$1000 reward to turn in an illegal gunowner

[the pistolero]

To those who say, 'if you don't like the law, change it...'

I was clicking through one of the sites linked a few posts ago, and here's what the author had to say, about a completely unrelated topic but it still nails the "obey-the-law-or-do-something-about-it-or-shut-the-hell-up-you-stupid-internet-commando" crowd to the wall.

Q. All you do is lament, and moan. Why don't you offer solutions?

A. I could sit here and offer the world of solutions until I turn blue in the face. The problems is, when folks look around them and think that everything is "fine", then that is where the problems occur. If people can't see the wrongs around them, no one will want to change and all my "solutions" will be blowing in the wind.

Apparently enough New Yorkers think the status quo is just fine. And no, I don't understand that, but what I understand even less, and in fact find to be quite sickening, is the fact that some here seem to think that status quo -- of laws that would have had our Founding Fathers screaming for tar, feathers and rope -- is just fine, too.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Also, does anyone else think that maybe a certain Class III dealer has hurt his business by his participation in this thread?

One hopes.

 

[rbernie]

What's the difference between this new reward program and this old one?

In the 'outlaw' reward program, they were asking the public to help catch identified predators - folks who demonstrated a BEHAVIORAL willingnesss to predate upon their fellow man. In the new reward program, we ask people to identify an illegal OBJECT and turn in its owner (regardless of whether the owner has used the OBJECT to predate upon their fellow man - or not).

I frankly cannot fathom how that concept can be so hard to grasp.

 

[dave_pro2a]

QUOTE: Also, does anyone else think that maybe a certain Class III dealer has hurt his business by his participation in this thread?

I was thinking that exact same thing earlier today.

I suspect that some people do research who they buy guns from, because they want to purchase from a pro-RKBA company, and a pro-FREEDOM company.

Everytime we type Spreadfirearms or Spreadfire Arms or Spread Fire Arms, googlebots read it and index it So anybody can search and find out this guys opinons about the RKBA, freedom, privacy rights, et cetera.

Personally I'd drive 200 miles out of my way and pay an extra $2k to deal with a class III dealer that has the proper attitude about RKBA and freedom.

Is there a acronym for those who profess a belief in the 2A and RKBA but don't really believe it or act in accordance? Kinda like a RKBA version of RHINO.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Ad Hominem

Guys, keep the gloves up.

Attack the argument.

I may not agree with the man's opinions.

I'm not going to run a campaign to undermine his image.

He has to look in the mirror and deal with that. That's not part of my mission.

I'll focus on the principles at issue.

Can I get an amen?

 

[rbernie]

Amen.

But he's still wrong.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Spreadfire, you keep shifting your position to keep from being pinned down. This started when you stated quite plainly that you agree with this type of strategy, i.e., the "turn in your gun owning neighbor for money strategy." Then, when a few people called you on it, you started acting like you thought such laws were unfortunate. Then when you are called on your contradiction, you switch to the argument that we have no right to argue that the law is bad unless we have actually hired a lawyer to challenge its constitutionality. Which is it? Please pick a position and stick to it. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

you can always hit the ignore nutton.

for the record for those who needs things spelled out:

1. i do agree with the NYPD's strategy to enforce their laws.
2. i never said anywhere i advocate someone turning in their neighbor. that was words you put in my mouth.
3. the current NYC laws about guns are unfortunate. but they do exist and have existed since 1911. they appear to be currently unchallenged. i for one am a law abiding citizen and if i visited NYC i would only carry if i could legally. i don't choose to disregard laws because i don't like them.
4. arguing its constitutionality on THR doesn't do squat in real life.

is that plain enough for you?

