GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-12-2012, 19:08   #301
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travclem View Post
I am familiar with the case.

How is the NFA not an infringement? SCOTUS or otherwise, it's still an infringement on the 2nd amendment.
Thru the interpretation of the 2nd A.

1. The meaning of "a well regulated militia" (regulated by who?, are only militia members protected?)
2. The meaning of "Arms" (what is covered in the meaning and what is not)
3. The meaning of "Infringed" can even be viewed as any "violation" of the right or only past a certain point of "violation" of the right.

The very reasons this thing has been in debate for decades by so many.

Not gonna be settled here, or anywhere else. It will be a ongoing debate IMO. With scholars, experts and passionate laymen on both sides. Of course I am a huge anti gun guy for even bringing this stuff up I guess?

Last edited by Ruggles; 12-12-2012 at 19:10..
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 19:16   #302
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
It's clear that Miller ruled very narrowly, and the fact that the SBS they ruled on did have a military purpose, the court didn't know that fact.

They ruled:

United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) which at the time was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service),[1] with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.[2]

The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.


Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[3] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[4]

So, if we join a militia, then we don't need permission to buy these military grade weapons.

Here's the thing, what's to stop the court from ruling this way (as they already have with the Obamacare TAX) on anything else they fear would harm society, with a tax and/or license?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
Good question about the militia, I would guess the courts would say no but who can be sure.

I think state military forces would theoretically fall into this debate as they don't fall under federal command directly. What about LEO at the local & state level. All of these certainly have weapons banned under the NFA yet posses them.

The only thing keeping politicians from doing what they want is each other and ultimately citizens/voters.
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 19:44   #303
kenpoprofessor
Senior Member
 
kenpoprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ex POW in the PRK now N. Phoenix AZ
Posts: 4,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
Good question about the militia, I would guess the courts would say no but who can be sure.

I think state military forces would theoretically fall into this debate as they don't fall under federal command directly. What about LEO at the local & state level. All of these certainly have weapons banned under the NFA yet posses them.

The only thing keeping politicians from doing what they want is each other and ultimately citizens/voters.
It's funny you should bring that up cuz there's a huge 14th amendment issue going on with that. You know, equal protection under the law thing? They are somehow better to have these weapons than the common citizen???

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
__________________
"Occasionally, Mr. Darwin offers a spontaneous IQ test, some people fail."
kenpoprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 19:55   #304
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
It's funny you should bring that up cuz there's a huge 14th amendment issue going on with that. You know, equal protection under the law thing? They are somehow better to have these weapons than the common citizen???

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
Well I guess the judicial branch will have to sort that out, good thing that is built into our system of government.

And before you ask yes I think state military forces, local LEOs are fine to have weapons systems you (as in unknown common citizen) can't buy at the local gun show. Call it a implied trust thing.

I know...I know....I am anti this and anti that because I believe this
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 20:04   #305
Travclem
Lifetime Membership
Badass Member
 
Travclem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lubbock, TX
Posts: 6,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post

I know...I know....I am anti this and anti that because I believe this
Yes you are.

We had a police officer not long ago arrested for molesting his 2 year old step daughter, another one that took a BJ to let a girl off a traffic ticket, and yet another who was DWI in his patrol car with 4 flats and the lights on. Implied trust? that's the real joke here.

I would much rather an upstanding citizen have weapons than these guys.
__________________
Sent from a payphone in a whorehouse in Mexico.
__________________

Last edited by Travclem; 12-12-2012 at 20:08..
Travclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 20:09   #306
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,827
Blog Entries: 1
Why dont one of you guys that wants NFA done away with get a lawyer and challenge the law based upon

3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

Saying a full auto M-4 is used by the military and therefore United States v. Miller specifically allows it. Dont ***** about it, do something about it!!
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 20:15   #307
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travclem View Post
Yes you are.

We had a police officer not long ago arrested for molesting his 2 year old step daughter, another one that took a BJ to let a girl off a traffic ticket, and yet another who was DWI in his patrol car with 4 flats and the lights on. Implied trust? that's the real joke here.

