Here is how I would do it if I was a power hungry evil government stooge - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Here is how I would do it if I was a power hungry evil government stooge

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-19-2010, 10:53 AM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,152
Liked 23 Times on 7 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimber45 View Post
Legal gun owners? LOL! All laws on the ownership of firearms are unconstitutional, hence illegal, read your constitution. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you find difficult to understand?
Do you really think you do gun owners and law abiding citizens any favors by posting this crap? It's stuff like this that provides the liberals the ammo they need to further their agenda. A law is a law regardless of whether you agree with it or not. There are a lot of self-professed constitutional scholars serving time...
__________________

Last edited by NGIB; 05-19-2010 at 10:55 AM.
NGIB is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 10:57 AM   #12
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick1967 View Post
Perhaps I am a little uniformed. But I was under the impression that dealers keep your information after the sale. There has to be a reason for that. I believe everyone needs a couple of guns bought from private parties.
FFLs are required to keep 4473 forms for quite some time, but in many states it is legal to sell firearms to others in that state in face-to-face deals. In New York, long guns may be sold ftf thus leaving no usable paper trail. Handguns, however, are registered -- specific serial numbers to an individual -- and cannot be transferred to another person without changing both people's permits.

Given the climate today, I'm not too worried about a gun grab attempt. That would be more than enough to start something very big and very nasty.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 11:04 AM   #13
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGIB View Post
Do you really think you do gun owners and law abiding citizens any favors by posting this crap? It's stuff like this that provides the liberals the ammo they need to further their agenda. A law is a law regardless of whether you agree with it or not. There are a lot of self-professed constitutional scholars serving time...
You make a good point, but so does Kimber45 in a roundabout way. 2A does not read: "The right of the people to keep and bear firearms of a reasonable nature for personal defense, hunting and sporting shall not be infringed." but that's how it has been interpreted over the years, resulting in many screwed up laws. We have only ourselves to blame for not stopping the first infringement.

How many people here would obey a law requiring you to turn in all your firearms or register all your ammo or turn in your reloading equipment and supplies? I wouldn't. And I hope no one here would.

Legislators have turned good, upstanding, law-abiding citizens into felons at the stroke of a pen in the past and they will try to do it again at some point.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 11:11 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,152
Liked 23 Times on 7 Posts

Default

The fact of the matter is the law is the law. There are proper ways to get bad laws stricken from the books. Just choosing to ignore the laws you don't agree with is not something that anyone should condone. I do not think anyone on this forum should even tacitly agree that breaking the law - even a bad law - is a proper course of action.

Let me expand a bit. Let's say you are 40 years old, own your own business, and you're a pillar of the community. Now lets say that when you were 18, you were busted for smoking a joint - at home with no bad extenuating circumstances. You received a misdemeanor conviction, paid the fine, and have never been in any trouble with the law again.

You move your business to Georgia and you'd like to get your GA Firearms License as you believe in defending yourself and your family. Guess what - under current GA law you will NEVER be allowed to obtain a GFL (carry permit) as you have a drug related offense on your record. Is this law fair & just - no I don't think so - but it is the law. If the Governor signs SB308, which passed the GA house & senate and is on his desk, this bad law goes away. This is how bad laws go away - the legal way - that is the basis for our great nation.

The Supreme Court has had a lot of opportunities over the years to see the "shall not be infringed" just as Kimber45 and bkt does - they have chosen not to. Until such a time comes that they do - we law abiding citizens are stuck with their interpretation - even if we do not agree...

__________________

Last edited by NGIB; 05-19-2010 at 11:47 AM.
NGIB is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 01:23 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
Posts: 1,657
Liked 29 Times on 23 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c3shooter View Post
For those of us that live in the free states, could you pleae explain what this "registered firearm" thing is???




Note- for the Cognizant impaired, the foregoing WAS sarcasm.
Firearm registration isn't too much sarcasm when it comes to Clark County, Nevada. For all handguns we own, we are required by Clark County "regulations" to register them with the sheriff's department. We have a small blue card (most of us call it the Nazi Blue Card) that has to be on our person for any of the handguns we are carrying around. This is not a CCW which is a completely different animal. Clark County is the only county in Nevada that requires this Nazi Blue Card. The current sheriff, Gillespie, claims it helps in solving homicides by handgun. I think one has been solved in the past 5 years.

I've got 4 of the buggers currently. I'm going to be supremely glad when I retire and move to Texas. I might head down to the sheriff's station, on my way out of town, and burn those cards on the steps.
__________________
AcidFlashGordon is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 02:58 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGIB View Post
The fact of the matter is the law is the law. There are proper ways to get bad laws stricken from the books. Just choosing to ignore the laws you don't agree with is not something that anyone should condone. I do not think anyone on this forum should even tacitly agree that breaking the law - even a bad law - is a proper course of action
Well said. A lot of people seem to think if only we got the right people in office or the right people on the Supreme Court, we could go back to some kind of Wild West mode of life where licenses don't exist and a group of homesteaders could band together and string up the local sheriff if he was doing bad things.

Times have changed. The government has helicopters and SWAT teams. In this day and age, the idea that you can fight government oppression with a personal armory is pure comic-book fantasy. Luckily, we don't live in a totalitarian state and are nowhere near to living in one (trust me, I have, and I know). If you don't like a law, get active. Organize. Get it changed. That's what democracy is.