Also, does anyone else think that maybe a certain Class III dealer has hurt his business by his participation in this thread?

not really. the people i cater to are law abiding and pay the additional money to stay legal, meaning they buy transferable Class III weapons and jump through the legal hoops required to own the weapon, rather than just make their own uregistered machine gun, for example, and then quote the 2nd Amendment as their legal reason to violate the National Firearms Act. i think almost all Class III Dealers have a similar customer base.

i dont think im hurting my business. my beliefs are what they are. if you choose not to buy from me so be it. you dont have to buy anything from me. my customers know i am a stand up guy and that i don't just say what people want to hear to make a buck. i hope you can respect THAT.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

shucks

sometimes its nice to weed out some customers. i sometimes just have to tell folks i just don't wanna do buisness with em. you are better off having a core group of good legal clients than attracting the fringe that bring with em a host of issues

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

not really. the people i cater to are law abiding and pay the additional money to stay legal, meaning they buy transferable Class III weapons and jump through the legal hoops required to own the weapon, rather than just make their own uregistered machine gun, for example, and then quote the 2nd Amendment as their legal reason to violate the National Firearms Act.

Not the issue. Do they agree with you that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by otherwise law abiding citizens are good laws, and that strategies to pay citizens to snitch on each other for violating this kind of law are good? Those are the only issues here. No one has said that any of us violate any laws. That's the red herring you keep throwing out.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

who has really been targeted?

can anyone show me a list of who got nailed? and their pedigrees?

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Not the issue. Do they agree with you that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by otherwise law abiding citizens are good laws, and that strategies to pay citizens to snitch on each other for violating this kind of law are good? Those are the only issues here. No one has said that any of us violate any laws. That's the red herring you keep throwing out.

not sure, you'd have to ask them. but i know that the majority of them believe in abiding by the law. they may not like it but they sure arent going to give up their current gun rights and sit in federal prison for 10 years over a firearm they can otherwise obtain legally.

i see nothing wrong with the NYPD enforcing the laws of their city. you do. whether or not you believe their laws are Constitutional or not, the NYPD has a duty to do that. it's their job.

i've never said anyone violates any laws. i have said that if you choose to violate a law, be prepared to accept responsibility for it.

i think that makes sense. just because you don't like the fact that i happen to agree with NYPD's policy doesn't mean im a bad guy. im not busy slinging mud at you. you are the one busy slinging mud at anyone who doesn't agree with you. you really ought to be more mature about the discussion.

 

[dave_pro2a]

quote spreadfirearms: they may not like it but they sure arent going to give up their current gun rights and sit in federal prison for 10 years over a firearm they can otherwise obtain legally.

Yeah, 10 years for failure to pay a $200 tax stamp. That sure sounds like a fair situation. Nothing arbitrary or abusive about that.

 

[JohnBT]

"Rewards in those cases make much more sense."

To you. Rewards in those cases make much more sense to you.

Dern it, people offer rewards for lost dogs for goodness sake and you don't think it's a good idea to offer rewards for those so-called less-than-major crimes?

John

 

[JohnBT]

"In the 'outlaw' reward program, they were asking the public to help catch identified predators - folks who demonstrated a BEHAVIORAL willingnesss to predate upon their fellow man. In the new reward program, we ask people to identify an illegal OBJECT and turn in its owner (regardless of whether the owner has used the OBJECT to predate upon their fellow man - or not).

I frankly cannot fathom how that concept can be so hard to grasp."

Because you're not trying hard enough? I don't know, why can't you grasp it?

Are we or are we not a nation of laws? Whining isn't the way to change those laws.

John

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

In the 'outlaw' reward program, they were asking the public to help catch identified predators - folks who demonstrated a BEHAVIORAL willingnesss to predate upon their fellow man. In the new reward program, we ask people to identify an illegal OBJECT and turn in its owner (regardless of whether the owner has used the OBJECT to predate upon their fellow man - or not).

The object is not illegal. Only the possession of it is illegal(if you haven't jumped through the hoops, paid the fees, are important enough, etc.)(Consider the 2A notwithstanding for the sake of discussion.)

1. i do agree with the NYPD's strategy to enforce their laws.
2. i never said anywhere i advocate someone turning in their neighbor. that was words you put in my mouth.

