Hi Capacity Mags in CA.

[gunsmith]

I moved...but....

I sent my CA republican card, ripped up, back, when Arnie signed the fifty cal ban.
I carried and traded hi caps, and argued gun politics with police officers while packing sans permit!
The only person I met who was always obeying the law was my lawyer.
Every other gunnie was either deliberately civil disobedient or just didn't know the law.

All you gunnies fighting the good fight behind the wire...I SALUTE YOU!

btw , blackrazor...well said!

 

[FNFiveSeven]

First of all, when I said

If the DOJ does not literally catch you in the act of importation, manufacture, sale or purchase THEY HAVE NO CASE.

I am not specifically "advocating" that anyone commit a felony, all I'm doing is oulining what the law does and does not cover. What each and every person does with the information I supply is their own business... I trust everyone will do what's best.

Second, regarding the felony/misdemeanor thing... while I believe that it's unlikely you would be charged with a felony, it is a possibility. Any crime punishable by a maximum of one year in the county jail is a misdemeanor, but any crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison can be a felony? So who knows. I don't make the law, I just tell it like it is.

If there's a part number on the magazine I can call the manufacturer to find out when it was made, I can check your credit card records if you paid for it that way

Hmmm. OOooooookay. First of all, it's legal to rebuild magazines with newer parts, should the old ones get worn out, broken, etc. There's nothing illegal about possessing a magazine with 2006 date of manufacture stampings on it. There is a written record of this from the CA DOJ if you don't believe me. Second, I'd suspect most people who buy high capacity magazines, legal or otherwise, often buy with cash... good luck checking those credit records.

Once again, I'm not TELLING you what to do, only you can do that. I'm simply telling you what it is you can be busted for, and what you can't. Dealing with the gunlaws in this state is like playing a complicated game of chess, the DOJ plays their way, we play ours. It's that simple.

I never said "Go out and buy a bunch of high capacity magazines", all I said was that

sometimes, the best and only way to combat a bad law is to blatently disobey it.

Is this one of those times? I can't answer that for you, once again, that's something YOU will have to decide. All I'm doing is giving you the facts to help make a well-informed decision.

That would be great except for the fact that while you are in possession of the magazine you are comitting a crime. As a result, you are SOL with the SOL.

Either you don't understand what the statue of limitations is, or you didn't read my post. In CA, only the importation/sale/buying/loaning/manufacturing of high capacity magazines is regulated, NOT POSSESSION. When you import a high capacity magazine without a permit, you are not in continous violation of the law for possessing the magazine, you only broke the law once, when you IMPORTED it. POSSESSION IS NOT REGULATED. After the comission of the crime of importation, they have three years from the date to prosecute, otherwise you have immunity under the statute of limitations. Do you get it now?

I hate the stupid DOJ and their laws as much as the next guy, but I swear if I had your address I just might call it in.

You wanna call me in? Go ahead, the DOJ already has my name and address, it's written all over my AW/.50 BMG registrations and it's written at the top of the letter I wrote which clarified the legality of the DSA-ZM4 receiver... hell my name and address are probably on Alison Merilees desk right now. They know I post under the name "blackrazor" here and on calguns.net, so go ahead, nothing to stop you now. You'll be a real hero.


P.S. Mr. V. little history tid-bit for you, Rosa Parks WAS allowed to vote.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Don't mislead others into telling them that what they're doing isn't actually a crime when it's very clearly stated in law that it is...Not everyone's buying your anarchist views, least of all the Constitution.

I'm not misleading anyone, it's the DOJ that misleads people, publishing "memos" which are blatently illegal. Once again, all I'm doing is telling people what the law does and does not regulate. And the law does not regulate possession of high capacity magazines, period. BTW, it's funny you should bring up the constitution, which clearly indicates the provisions of SB23 are illegal, too bad no case like this has been heard in the supreme court.... maybe someday it will....

you mean the "man" whom we all elected?

Yes, that "man." and NO, "we" didn't "all" elect him. I sure as hell didn't.

History will prove who, in fact, screws whom in the end.

