[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Sam, I've asked 4 simple questions. In the time it took you to respond you could've just answered them.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

To what end? I wasn't on the jury, my wishes don't make his acts excused or legal. So tell me the purpose of this intellectual exercise (word filter doesn't like the technical term for self-pleasure...).

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

To what end? I wasn't on the jury, my wishes don't make his acts excused or legal. So tell me the purpose of this intellectual exercise (word filter doesn't like the technical term for self-pleasure...).

It doesn't filter out "obtuse" though


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Sam Spade]

So explain it to me. What's your goal? How does my opinion matter here?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

So explain it to me. What's your goal? How does my opinion matter here?

It doesn't according to AKSTICK. You're just a citizen.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

It doesn't according to AKSTICK. You're just a citizen.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

In this case, he's right. Since I'm not 1 of 12, I'm 1 of 310,000,000.

Seriously, cert, why do you want to know?

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Just so we're clear on where you stand:

1. Do you believe that citizens should have to go through the government and pay a tax to own or manufacture a full auto rifle?No.

2. Do you think the 4473 process should exist?I suppose I am okay with it if it gets shredded the minute I pick up my gun.

3. Do you think that someone should have to possess a federal license to sell guns as a business?Sure. Why not. Zoning and such.






.

Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

In the end what difference does it make what I think?

[poikilotrm]

Originally Posted by CAcop

In the end what difference does it make what I think?

It makes a ton if you enforce laws you KNOW to be unConstitutional in spite of your oath.

Do you actively enforce CA state gun laws that fly in the face of the 2nd?

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by poikilotrm

It makes a ton if you enforce laws you KNOW to be unConstitutional in spite of your oath.

First, neither CAcop nor I enforce federal laws. Second, who says they're unconstitutional? Was it someone whose opinion actually counts?

[TBO]

That's the train I saw coming the whole time. CF just didn't want to say it yet.

That tired old line is just more of: "I want what I wants".

SSDD

[elsolo]

The responses in this thread is how I know that when the laws change, most gun owners will stand in line to turn their guns in.

Then they will get excited to notify the authorities the next week when discovered that their neighbor didn't turn his guns in.

"But he broke an unconstitutional law, screw him"

[poikilotrm]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

First, neither CAcop nor I enforce federal laws. Second, who says they're unconstitutional? Was it someone whose opinion actually counts?

You are bound by oath to uphold and defend the law, including Federal law. You are also bound to obey it.

You may not be primarily tasked with Fed law enforcement, but you will certainly act to arrest a Federal fugitive or someone with a Federal warrant, so your contention fails.

Secondly, I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. They will tell you in no uncertain terms what the Second Amendment is about. Since they are the guys who wrote the thing, and since the SCOTUS tries to follow their lead, I assure you, their opinions actually count.

Now, either answer my questions or take a seat and hold your tongue.

[TBO]

[Glock20 10mm]

Originally Posted by elsolo

The responses in this thread is how I know that when the laws change, most gun owners will stand in line to turn their guns in.

Then they will get excited to notify the authorities the next week when discovered that their neighbor didn't turn his guns in.

"But he broke an unconstitutional law, screw him"

You saw that too?

[Glock20 10mm]

Originally Posted by countrygun

"I don't think that law should exist"

That's what Charlie Manson said.

Hmm, comparing murder to a very well defined right (the definitions are within the Federalist papers...) doesn't make much sense.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by poikilotrm

You are bound by oath to uphold and defend the law, including Federal law. You are also bound to obey it.

You may not be primarily tasked with Fed law enforcement, but you will certainly act to arrest a Federal fugitive or someone with a Federal warrant, so your contention fails.

Secondly, I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. They will tell you in no uncertain terms what the Second Amendment is about. Since they are the guys who wrote the thing, and since the SCOTUS tries to follow their lead, I assure you, their opinions actually count.

Now, either answer my questions or take a seat and hold your tongue.

You don't have a clue, do you?

I am in no way "bound by oath to uphold and defend the law, including Federal law." It's not in my oath, it's not in my commission. I am neither a Special nor a General Agent of the Federal Government.