I would much rather an upstanding citizen have weapons than these guys.
And how are you going to determine who is a "upstanding" citizen and who is not? And exactly who gets to decide that anyways? And when and why does the "upstanding" person lose that status? Who determines that? Do they loose is for a specific period of time? Or permanently? Again who decides that?

Are the LEOs you mentioned still in their positions? I would guess not. Want to know why, because the "implied" trust bestowed upon them was removed due to their action. Imagine that, society endowed them with that trust and then revoked it when they proved they were not trustworthy.

Last edited by Ruggles; 12-12-2012 at 20:16..
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 20:19   #308
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
Why dont one of you guys that wants NFA done away with get a lawyer and challenge the law based upon

3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

Saying a full auto M-4 is used by the military and therefore United States v. Miller specifically allows it. Dont ***** about it, do something about it!!
I would guess that sprouting off on the internet bout it is easier and just about as effective than going to court with some of their "ideals". Of course I would love to see the opening statements of a court case to legalize private ownership of, RPGs, SAMs or cruise missles
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 20:20   #309
Travclem
Lifetime Membership
Badass Member
 
Travclem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lubbock, TX
Posts: 6,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
And how are you going to determine who is a "upstanding" citizen and who is not? And exactly who gets to decide that anyways? And when and why does the "upstanding" person lose that status? Who determines that? Do they loose is for a specific period of time? Or permanently? Again who decides that?

Are the LEOs you mentioned still in their positions? I would guess not. Want to know why, because the "implied" trust bestowed upon them was removed due to their action. Imagine that, society endowed them with that trust and then revoked it when they proved they were not trustworthy.
Ok, do away with upstanding. I'd rather a civilian have access to AT LEAST the same weapons as those "cops."

2 of them are still in their current positions, 1 is not(molester). The 2 that are still working were "misunderstandings" swept behind the thin blue line. Don't get me wrong, I have a dad and 3 uncles that are police officers in some form or fashion around here, but saying that being a police officer gives you rights to more weapons than me is outrageous.
__________________
Sent from a payphone in a whorehouse in Mexico.
__________________

Last edited by Travclem; 12-12-2012 at 20:22..
Travclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 20:25   #310
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travclem View Post
Ok, do away with upstanding. I'd rather a civilian have access to AT LEAST the same weapons as those "cops."

2 of them are still in their current positions, 1 is not(molester). Don't get me wrong, I have a dad and 3 uncles that are police officers in some form or fashion around here, but saying that being a police officer gives you rights to more weapons than me is outrageous.
They have the "right" to more weapons than you for the same reason they can arrest you and you can not arrest them. The "right" they have to flash some lights and you have to pull your car off the road. The right to stop you when you are walking down the street. That is that society has endowed them with that responsibility. That implied trust. If you want the same "rights" to weapon systems do you think you should have the same arrest rights? If not they why?
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 20:32   #311
Travclem
Lifetime Membership
Badass Member
 
Travclem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lubbock, TX
Posts: 6,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
They have the "right" to more weapons than you for the same reason they can arrest you and you can not arrest them. The "right" they have to flash some lights and you have to pull your car off the road. The right to stop you when you are walking down the street. That is that society has endowed them with that responsibility. That implied trust. If you want the same "rights" to weapon systems do you think you should have the same arrest rights? If not they why?
Maybe I should be able to arrest them. Maybe that little girl wouldn't have gotten molested if someone had arrested her police officer step dad earlier, as I doubt this was his first sexual abuse behavior.

This "implied trust" that you place in government officials is the same trust that they take advantage of and laugh about among themselves.
__________________
Sent from a payphone in a whorehouse in Mexico.
__________________

Last edited by Travclem; 12-12-2012 at 20:35..
Travclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 20:40   #312
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travclem View Post
Maybe I should be able to arrest them. Maybe that little girl wouldn't have gotten molested if someone had arrested her police officer step dad earlier, as I doubt this was his first sexual abuse behavior.

