Since my response got stifled.......(for civilians only)


PDA






cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 04:37 PM
So DocZinn started up a thread.......http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1150325 and the first two quotes he used in it were mine so I was semi interested.

Since I read it and made a comment to the thread and then a moderator told me (actually all of us civilians) not to respond, I sort of feel like I have been stifled.

Thus I guess this is an attempt to provide us taxpayers an opportunity to state our feelings about what govt. is doing to our rights. Some of the responders at the other thread rationalize their behaviour by telling us that what they do is mostly "The big 5" (Aggrivated assault, murder, rape, and like that) and then the property crimes (robbery, you know, like that) then he talked about using the "descretion" that he used as mostly a sheriff. Like did he ever run somebody in on a "weapons" violation I don't think he mentioned.

Another responder told us that the constitution is not a "Buffet" We can't pick and choose, so they gotta enforce all the laws. I don't remember if he said the constitution or the law itself and if he was welcome to respond, which he isn't, he would be sure to correct me on it, but the question remains.....

This is a gun forum. The constitution is very clear about how the RKBA is to be treated. Many states have adopted a similar if not more citizen freindly form and then we got the 14th amendment. Some weasle worders talk about the Supremes not "Incorporating" 2A into law.

14a was expressly written IIRC expressly to prohibit the states from using their "Jim Crow" laws to deny the minorities from RKBA. I did not read the debates in congress, but I heard about them. Other weasle worders, if not the same ones, tell us that SCOTUS has not "Incorporated" it?

I thought the executive was the enforcement arm.

So here is my question.......How do you as a civilian feel that the govt and its enforcement arm can reconcile it's oath to protect, serve, follow or whatever the constitution and then run one of us in for a "Weapons Violation" , a Gun control crime or, other wise, is it right or wrong?

If the mods would show me the same consideration as they imposed on DocZinn's thread, I would appreciate it.

The best way to know if you are a tax payer or a tax eater is this....If you pay more in taxes than you receive from the govt. then you are a tax payer. Yes, I know we all drink the water, check books outa the library, turn on our REA electricity and get the mail. That don't count. If those little pieces of cardboard with all the holes in them (govt. checks, federal, state, local) add up to more than you pay in taxes, you are a taxeater. You know who you are. Kindly do not respond.

Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Since my response got stifled.......(for civilians only)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DMF
July 31, 2004, 04:41 PM
Since I am constantly reminded that I'm a civilian too (except when on orders with the USAF Reserves), is my input welcome too.

:neener:

cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 04:44 PM
Let your concience be your guide. You know who you are..:p

Those little pieces of cardboard with the holes in them which are negotiable. (Last one I got was green) What color are they now? and Do they add up to more than you pay in taxes.

:neener:

Hawkmoon
July 31, 2004, 04:44 PM
I'm a taxpayer -- I think the statistics are that where I live I get back about 30 cents of the dollar for my taxes.

How does government reconcile the 2nd Amendment with their actions? Simple -- they ignore it. They write laws that violate the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, then they appoint judges who will rule that those laws are not an unconstitutional infringement.

It's a shell game.

Wildalaska
July 31, 2004, 04:48 PM
If those little pieces of cardboard with all the holes in them (govt. checks, federal, state, local) add up to more than you pay in taxes, you are a taxeater. You know who you are. Kindly do not respond.

OK so that eliminates Military, retirees receiving Federal pensions, retirees recivieng social security?

This is a gun forum. The constitution is very clear about how the RKBA is to be treated. Many states have adopted a similar if not more citizen freindly form and then we got the 14th amendment. Some weasle worders talk about the Supremes not "Incorporating" 2A into law.

Ah yes, unless you follow the doctrine of anyhting goes, your views will be shouted down or not even welecome..how left liberal, the High Road goes DU!

WildproudtobeaweasleworderAlaska

orangeninja
July 31, 2004, 05:00 PM
I have to say that since posting here on the THR, my ideals of the RKBA are still solid. I believe this is a good thing. However, my general opinion of "gun nuts" has been substantially lowered. I used to think that anyone with a CHL was pretty much an okay guy who would help a LEO in need.

Not any more.:uhoh:

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 05:01 PM
There's the way things should be, and there's the way things are.

In this world of "The way things are," where we must coexist with people of all different kinds of viewpoints, I would be interested in finding out how you were planning on bringing a weapons violation to the attention of a local peace officer, as (absent other lawless behavior) it's not something that's likely to come up on their radar in the first place. Heck, the ATF isn't even quite the rapacious, all-seeing boogieman that they're made out to be (although when they do blunder, it's usually guaranteed to be spectacular.) I'd like to see most all the laws the ATF enforces (as well as 99.99% of local weapons laws) done away with, but I'm not to the point of frothing about shooting oppressive stormtroopers from the barricades or denouncing everyone I disagree with as jackbooted statist thug zombies. That most certainly isn't the best way to get them over to my side.

cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 05:10 PM
Tamara, I do not understand the question you asked. I would be interested in finding out how you were planning on bringing a weapons violation to the attention of a local peace officer, as (absent other lawless behavior) it's not something that's likely to come up on their radar in the first place. The constitution is very clear about what is a weapons violation.

Now, if you want to know how I would alert the local peace officer about some body doing a crime with a weapon, I can understand the question.

Possessing a weapon is not a crime.

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 05:13 PM
Tamara, I do not understand the question you asked.

How did the hypothetical peace officer in question find out about the hypothetical weapons violation? How did it come to his attention?

cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 05:23 PM
Ok, now I understand. I thought you wanted to know how I would tell a local peace officer about somebody doing a weapons violation.

I guess it's been a while. Forgive me Mr. Sendec, but I was arrested at the st. Louis airport for open carrying a pistol on the seat of my vehicle. In Missouri at the time that was called "Committing a lawful act". It still is except at the time it was unlawful to have a concealed weapon.

When I saw the sign that said all vehicles would be searched, I laid it on the seat. Thus, I got arrested.

That's my own experience.

My weapon was returned to me and I was released without being charged after being chained to a bench for 2 hours and after my wife had to fly to San Diego thinking that I was in orange coveralls.

That is not the crux of my question. I am asking about any "Peace Officer" running in any civilian for a "Weapons" charge. Should I dream up a hypothetical?

cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 05:32 PM
One more thing, Mods.

I see that DMF got the other thread shut down.

I have asked that LEOs not respond to this thread, but he is doing it anyway.

I don't wanna get in arguments with cops. Please cops, do not respond. I have been stifled enough.

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 05:35 PM
The situation matters.

If the "weapons violation" was discovered because Joe Mindjerownbiz used his weapon in a righteous shoot in a victim disarmament zone or a benighted anti gun municipality, I'd be inclined to contribute to his defense fund in an effort to get another asinine law off the books.

If the "weapons violation" consisted of finding a loaded full-auto AK in his car after he got likkered up and drove the wrong way down the interstate, running a schoolbus full of nuns and orphans into the ditch, I probably wouldn't be all ate up with sympathy.

There's a whole spectrum of cases between these two extremes, of course...

orangeninja
July 31, 2004, 05:36 PM
DocZinn....I will try to answer your question the best I know how. I stopped reading the answering posts since some THR members seem to think their 1st amendment right has been infringed.

Note: I am not Libertarian, but I am a "neo-conservative", meaning I believe in most conservative values except when it comes to healthcare and the enviroment.




" personally do not think of myself as a cop basher. I like to think of myself as a "state" basher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Most of what the state does is evil. Cops are the enforcement arm of the state.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS"; yet, the vast majority of the laws they are enforcing have no Constitutional basis."



1.) "personally do not think of myself as a cop basher. I like to think of myself as a "state" basher."

A.) I believe in the United States. I believe our Country was built upon conflict and continues to evolve through conflict. Much like the volcanic activity in Hawaii, the conflicts appear volatile and destructive, however whenever things cool down, we are more often than not, better off. Therefore I do not believe the state to be wrong. If everyone or even the majority felt that way, we would be in the process of revolution.

2.) Most of what the state does is evil. Cops are the enforcement arm of the state.

A.) Refer to question the answer on question 1. I cannot be conviced that a government by the people is evil. I disagree with the majority some times, however my opinion is mine alone, and no greater than anyone else's.

3.) They are "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS"; yet, the vast majority of the laws they are enforcing have no Constitutional basis."

A.) It is not the job of LEOs to interprit the constitution. That is the job of the courts. It is the job of LEOs to follow procedure and enforce law. If you believe a law unconstitutional, challange it in the courtroom not on Main St. This is how many "gay-rights" activists win so many victories with so few supporters. The gun rights community can learn somthing from their example.

Secondly, The Constitution may be ammended by Congress, they are the writers of law. I suggest you get involved in politics if you don't like it, or use the power of the Court, which is considerable. When a court decision is made, it changes "procedure" for LEOs. Therefore the LEOs are truly of the people. Look at the civil rights movement of the 60's. Can you even begin to imagine a minority group being singled out for violence like that today by Police? It couldn't happen.

Third, I have heard it said that a society gets the cops it deserves, this is more true than I can begin to articulate. When you go to a very upscale township, the cops seem to have very very little power, due to the low priority placed upon the need to have them other than to serve the tennets of the area. Their Chief is hired by the township, budget is determined by the township and therefore controlled by the township. This is very prevelant in Texas.

When you get to a very low income area in the big city, things change vastly, the cops seem to have considerable clout, they are much more visable, will pull you over for dang near anything, because the only thing that resembles a communial effort to maintain order, is their presence. If you don't believe me, visit your local Government Project at about 2AM. Bring the kids. Have a picnic.



Sorry the other thread was closed.

cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 05:51 PM
If the "weapons violation" consisted of finding a loaded full-auto AK in his car after he got likkered up and drove the wrong way down the interstate, running a schoolbus full of nuns and orphans into the ditch, I probably wouldn't be all ate up with sympathy. I can see that he did a crime. I just don't see the weapons crime.

If running the nunns and orphans off the road by being likkered up and driving the wrong way isn't enough of a crime to get him "rehabilitated" then we are screwed up. The "weapons charge" is irrelevant and needless piling on.

Absolute needless piling on. Answer me this.......If he did not have the "loaded full-auto AK" in the back seat would you let him off?

Finally, I just noted you refer to it as full auto. Is that a worse crime than a semi?