If you agree with NYC's law about paying people to turn in their neighbors(agree with the NYPD's strategy), how can you say you don't advocate someone turning in their neighbor? Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

not really. the people i cater to are law abiding and pay the additional money to stay legal, meaning they buy transferable Class III weapons and jump through the legal hoops required to own the weapon, rather than just make their own uregistered machine gun, for example, and then quote the 2nd Amendment as their legal reason to violate the National Firearms Act. i think almost all Class III Dealers have a similar customer base.

You have reversed the order of the law. The National Firearms Act violates the Second Amendment. Every time anyone is charged with "violating" the NFA, law enforcement is quoting the National Firearms Act as their legal reason to violate the Second Amendment.

Spreadfire Arms, from what I gather, you are in the business of transferring - buying and selling - Class III arms. Without the NFA, you are out of business, aren't you. You have a stake in keeping the NFA. I think you'll say what you need to make a buck. I can't respect that.

Dern it, people offer rewards for lost dogs for goodness sake and you don't think it's a good idea to offer rewards for those so-called less-than-major crimes?

Offering rewards for finding lost pest is noble, moral and ethical. Can't say the same for unconstitutional law.


Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

Last I looked, the Second Amendment was still part of the Constitution, making it the Supreme Law of the Land. The NFA was not made in pursuance of anything in the Constitution, and is, in fact, in violation of a prohibition in the Constitution - the afore mentioned Second Amendment. The NFA is unconstitutional on its face, and therefore, null and void.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

come on

this is nyc where lawyers defend terrorists and pass on messages for them. can anyone point to someone nailed who wasn't a dirty dog?if there was one the lawyers would be fist fighting to represent em.

 

[rbernie]

Yeah, 10 years for failure to pay a $200 tax stamp. That sure sounds like a fair situation. Nothing arbitrary or abusive about that.

How is that relevant to the NYC 'Reward' program?

One of my pet peeves on this forum is that every single freakin' thread becomes another example of The Libertarian Purity Test. Personally, I'd just as soon leave the debate over the moral or legal authority for NYC to regulate firearms for another time (since they appear to have legal standing until proven otherwise) and instead debate the effectiveness or appropriateness of this specific program.

But that's just me.

Are we or are we not a nation of laws? Whining isn't the way to change those laws.

Yes, we are a nation of laws (and I don't think that I've been whining, thankyouverymuch). In fact, I'm not debating the law. I'm debating the means of its enforcement.

This program crosses a line I'd rather not see crossed in our society. I see this reward program in a different light than the traditional 'WANTED' reward programs. You are free to disagree, and clearly do. <shrug>

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Spreadfire Arms, from what I gather, you are in the business of transferring - buying and selling - Class III arms. Without the NFA, you are out of business, aren't you. You have a stake in keeping the NFA. I think you'll say what you need to make a buck. I can't respect that.

quite the contrary actually! if the NFA allowed machine guns to be produced again for civilian ownership, or if it was repealed altogether, i'd be much happier, and i'd be much wealthier. there would be an unlimited supply and great demand. i would eagerly welcome a repeal of the NFA because i would be able to get my hands on an unlimited amount of machine guns and sell them.

dont forget i pay $500 a year to maintain my license in addition to my regular FFL. i also do more Title I (non-NFA) business than Title II business. so really, your theory, while sounding nice to fit your definition of me, is really flawed. you are welcome to come by and look at my A&D book if you really want to see how many Title I weapons i transfer vs. Title II weapons.