This "implied trust" that you place in government officials is the same trust that they take advantage of and laugh about among themselves.
In that case I agree you arresting (or smashing) that guy would have been the right thing. But clearly everyone having that ability/right might lead to a few issues....

Our society can not work without implied trust. Hell my company can not run without implied trust. You can'y go out to dinner or buy groceries without the implied trust you are not ingesting poison. It 's part of our society. The trust we place in LEOs and military are just a extension of that IMO.
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 22:06   #313
racerford
Senior Member
 
racerford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,870


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
They have the "right" to more weapons than you for the same reason they can arrest you and you can not arrest them. The "right" they have to flash some lights and you have to pull your car off the road. The right to stop you when you are walking down the street. That is that society has endowed them with that responsibility. That implied trust. If you want the same "rights" to weapon systems do you think you should have the same arrest rights? If not they why?
I do have the right to arrest them, if I witness them committing a felony. Doesn't matter if they are a police officer or not.

It may not be practical or I may end up dead, but I have that right.... at least in my state.
racerford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 22:45   #314
Airborne Infantryman
Future JBT
 
Airborne Infantryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 3,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
It's funny you should bring that up cuz there's a huge 14th amendment issue going on with that. You know, equal protection under the law thing? They are somehow better to have these weapons than the common citizen???

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
Police still have to fill out ATF Forms, and go through almost the same paperwork as a civilian to get NFA items. Only difference is its a tax-free transfer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travclem View Post
Yes you are.

We had a police officer not long ago arrested for molesting his 2 year old step daughter, another one that took a BJ to let a girl off a traffic ticket, and yet another who was DWI in his patrol car with 4 flats and the lights on. Implied trust? that's the real joke here.

I would much rather an upstanding citizen have weapons than these guys.
For every bad cop, there are 100 good ones. You only hear about the bad ones because that's what the media makes a story out of.

There are good and bad people in all jobs/walks of life. You only hear about the bad ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
Why dont one of you guys that wants NFA done away with get a lawyer and challenge the law based upon

3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

Saying a full auto M-4 is used by the military and therefore United States v. Miller specifically allows it. Dont ***** about it, do something about it!!
The American Silencer Association is working on this....at least suppressor-wise.

FYI, speaking as someone who has access to full-auto, and uses weapons with this capability on a weekly basis, full-auto is a waste of ammo, with no true applicability other than having fun.

At the very least, the ATF needs to open up the Machine Gun Registry, and get rid of that pre-'86 bull ****.

Last edited by Airborne Infantryman; 12-12-2012 at 22:48..
Airborne Infantryman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 04:36   #315
Travclem
Lifetime Membership
Badass Member
 
Travclem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lubbock, TX
Posts: 6,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne Infantryman View Post

For every bad cop, there are 100 good ones. You only hear about the bad ones because that's what the media makes a story out of.

There are good and bad people in all jobs/walks of life. You only hear about the bad ones.



The American Silencer Association is working on this....at least suppressor-wise.

FYI, speaking as someone who has access to full-auto, and uses weapons with this capability on a weekly basis, full-auto is a waste of ammo, with no true applicability other than having fun.

At the very least, the ATF needs to open up the Machine Gun Registry, and get rid of that pre-'86 bull ****.
I know there are good cops, I have a few in my family. The point I was making is that a badge doesn't equal immediate good guy status.

I have access to full auto too, and you are right, it is mostly a waste of ammo but it sure is fun. I agree, Reagan's machine gun law needs to go.



Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Sent from a payphone in a whorehouse in Mexico.
__________________
Travclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 07:00   #316
soflasmg
Senior Member
 
soflasmg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Meeyaami
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott3670 View Post
Isn't the NFA based on the wishes of the people back in 1934? They were tired of all the gangster violence (drive-by shootings with Tommy guns and sawed-off shotguns, etc.) and wanted something done about it. If I've got this right (and I'm not saying that I do) then, with all due respect, why are we blaming the Government for something we wanted?
You don't have this right. Do some research.
soflasmg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 14:23   #317
kenpoprofessor
Senior Member
 
kenpoprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ex POW in the PRK now N. Phoenix AZ
Posts: 4,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
In that case I agree you arresting (or smashing) that guy would have been the right thing. But clearly everyone having that ability/right might lead to a few issues....

Our society can not work without implied trust. Hell my company can not run without implied trust. You can'y go out to dinner or buy groceries without the implied trust you are not ingesting poison. It 's part of our society. The trust we place in LEOs and military are just a extension of that IMO.
The Okie Corral


Yep, couldn't have said it better myself.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
__________________
"Occasionally, Mr. Darwin offers a spontaneous IQ test, some people fail."
kenpoprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 15:12   #318
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
The Okie Corral


Yep, couldn't have said it better myself.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
No doubt true. But that does not mean the material instruments are not relevant. A madman is Iraq is extremely dangerous. A mad man in Iraq with a WMD even more so because he can act on his madness to a much more destructive end.

And to be honest your moral theory that the only way to safeguard liberty in America is to allow an open door to weapon platforms regardless of anything else is a moral theory that would lead to horrific things IMO.

Last edited by Ruggles; 12-13-2012 at 15:25..
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 15:25   #319
Glock20 10mm
Use Linux!
 
Glock20 10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Land of Idiots and Libtards
Posts: 14,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
Well I guess the judicial branch will have to sort that out, good thing that is built into our system of government.

And before you ask yes I think state military forces, local LEOs are fine to have weapons systems you (as in unknown common citizen) can't buy at the local gun show. Call it a implied trust thing.

I know...I know....I am anti this and anti that because I believe this
When you trust the state that much you will soon be consumed by the state and stripped of your liberties. Don't believe me? Read some history about people that put their "implied trust" into the state.
__________________
Using Microsoft is like playing Russian roulette with an automatic pistol... the results are always messy
"The Constitution is my Law. The Declaration of Independence my bible. And Freedom my religion." - Me
Thick skin... a must in a free society.
Glock20 10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 15:27   #320
Glock20 10mm
Use Linux!
 
Glock20 10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Land of Idiots and Libtards
Posts: 14,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
Why dont one of you guys that wants NFA done away with get a lawyer and challenge the law based upon

3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

Saying a full auto M-4 is used by the military and therefore United States v. Miller specifically allows it. Dont ***** about it, do something about it!!
That's an easy question to answer... we don't have the money. See contrary to what the common citizen believes, the legal system is no longer blind and just. It is run by money and greed and the man with the most money generally wins the battle. That's been seen time and time again as well.
__________________
Using Microsoft is like playing Russian roulette with an automatic pistol... the results are always messy
"The Constitution is my Law. The Declaration of Independence my bible. And Freedom my religion." - Me
Thick skin... a must in a free society.
Glock20 10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 15:34   #321
Glock20 10mm
Use Linux!
 
Glock20 10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Land of Idiots and Libtards
Posts: 14,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerford View Post
I do have the right to arrest them, if I witness them committing a felony. Doesn't matter if they are a police officer or not.

It may not be practical or I may end up dead, but I have that right.... at least in my state.
In California, the following Penal code sections provide strict construction for arrests by anyone:

837. A private person may arrest another:

For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence.
When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

839. Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he/she deems necessary to aid him/her therein.

841. The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest, and the authority to make it, except when the person making the arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after its commission, or after an escape. The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being arrested.

844. To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.

845. Any person who has lawfully entered a house for the purpose of making an arrest, may break open the door or window thereof if detained therein, when necessary for the purpose of liberating himself, and an officer may do the same, when necessary for the purpose of liberating a person who, acting in his aid, lawfully entered for the purpose of making an arrest, and is detained therein.

846. Any person making an arrest may take from the person arrested all offensive weapons which he may have about his person, and must deliver them to the magistrate before whom he is taken.