It sure will. The score so far (for the history books): Blackrazor 1, DOJ 0.

Oh yeah, I have a question for you, Mr. V. Should Ms. Parks have sat at the back of the bus or not? No dancing around, no calling me an anarchist, just answer the question, a short yes or no will suffice (although feel free to elaborate on your answer if you wish).

 

[Mr.V.]

A few points before responding to your Rosa Parks question (I'll get my dancing out early)...

Yes, that "man." and NO, "we" didn't "all" elect him. I sure as hell didn't.

Yes we did all elect him, and so did you. Maybe you voted for "the man", or maybe you voted for the other guy who lost, or maybe you even chose not to vote at all, but you still elected him even though you didn't vote for him. That's the electoral process set in the constitution for you...who we elect to represent us is not necessarily who we all voted for. There are many countries that do away with this absurdity if you would prefer one of those...

As far as you parsing posession vs importation...There is no legal way in california to aquire a high-cap magazine after 2001. None. Therefore, your posession of a high-cap magazine is potential evidence of the crime of importation. All a prosecuter has to do is show "beyond a reasonable doubt" as 12 generally gun-uninformed Californians must decide, that there was no way you would have this high-cap magazine. So it is still in poor taste to suggest that someone, who is asking if "Is it legal to bring them in?", (not "can I get away with bringing on in?") that it would be fine to bring them in since they'll never get caught (a point you can't actually prove).

Now as far as Rosa Parks sitting down goes?
You want a simple answer from me?...yes.

If you want to start equating someone who illegally imports high-cap magazines to Rosa Parks sitting on a bus, I'm willing to argue with you that they aren't the same for a number of reasons.

Also, having read the wikipedia, I concede that you're right...Rosa was allowed to vote...after 3 attempts to register under Jim Crowe Laws...

 

[FNFiveSeven]

There is no legal way in california to aquire a high-cap magazine after 2001.

I agree (except of course, for those who have obtained a high-cap mag permit).

All a prosecuter has to do is show "beyond a reasonable doubt" as 12 generally gun-uninformed Californians must decide, that there was no way you would have this high-cap magazine.

NO. He also has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the importation (or sale, or whatever) occured less than 3 years ago (otherwise you are immune from prosecution under the statute of limitations). This is why the DOJ has all but admitted that the only way you can be prosecuted is if you are "caught in the act" (most likely in a sting operation at a gunshow, their usual pathetic tactic).

BTW, thank you for your answer. Clearly, you believe in the absolute rule of law, and that in the end the legal approach is the only acceptable choice in a civilized society. I, however, feel since the law is often a tool of great evil, well... see my sig.

If you want to start equating someone who illegally imports high-cap magazines to Rosa Parks sitting on a bus, I'm willing to argue with you that they aren't the same for a number of reasons.

The core principle is exactly the same. We're talking about people who break the law because they believe it's the right thing to do (despite whatever they law may say).

but you still elected him even though you didn't vote for him. That's the electoral process

A technicality... and I think the electoral process only applies to the federal election process, not to the CA state government.

So it is still in poor taste to suggest that someone, who is asking if "Is it legal to bring them in?", (not "can I get away with bringing on in?") that it would be fine to bring them in since they'll never get caught (a point you can't actually prove).

Sorry, I guess I'm guilty of thread drift, I wasn't really addressing the original poster's question, as I figured that it had already been clearly answered. So let me just say to the original poster, the short answer to your question is no.

 

[Mr.V.]

Blackrazor--

Where did I ever say I believe in the absolute rule of law, the term you assigned to me...especially after answering 'yes' to the Rosa Parks quesiton. If we live under a monarch and he arbitrarily set laws to live by many of which conflicted fundamentally with what is morally correct, I would fully agree with your disobedience... that isn't the case.

I did say, "respect the law" and didn't elaborate further. When I said "the law" I was more intending it to mean the general law and order that our constitutional government (both federal and state) proscribes.

It seems very much that you will not abide by anything that you don't agree with even if though you choose to continue to live under our representative democracy. That is anarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
I'm pretty sure "good men ought to follow a good law very well", unless you're going to tell me that a law against violent rape should not be followed "too well" and maybe a little raping here and there is good for the soul...