in response to your other statement, if i said what i needed to make a buck, like you said, i think i would have just smiled and nodded throughout this entire thread....don't you? if you don't think so,please provide quotes from me that would serve your theory that i would "say what i need to make a buck." dont forget i recently revoked a THR discount i had for CHL classes and firearms transfers due to people like you on this board. i did that to make a buck? please. id really like to know where you have formed this baseless opinion. i think you won't be able to, because you're spewing venom that shouldn't be directed towards me. just because you don't like gun laws doesn't mean i am to blame. it's a simple thing though. blame the guy everyone else is piling on because it makes you feel better about yourself. i stand behind my opinions. if someone doesn't want to buy guns because of my political views then that's okay. it's a free enterprise system. i think i'll retain my current customer base and continue to do just fine really. like i said, my customers are primarily all law abiding citizens that don't choose to disregard a law simply because they don't agree with it. in fact, most Class III owners spend alot of extra money in order to stay legal. a $10,000 transferable M16 is basically the same as a $700 M16 except the $9300 extra is both: (1) an investment, and more importantly (2) keeps you out of a 10 year stint in the federal prison. im not the one who wrote the law so don't blame me if you don't like it.

if it were up to me i'd have the NFA repealed, it would boost my sales.

shows how much you really know about the NFA!

Yeah, 10 years for failure to pay a $200 tax stamp. That sure sounds like a fair situation. Nothing arbitrary or abusive about that.

depends really Dave. you can't pay a $200 tax stamp and manufacture a new machine gun. so if you make a machine gun, it's more than failure to pay $200.

also, don't forget it requires a CLEO signature (unless you are a corporation) and a federal background check too. assuming the CLEO signoff was a given, what about the background check?

it is more than just a $200 tax stamp. also, don't blame me for the $200 or $5 tax stamp. it's not like the dealers collect and keep the money. the ATF does. you may not like the law but it exists and has existed since the 1930's. yelling at me doesn't change the fact.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

i, for one, am for the lawful carry of firearms. whatever law may be in place where i happen to be. if i don't like law, that doesn't give me permission to break it.

It's not the "permission" thing, it's the "RIGHTS" thing. Since when has it ever been necessary to acquire permission to exercise a right? And, it's not about whether you like the law or not. It's about its constitutionality.

like i said, there is nobody forcing citizens to report others. there certainly is an incentive ($1000) but no requirement. personally if i knew someone had an illegal weapon (like an unregistered machine gun or silencer, something that is clearly illegal in Texas) then i dont think i'd be against someone reporting it. i think some guy who is busy spouting off the 2nd Amendment as his legal right to produce an unregistered machine gun or something like that deserves to have his machine gun confiscated and have his day in court to see if other people agree with him.

This $1,000.00 incentive is nothing more than an attempt to buy what any civic minded individual would do for nothing.

As for the guy dragged into court for exercising his right, it isn't a matter of finding out if other people agree with his standing. That was ironed out back when the Second Amendment was ratified efective December 15, 1791. It doesn't matter who or how many agree with him. Until the Second Amendment gets amended and constitutional law gets passed, he shouldn't even be in court.

Even if the Second Amendment was to go away, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would still exist. Your statement, " i think some guy who is busy spouting off the 2nd Amendment as his legal right to produce an unregistered machine gun or something like that deserves to have his machine gun confiscated and have his day in court to see if other people agree with him.", expresses distain for anyone who would circumvent unconstitutional law and set themselves up - whether knowingly or not - to a court challenge.

crooks are ones who violate criminal laws. if someone has "paid their debt" and they are a convicted felon, the law says they cannot possess a firearm. i personally agree with the law that convicted felons cannot own or possess firearms. they have already shown that they have a propensity to commit serious crimes. as for "crooks" who haven't been "convicted of anything," not sure what you mean by that. a person who is awaiting trail hasn't been convicted. a person who has had the charges dropped isn't a "crook."

Why should the rest of society be burdened with proving they are not a felon in order to purchase a firearm? It is unconstitutional infringement, unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process, an unconstitutional(unreasonable and unwarranted) search of one's person, and completely antithetical to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If there is a felon not capable of being trusted with arms, that felon should not be released into society. No law will stop said untrustworthy felon from acquiring any weapon anyway. That is the nature of untrustworthy folk. We the People should not be burdened with the consequenses of the behavior of any violent(or any other) criminal.

i, for one, do not believe in supporting crooks. i could care less about their rights. they are busy preying upon others.

