What is the untrue gun myth that irritates you the most

[dogtown tom]

Not really.

There are a few cases where a search warrant are not required. Two I can think of off the top of my head are: 1) probable cause, and 2) verbal consent.

Again, LE asking a question is not a search.

 

[dogtown tom]

That all by itself does not constitute "probable cause".

If a LEO says that to you and you say "NO." and he says: "Well, I'll get a warrant."

Never heard of a bluff?

What evidence of a crime will he/she provide to a Judge for that search warrant? That you just said "no" to a warrant-less search?

Saying "no isn't probably cause. But if the officer believes that the subject is buying guns for resale, trafficking in firearms, falsifying his 4473's.........the totality of that MAY be reasonable cause for a warrant. He'll have that before he knocks or kicks in your door.

 

[dogtown tom]

Question:

What Constitutional grounds is the 1934 National Firearms Act based on?

The same ones that all legislation is based on.

The regulation of inter-State movement of firearms is within the Federal mandate according to the Constitution (interstate commerce), but if something (silencer, SBR, etc) is made in one State and never leaves that State, how does it become a Federal issue?

Wickard v Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

 

[dogtown tom]

That is an excellent question and perhaps we will see an answer if this lawsuit by the Texas AG is ever settled. We in Texas are hoping the ruling is in our favor.
Headline:
AG Paxton Sues Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for Unlawfully Prohibiting Firearm Silencers in Texas

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-sues-bureau-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-unlawfully-prohibiting-firearm#:~:text=Texas House Bill 957, passed,use without paying a tax.

Political pndering by my Attorney General who is doing his best to stay out of jail.
Anyone hanging their hat on laws such as this invalidating federal law may be in for a wait.
Take ten minutes and research how other states with the exact same firearm freedom law have ended up.
Two guys in Kansas who will never own or possess guns again because they were stupid enough to believe their Kansas legislators. Those Kansas legislators were nowhere to be found when they went to trial. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/r...ects-challenge-to-regulation-of-gun-silencers

This nonsense has been beat to death here on THR for half a decade.

 

[The Glockodile]

A lot of the antis are really just arrogant statists, "guns for me and mine, none for you, peasant."

Aren't most of us gun owners, though?

It's invariably an issue of my Kung Fu is better than your Kung Fu.

We're infallible in our own eyes, and everybody else sucks.

"These people at the range who have no idea what gun safety is about, your tactics suck, back in my day everybody was taught to respect firearms by Poppa an' Granpoppa and the schoolmarm, if you don't feel cocked and locked is safe - you shouldn't even own a gun, I don't hear the thousands of possums I harvested complaining, yadda yadda yadda..."

 

[dogtown tom]

I guess we lost control when they ditched the Articles of Confederation some 2.5 centuries ago.

No, we have control.
What we don't have is a public educated in the Constitution other than bellowing "Thats unConstitutional!" as their only contribution to a discussion.
Who decides if a law is unconstitutional? The Constitution tells us that.

I don't know if they are a phony group or just trying to clarify the purpose of county sheriffs.

You should know. Taking the first result you agree with and using it as a reference is never a good idea.

Else what need for county sheriffs if we have state police and urban counties have city police too.

It differs by state, but generally, "city police" are only responsible for patrolling within their jurisdiction, usually the city limits. While typically all sworn LE in a state are empowered to enforce state laws anywhere within that state, they do so only within their jurisdiction because the citizens of Ft Worth don't pay their officers to ticket speeders in Dallas.

County sheriffs have county wide jurisdiction, but usually focus on unincorporated areas not served by a municipal police department.
State police may have a priority on traffic enforcement on interstates and major highways, and assist county or city LE when requested. They may also coordinate and manage task forces for large metro areas with multiple state, county, city agencies.

 

[The Glockodile]

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/r...ects-challenge-to-regulation-of-gun-silencers

This nonsense has been beat to death here on THR for half a decade.

Didn't realize a silencer was ever used in this kind of crime.

 

[Old Dog]

Get back to us when he actually arrests a federal agent who is performing his job duties.

Federal agents on a fishing expedition, trespassing on private property with no probable cause that any federal law has been broken, are not performing their job duties.

Again, since you missed it the first time, states don't get to tell the feds what laws they want to ignore. I read about the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in high school.
You should Google it.