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 06:15 PM
Is that a worse crime than a semi?

According to fed.gov, it is. Whether that's right or not is immaterial outside of a courtroom.


In point of fact, I think the weapons charge in the second example would be needless piling on as well, but I sure wouldn't say that for fear of being associated with the hypothetical cretin in question. I pick my poster children with more care.

If I want to pick a Rosinante with which to tilt at the windmill of NFA '34, I'll be checking the teeth of that nag very carefully. Reynold's Wrap yarmulke-wearers and the types of militia folk who pray for the revolution will not find my lachrymal glands overflowing in sympathy when they get busted for "weapons violations," as the propaganda value that they offer the other side damages my chances of ever getting out from under the onus of bogus and unconstitutional firearms laws.

DMF
July 31, 2004, 06:19 PM
I see that DMF got the other thread shut down.

I have asked that LEOs not respond to this thread, but he is doing it anyway. Oh yeah that was all my fault. :rolleyes:

I made one joking comment, did not address the substance of your thread, and then just observed. However, I shouldn't have to endure attacks if you don't want to me to post on the substance of the thread. Fair enough?

cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 06:26 PM
Thanks for your reply.

What you said is serious and I gotta think about it. I guess I will have to look up some of the high dollar wordage, but for the time being I contextualize that you are lifting the blindfold up a little for lady justice.

Maybe the subtle implication that they got what they deserved down in Waco?

I will have to think and reply later.

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 06:26 PM
Please cops, do not respond. I have been stifled enough.

You're not asking for them to be stifled, are you? :confused:

;)



Let's all take a few deep breaths, okay? :cool:

cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 06:34 PM
Tamara,

I don't care what they say. I was stifled on the other thread because I was not a leo. The mods asked, not DocZinn that I not respond. I did not.

If Mr. DMF had that thread shut down just by participating in uncivility, what will keep him from doing it in this one? I am just asking for some fair play.

I asked that they not respond. Trying not to hurt their feelings. If you think it's ok and they can handle it, let them in. It's a free country.

Just don't lock me down because of some clever ploy by a leo to stifle the subjects.

OK?

GeneC
July 31, 2004, 06:44 PM
"here is my question.......How do you as a civilian feel that the govt and its enforcement arm can reconcile it's oath to protect, serve, follow or whatever the constitution and then run one of us in for a "Weapons Violation" , a Gun control crime or, other wise, is it right or wrong?"



Not so simple( you're assuming we're all in agreement with your interpretation of the Constitution), is it a Federal weapon's violation, State, local, what? Is the cop Federal, State, local, or what? Each cop is sworn to uphold WHATEVER laws are in place (right or wrong, by whose standard?), within his minicipality, AT THAT TIME. It's NOT the cops place(nor yours) to decide if a law is right or wrong and any Citizen has the option to willfully break any law they deem 'wrong' , but must realize they could be arrested and face a court.

Matt G
July 31, 2004, 06:50 PM
Hey! I'm a civilian. My badge was NOT issued by a military authority-- it was issued by a municipality, by the authority of the state. I operate under CIVIL authority when on duty.

So, why can't we LEOs respond, again?

--Matt

NoHarmNoFAL
July 31, 2004, 07:36 PM
I think one has to be careful in areas of “gun law”. Say you are knowingly speeding and knowingly carrying a concealed weapon and get stopped. Now here is where the gray area lies: You were speeding. You chose to break a posted and well enforced ordnance. It was your decision. You are placing yourself in the position for a potential run in with a LEO. You have also now included a weapons offense knowingly carrying a concealed weapon. Do you just get the speeding ticket or the weapons violation. If you get both then you are getting what your asking for. If you only get a weapons violation then the law is being selectively applied. My point here is if you break more than one law at a time they must each be judged separately. This does not happen however. I have never understood why the guy with 50 kilos of Coke drives down the highway at 90 mph, though the penalties are different the analogy is the same.

The cat is out of the bag now and it is too late to change anything now, gun laws in this country will continue to get more and more oppressive and the tax burden to keep the gun laws oppressive will increase proportionately. To defeat an enemy you must make them look like the enemy, vilify them and all that they stand for. This is happening all around you. Tell someone you don’t know that you enjoy shooting your AR-15 and half the time they will ask you if that is even legal to own or don’t you need a special permit for it. The public already thinks that firearms and their owners are a danger to society. The end result is if you make enough laws you will surely be guilty of something and if some obscure gun charge can be piled on to make some other charge stick then so be it. This country is headed down a very dark road and come November we’ll see how long it takes for there to no light left at all.

If I have not been clear let me know and I will try again. ;)

Don Gwinn
July 31, 2004, 07:42 PM
If this thread doesn't turn into a genital measurement contest between two or more members, there are no personal attacks, etc., then it will not be closed, at least by me. Your assumption that one member caused the other closing is your responsibility, since I thought I made it clear that I, the guy who actually closed the thread, do not believe that's true.

Honestly, I don't have high hopes for this one.

NoHarmNoFAL
July 31, 2004, 08:05 PM
If the SCOTUS rules to uphold a law that clearly goes against the Constitution in a manner that any non-mouth breather could read and see for themselves what recourse is there. I would hope that the LEO's would not uphold it but I don't foresee that happening.

Try this one:

Who will enforce the Campaign Finance laws that say you can't run an ad so many days before the election. What LEO is going to charge whom ever with that knowing that Political speech is specifically protected by the 1A. You already know how SCOTUS feels about it, so then what?

I'm not trying to be a trouble maker, really but this has me curious....

cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 08:10 PM
the last few replies to the other thread wrong. I will try to not stirr things up too much.

I don't care if you don't require leos not to post. I was just sort of pointing out the unfairness of the rules of the other thread.

when you saidHonestly, I don't have high hopes for this one. I agree. Mr. NoHarmNoFAL is right in there too.

When it is so simple to read 2a
and then watch the machinations that the govt. goes through to
essentially reverse what it says and
watch so many tots try to justify and rationalize
instead of just standing up for principle and
refusing to enforce the unconstitutional law
it becomes pretty evident to me that we are mostly done for.

I have more to say on this, but I am called away.

oldfart
July 31, 2004, 09:07 PM
This subject has been sideswiped so many time I can’t even attempt to keep track, but the answer is still the same:

THE COURTS ARE NOT THE FINAL ARBITERS OF WHETHER OR NOT A GIVEN LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL!!

This is another lie that has been told to us for so long and by so many people that we now believe it to be true. The courts have taken that job unto themselves over the years because we (that’s you and I and our parents and grandparents) have sat meekly by while they did it. Now we complain about “Judicial Legislation” and vote for Party ‘A’ in hopes they will be able to turn the tide. Unfortunately, the ultimate difference between Party ‘A’ and Party ‘B’ lies only in the title.

The final decision regarding the constitutionality of any law lies with us. It is up to us to make that decision when the time comes and then either live or die with the results. That we usually decide not to decide is more a matter of our… shall we say ‘caution’. We all know what happened to others who have individually decided that some law is unconstitutional and then have gotten arrested or worse, killed.

We all know that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, from the recently passed bill that allows LEOs to carry anywhere in the country to NFA-34, yet few of us are willing to bet our lives on the outcome of a confrontation with the federal police. That’s the ‘caution’ I mentioned.

How many remember the Nuremberg trials? How many remember how many German soldiers were imprisoned or executed because they obeyed German law? Does anybody remember the prosecution telling the court that those soldiers should have disobeyed their (then) lawful orders? The court sided with the prosecution and established, for all time, the principle that ordinary people should decide whether or not an order is lawful and act accordingly.

So stop telling yourselves that the courts are the ones who decide the constitutionality of a law. If every car in California suddenly had an SKS in the back window the police would go crazy for awhile. But if there was no relief for them and cars continued to exhibit ‘Assault’ rifles, eventually the courts would be clogged and politicians would take the easy way out and repeal the stupid law. There would be some pain until then but the end result might make it worthwhile.

NoHarmNoFAL
July 31, 2004, 09:17 PM
Who's to be first into the wood chipper?

Can'thavenuthingood
July 31, 2004, 10:19 PM
I think Nuremburg is wrong example as I don't think it was a U.S. Constitutional court. Wasn't it a world court?
Also I think the Lawful orders discussed were on a moral grounds, murder, being unlawful.

There is fighting and killing to save your life and defeat the enemy. When someone is defenseless and you kill them, its murder. An immoral act.

Though the laws were lawful, incorporated into a written law, they were unlawful morally, meaning murder. That is where the soldiers etc. were supposed to be able to think for themselves before obeying an order.

Now for us to decide a law is unlawful and "act accordingly" we would have to act within the system to get it changed, petitions, lobbying, voting, etc. If we decide to "jump into the chipper" we are dead meat, since we act outside the law, being unlawful ourselves. We pay the penalties for going off half cocked.

We aren't talking about critical timing, life or death situations. It's more annoyances, government employees "Just doing my job sir" and a myriad of daily headaches needing to be fought at the ballot box by everyone.

We have been schooled and trained to believe and trust that the Supreme Court is all knowing when it comes to the Constituion. They know what is lawful and what is not, we merely abide or pay dearly.

I don't think the courts would eventually be clogged with assault gun cases. The government would clamp down on all weapons, it's the easiest to do. Just label the first few into the chipper as gun nuts, Davidians, Freemen etc. The term Christians might even work.

The government "chipper" is run by somebody "Just doing their job".

Vick

NoHarmNoFAL
July 31, 2004, 10:35 PM
The government "chipper" is run by somebody "Just doing their job".

That is my point.

The I'm just doing my job mentality is going to be the end of all of us.

"There is no tolerance policy (read: I don't have to think for myself policy), sorry it is out of my hands. I wish I could help you but it's the law."

I think that it is ridiculous that a Cop can pull you over because you don't have your seat belt on. If I choose to fly through the windshield that is my right, but not in this nanny .gov we live in.

At this point in time anything you do will only work against you. If you "Rise up and fight", you are a gun nut and you hurt the greater cause. If you form an organization for educate the public you are a gun nut and are discredited for being a gun nut. If you try to teach people the truth about guns and gun owner ship they will say that is not what I heard on TV and I believe the TV over you because you are a gun nut. God forbid, someone goes off the deep end and does a hi-profile shooting, then all gun nuts are wack jobs and their wanna-be military guns must be confiscated for the good of the country and there you are up the creek with no boat, no paddle and no hope to ever get them back.