That being said I don't think all cases of civil disobedience represent a desire for anarchy.
If we must debate Rosa Parks, then by all means we will. Blacks were, for the most part, disenfranchised in the south after the civil war. A few could vote, sure, but that was more of a token vote (a word you favor) so they could say, "see, Blacks can vote. There's one (of 11) over there."

So while it probably would have been best if Blacks in the south like Rosa Parks and many others, began by using the right to free speech, press, and peacably assemble first, when they did try to exercise these rights, they were were repeatedly blocked and violently opposed by the government. One could argue that they were not living under a representative democracy or constitutional government guaranteeing CERTAIN rights of individual citizens. For them, like the founding fathers, they were in many ways fighting an autocratic government.

You, unlike most of them in the past, can vote for your representative. Gunowners as a group can (even the felonious ones) vote for their representatives. You can organize a demonstration, pass out flyers, shout on the street corner, buy billboard advertisements, etc etc etc (I haven't seen ONE in California yet). So if you're trying to tell me we live in tyranny that needs to be overthrown and disobeyed without first attempting a grass-roots populist movement to inspire the fat lazy gutless masses, then, yeah, I'm not with you.

You seem to throw the word cowardice around. Let me point it back in your direction. Rosa Parks blatantly disobeyed the law. Hundreds of other like her did the same. Look at a real courageous person like John Hancock...pardon me...JOHN HANCOCK. He welcomed the punishment he might receive for breaking the unjust law. If you are trying to tell me that clandestinely and illegally importing a high-cap mag and not publicly announcing your disobedience, but instead, hiding behind technicalities in the law is brave, you'd better look up the definition of courage again...

 

[FNFiveSeven]

The question I asked about Rosa Parks was "should Ms. Parks have sat at the back of the bus?" to which you answered "yes." Which I took to mean you think she should have sat at the back of the bus and therefore the law is absolute. From your tone now, I'm guessing you meant to say "no." If that's the case, then you are drawing an arbitrary line where some crimes are OK, whereas others are anarchy. Someone else could just as easily label you an anarchist for promoting Ms. Parks' civil disobedience.

You say that blacks were disenfranchised in the south, that their constitutional rights were being violated. Well guess what, our constitutional rights are being violated as well, and in a way, we do live in a tyranny... a tryanny of the majority. Just because the majority thinks one way doesn't make it right. Sure, I can vote for my representative, but if the man I vote for doesn't win, then my vote doesn't count, and my voice isn't heard. It doesn't matter if a king is passing bad laws, or the majority of my peers are voting for them, in the end, the result is the same. What's wrong is wrong.

I'll say it again: our country's history is riddled with terrible laws, the alien and sedition acts, slavery, internment camps, segregation, prohibition, and they all fell one way or another. Now it's gun control, and like every other bad law we've suffered through, this one will die as well, it's only of question of when and how.

If you are trying to tell me that clandestinely and illegally importing a high-cap mag and not publicly announcing your disobedience, but instead, hiding behind technicalities in the law is brave

I am not trying to tell you that, and I never said I was brave. Sometimes I am disgusted with myself for allowing my state to fall so far... but in the end we are all to blame. Perhaps we are all cowards, and that's why we have fallen so far.

 

[Mr.V.]

"should Ms. Parks have sat at the back of the bus?" to which you answered "yes."

While I realize this point is besides your main point, Rosa Parks DID sit in the back of the bus as her act of defiance...Her crime was not that she sat on the front of the bus. She sat in the "colored" section. Her crime was in not moving when the bus driver told her to...therefore her defiance was "sitting in the back of the bus" when in fact she should have been "not sitting in the back of the bus". Sorry I got the wires crossed...but you were the history stickler who got me on the voting, I thought I'd return the favor...

As far as your main point. I would like to apologize about the earlier crap because I understand the frustration of the "tyranny of the majority". It does exist. I just feel that we, as gun owners, haven't really exhausted the other lawful possibilities yet.