Only in prison can criminals be restrained from exercising their rights by being deprived of their property by due process. Even in prison, they have as many rights as any one of us not in prison.

i do thing it is a good thing that they are taking steps to get guns out of the hands of crooks, and that it is unfortunate that NYC has very strict gun laws for the common citizen. i don't think im contradicting myself when i say both of these.

You wouldn't have to say either if violent criminals were kept in prison.

if they come for my guns, i will give them up willingly. the ATF can come to my door and take everything without a warrant as it is. when you get your FFL you give up certain rights. this is one of them. even worse, i have to keep track of all weapons in my inventory so all they have to do is look at the list and make sure they took them all. nothing i can do about it.

Yes, there is something you can do about it. You can campaign and vote for politicans who will remove the unconstitutional laws. Contribute to organizations fighting the unconstitutional laws. Test the laws in court yourself. But, if you like your position in the market, don't do anything.

i am and always will be a law abiding citizen, regardless if i like the law or not.

Where do you stand on the Supreme Law of the Land?

now i dont think the NYPD can be compared to the Nazis. that's quite a stretch. and THR members wonder why people think gun advocates are a bunch of right wing extremists?

No one compared the NYPD to the Nazis. You made that connection. thexrayboy was talking about the vagaries of blindly obeying the law.

a very popular thing for pro-2A people is to 1) state that the 2nd Amendment is the only gun law in existence, and 2) compare everything that goes against their opinion to the Nazis.

Pro 2A people are right about the Second Amendment being the only gun law in existence vis-a-vis the keeping and bearing of arms; aside from Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where Congress has been granted power to arm the militia. You made the connection to the Nazis.

just because a concerned citizen happens to alert police to possible illegal behavior doesn't make them a bad citizen. the proposal doesnt even suggest one neighbor turning in another neighbor. that is merely a possibility that you made up in your head.

If there were such a concerned citizen, it wouldn't take a thousand bucks to get them to report to the police. This "reward" for turning in so-called illegal behavior will cause more trouble than it's worth. The police will have to get a warrant for each search and seizure, they'll have to present probable cause based only upon hearsay, and support that hearsay by swearing an oath or affirmation.

quite the contrary actually! if the NFA allowed machine guns to be produced again for civilian ownership, or if it was repealed altogether, i'd be much happier, and i'd be much wealthier. there would be an unlimited supply and great demand. i would eagerly welcome a repeal of the NFA because i would be able to get my hands on an unlimited amount of machine guns and sell them.

in response to your other statement, if i said what i needed to make a buck, like you said, i think i would have just smiled and nodded throughout this entire thread....don't you? if you don't think so,please provide quotes from me that would serve your theory that i would "say what i need to make a buck." dont forget i recently revoked a THR discount i had for CHL classes and firearms transfers due to people like you on this board. i did that to make a buck? please. id really like to know where you have formed this baseless opinion. i think you won't be able to, because you're spewing venom that shouldn't be directed towards me. just because you don't like gun laws doesn't mean i am to blame. it's a simple thing though. blame the guy everyone else is piling on because it makes you feel better about yourself. i stand behind my opinions. if someone doesn't want to buy guns because of my political views then that's okay. it's a free enterprise system. i think i'll retain my current customer base and continue to do just fine really. like i said, my customers are primarily all law abiding citizens that don't choose to disregard a law simply because they don't agree with it. in fact, most Class III owners spend alot of extra money in order to stay legal. a $10,000 transferable M16 is basically the same as a $700 M16 except the $9300 extra is both: (1) an investment, and more importantly (2) keeps you out of a 10 year stint in the federal prison. im not the one who wrote the law so don't blame me if you don't like it.

if it were up to me i'd have the NFA repealed, it would boost my sales.