Is there any chance of this being a civil rights case?
I like to shoot guns, it makes me happy, it makes my life better.
Is this part of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Tamara
July 31, 2004, 10:35 PM
We have been schooled and trained to believe and trust that the Supreme Court is all knowing when it comes to the Constituion.

Would that be the same Supreme Court that I have repeatedly referred to as "nine black-robed Gladys Kravitzes in some East coast urban pesthole," or a different Supreme Court?

The greatest danger to my cause are my "allies" who are ready to treat every traffic stop like Lexington Green and every peace officer like Banastre Tarleton. :scrutiny:

cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 10:40 PM
Not so simple( you're assuming we're all in agreement with your interpretation of the Constitution), is it a Federal weapon's violation, State, local, what? I just ask....read me off a federal weapons law, then read me off 2a and then justify the federal weapons law.

Sorry. It's real simple. This is not rocket science. We all know that the constitution is the supreme law. This is a gun forum. It is expected that you would understand 2a.

Bibles travel through interstate commerce too.

Can'thavenuthingood
July 31, 2004, 10:41 PM
I was speaking of the U.S. Supreme Court, but your discription does seem to fit the elephant.

Vick

Wildalaska
July 31, 2004, 11:03 PM
Was gonna wade in here, but Tamara is o so much better

WildttfnAlaska

cropcirclewalker
July 31, 2004, 11:48 PM
So, I guess I allowed myself to get dragged off my subject.

Like Mr. Gwinn said there are probably not high hopes for us.

I am still sort of optimistic. This forum is one of my hopes.

We are a bunch of gunners.

From the response on this thread I suspect that half of us are leos.

All here, with a few exceptions, are thoughtful, decent, honorable, principled persons.

Some of you have become misguided. Some of you are trapped by your situation. Some of you have a chip on your shoulder. Some of you are tots. Some of you hold us civilians in low regard. Some of you think that we SHOULD be subjegated.

Since most are thoughtful, decent, honorable and principled, there is a chance that you can be influenced by the truth. 2a is the truth. The other bullhockey that they dreamed up to torture it's meaning is just that, bullhockey and you know it.

I know you gotta go along to get along. I know you gotta meet your quota. Maybe somebody out there working in a capacity as enforcer for the state will get a chance to show "discretion" to us common civilians and perhaps a few of you can influence your work mates.

Some of you gunner type civilians may know persons who work as enforcers for the state, maybe your neighbor, relative, friend from school, drinking buddy (I sort of doubt), whatever. Just ask them in a situation where they will not slam you onto your hood and hook you up to justify their actions with their oaths.

We all know that govt. needs us to be unarmed in order for them to work their magic on us. We all know that conviction for a "weapons violation" can deprive us of our franchise. Maybe that's why we have a drug war, to disinfranchise black people.

You LEOs, think about it. What are you doing to our country? You civilians, think about it, what can you do to work some influence on the enforcers? Try patriotism, try logic, try shame, try something.

The alternative could be painful for many of us.

NoHarmNoFAL
August 1, 2004, 12:02 AM
Before this thread gets locked I would just like to say that I’m so sure that the LEO’s are the ones to blame here. The term don’t shoot the messenger rings true. The one who sends the message and the ones who say that is constitutional are the one who’s feet should be held to the fire.

Have you ever been let off of a speeding ticket? I have, was I speeding, yes, should I have gotten a ticket, yes. I don’t think that LEO’s are as bad as they are being portrayed here lately. I know several that I would trust to the ends of the earth but I’m sure that there are those that are the scum of the earth also.

Lets be clear here the LEO’s don’t make the laws of the land they enforce them for those that YOU elect to represent YOU.

If those elected officials were made to enforce the laws that they make, there would a lot less laws.

Yelling for the LEO’s to change or disobey their oath to uphold the law, is to close the gate after the cattle are already out of the corral.
:scrutiny:

cropcirclewalker
August 1, 2004, 12:11 AM
lots of places for blame here. Maybe even solar flares. And nutrasweet.

but...


The Leo is the guy reading this forum. I think to try to influence the low life politican, I should log onto the low life politician forum.

We gotta work with what we got.:)

NoHarmNoFAL
August 1, 2004, 12:20 AM
I agree that we must work with what we have. I think that until it gets much much worse the LEO's could be your best friends. If they think that the laws are crap they are the one that are going to catch crap from the citizens. It would be in their best interests not allow blatant anti-Constitutional laws to make it to the books.

[tin foil hat \ON]
That is unless they want a total police state and civil unrest which would require more LEO's and more LEO Union members. The more oppressive it gets the more uneasy the natives get which drive the death spiral closer and closer to impact.
[tin foil hat \OFF]

Or I could be all full of crap, the moon is really green cheese, and The Hokey Pokey is really what it is all about. :confused: :uhoh: :neener:

Tamara
August 1, 2004, 12:20 AM
I was typing a response in a separate window, until I hit "refresh" in the main window and saw your latest posts.

I am still sort of optimistic. This forum is one of my hopes.

Glad you could join us. This forum and its predecessor have been around, in one form or another, for about six years now, and most folks here are actively engaged in restoring the acknowledgement of the Second Amendment rights of both you and I.

2a is the truth.

At the risk of sounding pedantic: "Duh."

Some of you gunner type civilians may know persons who work as enforcers for the state, maybe your neighbor, relative, friend from school, drinking buddy (I sort of doubt), whatever. Just ask them in a situation where they will not slam you onto your hood and hook you up to justify their actions with their oaths.

The latter part of that paragraph simply confirms that you are not a person included in the first part. Meet some cops on a social basis. Talk to them. Find out what their viewpoints are. Come back and tell us what you learned.

What are you doing to our country?

Attempting to serve it as best they know how. If you think that they don't possess all the info they need, why not try to help, rather than divide? Why play into your enemy's hands?

You civilians, think about it, what can you do to work some influence on the enforcers?

I can do something better than calling them names on a message board or making broad-brushed, ill-informed accusations of the type that so rankle us when they're made against gun owners.

I'm washing my hands of this one.

:rolleyes:

cropcirclewalker
August 1, 2004, 12:50 AM
I upset you again. I have tried my best to be polite about what I consider to be an extremely important subject and, yes, I have been told that I lack personal relationship skills. I further am uneducated and don't speak latin or know lots of names or big words.

I further live way out in the woods in a remote and sparsly populated portion of the Ozarks. By choice, of course. Like I said previous, I only get to meet leos in the big city where I am not recognized as a local.

The local police in the town 8 miles from where I live know me and we wave at each other. Those guys would not run me in on a "weapons charge". I seriously doubt that they would let me into their local FOP meeting. I seriously doubt that they have a local FOP. There's only 4 of them.

I write my low lifed politicians. I vote. I work for my political party. I contribute to forums. I suppose I could do more.

I gave 4 yrs, 1 month and 3 days of my life to the protection and defense of my constitution. I love it. I am trying to live up to my oath. I expect, hope and try to influence others to also.

RealGun
August 1, 2004, 11:03 AM
I don't see these issues in the same way cropcirclewalker does. I would by no means seek to discredit much of the philosophy expressed except that I get a different conclusion on some basic points that wind up influencing most of the others.

First I believe in the rule of law. I accept that bad laws need to be prevented or repealed by effective action. I do not believe in selective anarchy, no matter how holy the cause is believed to be. Who wants to be a martyr unless life or death, liberty or total subjugation? However, I do believe in revolution by large groups of like minded citizens. I would certainly look for a compelling justification before participating.

Believing in the rule of law, I have to accept the role of LEOs. I will be critical of abuses but will not use them to stereotype all LEOs negatively.

Secondly I have a different view of the Constitution in pragmatic terms. I too would like to read the 2A to my advantage, but as Sanford Levinson pointed out in his treatise, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment", interpretations by any side of the 2A debate are "tendentious", which means one's interpretation is biased by a preexisting philosophy. We desperately need a Court ruling to lay that debate to rest. The problem is that such a ruling would not necessarily be what we expected or would hope for. Not every SCOTUS Justice is a Solomon, as we well know, and public sentiment does influence the Court. In any case, those Justices are a product of contemporary society and don't necessarily all think like Founding Fathers.

Arguments for our favored view of the 2A are well founded and compelling, but that does not make law. Our view needs to be validated in Court and implemented in the law. We have to remember that in practical terms any interpretation of the 2A is still fiction, not fact. It's an ongoing debate. Anti-gunners believe they are just as righteous as we are, both sides using a tendentious view of the 2A as an argument. We need an arbitrator, and that would be either the Supreme Court, extreme police action, a righteous revolt, or voters who understand the Founding Father's intentions. Good luck on that one, since all most do is watch television and pick candidates who are the best performers or have the best looking ties. The issues are superficial. Many have no concept of the real differences between one party and another.

So, willfully violating a law based upon the belief that it is invalid is risky business. Your assumptions may be on weak foundations in legal terms. Rather than be a lone martyr, who couldn't afford the cost of due process, or who might not survive the confrontation, you would need lots of comrades in arms or like minded voters to make your view stick. Let's just agree that not everyone reads the 2A or projects its logical influence in the same way that we would. To me, the 2A is very clear. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees, especially when they want special rules for freed slaves, not anticipating that freedom scenario in the original Constitution. It's all a crock, but that's America. As long as the "from my cold, dead hands" resolve exists in great enough numbers, we'll be fine.

GeneC
August 1, 2004, 11:13 AM
CCW said: "I just ask....read me off a federal weapons law, then read me off 2a and then justify the federal weapons law.

Sorry. It's real simple. This is not rocket science. We all know that the constitution is the supreme law. This is a gun forum. It is expected that you would understand 2a."


Ok, but then I expect that you understand the Constitution, as you agree it is supreme Law and I'm going to predict that this will be as I said the first time, that this is going to boil down to individual interpretations of the Constitution, which it sets up our Govt so that the Supreme Court DOES interpret the laws.



Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.



H.R.1025
Title: To provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and for the establishment of a national instant criminal background check system to be contacted by firearms dealers before the transfer of any firearm.


I see no infringement here.


Gun Free Schools Act of 1994
Federal law requiring expulsion of students carrying weapons to school if the school receives federal financial aid



I see no infringement here either.