The decision as to what is anarchy and what is moral civil disobediance is, to a large degree, arbitrary. It totally depends on what a person considers moral and what they feel the breaking point is. For me (certainly not for you), at this point, I lean more towards thinking that an act of disobediance such as breaking the high-cap mag ban, is more anarchism than moral disobedience.

At least in school the way we learned it, the population of revolutionary America was 33% die hard for independence, 33% loyal to the king, and 33% who were the fat lazy gutless slobs fixated on Everybody Loves Raymond reruns as you point out.

I just don't think at this point in time, gun-owners are all on the same page as the 33% die hard liberty seekers were for their cause. I'm not sure an act of civil disobedience at this point...will do much more than end up with some poor schlob in State prison for having two extra bullets in his gun, set to lose his firearms rights forever.

But either way, I apologize for the earlier tone, it was hardly constructive, especially since the real problem isn't you or your uncompromising principles, but rather the antis and their appeal to peoples' fear and ignorance.

 

[gunsmith]

Why all the anarchist bashing anyway?

Alright, most "so called" anarchist are silly kids with pierced genitals
and dirty underwear (don't ask how I know)

Real anarchist help'ed win the fight for the 40 hour work week and helped end child labor.
(before it was like a 70/80 hour work week) in the 1880's

from wikipedia
On May 1, 1886 (later known as May Day), labor unions organized a strike for an eight-hour work day in Chicago. Albert Parsons, head of the Chicago Knights of Labor, with his wife Lucy Parsons and two children, led 80,000 people down Michigan Avenue in what is regarded as the first May Day Parade. In the next few days they were joined nationwide by 350,000 workers, including 70,000 in Chicago, who went on strike at 1,200 factories.

On May 3 striking workers met near the McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. plant. A fight broke out on the picket lines, and Chicago police intervened and attacked the strikers, killing two, wounding several others and sparking outrage in the city's working community.

Local anarchists distributed fliers calling for a rally at Haymarket Square, then a bustling commercial center (also called the Haymarket) near the corner of Randolph Street and Desplaines Street in what was later called Chicago's west Loop. These fliers alleged police had murdered the strikers on behalf of business interests and urged workers to seek justice. In response to the McCormick killings, prominent anarchist August Spies published "Revenge! Workingmen to Arms!" This pamphlet urged workers to take action:

To arms we call you, to arms!

OK back to gunsmith

I am a right wing anarchist, a Christian, a conservative.

Like Ronnie Reagan said gov't that governs least is better...or some something to that effect.

btw, I am fully in favor of Rosa Parks to sit anywhere and I think

gun rights are civil rights!!!​

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Rosa Parks DID sit in the back of the bus as her act of defiance...Her crime was not that she sat on the front of the bus.

Ah, my mistake, but hell, you learn something every day.

I just feel that we, as gun owners, haven't really exhausted the other lawful possibilities yet.

Perhaps we haven't exhuasted all possibilities, I really don't know. Look at me, I'm not blatantly breaking the law (of course, I'd be a fool to type it here if I was), but I'm trying something different than contacting my rep, I figured I could use the law to defeat the law, fighting fire with fire, as it were... so far it's worked to a certain extent. But I doubt such an approach will ever truly restore our rights. I'm just bouncing new ideas around, feeling the waters, etc.

The decision as to what is anarchy and what is moral civil disobediance is, to a large degree, arbitrary.

Again, I agree. I suppose that's why I like this Rosa Parks example so much, especially now that I know what she actually did was refuse to yield her seat. I can imagine exactly how she must have felt, probably had a crappy day, bunch of white guys pushing her around, treating her like $#&t, and then someone asks her to give up her seat. I bet something inside of her just snapped. Everyone has their breaking point.

I lean more towards thinking that an act of disobediance such as breaking the high-cap mag ban, is more anarchism than moral disobedience.

Maybe, although it depends on the situation. i would argue that the guy who builds an 11 or 12 round magazine does so for only one purpose, and that's to defy the law, to defy the principle. The one or two extra rounds gain nothing, other than defiance. The 30-round mag... well, that's a different story.

fat lazy gutless slobs fixated on Everybody Loves Raymond reruns as you point out.