But forget ever having more control than the government. Nine Alitos on the Supreme Court couldn't change that. Nine Ted Nugents on the Supreme Court couldn't change that. It's just the world we live in.
__________________
luke1249 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 03:51 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

I'm wondering, if, since the SCOTUS has ruled in the Heller case that 2A is an Individual right ( I still don't know where all the discussion comes from in the first place), the fact of this ruling SHOULD, without exception, assure and confirm the right of all law abiding citizens to carry, either open or discrete, in ALL States (yes, even hell jersey!). What I understand is the SCOTUS will now work on WHICH gun laws are unconstitutional,as if there is actually a question.

__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 04:29 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,910
Liked 1195 Times on 713 Posts
Likes Given: 381

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
I'm wondering, if, since the SCOTUS has ruled in the Heller case that 2A is an Individual right ( I still don't know where all the discussion comes from in the first place), the fact of this ruling SHOULD, without exception, assure and confirm the right of all law abiding citizens to carry, either open or discrete, in ALL States (yes, even hell jersey!). What I understand is the SCOTUS will now work on WHICH gun laws are unconstitutional,as if there is actually a question.
I'm no lawyer but I thought part of the limitation of Heller was that it applied to DC only because of it's special status as not a state. Now if the new case going to the court from Chicago or Illinois goes the same way it might apply more broadly. However the SCOTUS brief is not black and white like sometimes stated.

Someone who knows more please clarify but I thought Heller basically said that the banning of an entire class of weapons commonly used for defense purposes was illegal. So if DC say's you can't purchase or own 1911's in our district but can have most other pistols that might actually be legal.
__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 08:42 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGIB View Post
The fact of the matter is the law is the law. There are proper ways to get bad laws stricken from the books. Just choosing to ignore the laws you don't agree with is not something that anyone should condone. I do not think anyone on this forum should even tacitly agree that breaking the law - even a bad law - is a proper course of action.

Let me expand a bit. Let's say you are 40 years old, own your own business, and you're a pillar of the community. Now lets say that when you were 18, you were busted for smoking a joint - at home with no bad extenuating circumstances. You received a misdemeanor conviction, paid the fine, and have never been in any trouble with the law again.

You move your business to Georgia and you'd like to get your GA Firearms License as you believe in defending yourself and your family. Guess what - under current GA law you will NEVER be allowed to obtain a GFL (carry permit) as you have a drug related offense on your record. Is this law fair & just - no I don't think so - but it is the law. If the Governor signs SB308, which passed the GA house & senate and is on his desk, this bad law goes away. This is how bad laws go away - the legal way - that is the basis for our great nation.

The Supreme Court has had a lot of opportunities over the years to see the "shall not be infringed" just as Kimber45 and bkt does - they have chosen not to. Until such a time comes that they do - we law abiding citizens are stuck with their interpretation - even if we do not agree...
Well in past times, people have broke unjust laws and there breaking them allwed for them to be changed. A few examples:

1. Rosa Parks refusing to move in front of the bus. Now I know some people say this was staged, but for the purpose of this discussion, we'll assume it wasnt.

2. The Boston Tea Party. Refusing to pay high taxes to the king of England

The only thing about breaking unjust laws is that enough people have to be on board with it. One person doing it wont result in anything but you getting in trouble. Personally I dont think people should need a cpl to carry a concealed pistol if they can legally own one. And if I were in Alaska, New Hampshire, or Arizona the law would agree with me. But in Michigan they give you 2 to 5 years for that even if you legally own the pistol.

So for one person to do it on purpose to rebel, that may be stupid, but if lets say, five hundred thousand or a million legal Michigan gun owners were to organize an event where they were to go in public with concealed pistols w/o a license to make a point, I would support that.
__________________
clip11 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 09:02 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
skullcrusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio,Ohio
Posts: 10,949
Liked 17 Times on 12 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clip11 View Post
Well in past times, people have broke unjust laws and there breaking them allwed for them to be changed. A few examples:

1. Rosa Parks refusing to move in front of the bus. Now I know some people say this was staged, but for the purpose of this discussion, we'll assume it wasnt.

2. The Boston Tea Party. Refusing to pay high taxes to the king of England
While I agree that there are cases where unjust laws were brought into the limelight through disobedience, I must disagree with the choices of your examples.

Don't misunderstand, I do believe that civil disobedience is a valid method of bringing unjust laws and ordinances into the public eye.

1. Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, and it was an organized act that was not illegal. The Civil Rights Movement was already well underway.

2. The Boston Tea Party was a vandalous act that had nothing to do with actual taxation. Have you ever asked why the participants attempted to disguise themselves as Native Americans?

Now, if you want to think of a bold act that was treasonous at the time, think about the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
__________________

From C3Shooter:
Skullcrusher, you are evil, sick, demented, twisted- and my hero!


Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
...without the Second, we cannot protect the rest!

Last edited by skullcrusher; 05-19-2010 at 09:10 PM. Reason: added the civil disobedience
skullcrusher is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Who's Hungry? Shihan The Club House 3 03-09-2010 05:11 PM
Hungry Glock? mdw104 Glock Forum 6 12-07-2008 06:16 PM