State Statute:The 2003 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS View Entire Chapter

790.16 Discharging machine guns; penalty.--

(1) It is unlawful for any person to shoot or discharge any machine gun upon, across, or along any road, street, or highway in the state; upon or across any public park in the state; or in, upon, or across any public place where people are accustomed to assemble in the state. The discharge of such machine gun in, upon, or across such public street; in, upon, or across such public park; or in, upon, or across such public place, whether indoors or outdoors, including all theaters and athletic stadiums, with intent to do bodily harm to any person or with intent to do damage to property not resulting in the death of another person shall be a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082. A sentence not exceeding life imprisonment is specifically authorized when great bodily harm to another or serious disruption of governmental operations results.

(2) This section shall not apply to the use of such machine guns by any United States or state militia or by any law enforcement officer while in the discharge of his or her lawful duty in suppressing riots and disorderly conduct and in preserving and protecting the public peace or in the preservation of public property, or when said use is authorized by law.



Nope, no infringement here either.

Glock Glockler
August 1, 2004, 11:38 AM
Hmmmm, should I have to undergo a background check before I can practice the religion of my choice or before I can write an article in the press?

cropcirclewalker
August 1, 2004, 11:55 AM
and on the surface, when you refer to;H.R.1025H. Title: To provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and for the establishment of a national instant criminal background check system to be contacted by firearms dealers before the transfer of any firearm. might not be in violation. When you REALLY look it though, what does it say?

We want you to wait for a period of time so that we can check to see if you are a criminal. So, he turns out to be a criminal. Now what. Read me off 2a again and show me where it excludes criminals.

I know I will drop some authoritarian types here, but a right is a right. Just 'cause yer a criminal doesn't mean that you can't practice your religion or speak freely. A right is a right. God is the one that gave them to us. God should take them away.

Gun Free Schools Act of 1994
Federal law requiring expulsion of students carrying weapons to school if the school receives federal financial aid So read me off 2a again and tell me where it says you can't bear your arms in a school without being infringed?

I can imagine some WA remark about letting your 7 year old take your gun to school. I would hope the parents of today have enough sense. Maybe not. Even WITH the law the students do it. What's the point?

They are expelling students who left their lawfully owned shotgun in their trunk after a weekend hunting trip. Carrying (Bearing) an arm is not a crime. The unlawful use of it is.

edited because I got called away, but........When the 7 year old takes the gun to school, that is a crime perpertrated by the parent, not the child. Who gets expelled? The only punishment that the parent has to endure is to have to find a new baby sitter. With Liberty comes responsibility. We cannot let the state be our nanny.

Finally, the feds have no business in education. If they did, they would not have waited until the 1840's to start up their govt. schools.

PunkDave
August 1, 2004, 12:02 PM
Secondly I have a different view of the Constitution in pragmatic terms. I too would like to read the 2A to my advantage, but as Sanford Levinson pointed out in his treatise, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment", interpretations by any side of the 2A debate are "tendentious", which means one's interpretation is biased by a preexisting philosophy. We desperately need a Court ruling to lay that debate to rest. The problem is that such a ruling would not necessarily be what we expected or would hope for. Not every SCOTUS Justice is a Solomon, as we well know, and public sentiment does influence the Court. In any case, those Justices are a product of contemporary society and don't necessarily all think like Founding Fathers.

This is exactly the kind of nebulous rationalization that anti 2A folks like to use. 2A is unambiguous and needs no "interpretation" regardless of what semantics folks like to employ. OK, so if the intention here is to make a "pragmatic" argument about how things are "really done" then fine, but this only perpetuates the myth that we don't really know what the framers wanted. Besides, decision after decision by the Supreme Court has upheld the individual's RKBA. I don't take much stock in activist lower court opinions.

Perhaps I am missing the point of this part of your post? If so, please clarify. I'm a reasonable person... really! :D

WilderBill
August 1, 2004, 12:31 PM
First off, I'll agree that, according to my interprtaion of the 2A, all gun ARE uncontitutional.
I also understand that my saying so doesn't make much of a difference in how our world works.
LEOs are paid to enforce the laws as they are written. They are also sworn to uphold the constitution. Sometimes that must lead to some degree of conflict. I'm glad I don't have to resolve that in my own life everyday.

As to wheather LEOs should enforce those pesky gun laws;
Once upon a time, back in the dark ages of my youth, my grandad was a Peace Officer. That was in the days before the term LEO was in vougue and well before the force part of enforcement was stressed.
I came to understand that an individual officer has a degree of discression and should use it, based on the totality of the circumstances and his best judgement.

Examples that I can remember are;
If you see an obviously rabid dog running down the street, then blow a hole in it ASAP. Then call animal control to pick it up. Yep, that happened.
If a bank robber shoots and kills youir partner, again blow a hole in him ASAP, then call for backup. 1942.
If you find someone carrying a concealed weapon (way before CCW) and he's taking his days recepts from his place of business to the bank in a bad neighborhood, then tell him to be carefull and have a nice day.
Yep, that happened more than once, as well.

My point in that little narritive is that LEOs have or should have, some descretion in the conduct of daily contact with us poor peasants.
If you are a LEO, then consider using that descrition.
If you are a voter then work to change the laws.
If you are a gun owner, be careful not to add any numbers to negative statisics.
If you are a forum member, feel free to vent here. You won't get hauled away for daring to disagree with a member of LE on the forum. :)

GeneC
August 1, 2004, 12:34 PM
"Read me off 2a again and show me where it excludes criminals."


This is too ridiculous to respond to. I proved my point, you haven't proved yours. The 2A is not the entire Constitution, where it says that criminals lose certain rights. So I'm right, this is going to boil down to individual interpretation, which derails the whole thread.

GeneC
August 1, 2004, 12:40 PM
Hmmmm, should I have to undergo a background check before I can practice the religion of my choice or before I can write an article in the press?


__________________

Another ridiculous statement that only lends to make mockery of this thread. If you can cause harm to another human being, within your religion, yes , you do need a background check and I believe there are laws to that effect.

GeneC
August 1, 2004, 12:45 PM
Article III. (of the Constitution)
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

RealGun
August 1, 2004, 01:37 PM
Besides, decision after decision by the Supreme Court has upheld the individual's RKBA. - PunkDave

I am not aware that this is true at all. Quite the contrary. They either avoid the cases or rule so narrowly that there are few broad implications, certainly not in our favor, if any.

2A is unambiguous

You're in denial. I would suggest trying to be objective about the whole controversy surrounding the 2A, both in its meaning and the scope of its authority. If the meaning and implications of the 2A were so clear cut, they wouldn't be so easily abused. We say that "the Constitution is ignored", but what really happens sometimes is that it is simply read differently than in a way that we would favor. We demonize law makers who think they are doing the right thing. What we need is a legal ruling to settle the question. The fault lies with a Federal Court system that has stonewalled the issue for 70 years. We also don't try hard enough collectively to present them with good cases. Again though, we wouldn't necessarily like the outcome. That's because it is not as black and white as we would prefer to believe.

GeneC
August 1, 2004, 01:44 PM
RG, whose this "we" you're refering to? Also, didn't the US Attorney General declare that the 2A meant individuals , as apposed Komrad Reno's interpretation that it meant only militias?

Ryder
August 1, 2004, 01:50 PM
cropcirclewalker - "The local police in the town 8 miles from where I live know me and we wave at each other. Those guys would not run me in on a "weapons charge"."

I live in that place too! :D I'm even on smiley speaking terms with them. But trust them to walk my dog? Pfff, forget it.

These small towns are not exactly overflowing with evil. These cops have seen their co-workers go unemployed due to lack of work and funding. Keeping a job means looking busy. Quantity not quality is the way of our times. Justice is a huge beaurocratic industry stocked full of little Hitlers who would love to fry your freedom in their ovens. We the people are their only source of income and job security. They aren't going to start selling brownies and holding dances.

It is said that money is the root of all evil. I don't think there can ever be a good faith attempt at stopping the oppression of weapons owners without some alternate form of compensation. Around here it's called a permit and the price of freedom has never been cheaper. I detest using this $ystem to protect myself from the rainbow of evil but I'm just not dumb enough to tempt them twice since my run-in makes yours look like a trip to Disneyland.

There's a tendency for people (cops or otherwise) to take the path of least resistance. Not that they are lazy but when it comes to police looking productive it is undeniably less risky on many levels to roust an honest non-violent person than it is to go after someone who is not. That's just a fact of human nature and it and will never go away with any amount of legislation.

RealGun
August 1, 2004, 02:19 PM
RG, whose this "we" you're refering to? Also, didn't the US Attorney General declare that the 2A meant individuals , as apposed Komrad Reno's interpretation that it meant only militias? - GeneC

Make of the "we" question what you will.

As I understand it, the AG's (John Ashcroft) pronouncement has very limited legal bearing. I would definitely give points to John Ashcroft and to the Bush administration for nudging in the "right" direction. On the other hand, I wish I could explain the State Department's sticking their nose in with the opposite effect. It's possible that both departments went beyond the scope of their respective authorities.

I really think you are giving the AG statement too much weight, simply because it reads the way you would like it to read and means what you would like it to mean. That's what "tendentious" means and is exactly the problem with making too much or too little of the 2A.

GeneC
August 1, 2004, 03:28 PM
Realgun said: "Make of the "we" question what you will."


Typical slippery answer. YOU said 'we', why'd I attempt to speculate who you meant, which is why I asked. Let me be more specific, when YOU said 'we', who did YOU mean when YOU said 'we'? I think maybe 'we' might be a minute group of anarchists.
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order


"On the other hand, I wish I could explain the State Department's sticking their nose in with the opposite effect. "


Care to cite a source?

cropcirclewalker
August 1, 2004, 04:51 PM
called away and have slid behind a page or so. I will probably never catch up.I said; Read me off 2a again and show me where it excludes criminal." then you said:This is too ridiculous to respond to. I proved my point, you haven't proved yours. The 2A is not the entire Constitution, where it says that criminals lose certain rights. So I'm right, this is going to boil down to individual interpretation, which derails the whole thread. I have read and reread the constitution many times. Not for a month or so, please refresh my recollection of where it says that criminals lose certain rights I think I remember were it says that a president that is convicted after impeachment cannot hold office, but that is not a right. It's a privilege.

