political principles.

I found it much easier to stand on principle when I was bachin' it.

'Scuse me. Got some honey-do stuff to do.

:D, Art

[JShirley]

my personal beliefs...(will never) enter into the equation where earning a living is concerned

Art, I thought my comments were remarkably restrained. There are always a variety of ways to make a livin'. I personally want to be able to sleep at night, and look folks in the eye.

John

[Edward429451]

In the future, it probably makes more sense to PM a mod and ask a question about a perceived inequity.

I did that. He didn't respond. I don't want any thread closed. A friendly response to a reasonabe inquiry would've been nice. Incongruent moderation is a reasonable enough question.

[Art Eatman]

Sure, John, as do we all...

I'm not referring to anybody on this thread or at THR, but I can't really bumrap a guy who puts his family ahead of all else--often ahead of his own health and happiness or satisfaction. Some folks just see no way out of that "quiet desparation".

Art

[Edward429451]

OK, for the record. I was funning with Mike. I have no problem with his moderation. He didn't answer my PM so I though I'd call him on his little incongruity on the board, in jest. No answer is still an answer, Mike.:neener:

Jus having fun. Jeesh.:D

[Feanaro]

I'm a little late but I'll state my view simply. I do not know what would happen to Mister Smith. But if he wishes to break a law restricting his freedom and does not harm an innocent, I would not care. Mister Smith is his own free person, his life is not the governments nor mine. If he does not wish to be a lap-dog to another and he accepts the potential consequences of his actions, I would applaud him and most certainly would not shun him. "We must all hang together", after all, "or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

[CommonSense]

I believe anyone illegally carrying a concealed weapon should be sentenced to hard labor. It doesn’t matter to me if they have a permit to carry in other places. Illegally concealed carry penalties should remain the same.

[Feanaro]

Am I the only one that thinks that the statements "Illegally concealed carry penalties should remain the same." and "I believe anyone illegally carrying a concealed weapon should be sentenced to hard labor." don't quite work out? Last I checked, the penalty for carrying illegally wasn't hard labor. ;)


All grammar fun poking aside, why exactly should illegally carrying a weapon get you hard labor? I am genuinely interested in the answer.

[S_O_Laban]

I believe anyone illegally carrying a concealed weapon should be sentenced to hard labor. It doesn’t matter to me if they have a permit to carry in other places. Illegally concealed carry penalties should remain the same.

A question to the poster who wrote the above: Are you in favor of laws that restict CCW? And if so, please explain how these laws make our fair land a better place to live.

[fjolnirsson]

I believe anyone illegally carrying a concealed weapon should be sentenced to hard labor. It doesn’t matter to me if they have a permit to carry in other places. Illegally concealed carry penalties should remain the same.

I'll keep this short.
A law that violates the United States Constitution is no law at all.
Therefore, laws regarding the carrying of firearms in any fashion have no bearing on the actions of a citizen. We have allowed our government to grow fat and slovenly on our hard earned dollars. Now they want more, and the only way to get it is by taking away our ability to resist. They do this with laws which abridge our freedom to carry arms, and now our freedom of speech with the new campaign law.
Enough is enough. Molon Labe.

[CommonSense]

Hi Feanaro: I didn’t say that was the current penalty. I said that I believed that should be the penalty.

And all poking fun at silly comments aside, because guns crimes are a major problem today. Get out of bed and listen to the news if you can’t afford a newspaper. That would be my suggestion to you.

[fjolnirsson]

guns crimes are a major problem today.

They aren't "gun crimes". A crime is a crime.
Drunk driving is a major problem, and also a crime. Should we call that a "car crime"?
How about Assaults with baseball bats?
I guess we'll need a new term for all these crimes going on.
It's crime, not "gun crime"
I know the media likes to call it that, but let's call things by their proper names, or this debate will go nowhere.

[CommonSense]

Fjolnirsson: If you want to claim to be a Constitution expert here, knock your self out. First, the Constitution was very loosely written because your forefathers knew things would change. The Second Amendment was exactly that – an amendment. Nowhere does it restrict the rights of the states to limit that right. Some may argue here, but the states were SUPPOSE to have the final word on laws in their state. The federal government was only supposed to defend our shores.