Actually, no. With the NFA out of the way, you'd no longer have a little corner on the market. Anyone could go in the business of selling arms - even retailers like Home Depot, or Wal-Mart, or Sears and buy in bulk and put the small guy right out of business. Then there is mailorder direct from the manufacturer...

I don't blame you for the law. I don't fault you for making a buck, either. But, if I were you, I'd start worrying about how much inventory I had of those high-dollar-bringing machine guns for when the bottom drops out of the market when new machine guns come on the market.

shows how much you really know about the NFA!

It isn't only a matter of what I know of the NFA. It's a matter of business and basic economics, too.

Now, what do you have to say about your reversing the order of the law - placing the NFA above the Second Amendment?


Woody

"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I don't see that convicted violent felons should have the right to continue using guns.

No one is advocating that. Anyway, there is nothing to prevent enacting law prohibiting certain uses of guns, be those uses be by law abiding citizens or violent felons. I think the general consensus is to keep violent felons locked up or execute them. That is the only constitutional way to keep violent felons from misusing guns. That is, after all, the problem, isn't it - the MISUSE of guns - not the possession or lawful use of them.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[Ryder]

received 701 tips, made 549 arrests, seized 293 guns, and paid $189,000 in rewards

Somebody better check their math. Looks like they've admitted to cheating the rats out of their cheese.

 

[crazed_ss]

One of my pet peeves on this forum is that every single freakin' thread becomes another example of The Libertarian Purity Test

I agree 100%. It's like a good number of people here a busy living in some kinda of Libertarian Utopian fantasyland. Everyone wants to discuss hypotheticals and how they think things are supposed to be. The reality of the situation is gun laws do exist and you better follow them lest you end up in jail.

All these people talking tough about how the 2nd Amendment is justification for having whatever gun they want... How many people here own unregistered machineguns? How many people would take possession of a machine gun without going through the current legal process?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Damned gadgets . . .

My irony meter just quit.

Sarcasm detector on the fritz, too.

Hold on while I get new batteries . . .

. . . wait . . . alright . . . nearly there . . .

Okay.

Damn. Still not working.

 

[glummer]

Spreadfire

the attitude demonstrated here is that if someone chooses to violate the law, and if someone tells on them, then it is the snitch's fault and not the fault of the original person who violated the law.

i see a problem with that mentality, that's all.

So if the President violates Sharia law, and a Muslim snitch sets him for an Al Queda assassination, hey, it’s Bush’s own fault?

if you want to disregard firearms laws, go ahead. just don't blame anyone else except yourself if you are ever arrested and have to face a court trial.

… if you want to disregard segregation laws, go ahead. just don't blame anyone else except yourself if you are ever arrested …
So the dead Freedom Riders have only themselves to blame?

Mr. Fincher's case is slightly different. he is accused of building unregistered machine guns and silencers. i don't think he was making them to symbolically protest any gun law.

The way I heard it, he built them SPECIFICALLY to protest the law.

Cass

here here!!
________________________________________
"but if you are caught breaking the law at least be man enough to take responsibility for your actions and not go blaming everyone else."

but if you are caught breaking the law (by being a stinking Jew) at least be man enough to take responsibility for your actions and not go blaming our beloved Fuhrer

I think the phrase is “Hear, hear!!”


Spreadfire

not sure, you'd have to ask them. but i know that the majority of them believe in abiding by the law. they may not like it but they sure arent going to give up their current gun rights and sit in federal prison for 10 years over a firearm they can otherwise obtain legally.

So they are among the people you criticize for not trying to get standing to challenge the laws?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i stand corrected

Cass

Quote:
here here!!
________________________________________
"but if you are caught breaking the law at least be man enough to take responsibility for your actions and not go blaming everyone else."

but if you are caught breaking the law (by being a stinking Jew) at least be man enough to take responsibility for your actions and not go blaming our beloved Fuhrer

I think the phrase is “Hear, hear!!”



but vis a vis what hitler got away with i think the phrase "never again" and the organization that uses it has a good working philosophy that ties in well with personal responsibility. and very rtkba relevant.