Article 1, section 8 is real clear in what the federal govt has the power to legislate. among them are;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Unless your a resident of DC, or a fort or unless you're a pirate or a counterfeiter or are in the military or militia (when actually in service) or unless the govt. decides that we are in rebellion, it appears to me that they have no jurisdiction.

Of course clause 18 looks like a catch all, but ;
1) Article 1, section 8 is the only source of powers for the legislative body.
2) The sections you quoted were for the judicial, which can only rule on validity since it has no legislative authority (hard as it is to believe) and.
3) As further hard as it is to believe, the Executive branch is just that. Sure, we got Executive Orders but they are usually tied to some piece of legislation if they were legal at all, which I doubt and don't wanna talk about at this time.

And finally we got that long forgotten 10a. Even more corrupted than 2a.

I guess we would really be in worse shape if it wasn't for the constitution, which is mostly being ignored anyway.

Before we get sombody logging on with a WA reminder that the states should have some powers too, agreed. I was referencing the comments of Mr. GeneC.

This is a gun forum. I am interested in 2a. Yes, states can regulate the speed limit (even though it's not a crime). Yes, they can tell me how much tax I gotta pay for education. Yes, they can limit the number of wives I have, and yes they can regulate firearms. Just as long as the state law does not contradict 2a.

It's really pretty simple.

RealGun
August 1, 2004, 05:11 PM
Care to cite a source? - GeneC

I have spent too much time trying to find it, but not that long ago there was a document on the US State Dept. website which discussed RKBA, didn't read well, and was an unnecessary departure from State Department business. I am not sure if it was on this particular forum but it certainly was discussed at length. Searches here did not show anything. Perhaps others will recall. I don't remember the specifics except that gun rights advocates very much objected to what it had to say and there was question about why State would be involved. Perhaps complaints caused it to be removed.

Lacking a source, you are welcome to dismiss the point. It was not that relevant to what I was discussing anyway.

"We" was an expression of confidence how other gun rights advocates might feel. To any extent that I spoke for someone else, I apologize, while believing that I was on target based upon knowledge of thousands of posts. I think it would be picayune to dwell on that, but I would be interested in how I might have mis-characterized general sentiments.

GeneC
August 1, 2004, 05:17 PM
CCW said: "It's really pretty simple."


Yes it is, so why try to make it so difficult?


Of course you know( or maybe you don't ), the Constitution allows that the American society may pass laws to apply to any given era or time frame and as you know(maybe you don't ), Congress introduces laws, debate on them, vote on them and pass them and send them to the President, who either signs them into law or vetoes them. In 1968, they passed the Gun control Act of 1968 said that criminals cannot own guns. For 46 years now, you nor ANYONE has reversed the law or found it to be unconstitutional, so says the people of this land. Yeah, pretty simple.

So, are you saying that all laws made after 1789 are unconstitutional because they aren't 'physically' IN it, or are you saying that the Constitution doesn't allow for further laws to be made , other than what's in the Ammendments or are you saying that any law that is NOT entered as an Ammendment is unconstitutional? Or what?

You know, crop circles are a hoax too.

Gary
August 1, 2004, 07:17 PM
I don't find the desire to debate on forums but I do find them interesting and informative. I occasionally post to put forward news or information that might not otherwise be known, but today my post is to simply give support to CCW. He gets off the mark occasionally but his detractors sometimes don't even see the mark. When there are posts that complain about the application or misapplication of laws there is almost always the predictable shout of "cop hater" or that the person making the complaint is making unfair remarks that paints all LEO's. Of course, the complaint was not meant to paint all LEO's as bad actors any more than a complaint against the KKK would be a complaint against all white folks. As a result, the thread gets off track and the meat of the complaint is lost in unnecessary rhetoric. I have developed something of a solution to that problem that may or may not prove to be effective. The solution is to distinguish between Law Enforcement Officers and Peace Officers. I suggest that the officers who kept CCW detained at the airport were LEO's and were certain that there must be some crime that he had committed because only people with badges can have weapons and he was one of them as opposed to being one of us. A peace officers would have seen that he was not a threat and the incident would never have happened. Peace Officer = Andy Law Enforcement Officer = Barney

sendec
August 1, 2004, 07:35 PM
Great, now my role models are supposed to be Andy and Barney.........:rolleyes:

All that time and money in college and grad school down the toilet, all I needed to do was watch TV Land. All you medics out there, Randolph Mantooth is the Father of Trauma Medicine!!!!

PunkDave
August 1, 2004, 07:38 PM
You're in denial. I would suggest trying to be objective about the whole controversy surrounding the 2A, both in its meaning and the scope of its authority. If the meaning and implications of the 2A were so clear cut, they wouldn't be so easily abused. We say that "the Constitution is ignored", but what really happens sometimes is that it is simply read differently than in a way that we would favor. We demonize law makers who think they are doing the right thing. What we need is a legal ruling to settle the question. The fault lies with a Federal Court system that has stonewalled the issue for 70 years. We also don't try hard enough collectively to present them with good cases. Again though, we wouldn't necessarily like the outcome. That's because it is not as black and white as we would prefer to believe.

I don't see how there is any ambiguity in 2A being an individual right. That is the only portion of 2A's meaning that I see as a black and white issue. I don't think it lends itself to any intellectual relativism. That old cliche of "Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" resonates for me on that one! :p The mere presence of debate doesn't necessarily make it an "open" issue. I can start and perpetuate a debate on how the world is flat and make convincing arguments, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's round(ish).

I do agree that there is warranted debate on its scope and how society *manages* this right as with all other rights. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc etc. Some feel more restrictions are in order and others think the line should be pushed back to be less restrictive. I think as a society we'll always challenge that line.

Isn't that what this forum is about? :D

JohnBT
August 1, 2004, 10:57 PM
"Isn't that what this forum is about?"

Either that or it was designed to be a tinfoilhatmagnet.

John

cropcirclewalker
August 2, 2004, 02:00 AM
there is no debate about 2a. The antis know it too.

They drag out
the phrase jugglers,
meaning torturers,
word smiths,
dependent clausifiers,
interstate commerce regulators,
the times changers,
ok fer me, but not fer theesters,
arrest 'em all and let the courts sort them outifiers,
not needed for duck huntersters,
common sense gun safety lawyers,
reasonable regulators,
guns are sexual dysfunctionaries,
manditory trigger lockyears,
I gotta bodyguard, who needs 2asters,
only applies to the fed. govters,
states can do what they wantifiers,
righteous collectivists,
police will protect yousters,
It's fer the childreners,
"What me Worriers?",
militia is really the national guardians,
militia is really a bunch of leo wannabeesters,
militia is a bunch of militant kooksters,
supremes said it was OKsters,
not fer the criminalistas,
not fer the crazier than meesters,
not fer the minoritoriumsters
the founders were really a bunch of slavers,
the people means the statsters,
thats not what they really mentors
and on and on and on and try and try and try.

The only problem they have is that they just cannot change the meaning of 2a. Not until they change the meaning of the words "People, right, arms, keep and bear, shall not and be infringed" So far, they have just been unable to change the meaning of those words.

Then, in desperation, some resort to "the tinfoil hattiers"

The fact remains. They know what 2a means.
They swore an oath to follow the constitution.
2a is in the constitution.
There is just no way around it. They must face it.
They run in somebody for a "weapons violation",
They are violating their oath.

JohnBT
August 2, 2004, 09:35 AM
I believe you are ignoring the fact that employees havee to defend the Constitution as it is currently interpreted by the powers-that-be/Supreme Court/whoever.

We'd be in a heck of a mess if everyone acted according to their own interpretation.

John

cropcirclewalker
August 2, 2004, 12:13 PM
I think I covered your argument under the classification of arrest 'em all and let the courts sort them outifiers, It's like a stoplight, sort of only simpler. With the stoplight, some people start to see tinges of yellow in the red. They think it's really a reddish green. Like my grandson, they say, "WELL, if you were looking at it from a different angle, maybe it would be green." They think yellow is really green only in a time warp. They all have their own interpretations of what the colors are and yellow really messes up the "On / Off character of the stoplight.

We don't have that problem with 2a. It's more like a coin. Heads or tails. Now some out there will ask, "What happens if it lands on it's edge?"

That's a good question, except that we aren't flipping this coin. The Founders flipped it and it landed on only one side and it stayed there.

Heads. Arms (guns in this case). The only way to turn the coin over is with a constitutional amendment.

There is only one way to see it.

But the govt. needs the people to be unarmed. They call in the supremes. They get in their robes and do their skullduggery and one of them has a lightbulb go off and he says, "Ah, that Walking Liberty coin show hers butt! It's really a tail." Another chiimes in, "Hey, your right, and the Eagle on the other side has a head so, heads are really tails and tails are really heads." They all nod solumnly and write up a decision saying that heads are tails and tails are heads.

Now the statists all bend over, rub their hands together gleefully, make a big smile and shout, "YES, heads are tails, the founders really meant that the people were supposed to be locked up for 'Weapons Violations'. Let's have the leos run 'em all in."

There you have it. Green is Red. Heads are Tails. Grass is Blue, The sky is Green. The supremes have declared it.

Like I said previous, They all know what 2a says. We all know what it says.

Now I anticipate some WA response saying, "Aha, but the Washington quarter doesn't show his butt. Whaddya say about that?"

Don't ask me. Ask the supremes. I won't play their games. I know a head when I see it and so do the leos.

The Real Mad Max
August 2, 2004, 01:45 PM
Did you run out of meds?:D

Zundfolge
August 2, 2004, 02:13 PM
Hey! I'm a civilian. My badge was NOT issued by a military authority-- it was issued by a municipality, by the authority of the state. I operate under CIVIL authority when on duty.
God bless ya Matt ... now if only more of your brother officers would look at it that way and stop thinking of us non-LEO's "just civilians" then maybe we could get past this stupid "us vs them" thing and realize we're on the same damn side :D

Penforhire
August 2, 2004, 02:40 PM
To the LEO's who would say "the law is not a buffet" I would say bull! You don't go around enforcing every code violation you see, or are your eyes closed, or do you not know the draconian list of minor offenses available?

So you are employing discretion. You don't cite everyone for everything. You're looking for "significant" violations. By applying a weapons charge with no other circumstances you are selecting to enforce that section of the code. Once y'all admit that we can move on to your reasons why. I'm sure you won't get much agreement in this room for disarming citizens but at least the smoke screen would be cleared.