[CommonSense]

Yes.. We in fact do call them an OWI crime, a car-jacking crime, a rape crime, a drive-by shooting crime, etc. Sorry I couldn’t follow what you’re trying to tell me.

[fjolnirsson]

Well, I don't recall claiming to be an expert on the Constitution, but here is what I do know:
The second amendment is also part of something called the bill of rights.
Rights that every man has.
"Shall not be infringed", that seems pretty clear to me. Nowhere in the bill of rights is there anything about, "except when the states decide to infringe this right."

This is there.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"Prohibited by it to the states."

I'm done with you.
Thanks for the discussion.

[Feanaro]

CommonSense: "I didn’t say that was the current penalty. I said that I believed that should be the penalty."

And then you said the "penalties should remain the same." ;)

"And all poking fun at silly comments aside, because guns crimes are a major problem today. Get out of bed and listen to the news if you can’t afford a newspaper. That would be my suggestion to you."

I watch the news and read the paper regularly. I still do not see how this would help make the crime lower. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me?

[CommonSense]

Fjolnirsson: Thank you for your thoughts and polite conversation. You stated at the end of your message that you’re done with me. I respect and appreciate your honesty and dedication. Had you of not given up so easily, I would have referred you to several US Supreme Court rulings.

Just a parting thought for you – if the State didn’t have the right to regulate concealed carry, why do you think this is an issue? Wouldn’t this have ended long ago?

I’m glad to hear that you’re at least trying to understand the law. Some people just post without a clue and then don’t research the conversation.

I really do appreciate your thoughts. Please don’t think otherwise. At times I wonder what road we’re heading down because no one seems to be paying attention.

Again, thank you for your thoughts and best wishes!

[S_O_Laban]

First, the Constitution was very loosely written because your forefathers knew things would change.

Where did this Idea come from. I'm not a Contitutional expert. I have read some of the Founding Fathers thoughts about the Constitution but don't recall reading about this idea. Could you offer some sort of documentation for this idea?

[CommonSense]

Wow. S_O_Laban: You’re kidding – right? You don’t know that the 2nd Amendment was an Amendment? I’m not trying to be rude, but could you tell me how old you are?

Feanaro: HUH?!?!

[fjolnirsson]

Just a parting thought for you – if the State didn’t have the right to regulate concealed carry, why do you think this is an issue? Wouldn’t this have ended long ago?

All right, I really was leaving, but I couldn't let this go without reply.
Years ago, people traded liberty for false security, and it has become the status quo. People have grown used to it.
Personally, if government weren't so big, and I thought it would stop there, I could see the sense in some reasonable gun control laws.
Of course, this opens the question of what exactly is reasonalble.
However, history shows that gun control is almost exclusively leathel to the law abiding citizens of those countries enacting said gun control.

That said, I also have enjoyed the conversation.
But I must sleep.

[CommonSense]

Fjolnirsson: Thank you for your thoughts tonight. I believe that the State is wrong as well. Not legally, but definitely morally. I read about kids and poor people getting killed daily and it makes me sick.

Knowledge is the best weapon.

[S_O_Laban]

CommonSense: So your saying that you don't have any supporting documentation to the idea, other than the fact that each section of the bill of rights is called an ammendment?

[CommonSense]

Not at all, S_O_Laman. Are you still asking for me to post what you should have learned in high school? Please do a little homework before asking me to post this. I’m not trying to be rude, but most everyone knows that just because there was an amendment, that doesn’t make it right. Just ask Al Capone! Okay. Cheap shot. But you get the idea.

[Don Gwinn]

Commonsense, for a man who is not trying to be rude, you do an admirable job of it. Please stop.


Now, on to the factual arguments.

1. You refer to the Constitution having been written "loosely" because the founding fathers knew "things would change." This is a common misconception. "Looseness" or vagueness was never intended. The founding fathers did make a concession to the possibility that the world could change so radically as to make the Constitution as written obsolete. That concession was the amendment process. Anyone who is claiming to justify anything other than a lawfully enacted Constitutional amendment by citing the famous "flexibility" of the "living document" is, at best, mistaken. If you want to change the Constitution, you can't do it by changing an interpretation or declaring that this or that sentence now mean something different. You want to change the Constution? Get started on the amendment process.