I must admit, that phrase put a smile on my face! LOL! If nothing else, at least I can be sure that I've been effective in my imagery.

But either way, I apologize for the earlier tone

Hey now, no need to apologize, we're just having a spirited talk. We're on the same team here... at least you're not threatening to "call me in"

P.S. I, too, apologize if I insulted you, as that wasn't my intent.

 

[gunsmith]

well now that were all the way down on the unread part of the thread

I found out (at my local gunshop/range when I lived in CA)

that I can put 11 to 13 rounds of nine in a 40 mag, or 357sig in a 40 mag
this way you have a ten round mag, with 11 to 13 in it!

 

[STAGE 2]

Hey now, no need to apologize, we're just having a spirited talk. We're on the same team here... at least you're not threatening to "call me in"

Say what you want, but what you posted is perfect fodder for some junior politician to take, print, and run to the masses saying "see...see... this is what gun owners are predominantly like and why they cant be trusted to obey the law".

Furthermore if you think it would be hard to make the charge stick, then you haven't spent much time inside a prosecutors office. Your the kind of guy that lawyers fresh out of law school love to cut their teeth on.

 

[gunsmith]

stage two

I don't think so.

they know who he is and so far he is winning

 

[STAGE 2]

I could care less about what happens to him. Its his actions that are going to screw things up for the rest of us. What he is advocating is immature, illegal and poorly thought out.

Because he hasn't been caught yet does not preclude that he won't in the future. I for one know that if I was actively breaking the law I wouldn't go to a open forum and declare it to the world...

...which brings me to another point. Say a prosecutor is having a problem proving importation with blackrazors case. Well when he gives the server that runs this site a call, gets a print out of this conversation, and then throws it in front of the jury, all of BR's assumptions about not having proof goes out the window.

 

[gunsmith]

nope, read

post 17 & 21...blackrazor is exactly the type of person
we need at THR and in the fight in occupied CA...

 

[STAGE 2]

Quite the contrary, for every 10 good acts, one stupid one sets our cause back the same amount. What would be nice is if there were people fighting for californians gun rights while keeping their noses clean at the same time.

 

[EvisceratorSrB]

Listen...

I hate these stupid gun laws! But common, the law really intends that hi-cap mags be not used! What other purpose is there? I say that if you do possess hi-cap mags legally or just do not possess any hi-caps at all, stick to that current situation!

Also, giving a law an inherent quality, for instance...morality... is unintelligent. "This law is immoral". I'm sure 50/100 people will agree with you, and the other half won't! I'm pretty sure the guys that stand behind this "immoral law" are not saying, "I really agree with this immoral act because it is a means to an end." On the contrary, they believe it is a moral act. Therefore, saying a law is immoral is plain unintelligent and futile.

P.S. Don't get mad at me

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Stage 2,

That's the funny thing about the internet, isn't it? You just have no idea who you're actually talking to. I know lots of lawyers, including an ex-DA whom I've known personally for years. Believei me, I know all about how agressive young prosecutors go out trying to make a name for themselves, but I've also seen how they think. Believe it or not, their main tactic is fear, "bargaining" you into a "lesser" crime to make you feel like you got off easy, getting you to screw up and admit some wrong doing, incriminate yourself, try to be your friend before your lawyers arrives, etc. etc. If more people had the brains to just shut up and say nothing until their lawyer arrives, the DA's would have a much harder job... but luckily for them there is an endless supply of stupid people.

I could care less about what happens to him

You mean you couldn't care less.... I could care less about a lot of things.

Its his actions that are going to screw things up for the rest of us.

LOL! My actions have done nothing but help those in CA. I've done nothing to hurt CA gunowners. You're just not making any sense here.

What would be nice is if there were people fighting for californians gun rights while keeping their noses clean at the same time.

I think you've missed the point. I am fighting for CA gun rights, and it's ONLY because I've kept my nose so squeaky clean that I do what I do.

Well when he gives the server that runs this site a call, gets a print out of this conversation, and then throws it in front of the jury, all of BR's assumptions about not having proof goes out the window.

