Bunker Bob

[ilbob]

the law is what it is. i don't blame the sheriff. he is sworn to uphold the law, including those laws he may not agree with.

i am not a huge fan of banning non-violent felons from owning firearms. but it is the law.

if we want it changed, we have to deal with the legislatures. i imagine most of us can come up with a lot of things that are higher on our own personal prioroity lists for the legislatures to deal with.

i seriously doubt that the sheriff just walked up there one day to arrest the guy for the heck of it. there is probably more to the story.

 

[jaholder1971]

the law is what it is. i don't blame the sheriff. he is sworn to uphold the law, including those laws he may not agree with.

Unfortunately we have a few folks who are so blinded by their hatred of cops and blind obsession to their civil rights they've forgotten what their civil responsibilities are.

i am not a huge fan of banning non-violent felons from owning firearms. but it is the law.

Again, if it is a law they don't like, it must be unconstitutional.
Even non-violent felons end up doing as much damage to society as non-violent ones. Ask anyone who's had their identity stolen.

if we want it changed, we have to deal with the legislatures. i imagine most of us can come up with a lot of things that are higher on our own personal prioroity lists for the legislatures to deal with.

Complainers and jailhouse constitutional law attorneys, yes. Activists for change, no.

i seriously doubt that the sheriff just walked up there one day to arrest the guy for the heck of it. there is probably more to the story.

{sarcasm}What are you thinking? Everyone knows the sheriff's been stalking this poor man who was probably framed for his first felony in hopes the sheriff could plant grenades and violate his civil rights, all at the same time.{/sarcasm}

 

[Kentucky]

Like Mr Greebly mentioned earlier, where do you get off thinking that banning ownership of firearms prevents a criminal from being a criminal? It is VERY SIMPLE. Pay attention!

Lets say that a particular person is dangerous to other people. So dangerous that he is willing to do grievous harm to another person. Do you think this person who is willing to break the laws against murder would suddenly stop and say to himself, "I cant murder this person because it would be wrong for me to buy a gun". NO! Murderers will be murderers regardless of whether or not they are legal!

Banning guns for ANYONE does not prevent crime. If a person is dangerous, they need to be in jail. If they are not, and they have served their sentence, then they need to again be FREE MEN!

 

[ArfinGreebly]

The Law

the law is what it is.

Except when it isn't.

There's fine irony here.

The Constitution and the Constitutional Amendments are the law.

Really. Look it up. Supreme law of the land.

So the law is the law.

I expect everyone to uphold the law. All of it. With the most senior laws being the most vigorously upheld.

Or perhaps, only the newest laws are really the law.

Or maybe, only the laws the local government wants to enforce are really the law.

Or maybe, whatever law supports my point of view is the law.

We get started down this road of "well, we're a nation of laws," and then we let someone pass a law that's just plain wrong and, like little robots, we intone, "the law is sacred, the law is inviolate, the law is the law."

Please don't presume that my frustration with idiotic laws and the people who make them in any way translates to support for a screw-loose whack-job looney-toons nutter who's a danger to society. Provided, of course, he really is a danger to society.

But it truly chaps me that the default position -- even knowing that the Bill Of Rights is THE senior law -- is that somehow laws that clearly violate it are legitimate and that, well, we have to work "within the system" to change that.

Really.

System's been co-opted and corrupted. We have crooks and pirates mugging us with "the system" and, well, hey, we gotta use the system.

Quiet indignation isn't working.

Asking permission to have our liberties back -- asking this of the same corrupt buffoons who stole them -- is just the height of irony.

It is my fondest hope that the Parker/Heller case goes the right way, and we can begin to unravel the Gordian Knot that is our "system."

Of course, there's always the classical solution to the Gordian Knot . . .

 

[Kentucky]

For an example of how easy someone can become a Felon read this THR thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=322824

I dont doubt 90% of the people on this board are somehow guilty, or could be made to appear guilty of a Felony, even if the dont know it.

 

[mekender]

hell its a crime to pump your own gas in Oregon... im sure that is a law that makes sense

 

[ilbob]

Unfortunately we have a few folks who are so blinded by their hatred of cops and blind obsession to their civil rights they've forgotten what their civil responsibilities are.

Its not blind hatred of cops to point out that many "gun" laws are violations of multiple constitutionally protected rights. It is blind hatred to blame the cops for enforcing laws the legislatures came up. Hate the nitwits that come up with these laws if you must hate someone.

Since when it is a civic responsibility to not oppose continuing violations of constitutionally protected rights?

 

[KirklandRdr]

I need to correct my earlier post, I heard this info from the DOL worker when I renewed my tabs a couple days ago but it is wrong. Failing to transfer ownership within 15 days is a Midemeanor in WA state. However the following are felonies:

46.12.210 False statements or illegal transfers - B Felony
46.12.215 Unlawful sale of certificate of ownership - C Felony
46.12.220 Alteration or forgery - B Felony
9.91.142 Food stamp trafficking - C Felony
9.91.144 Unlawful redemption of food stamps - C Felony

Of course there are a lot more felonies on the books, but these are just some I saw at a quick glance that are non-violent. I think it is screwed up that someone could lose their right to protect themselves and their family over a non-violent crime.

However remember now it is not only felonies that make it unlawful for people to own guns. Get into a tussle with your significant other, she pushes you and you push back, misdeamor DV assault and your gun rights are gone.

 

[silverlance]

If you don't believe that the "justice system" is unjust, read either of these two articles. Summarily, it is this: it takes 100 times the amount of powder cocaine to trigger the same 15-year minimum penalty as it does crack. One gulf war veteran was convicted of selling 50 grams of crack. he is now in prison for 15 years, and his story is being heard only because the trial judge refused to tack on another four years that the superior court judges recommended.

So the poor, who buy crack because they cannot afford cocaine, get put away for nigh two decades, while the rich folks like rock stars and certain famous actresses get slaps on the wrist for the same amount of the drug - even though theirs is the same narcotic in a purer, more potent form.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Articles?

. . . read either of these two articles.

Ahem?

Articles?

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

it takes 100 times the amount of powder cocaine to trigger the same 15-year minimum penalty as it does crack. One gulf war veteran was convicted of selling 50 grams of crack. he is now in prison for 15 years, and his story is being heard only because the trial judge refused to tack on another four years that the superior court judges recommended.

Wow...I did not know that. Do you have a link for this?

So the poor, who buy crack because they cannot afford cocaine, get put away for nigh two decades, while the rich folks like rock stars and certain famous actresses get slaps on the wrist for the same amount of the drug - even though theirs is the same narcotic in a purer, more potent form.

Then you have Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown...Rich, but prefer crack!