I have read Federalist/Anti-Federalist. Interestingly, I saw neither statute nor case law in there. Maybe you could point that out to me. Here's a related point: Congress shall make no law concerning quite a few things in the 1st Amendment. Yet they have, and the President has signed them, and the courts have enforced them...even when the Authors were still alive. How is this possible? What part of "make no law" didn't they understand. Or maybe, just maybe, things aren't the way you think they are.

As to your last...go pound sand.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by countrygun

"I don't think that law should exist"

That's what Charlie Manson said.

Good point.

Some folks on here just see their view as the only view, all others are not only incorrect but held only but the uniformed and uneducated. Closed minded and rude often go hand in hand in some folks. If they can not "convince" you of their vast intellectual superiority over you they eventually resort to trying to brow beat you down with insults to "prove" their point. I see you have already found one of those folks on this thread

The numbskull referenced in the OP made so many stupid moves in this little adventure of his I am surprised he did not get caught earlier. He basically begged for this heap of crap to fall upon him.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by poikilotrm

You are bound by oath to uphold and defend the law, including Federal law. You are also bound to obey it.

You may not be primarily tasked with Fed law enforcement, but you will certainly act to arrest a Federal fugitive or someone with a Federal warrant, so your contention fails.

Secondly, I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. They will tell you in no uncertain terms what the Second Amendment is about. Since they are the guys who wrote the thing, and since the SCOTUS tries to follow their lead, I assure you, their opinions actually count.

Now, either answer my questions or take a seat and hold your tongue.

What did my oath say?

I know you aren't two of the three that witnessed it.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm

Hmm, comparing murder to a very well defined right (the definitions are within the Federalist papers...) doesn't make much sense.

If you ever find yourself in Court as a defendant, try telling the Judge, "I don't think the law is Constitutional, so I don't think I have to obey it", and see if you make any headlines with that brilliant defense.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by poikilotrm

You are bound by oath to uphold and defend the law, including Federal law. You are also bound to obey it.

You may not be primarily tasked with Fed law enforcement, but you will certainly act to arrest a Federal fugitive or someone with a Federal warrant, so your contention fails.

I suspect you know nothing about the subject and pulled that out of your tailpipe.

I know that wasn't close to the oath I took over 30 years ago and I haven't heard that they let you re write it since.

[Glock20 10mm]

Originally Posted by countrygun

If you ever find yourself in Court as a defendant, try telling the Judge, "I don't think the law is Constitutional, so I don't think I have to obey it", and see if you make any headlines with that brilliant defense.

I can't remember where I read it or how old I was but there is a statement, a clause that pretty much states that if a law violates the Constitution we are not obligated to follow it. I am going through the founding documents again, reading, searching for that clause. If I find it I'll be sure to post it.

[racerford]

Actually the US has successfully argued before the Supreme Court of the US that the gun describe is exactly what is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It is unfortunate that he had less than stellar lawyers.

United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

Defendants Miller and Layton filed challenged 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.

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.


So since a select fire AR-15 is what the military uses, it falls into exactly what the US government says is protected by the 2nd amendment.

That said, I do not plan to be a test case, as I do not see full auto as practical. Not that I would not like to have one if they were cheaper and ammo was cheaper and I had a lot more money to enjoy them.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm

I can't remember where I read it or how old I was but there is a statement, a clause that pretty much states that if a law violates the Constitution we are not obligated to follow it. I am going through the founding documents again, reading, searching for that clause. If I find it I'll be sure to post it.

Yes, that is wonderful, why don't we all just break every law that we decide, in our expert opinion, isn't Constitutional and we can all say, "Glock 20 10mm told me I could"

[Ruggles]

Cool so we can now determine for ourselves if a law is constitutional or not and thus if we have to obey it? That should make for a nice civilized society

[TBO]

I'm surprised our system doesn't have avenue to address/decide if a law is unconstitutional...

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by TBO

I'm surprised our system doesn't have avenue to address/decide if a law is unconstitutional...

Yeah you think the Founders would have thought of something like that as they formed our country huh?