2. You ask "If states didn't have the right to do such things, why would they be doing them?"
This confuses "rights" with "power." Clearly, the states have the power to do what they're doing. THAT can be proven with the sort of self-evident reasoning you used above. If someone is in fact taking an action, it stands to reason that he must have the power to take that action. The right to take it absolutely does not follow.
States do things they don't have the right to do all the time. My own state has been proven to have railroaded innocent men, in some cases even to death row. It gave illegal contracts to friends of our last four governors. The fact that it did these things does not prove that it had the right to do so--only the power.

3. I don't know why you place so much importance on the fact that the 2nd Amendment is an amendment. Not only does it seem self-evident, as pointed out by others, but in our Constitution there is no difference between "original" passages and amendments. Both have equal force. There's no probation period; once an amendment is adopted, it's part of the Constitution.

[S_O_Laban]

CommonSense: No I guess I don't "get " the idea. You made a statement
First, the Constitution was very loosely written because your forefathers knew things would change.

What I was taught in High School differs quite a bit from the above statement. I simply asked where this idea that the Constitution is, in your words " loosely written because your forefathers knew things would change" comes from? I don't remember reading anything about this ideology from any of the founders.

You made the statement and apparently can't support it. Dimissing my question due to my apparant lack of education only leads me to belive even further that the above statement is your humble opinion and certainaly not fact. Of course should you be able to provide documentation of your statement the debate can continue :)



Edited by S_O_Laban for clarification.

[Bill St. Clair]

The Second Amendment is indeed an amendment to the Constitution. It is, however, part of the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would never have been ratified and we would still be operating under the Articles of Confederation (I can dream, can't I?). The Bill of Rights sets forth basic human rights, rights which may not be legislated out of being. Any law that violates one of them, at the state or federal level, is null and void. Any legislator who proposes or votes for such a law, any cop who enforces it, and any judge who rules in favor of it is a criminal.

There are indeed "gun crimes", though the fact that a gun is the weapon used in such a crime has very little to do with the reason it is a crime. Crime consists of intentionally harming a person or damaging or stealing their property, in person or by proxy or fraud. Period. It is not a crime to possess a tool that could be used to commit a crime. Otherwise, we'd all be criminals all the time for having brains and hands and legs. That a slew of paper non-laws to the contrary have been passed by criminal legislators, enforced by criminal cops, and allowed to stand by criminal judges, does not change this.

I call these legislators, cops, and judges criminal" because the legislators, by making such "laws", conspire to commit assault and kidnapping of peaceful people, the cops actually assault and kidnap those people, and the judges rubber stamp this travesty. False arrest is assault and kidnapping. Kidnapping is a capital offense. Conspiring to commit mass assault and kidnapping is a crime against humanity. Let the trials begin. Let the hangings be public. I'm deadly serious.

[JShirley]

Rape is, by definition, a crime, so it is redundant and silly to speak of "rape crime" or "carjacking crime". It's just rape and carjacking. "Gun violence" is just a pathetic attempt to link a tool with a crime.

Some may argue here, but the states were SUPPOSE to have the final word on laws in their state.

You have some interesting stances, which I am not sure have had sufficient thought. Article 6 of the Constitution states, in part:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land

Regardless of what you think was "supposed" (adjective- not "suppose", verb) to be the case, the Constitution clearly states that IT ALONE is "supreme law of the land". Since the states agreed to the Constitution, it follows that the Constitution is the final word.

Amendment 14 clearly states that the privileges protected by the Bill of Rights are individual rights:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United (which have already been demonstrated to be the rights contained in the BOR, not what a state may have defined them to be).

John

[CommonSense]

Commonsense, for a man who is not trying to be rude, you do an admirable job of it. Please stop.

When a moderator posts a message such as this, the conversation is over.

[Art Eatman]

Sobeit.