???? The DA can (and probably does) have people reading this site. So what? I haven't admitted to any wrong doing whatsoever, so what "proof" are you talking about? This conversation is "proof" of what? Do you even know what "proof" means?! Thank God you aren't a lawyer.

Because he hasn't been caught yet does not preclude that he won't in the future. I for one know that if I was actively breaking the law I wouldn't go to a open forum and declare it to the world...

Who's "actively breaking the law and delcaring it to the world"? Once again, you're just not making any sense here, it's like you're not even reading the posts. You strike me as the kind of guy that gets upset and then jams his fingers in his ears, running around in a circle chanting "na na na na na na" at the top of his lungs. Please, do us all a favor here and at least TRY to read through all the posts before inflicting your opinion on us.

Also, giving a law an inherent quality, for instance...morality... is unintelligent. "This law is immoral". I'm sure 50/100 people will agree with you, and the other half won't!

I'm not so sure about that. I feel fairly confident that nearly everyone (today) agrees that slavery laws were immoral, don't you? Furthermore, and I may be going out on a limb here, I would guess that most poeple would say there's nothing immoral at all with having laws against rape, arson, murder and robbery.

 

[gunsmith]

Blackrazor 5

uninformed nayayers

zero

 

[STAGE 2]

???? The DA can (and probably does) have people reading this site. So what? I haven't admitted to any wrong doing whatsoever, so what "proof" are you talking about? This conversation is "proof" of what? Do you even know what "proof" means?! Thank God you aren't a lawyer.

Thats your first mistake. I am an attorney. Your second mistake is counting on the fact that you know how every prosecutor thinks. I've met plenty of DA's that couldn't prosecute their way out of a paper bag, and I've met others that would eat a $1000 an hour lawyer for lunch.

As a prosecutor, whether you keep your mouth shut really isn't a concern of mine. Of course its a bonus but it really doesn't affect my case. Everything that you posted here about how people don't need to follow the laws because they are not enforced is admissible against you in court. If I have that, and the fact that you have possession of hi caps, my case just got much easier to prove. And that is ignoring whether I contact the manufacturer to see if I can figure out when the mags were made, where they were distributed to, and so on and so forth. The jury is going to be sitting there thinking, "ok, he has the hi caps, and hes on record saying people shouldn't follow the law, but he's telling us that he bought them before the ban. If thats the case then why doesn't he offer any proof"

Things don't always come down to the letter of the law. If you have a lawyer who knows how to cut a jury then you are going to be in some serious trouble. Beyond a reasonable doubt isn't as hard as you think especially with who is in the jury pool these days.

I've heard plenty of people that have been convicted that started out saying all the things that you have. "I know how they think"... "They can't prove anything"... "the law doesn't say anything about possession". You may be right, but given the crazy and sometimes blatantly wrong decisions handed down these days, you're taking a huge crap shoot doing what you are doing. Even if you do win, you are still going to be out of time, money, and your name gets a nice red sticker next to it.

Take your chances, but don't advocate illegal activities for others.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Thats your first mistake. I am an attorney.

Stage 2,

Wow. I've heard a lot, I repeat, A LOT, of crazy things on the internet, but hearing you claim that you are an attorney is the most outrageous, unbelievable, stupid thing I've ever heard. Your ignorance of the law and system is already startling, let alone the fact that you claim to be a lawyer. If you really are a lawyer, your professional incompetence... is, well... sad. Your notion of what constitutes "proof" alone is laughable. If I were you, I'd be ashamed to admit that I'm an attorney, after the things you've said.

If I have that, and the fact that you have possession of hi caps, my case just got much easier to prove. And that is ignoring whether I contact the manufacturer to see if I can figure out when the mags were made, where they were distributed to, and so on and so forth. The jury is going to be sitting there thinking, "ok, he has the hi caps, and hes on record saying people shouldn't follow the law, but he's telling us that he bought them before the ban. If thats the case then why doesn't he offer any proof"

This whole statement is a sad joke, and sorry to say, the joke's on you. Don't forget that the jury is selected by both the prosecution and the defense, and if you are any example of the competence of the average prosecutor, I won't have to spend much on a defense lawyer to make a fool of you in court. Hell, all I'd have to do is sit back and let you make a fool of yourself, expounding your "professional" opinion on what constitutes "proof" and evidence. Internet chat forums? Discussions of civil disobedience? Give me a break.

you're taking a huge crap shoot doing what you are doing.