847. (a) A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace officer. (b) There shall be no civil liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any peace officer or federal criminal investigator or law enforcement officer described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 830.8, acting within the scope of his or her authority, for false arrest or false imprisonment arising out of any arrest under any of the following circumstances:(1) The arrest was lawful, or the peace officer, at the time of the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful.(2) The arrest was made pursuant to a charge made, upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the person to be arrested.(3) The arrest was made pursuant to the requirements of Section 142, 837, 838, or 839.

Since police are comprised of private citizens... it applies to them as well. The are not above the law and should not be beyond reproach either.
__________________
Using Microsoft is like playing Russian roulette with an automatic pistol... the results are always messy
"The Constitution is my Law. The Declaration of Independence my bible. And Freedom my religion." - Me
Thick skin... a must in a free society.
Glock20 10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 15:34   #322
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm View Post
When you trust the state that much you will soon be consumed by the state and stripped of your liberties. Don't believe me? Read some history about people that put their "implied trust" into the state.
Trust the state that much? What does that mean? Nothing wrong with being vigilant, but being overly so can lead to it's own issues. I trust the American people who are in fact the "state", when I will react differently when I lose that trust.

For example;

I don't fear our military because of who is in it, those people I trust not to turn on the citizens of America is some hypothetical government oppression of freedom and liberty. If that ever changes then my views on other matters might as well.
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 15:38   #323
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm View Post
In California, the following Penal code sections provide strict construction for arrests by anyone:

837. A private person may arrest another:

For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence.
When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

839. Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he/she deems necessary to aid him/her therein.

841. The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest, and the authority to make it, except when the person making the arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after its commission, or after an escape. The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being arrested.

844. To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.

845. Any person who has lawfully entered a house for the purpose of making an arrest, may break open the door or window thereof if detained therein, when necessary for the purpose of liberating himself, and an officer may do the same, when necessary for the purpose of liberating a person who, acting in his aid, lawfully entered for the purpose of making an arrest, and is detained therein.

846. Any person making an arrest may take from the person arrested all offensive weapons which he may have about his person, and must deliver them to the magistrate before whom he is taken.

847. (a) A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace officer. (b) There shall be no civil liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any peace officer or federal criminal investigator or law enforcement officer described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 830.8, acting within the scope of his or her authority, for false arrest or false imprisonment arising out of any arrest under any of the following circumstances:(1) The arrest was lawful, or the peace officer, at the time of the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful.(2) The arrest was made pursuant to a charge made, upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the person to be arrested.(3) The arrest was made pursuant to the requirements of Section 142, 837, 838, or 839.

Since police are comprised of private citizens... it applies to them as well. The are not above the law and should not be beyond reproach either.
Just an example I gave, all the codes and such are not needed for that point. I simply meant that we (society) empower LEO with abilities we do not ourself have.

As for the weapons and lack of restrictions regarding them for LEOs I was speaking about the weapons the police force issues not about personal firearms of LEOs.

Just felt I was not clear in my earlier post about this.
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 15:43   #324
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm View Post
That's an easy question to answer... we don't have the money. See contrary to what the common citizen believes, the legal system is no longer blind and just. It is run by money and greed and the man with the most money generally wins the battle. That's been seen time and time again as well.
What does "no longer" mean? It has always been a system where money, power and position carry influence. Nothing new there. It's human nature, and the same everywhere in the world.

Seems to me that there is a lot of money to be made selling all of these various weapon systems commercially. Contact some of the companies making them and form a lawsuit using their resources
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 15:58   #325
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
Why dont one of you guys that wants NFA done away with get a lawyer and challenge the law based upon

3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

Saying a full auto M-4 is used by the military and therefore United States v. Miller specifically allows it. Dont ***** about it, do something about it!!


I love your sarcasm Dana. Petition our overlords for the restoration of our rights. Funny stuff.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:20.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,381
424 Members
957 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42