Gordon Fink
August 2, 2004, 05:19 PM
The good news is that humanity has survived and even prospered under tyranny for tens of thousands of years.

~G. Fink

WYO
August 2, 2004, 06:06 PM
They all know what 2a says. We all know what it says.

Knowing what something says is not the same as knowing what it means. The Bill of Rights is a broad statement of principle that constrains the legislature but does not purport to address in every detail every situation for all time. No right is absolute. If someone believes in a religion that involves human sacrifice, can they just grab someone off the street and sacrifice ‘em? The Second Amendment is no different. We all know what the 2A says, but the meaning is not crystal clear. Does the right to bear arms mean that you can have ammo for them? Does the right to bear arms mean that you can use the ammo and shoot them? Does it mean that no law can prevent you from shooting them in the air like they do in foreign countries and various American cities? Does it mean that you can shoot them at people walking down the street? That would be a constraint on the right to bear arms, right? Once you say the first “but” and make a distinction, you are interpreting the Constitution. It’s all shades of gray from that point forward. (BTW, I do think that the historical record supports the individual rights theory.)

While it may be flattering to think that a few people believe that individual police officers should be functioning as mini-Supreme Courts, deciding what laws are constitutional and which ones are not, and disregarding judicial precedent, I suspect that the vast majority of people wouldn’t go along with that for obvious reasons. In that sense, the law is not a buffet.

Discretion in police work means the ability to enforce or not enforce laws where the enforcement is not mandatory under law or policy. By definition it cannot be a violation of the officer’s oath to act or not act in a matter that is subject to discretion. The use of discretion should be made using common sense and community values for the accomplishment of a good purpose. I would not expect a New York City police officer to exercise discretion in the same manner as a rural western police officer. Further, if a gun law upheld as constitutional can be used to put away a “bad person,” I don’t have a problem with using it and society is benefited. Sometimes the gun charge is better than a wrist slap charge. Does that mean that every technical violation results in enforcement action? No.

cropcirclewalker
August 2, 2004, 06:40 PM
Can't you leo types see that the ruling elite types are making you look like fools?

Can't you see that they are treating you like robots? Enforcing machines?

Mr. WYO, I HAVE to assume that you are a decent honorable principled person. You know what 2a says. You can't figure out what it means?

Please answer me this. Lets say I am walking into a convience store and you see a weapon print through my wind breaker. You don't know me.

1) Do you ask to see my cc permit?
2) If I don't have one, do you run me in?

Now's your chance to show some discretion.

GeneC
August 2, 2004, 07:42 PM
CCW said:"There is only one way to see it."


Says who? Don't you see you're just as bad as 'the supremes' (whoever that is)? You're dictating that there's only ONE way to see it and everyone who disagrees is with 'THEM'. The 2a says the people have a right to keep and bear arms, but it was explained by the FF that that meant 'the people' were all freemen(and excluded criminals and slaves) and the rest of the Constitution says that laws can be passed to protect Society. Fact is , there's MORE than one way to see it and you are ignoring history and logic. History has shown that criminals kill people with guns, so they should NOT be allowed to just walk into any gun store and buy them. Sure they're gonna steal them, but it's not the same. You must not have any children or you'd know, you can make rules about not cussing or smoking pot or having sex, but you can't do a damn thing about stopping them if they really wanna do it (short of being the 'supreme' dictator you seem to despise). The distinction is that you're not just freely letting them do whatever they want, you let them know you don't condone it. Same with this Govt, NO law is infringing on 2A, if you are not a felon, you can 'keep and bear' just about any 'arm' you want.



CCW also said:"Please answer me this. Lets say I am walking into a convience store and you see a weapon print through my wind breaker. You don't know me.

1) Do you ask to see my cc permit?
2) If I don't have one, do you run me in?"


I'm not even a LEO, but I don't you from Joe Schmuck and you could have just killed your family and are going on a killing spree. If I see you carrying, I might ask for your CCW, or else we might have a problem. I might draw on you and demand it and if you refuse, we'll wait for the police to do it, if you move towards your gun, I'll ventilate you to the floor. Hey, it's the times and my right to protect myself and my family, see? If an LEO sees you printing, I EXPECT him to question you and check you out, just as I would if they saw me printing, but I have NO problem producing my CCW. I consider it a 'badge' of honor and the penalty for being stupid enough to allow it to print in the first place.

WYO
August 2, 2004, 08:28 PM
I will not respond to a purely hypothetical situation where I know but two out of potentially dozens of relevant facts, and I generally will not predict exactly what I would do in a future situation, because I don’t know in advance. But, I definitely have cut people breaks in matters involving illegal concealed carry, and I know a lot of others who have as well. BTW, I’m not talking about Mayberry here, I’m talking about a large high-crime city.

I read a lot of cases and I have more than a passing interest in the Second Amendment. I have some general opinions, but I cannot tell you exactly how it squares with each and every law. I do not have the time and/or I am not that smart, but I don’t have to take the time or be that smart, because I don’t substitute my personal interpretation for that of the courts. If that makes me a fool, I can live with that. I get called a lot worse on a regular basis, although that stuff isn’t true. :)

Telperion
August 2, 2004, 08:41 PM
I'm not even a LEO, but I don't [know] you from Joe Schmuck and you could have just killed your family and are going on a killing spree. Why, that's the first thing I think of whenever I see somebody in the store. :rolleyes:

If I see you carrying, I might ask for your CCW, or else we might have a problem. I might draw on you and demand it Am I understanding you correctly? You, as a private citizen, are going to draw down on somebody in the Quik-e-mart because he tells you to MYOB? :confused:

GeneC
August 2, 2004, 09:06 PM
pipsqueak(?) said:"Am I understanding you correctly? You, as a private citizen, are going to draw down on somebody in the Quik-e-mart because he tells you to MYOB? "


You're understanding what you want to , but I see right away you're attempting to take it out of context and I'm gonna guess YOU don't have your CCW. This jerk has walked in and shown he's carrying without descretion. I know NOTHING about him, like I said, if I see it, I'm gonna say something. Now, any NORMAL CCW will say something to the effect of," OH, sorry, thanks for pointing it out ." and will immediately conceal his weapon, then I'll go on my way, while still keeping an eye on him('cause he was stupid enough to allow his weapon to 'print' in the first place, he's not all there anyway), but, if he say's MYOB, I'm gonna walk past and turn around a draw on him and DEMAND to see his CCW and warn him if he even twitches towards his gun, I'll put him down, 'cause there's 50/50 chance he's a BG or deranged and I'll take my chances. At that point any CCW , even with a lapse of reason'll put his hands up and in his most sarcastic voice , say, "Hold it, I have my CCW, blah, blah, blah, don't shoot." , but at least he ain't wounded. If he actually reaches for his gun, then it becomes self defense, sorta, but I'm willing to let a jury of my peers decide. We can do it the easy way or the hard way, it don't matter to me. The next step is the police, plain and simple. How much easier it'd be if children would learn to play by the rules.

R.H. Lee
August 2, 2004, 09:12 PM
if he say's MYOB, I'm gonna walk past and turn around a draw on him and DEMAND to see his CCW and warn him if he even twitches towards his gun, I'll put him down, 'cause there's 50/50 chance he's a BG or deranged and I'll take my chances.

.....which don't look good 'cause I think you just committed at least one, maybe two, felonies in any state in this union. :scrutiny:

LawDog
August 2, 2004, 09:13 PM
You know what 2a says. You can't figure out what it means?

There is, in my jail right now, a man who is charged -- not yet convicted -- only charged, with a violent felony.

His indictment is for murder. Capital murder, to be exact, of an elderly man by way of a ball-peen hammer for the princely sum of $28.00 and change.

I know what the Second Amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-- Amendment II, Constitution of the United States of America.

I know that there are no exemptions there. No exceptions. No caveats. No mention of criminals at all.

You know what? He will neither keep, nor bear arms while he's in my facility. Period. Full stop.

Do I know what the Second Amendment means? Hmm.

I bloody well know that it doesn't mean that a sociopath with a criminal history of violent felonies longer than you are tall gets to keep an M4A1 and 460 rounds of ammo under his bunk while he's being held in my jail.

LawDog

GeneC
August 2, 2004, 09:17 PM
RMC said" ".....which don't look good 'cause I think you just committed at least one, maybe two, felonies in any state in this union. "


Really, and what'd they be? I see a man , who I don't know walk within spittin' distance of me and I see he's carrying a gun and I don't know him and I talk to him about it and he cops an attitude about it, I can't be reasonably concerned about my safety? I'm supposed to wait 'til HE draws on me and shoots me or mine? Like I said, I'll let a jury of my peers decide, but I've broken NO laws.

R.H. Lee
August 2, 2004, 09:21 PM
Really, and what'd they be?

Well, I'm neither a lawyer nor a cop, maybe one or the other will come along and help out, BUT, it may be called "Felony Menacing", or "Assault with a Deadly Weapon", or something else, depending on the location.

GeneC
August 2, 2004, 09:25 PM
RMC said: "Well, I'm neither a lawyer nor a cop, maybe one or the other will come along and help out, BUT, it may be called "Felony Menacing", or "Assault with a Deadly Weapon", or something else, depending on the location."

"which don't look good 'cause I think you just committed at least one, maybe two, felonies in any state in this union. "



Really? Well just a minute ago you were sure I'd committed at least a couple of felonies. There's also a 50/50 chance I just thwarted a robbery where someone or everyone got wounded/killed. Like I said, he presented the scenario, I said what I'd do and I stand by it come Hell or high water.

R.H. Lee
August 2, 2004, 09:31 PM
Gene, I think you're just blowing a lot of hot air, unless you're posting from a prison computer. Anybody who'd actually draw down on a guy because he was printing in the QuickE Mart doesn't have much in the way of common sense. And, yeah, I think you'd go to jail charged with a felony, unless the sheriff is your brother in law.

GeneC
August 2, 2004, 09:51 PM
So says a citizen of the socialist state of Kalifornication. Btw, how in the world would me posting from a prison computer(which I'm NOT) mean I'm NOT blowing hot air? You folks in kali sure take things out of context( probably why y'all're in so much trouble). I'll try to speak s-l-o-w-e-r, it wouldn't be JUST for printing, but the way he acted when I spoke to him about it. Sure , it'd strictly be a judgement call, but if in my judgement, if my safety is in question, damn right I'll draw down on 'im.