Huh? What exactly am I doing? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? What am I doing that's a "huge crap shoot"? Please explain, I'd like to hear your "professional legal opinion". I think you should go back to voicing your empty threats about "reporting me". You were doing much better back then (although that's not saying much). Either way, I think I've heard all I need to hear from you.

 

[EvisceratorSrB]

I'm not so sure about that. I feel fairly confident that nearly everyone (today) agrees that slavery laws were immoral, don't you? Furthermore, and I may be going out on a limb here, I would guess that most poeple would say there's nothing immoral at all with having laws against rape, arson, murder and robbery.

Have you ever heard of nihilism? Ethical nihilism means ethics do not exist. Not because that person is bad, just because that person believes that they are pointless because you are told to think this. You are not free in my opinion with ethics. I am a nihilist and do not believe rape is immoral. I'm sure you are very angry at this point that I "condone" this action, however I DON'T.

And how I relate this to your comment? I'm sure somewhere out there someone with ethics, or a screwed up version of it, believes rape is moral. Therefore, the law that says rape is illegal, has lost all of its inherent quality because of the possibility that someone disagrees with you.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

nihilism huh?

Say what you want about the tenents of national socialism, at least it's a ethos

-Walter (The Big Lebowski)

Heh heh, sorry couldn't resist. Seriously though, you bring up a good point. I suppose there are people out there who think that rape, murder, etc. are morally OK. I guess they would have no choice but to murder and rape, as refraining from those activities would abhorrent to them. So in the end, it always will be society against in the individual. Clearly, in years past individuals and minorities have won their conflicts with the law, but the reverse has also happened. What lies in store for the gun-control issue, we'll just have to wait and find out. But as far as history is concerned, the ends will always justify the means, of that you can be sure.

One day, history will look back on folks like us (gunowners), and we'll either be labeled patriots or criminals. That judgement will be based on what actions we take today, so big question is, what do we do? Fight the law in the courts? Civil disobedience? Get out the vote? I don't know the answer, but one's thing's for sure: we'll never win if we stand around and let the legistlature strip our rights away.

Gunsmith:

Sorry to see that you left CA, we could use another good man like you over here... living in free America must be nice though. I keep thinking about leaving myself, but I just can't do it. I feel it's still worth fighting for, and this is my home. Besides, all real Americans love the sting of battle. I love it, I really do. More than my life

 

[STAGE 2]

Wow. I've heard a lot, I repeat, A LOT, of crazy things on the internet, but hearing you claim that you are an attorney is the most outrageous, unbelievable, stupid thing I've ever heard. Your ignorance of the law and system is already startling, let alone the fact that you claim to be a lawyer. If you really are a lawyer, your professional incompetence... is, well... sad. Your notion of what constitutes "proof" alone is laughable. If I were you, I'd be ashamed to admit that I'm an attorney, after the things you've said.

I didn't claim to be anything. I am an attorney. I'm not going to sit here and detail every single aspect of a trial strategy for you.

As far as what constitutes proof, you should sit in while counsel interviews a jury after the trial is over and listen to what they think was "proof" in their eyes. A transcript of everything that you have said here is certianly not a slam dunk. However it is an individual brick in the wall, and it would definately hurt your case. Any defense lawyer that would tell you otherwise is going to do nothing for you other than get you a new suit of clothes.

As far as my professional competence goes, I sleep very well at night, as do all of my clients.

Like it or not, you have come into a public forum, advocated that others break the law, and stated that you have made the choice to follow laws that you dont agree with. That right there would probably get me every non-gun owner on the jury.

Whether you think I'm right or wrong, what you have stated here is irresponsible with respect to other members and definately not the high road.

 

[Sherwin]

just go to oregon or washington its legal there