1.. The supremacy clause presumes that in an applicable situation, there is a Constitutionally enumerated power existing or an applicable federal law.
2. Federal agents have to conform to all applicable federal laws when actually engaged in the performance of their duties. This kinda means observing those pesky provisions of the 4th and 5th Amendments. Absent any reason to suspect a crime that's in violation of a federal law, their presence on my doorstep could certainly constitute harassment. Their attempts to cajole me in viewing my legally-acquired private property or make statements contrary to my best interests, without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, without a warrant for search or arrest and without charges being filed, are no b
3. Since you're so conversant with the supremacy clause, how's your acquaintance with the 10th Amendment?

 

[tark]

No, we have control.
What we don't have is a public educated in the Constitution other than bellowing "Thats unConstitutional!" as their only contribution to a discussion.
Who decides if a law is unconstitutional? The Constitution tells us that.

Amen X 1000 Civics and history get little attention in the schools these days. I ran into a high schooler who didn't know who Adolph Hitler was. I am not making that up.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Incidentally, the Federal Government cannot force States to enforce Federal law . . .

The same ones that all legislation is based on.

Federal power is limited to those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. There are 18 of them.

All Federal laws are based (or should be) based on one of these powers. If you don't know which one the 1934 NFA is based on, just say so.

 

[Craig_AR]

SO.

 

[dogtown tom]

Federal agents on a fishing expedition, trespassing on private property with no probable cause that any federal law has been broken, are not performing their job duties.

It isn't tresspassing.
LE doesn't need probable cause to ring your doorbell.

Where do ya'll get this nonsense?

1.. The supremacy clause presumes that in an applicable situation, there is a Constitutionally enumerated power existing or an applicable federal law.

There is an applicable federal law, the Gun Control Act.

2. Federal agents have to conform to all applicable federal laws when actually engaged in the performance of their duties. This kinda means observing those pesky provisions of the 4th and 5th Amendments. Absent any reason to suspect a crime that's in violation of a federal law, their presence on my doorstep could certainly constitute harassment. Their attempts to cajole me in viewing my legally-acquired private property or make statements contrary to my best interests, without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, without a warrant for search or arrest and without charges being filed, are no b

Any police officer can "cajole", conversate, engage you verbally, ask you questions.......you are under no requirement to reply back.
Those officers violated no state or federal law by ringing the doorbell, nor did the violate any part of the 4th or 5th Amendments.

3. Since you're so conversant with the supremacy clause, how's your acquaintance with the 10th Amendment?

Enough to know that you don't know jack squat about what you think it means.

 

[dogtown tom]

Incidentally, the Federal Government cannot force States to enforce Federal law . . ..

No kidding.
And thats not what is happening in the video.

Further, states cannot enforce federal law either. Texas has consistently found its efforts to enforce federal immigration laws thrown right back in its face.

Federal power is limited to those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. There are 18 of them.

All Federal laws are based (or should be) based on one of these powers. If you don't know which one the 1934 NFA is based on, just say so

Again, the US Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional, not you or I.
You can sit there and holler "but, but, but THE TENTH AMENDMENT SAYS!!!" and no one cares. Certainly not the USSC.
You should write a letter to John Roberts and explain that a 1934 law is illegal. Likely they've never received such a letter.

 

[Old Dog]

It isn't tresspassing.
LE doesn't need probable cause to ring your doorbell.

Trespassing: Trespassing occurs if you are on someone else's private property without his or her permission, as well as staying on someone's property after he or she asks you to leave. That's actual the legal definition from the RCW in my state.

Never said they needed probable cause to ring your doorbell. But to conduct an investigation of an individual they do.

There is an applicable federal law, the Gun Control Act.

It's still fishing.

Any police officer can "cajole", conversate, engage you verbally, ask you questions.......you are under no requirement to reply back.

I am well aware of this. More so than you could ever know. Again, there is large body of case law pertaining to officers' conduct during field interviews, witness interviews, Terry stops, et al.

Enough to know that you don't know jack squat about what you think it means.

When you attain your PhD in Constitutional Law, let me know. In the meantime, goodbye, you surly old curmudgeon and defender of the BATFE.

 

[dogtown tom]

When you attain your PhD in Constitutional Law, let me know.

One doesn't need a doctorate, just to have passed HS government.

In the meantime, goodbye, you surly old curmudgeon .