R.H. Lee
August 2, 2004, 10:04 PM
While I was out throwing the Kong for the dog, I thought of some other charges the DA could bring against you. How about "Making Terrorist Threats"? (That one's compliments of the Patriot Act). If you menaced an old person, you'd be charged with "Elder Abuse". If the person was of color, in some jurisdictions you'd be up on a "Hate Crime" (assuming you're white). I think with your attitude, the DA would throw the book at you just to watch you squirm.

GeneC
August 2, 2004, 10:23 PM
Again, so says a socialist subject of kalifornication. Maybe in your Hollyworld, but not mine. So, are you taking up CCW's slack, 'cause he can't hang? Are you his 'lap dog' or do you have your own agenda? Btw, 'throwing the Kong for the dog"? Is that some form of Kali beastiality? You folks out there are SO far ahead of the rest of us.

Zundfolge
August 2, 2004, 10:31 PM
but, if he say's MYOB, I'm gonna walk past and turn around a draw on him and DEMAND to see his CCW and warn him if he even twitches towards his gun, I'll put him down, 'cause there's 50/50 chance he's a BG or deranged and I'll take my chances.
GeneC if I knew who you are and where you lived I would give your sheriff an email with a link to this thread because YOU are clearly a danger to society carrying a concealed firearm.*

First off, you are willing (as a non police type person ... not that it would be right if you where a cop) to draw a deadly weapon and threaten deadly force against someone for a possible misdemenor? (at least here in Colorado and back where I'm from in Kansas, concealed carry without a license is only a misdemenor ... and a minor one at that).

lets revisit this jewel of wisedom; "...if he even twitches towards his gun, I'll put him down, 'cause there's 50/50 chance he's a BG or deranged and I'll take my chances..."

50/50 chance he's a bad guy? Where do you get your statistics? The VPC web page? Plus, can you tell the difference between someone going for their wallet to get their CCW and someone going for their gun IWB at 4 o'clock?

Go ahead, take your chances, but if you pulled that crap to me I'd either shot you (if I though I could) or at least press charges. Go ahead and take that chance and you will most likely end up in jail and never allowed to own a gun again. At the very least you WILL lose your CCW.

Keep in mind that in some states if you (again, as a non police type person) asks me to see my CCW then if I show it to you I have just violated the rules of my CCW.


So GeneC, make the world a safer place and MYOB.

* although I suspect GeneC is not licensed by any state to carry a concealed weapon because most states require some form of training, and most of the training goes over when you can and cannot draw ... and this is about as clearly a "no draw" situation as I can imagine.

R.H. Lee
August 2, 2004, 10:32 PM
You folks out there are SO far ahead of the rest of us.
As true as that may be, Gene, get back to the point and quit with the ad hominems. (I'm laughing so hard it's difficult to type). You think it's legalto draw down on some guy in the quick mart just because he's printing and you don't like his attitude? Isn't there some LEO reading this who can disabuse Gene of this nutty idea?

And btw, a "Kong" is a big rubber thing you tie a rope to and throw for the dog. Maybe it's a California thing, I don't know.

cropcirclewalker
August 2, 2004, 11:32 PM
don't tho down on people you don't know because they look suspicious.

I go away fer just a couple of hours and this happens.

This potential bg you are assaulting is just as likely to be an undercover cop or a dea agent or an ATF guy going into the Snatch & Grab to try to catch the counter clerk selling cigarettes to minors.

You can tho down on us civilians and maybe survive, but I can assure you that you do it to a leo and you will be outa there in a body bag. Then the leo gets some time off with pay and maybe a commendation.

I repeat, PLEASE don't do it.

If I had a CCW permission slip I would show it to you.

Please, Please, Please don't tho down on somebody unless yer gonna shoot them.

cropcirclewalker
August 2, 2004, 11:47 PM
Thank you for your response. Please, I am not poking fun, but I think it's a clever leo ploy to quote the "I'm not gonna respond to hypotheticals" talk like I was a what, rookie? or an errant child.

Especially after my response was to your exemplification of a bunch of "drag 'em off the street for human sacrifice religious or shooting in the air" hypotheticals yourself.

But seriously, I am encouraged by the statement you made about your discretionary activities. You may be playing me like a fiddle or the guy you let walk may have been the mayor's nephew, but regardless, I am beginning to have some hope.

I hope I am not getting you into trouble. If your bosses read this forum I can understand how you would try to appear to be the unwavering thoughtless robotamon, just following orders and doing what yer told. I hope not. I hope yer telling the truth.

;)

O'course if Crop talks nice about you, yer probably in trouble with other leos on this board anyway.

:D

Zundfolge
August 2, 2004, 11:50 PM
If I had a CCW permission slip I would show it to you.

I wouldn't. How do I know he's not going to just ask me to hand over the money in my wallet while I'm at it? No, once he crossed that line and cleared leather over such a stupid thing he's a criminal and I don't obey criminals.

If I thought I could draw and fire fast enough I would (which if I'm looking at Gene's muzzle I doubt I'd have time) otherwise I'm going to be yelling for the store clerk to dial 911 and ducking behind something ... if Gene is stupid or cocky enough to hang around and wait for the police then he gets a free ride downtown and we never have to worry about him carrying a firearm (legaly) again.



Biggest problem is that this cowboy makes the rest of us who have jumped through the hoopes to get our note from mama government that allows us to carry look like the danger that VPC, Sarah Brady and Diane Feinstein want the general public to believe we are.

cropcirclewalker
August 3, 2004, 12:07 AM
All life is precious. Mine, yours, even Mr. GeneC's.

What do they say?, Err in haste, repent in leisure. When they gotcha, reach for the sky. Only time to go fer the shootin' iron is if it appears that he's gonna shoot. Then you duck and weave. Run serpentine. Otherwise, don't make sudden moves. Talk calmly. Move slowly. Act repentant.

Mr. GeneC is just a little misguided, not a capital offense to any other than a leo. Better to let him work off his errors than to have to defend yourself in court to his heirs.

Everybody here...........Please don't go shooting each other unless we have to.

Zundfolge
August 3, 2004, 12:36 AM
Only time to go fer the shootin' iron is if it appears that he's gonna shoot.
Some guy I don't know has a gun pointed at me and is demanding my wallet (or at least the CHL inside it) ... sorry, but if ever there was a time to "go fer the shotin' iron" I think thats it ... that said, I'm not going to unless I'm pretty close to 100% certain I can draw and fire before he can (which if he's got the drop on me is unlikely). Otherwise I'm yelling for somone to call 911 as I back away (hopefully something to dive behind).

I've been robbed at gunpoint before ... its not pleasant and its a big part of why I have a CHL.

Mr. GeneC is just a little misguided, not a capital offense to any other than a leo. Better to let him work off his errors than to have to defend yourself in court to his heirs.

Everybody here...........Please don't go shooting each other unless we have to.

I quite agree ... I fear that if Gene pulls this crap he's going to end up dead, in the hospital and/or in jail and a poster boy for the antis.

firearms_instructor
August 3, 2004, 01:31 AM
Uh, GeneC,

"I'm not even a LEO, but I don't you from Joe Schmuck and you could have just killed your family and are going on a killing spree. If I see you carrying, I might ask for your CCW, or else we might have a problem. I might draw on you and demand it and if you refuse, we'll wait for the police to do it, if you move towards your gun, I'll ventilate you to the floor. Hey, it's the times and my right to protect myself and my family, see? If an LEO sees you printing, I EXPECT him to question you and check you out, just as I would if they saw me printing, but I have NO problem producing my CCW. I consider it a 'badge' of honor and the penalty for being stupid enough to allow it to print in the first place."

I'm not an LEO or an attorney, but I am a certified firearms instructor. Now, I don't know where you're from, but I can tell you for sure that, at least in Florida, you are not justified in drawing down on somebody just because their piece printed. Nor do you have the authority, at least in Florida, to demand to see someone's CCW, unless you are an LEO. I suspect your hypothetical behavior in that scenario would be a felony offense in most jurisdictions. You are not justified in drawing your weapon if you are not justified in using it, and in most jurisdictions that means your life has to be in clear and immediate jeopardy. Yes, you have a right to protect yourself and your family, but ONLY IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY BEING THREATENED. PRINTING IS NOT A THREAT. DRAWING DOWN ON SOMEONE, THAT'S A THREAT.

This is exactly what the antis are always bleating about: "If you let people carry guns, it'll be just like the Wild West all over again!". Please don't be a poster boy for the antis.

cropcirclewalker
August 3, 2004, 01:54 AM
I cannot recall anything in the constitution that prohibits PRISONERS from asserting their rights just like every other person.

Perhaps 13a might cover it. Article XIII.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. But that doesn't allow for a guy held and charged, but not convicted.

This becomes a problem. Seems like amendment 8; Article [VIII.]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. would imply that being held without bail would be unconstitutional, since that would qualify as excessive (namely infinite) but if a guy couldn't come up with a non-excessive bail, he would "belong to the state" as it were.

I don't know, you got me there, I, unlike some on this board, am not above admitting when I don't know.

I could use some help here from some smart non-leo, taxpayers who have read and understand the constitution.

Maybe it's in Blackstone's definition of the "People". That would make sense.

What is the difference between a;
1) criminal
2) felon
3) prisoner?

I think....
A criminal is a person who did a crime (caught or not) and
a felon is a criminal who has been caught and convicted and
a prisoner is a felon who is in the slammer.

It would appear that a prisoner is (ignoring misdemeanery) a felon, but not nececelery that a felon is a prisoner.

I guess it is understood by most that once a felon, always a felon whether in the slammer or not, unless some authorized person pardons them.

I remember being in the Navy. I belonged to the state. I had no civil rights to speak of. I couldn't keep a weapon under my bunk. At the time it seemed to make sense, but you may be right, maybe it was wrong.

atek3
August 3, 2004, 02:23 AM
GeneC, you were talking some wacky smackto in the AWB thread but really, this stuff is over the top. It's like a stand up comedy routine in a mental ward, "if I see some guy print and he offends me, I'll have him stare down the barrel of my .45".

