dogtown tom
Member
Again, LE asking a question is not a search.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.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.
Never heard of a bluff?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."
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.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?
The same ones that all legislation is based on.Question:
What Constitutional grounds is the 1934 National Firearms Act based on?
Wickard v Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._FilburnThe 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?
Political pndering by my Attorney General who is doing his best to stay out of jail.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.
A lot of the antis are really just arrogant statists, "guns for me and mine, none for you, peasant."
No, we have control.I guess we lost control when they ditched the Articles of Confederation some 2.5 centuries ago.
You should know. Taking the first result you agree with and using it as a reference is never a good idea.I don't know if they are a phony group or just trying to clarify the purpose of county sheriffs.
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.Else what need for county sheriffs if we have state police and urban counties have city police too.
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.
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.Get back to us when he actually arrests a federal agent who is performing his job duties.
1.. The supremacy clause presumes that in an applicable situation, there is a Constitutionally enumerated power existing or an applicable federal law.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.
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.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.
Federal power is limited to those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. There are 18 of them.The same ones that all legislation is based on.
It isn't tresspassing.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.
There is an applicable federal law, the Gun Control Act.1.. The supremacy clause presumes that in an applicable situation, there is a Constitutionally enumerated power existing or an applicable federal law.
Any police officer can "cajole", conversate, engage you verbally, ask you questions.......you are under no requirement to reply back.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
Enough to know that you don't know jack squat about what you think it means.3. Since you're so conversant with the supremacy clause, how's your acquaintance with the 10th Amendment?
No kidding.Incidentally, the Federal Government cannot force States to enforce Federal law . . ..
Again, the US Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional, not you or I.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
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.It isn't tresspassing.
LE doesn't need probable cause to ring your doorbell.
It's still fishing.There is an applicable federal law, the Gun Control Act.
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.Any police officer can "cajole", conversate, engage you verbally, ask you questions.......you are under no requirement to reply back.
When you attain your PhD in Constitutional Law, let me know. In the meantime, goodbye, you surly old curmudgeon and defender of the BATFE.Enough to know that you don't know jack squat about what you think it means.
One doesn't need a doctorate, just to have passed HS government.When you attain your PhD in Constitutional Law, let me know.
Night, night, pot calling the kettle black.In the meantime, goodbye, you surly old curmudgeon .
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.and defender of the BATFE
No, they don't. All that's needed is reasonable suspicion.Never said they needed probable cause to ring your doorbell. But to conduct an investigation of an individual they do.
.
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!No, they don't. All that's needed is reasonable suspicion.
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."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.
View attachment 1092702View attachment 1092703View attachment 1092704View attachment 1092705
First, I never said it was "unconstitutional"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.