Night, night, pot calling the kettle black.

and defender of the BATFE

Like a lot of guys who have nothing to back up their argument, you resort to namecalling when you feel defeated and alone. You skipped right by communist, fascist and Nazi.
But FYI, you need to learrn the difference between understanding of a topic and agreement with it. I understand it and certainly don't agree with ATF.

While you may feel high and mighty about what you wrote, its simply flawed.

 

[dogtown tom]

Never said they needed probable cause to ring your doorbell. But to conduct an investigation of an individual they do.
.

No, they don't. All that's needed is reasonable suspicion.

 

[Charlie Martinez]

Have not read every post so this may have already been mentioned.
The untrue gun myth that irritates me the most is the labeling of semiautomatic rifles that look like those utilized by the world's military as "assault rifles".
In their relentless efforts to promote and instill stricter gun control measures this myth has been successfully exploited by every socialist, liberal or left wing politician and media journalist to the point where it has become true in the minds of most Americans that do not know anything about guns.

 

[citizenconn]

The untrue gun myth that irritates me the most is the labeling of semiautomatic rifles that look like those utilized by the world's military as "assault rifles".

Here is my "assault rifle," which I have been told is an assault to personal good taste and general couth.

 

[Old Dog]

No, they don't. All that's needed is reasonable suspicion.

Lawful purchase of regulated items does NOT constitute "reasonable suspicion" that the buyer may have or be intending to perform a prohibited act. WTH, dude!

I wasn't gonna return to the thread as (some might have detected) certain comments became annoying to me.

All I will say -- and this is totally off topic as far as gun myths go -- our judicial system is predicated on the presumption of innocence.

Agents of the state do NOT investigate citizens of our country solely due to the fact that the citizen made a lawful purchase of regulated items, even though other citizens may have violated the purchase laws of those regulated items. Again, lawful purchase of the regulated item(s) creates neither "reasonable suspicion" nor "probable cause" that a crime may have been committed or is about to be committed.

Is it just me, or do we have some here that can't see the bigger picture?

The untrue gun myth that irritates me the most is the labeling of semiautomatic rifles that look like those utilized by the world's military as "assault rifles".

Well, y'all can blame the writers and editors of Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, American Rifleman and Guns Magazine. Each and every one of these gun magazines (periodicals) referred to AR-15s as "assault rifles."
We did it to ourselves. Valiant effort trying to re-frame the terminology and go with "MSR" (Modern Sporting Rifle) but how's that working out for us so far?
Check the dates from these '90s gun rags.

 

[The Glockodile]

Well, y'all can blame the writers and editors of Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, American Rifleman and Guns Magazine. Each and every one of these gun magazines (periodicals) referred to AR-15s as "assault rifles." We did it to ourselves. Valiant effort trying to re-frame the terminology and go with "MSR" (Modern Sporting Rifle) but how's that working out for us so far? Check the dates from these '90s gun rags.

View attachment 1092702View attachment 1092703View attachment 1092704View attachment 1092705

And don't forget that them Assault Rifles won't be caught dead without their high capacity clippity clip clip clips...



...or some vulgar skull emblem sticker which simultaneously defiles our dearest red, white, and blue!

 

[Jim Watson]

And who remembers the Colyer Clip for 8-10 rounds in Remington and Winchester autos?

 

[The Glockodile]

And who remembers the Colyer Clip for 8-10 rounds in Remington and Winchester autos?

It's been ages!

I might still have one of these in the back!

 

[lysanderxiii]

No kidding.
And thats not what is happening in the video.

Further, states cannot enforce federal law either. Texas has consistently found its efforts to enforce federal immigration laws thrown right back in its face.



Again, the US Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional, not you or I.
You can sit there and holler "but, but, but THE TENTH AMENDMENT SAYS!!!" and no one cares. Certainly not the USSC.
You should write a letter to John Roberts and explain that a 1934 law is illegal. Likely they've never received such a letter.

First, I never said it was "unconstitutional"

I asked what part of the Constitution is it based on. If you don't know, stop responding with non-answers.

Some people have answered parts, taxation, and interstate commerce.

 

[OldIron86]

Sadly one...er two from my dad..."don't use FMJ, It'll blow up your guns!" It was a popular rumor locally.
He also only carries on an empty chamber with a modern transfer bar revolver and that infuriates me for some reason.

 

[EMC45]

Another one is "law enforcement and military are gun experts"......Couldn't be further from the truth in my experience being both in past lives.