If GeneC pointed a gun at me and told me to show my CCW, I'd grab my cell phone instead, call 911 and report a nutcase waving a gun around.

atek3

thefitzvh
August 3, 2004, 08:12 PM
I'd like to add something about GeneC's repeated "Socialist **********" attacks.


Many of the THR members in this board have done more for gun rights in a few months than you've done all your life. not mentioning any names, but When was the last time you applied for CCW (and paid the fees), 3 times, just to prove that, no matter what your reason, the sheriff wouldn't issue to you. When was the last time you fought hard for legislation to release those CCW records, and when was the last time you sat down, in a police station, and refused to move until the Chief brought you his CCW policy manual, as required by law.

I suppose we should leave the state, thereby making it worse for all the other gun owners who stay behind. No thank you, I'll stay and fight the good fight. Jim March knows if he needs someone to do anything for him in San Diego, paperwork, leafletting, whatever... he's got it in me, and probably a few of our other san diego members.

THe "Socialists" on this board, myself included, among others, are FIGHTING for gun rights, while you sit here and spout your drivel about how, if a law abiding citizen were printing in a store, you would draw on him. First of all, if the second amendment says what we all believe it says, that guy has every right to carry a weapon. In addition, you're not an LEO. I pray you never become one,because I believe that someone will end up dead. (as a side note, I would support an LEO asking for a CCW if he saw me printing, because I believe it's his job to prevent crime. I don't think asking for a citizen's CCW, if one is an LEO, is an infringement.) I hope you don't have a CCW, and if you do, I suggest you get some psychological help for your control issues.

I suggest you seriously evaluate your reasons for owning and bearing arms, Rambo. It's people like you who give our cause a bad name.


James:barf:

LawDog
August 3, 2004, 09:23 PM
Okay, we'll call that one an exemption to the Second Amendment. Seems to me that even one exemption to a right means that the right can not be absolute, but let's see if we can come up with another.

Also in my facility at this time is a young man who was, until recently, confined to the Texas State Hospital due to a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, among other things.

Late last year, while still in the institution, he woke up one day before sunrise, walked over to his room-mates bunk and broke his room-mates' neck.

I guess the snoring just got to be too much.

Anyhoo, this young man is not mentally competent to stand trial. Two state judges and a host of people with a whole lotta letters behind their names have decided that he doesn't realize that what he did was wrong.

So, he's going back to the State Hospital, probably for the rest of his life, but he's not a convicted felon, nor is he -- technically -- a murderer.

Not a prisoner, not a convict, no criminal history, nada.

Again, should this young man be allowed to keep an M4A1 and 460 rounds of ammo under his bed to bear as he pleases?

LawDog

Glock Glockler
August 3, 2004, 09:38 PM
Seems to me that even one exemption to a right means that the right can not be absolute

I always went by the saying "your right to swing your arms ends when your hands hit my face", though I'd be confortable with a bit even before that;) But seriously, if one infringes on the rights of another they have lost their rights by breaking the state of peace that had existed between him and the rest of civilized society, he essentially waived his rights at that point.

Again, should this young man be allowed to keep an M4A1 and 460 rounds of ammo under his bed to bear as he pleases?

It would seem that he has less reason than my dog, so no, why would he have RKBA or many other rights when he could not even enter into a simple contract and have it upheld? This kid belongs in a home.

cropcirclewalker
August 3, 2004, 11:29 PM
that there was an exemption to 2a. I remember writing that I couldn't figure it out and asking for help from someone learned in the constitution.

I have been pondering this quandary for most of my free time during the day and I have been troubled. I like to feel that my beliefs correspond to the constitution and if they don't, then I modify my beliefs. The constition IMO is the most perfect instrument for running a govt. yet devised. I am compelled to say that even if I disagree, I will comply.

Then I remembered the 5a. That one says,Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(my emphasis) It would appear that we got a case of dueling amendments. The DoI states that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Tom really wanted to say property too) and then we got 5a coming along saying that we can deprive one of life, Liberty and or property provided we do it with due process of law.

Now it starts to make sense. Every person has the right to keep and bear arms. If a person breaks the law, and if duly processed, he may be deprived of life (if he is a really bad guy), liberty and or property. Liberty is locking him up in prison. Property is his shootin' irons while he is in prison.

Further, a crazy who has been "adjudicated" as a crazy has been duly processed by law. Thus they can deprive him of his liberty and property.

That's the exception. I will concede that an involuntarily confined crazy and a duly processed by law prisoner do not have the right to keep and bear arms.

To follow through.......

If a felon serves his time he has abid by the law. Thus he is law abiding. The felon's personal protection has been provided by the govt. while he was in the slammer (Yeah, sure, other than a little fudge packing against his will) but once he has paid his debt to society and has been released, he shoud regain his right to KABA since he is, once again, responsible for his own safety.

OK?

WilderBill
August 3, 2004, 11:42 PM
Another point for Gene;
I once worked in a QuickeeMart.
During my entire shift I had one hand on a loaded pistol, ran the register with my left hand.
If I had looked up and seen someone in my store, pointing a weapon at a customer, I would have felt compelled to drop him first and ask questions later.
Given that this particular location, was robbed an average of every couple of weeks, the police kinda expected us to be armed, nervous and covering our own butts.
I would imagine there are still folks in that trade who insist on improving the chances of living through their shift.

LawDog
August 4, 2004, 12:12 AM
Please, let me make sure that I am understanding your response here:

You are conceding that it is okay to infringe on or deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights as long as due process is followed?

LawDog

cropcirclewalker
August 4, 2004, 12:44 AM
I feel like the mouse sticking his nose up to the cheese on the little piece of wood that is the trigger to the trap. This is way cool...:neener:

I love this line........I am not accustomed to responding to and frequently refuse to respond to hypotheticals, but.......

am I a resident of DC or a US govt. fort? Was I involved in some infraction which incurred in a post office or us govt. court house? Am I in the militia (which is actually in service) or in the land or naval forces? Have I been accused and convicted or counterfeiting US securities or coin? Am I a pirate on the open sea?

The big five? Property crime?

or what? :p

It makes a difference.

:D

Penforhire
August 4, 2004, 03:22 PM
Wow Gene! I thought most of us had the attitude that an armed public is generally a "good thing." If you're concerned because of the mere presence of a sidearm that doesn't sound good.

Like others have mentioned, your life is not in danger because someone you don't know is ccw'ing clumsily. If I were on your jury, based solely on your statements so far, you'd be doing some hard time for even menacing someone who never drew his weapon. You have no personal right to pre-emptive violence (let's not wander into national politics). And although I'm in wussified CA I'm no liberal.

carebear
August 4, 2004, 04:52 PM
CCW,


Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Something else to consider. The challenges to "may-issue" carry concealed laws in CA and others are being primarily based on the bold phrase in section 1. Due process can be our friend.

"Due process" is not strictly a criminal law concept, so yes, property crimes and even enforcement of contracts between individuals are within its purview. And if the Federal Legislature wants to apply its rulings to the states, say to force them to abide by the GCA '68, Section 5 gives them the power, even without the "interstate commerce" penumbra fiasco, by declaring their federal taxing authority as supreme "due process" in that regard.

The reality check here is that Congress CAN make an (even patently)unConstitutional law. They can make any law they damn well choose.

The recourse Constitutionally is not to ignore it, it is still kosher law, but to challenge it in the Federal courts. If they refuse to hear the case or deal with it in its entirety, you're kind of screwed and just have to suck up the Executive branch's LEGAL enforcement of said laws (man the barricades!) until you can raise enough stink to change the Court's mind OR muster enough public support to have the Legislature (who in theory we can change by voting if they fail to represent us) reverse itself.

That's just how it works. LEO's can decide to refuse to enforce the law (most do use discretion far wider than the bosses would EVER allow if they knew about it) but then they lose their jobs. They'll be morally right and unemployed, like military officers who resign their commisions in protest. That's a lot to ask of ANOTHER fellow when the case is the 2nd amendment and even most ardent gun supporters and pro-2nd legal scholars don't contest SOME restrictions as Constitutionally viable.

I think the original question was about exercising discretion, most cops will give you all the credit in the world if you don't make an ass of yourself. It ain't "kowtowing to authority" it's being polite. Even if they won't, suck it up. If you feel they behaved wrongly or deprived you of your rights wrongly (airport situation), use your rights, file a complaint and sue if necessary.

I will probably die alone and in the rain, standing up for the right cause at the wrong time, but it isn't going to be until I've exercised every other option first.

JohnBT
August 4, 2004, 05:18 PM
"If I thought I could draw and fire fast enough I would (which if I'm looking at Gene's muzzle I doubt I'd have time)"

My luck I'd be in there and think he's robbing you at gunpoint and shoot him first. He'd have a good time explaining what the heck he was doing...if he lived.

In any event it would not be a good day.

Unintendedsomethingorother.

John

cropcirclewalker
August 4, 2004, 07:30 PM
John law is running you in (constitutional or not) be compliant. Like at the airport, I politely explained the the nice young cop that he was mistaken about the law. He then politely (but firmly) asked me to exit the veekle and put my hands behind my back.

As an aside, at the time he said he was hooking me up for "My safety". I have since discovered that chances are he mispoke. He should have said that it was for "HIS safety". You know, the "Officer Safety" thing.

Anyway, regardless of how much I was correct initially, If I got belligerant and objurate then they get to run me in for "Resisting Arrest", a clever piling on ploy that should I have been otherwise innocent, they would still win on that one.

Trying to be positive, I just looked at it as an opportunity to help educate some ignorant leos on Missouri Law. It was a small victory telling them that and then watching them grudgingly release me with my weapon. I smiled the whole time. :neener:

So these two subthreads come together. When some jacknape is showing you the bore of his big .44 or if some constitutionally challenged, mindlessly obediant, well meaning but ignorant leo is running you in for committing a lawful act. Be compliant.

Give them what they want today. You get even tomorrow.

carebear
August 5, 2004, 12:29 AM
CCW,

It's just "carebear". "Mr. Carebear" is my father. ;)

It is a tough line to teeter on. We know we're "right" when it comes to the absolute Constitutional interpretation (we nutcase libertarians anyway) but we have to live in the really, real world.

Oh, to be on Pallas in the spring...... :D

Group9
August 8, 2004, 10:41 PM
Most of what the state does is evil. Cops are the enforcement arm of the state.

Well, okay then. :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Since my response got stifled.......(for civilians only)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!