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 02-14-2013, 20:08   #76
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,655
Blog Entries: 1


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
Yeah you think the Founders would have thought of something like that as they formed our country huh?
Ironic those who complaint about "unconstitutional laws" ignore the Constitution as well...
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:10   #77
clinttho
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashniKEV View Post
Stop the insanity.

1) He installed a FULL AUTO FCG (not a burst sear) into a modified AR WITH THE AUTO SEAR AXIS PIN. There were also mods to the BCG.

2) He loaned it to a "customer" while he waited on parts and instructed him not to place the weapon on "burst" or it would "jam."

3) The "customer" took it to a public range and fired three bursts before it malfunctioned, drawing the attention of Law Enforcement.

4) Upon seizing the firearm, Agents were able to perform 3 x 20 round mag dumps in a row, cyclic, with no malfunctions- with the selector in the third position, utilizing the installed auto sear.

Separate hilarity:

1) When interviewed regarding his machine gun, he told investigators, "That's nothing... I have a .50 cal sniper rifle!"

2) He modified 80% lowers and sold them without doing 4473s.

3) He was illegally using an FFL that was registered to another individual or entity.

4) Was in the Klan or WAR or something...
Wow at all of this. I'll have to check out the arfcom board, whatever that is.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
clinttho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:11   #78
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,170
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Oh I grasp it fine. I'm disturbed by the people here ready to back the government and criticize this guy.

BTW, your position sounds a bit hypocritical.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

How is my position hypocritical?

If I don't agree with the law, I don't obey it.

I understand, and accept, that breaking the laws have consequences. And that if I'm caught breaking the laws, that I'll suffer them.

If I believe a law is unjust/wrong/unconstitutional, I have avenues to work to change the law.



I believe this guy is guilty of breaking the law, and now he's suffering the consequences for doing so.

He had the same ability to petition to change the laws he felt were unjust, but he did not. Instead he decided to operate outside of it.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:13   #79
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
Ironic those who complaint about "unconstitutional laws" ignore the Constitution as well...
They just like to pick and choose at if they are at a Chinese buffet. A little of this, some of that and if they find something on their plate they don't like they just scrape it to the side of the plate and ignore it.
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:22   #80
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,176


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
They just like to pick and choose at if they are at a Chinese buffet. A little of this, some of that and if they find something on their plate they don't like they just scrape it to the side of the plate and ignore it.
Yup....seems those who know the system our founding fathers created like the back of their hand would remember we have a judicial branch tasked with interpreting the law and deciding what is un-Constitutional.
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:32   #81
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
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.
Post your oath. In its entirety.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:33   #82
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
What did my oath say?

I know you aren't two of the three that witnessed it.
Post your's as well.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:34   #83
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm View Post
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.
Marbury v. Madison. All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:35   #84
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
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.
It has worked in the past. You might want to do some research.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:36   #85
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Yup....seems those who know the system our founding fathers created like the back of their hand would remember we have a judicial branch tasked with interpreting the law and deciding what is un-Constitutional.
That's a lie. The SCOTUS was never created to have that function, nor was it ever tasked with it. Do some research.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:45   #86
stevelyn
NRA Life Member
 
stevelyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
Posts: 8,245
That's the way the BATFEces works. No integrity.
__________________
Usually sufferers of paraphilic infantilism are proud of their condition. Kinda like being a liberal. Your mental flaws are there for the entire world to see, and you're damned proud of it. - tank_monkey
stevelyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:48   #87
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,176


Quote:
Originally Posted by poikilotrm View Post
That's a lie. The SCOTUS was never created to have that function, nor was it ever tasked with it. Do some research.
Of course it is. It's function is a power check of the legislative and executive branches by judging their actions against the Constitution.
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:50   #88
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by poikilotrm View Post
Marbury v. Madison. All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poikilotrm View Post
That's a lie. The SCOTUS was never created to have that function, nor was it ever tasked with it. Do some research.
Talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Can't very well cite SCOTUS as to the Constituion's impact on ordinary statute while announcing that they have no authority to rule on such.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:51   #89
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by poikilotrm View Post
Post your oath. In its entirety.
Neither am I your agent.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:53   #90
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by poikilotrm View Post
It has worked in the past. You might want to do some research.
You are making the claim, show your work
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:53   #91
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Can't very well cite SCOTUS as to the Constituion's impact on ordinary statute while announcing that they have no authority to rule on such.
Ouch that hadda hurt
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:54   #92
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,792


Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Yup....seems those who know the system our founding fathers created like the back of their hand would remember we have a judicial branch tasked with interpreting the law and deciding what is un-Constitutional.
The Constitution does not empower the SCOTUS to "interpret the law". In fact, the SCOTUS is acting unconstitutionally when it assumes this power. The Constitution did not "task" it to do this.

The fedgov does not make the rules. It did not create itself.

So please don't bastardize what you believe the founding fathers did or didn't do. You really don't know what you are talking about.
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:56   #93
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Can't very well cite SCOTUS as to the Constituion's impact on ordinary statute while announcing that they have no authority to rule on such.



and well deserved.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 20:56   #94
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,792


Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Of course it is. It's function is a power check of the legislative and executive branches by judging their actions against the Constitution.
Quote:
Powers of the Supreme Court

Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
It comes in pocket size
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:08   #95
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,170
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post

So please don't bastardize what you believe the founding fathers did or didn't do. You really don't know what you are talking about.
Would you be so kind as to do the same?
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:10   #96
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,176


Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
The Constitution does not empower the SCOTUS to "interpret the law". In fact, the SCOTUS is acting unconstitutionally when it assumes this power. The Constitution did not "task" it to do this.

The fedgov does not make the rules. It did not create itself.

So please don't bastardize what you believe the founding fathers did or didn't do. You really don't know what you are talking about.
...and you will find judicial review was common practice in state courts before the Constitution and the Founding Fathers discussed the importance of the task in the Federalist papers. It was always expected.

Last edited by ray9898; 02-14-2013 at 21:11..
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:10   #97
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
And, what, do you think this part means?

"the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:12   #98
jknight8907
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Memphis TN (roughly)
Posts: 1,959
Well, if nothing else this thread has identified at least two people who help give gun owners the wingnut stereotype.
jknight8907 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:42   #99
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,792


Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
...and you will find judicial review was common practice in state courts before the Constitution and the Founding Fathers discussed the importance of the task in the Federalist papers. It was always expected.
Judicial review was one of the most hotly debated concepts in both the federalist papers AND the anti-federalist papers. It wasn't until Marbury v Madison that the SCOTUS granted itself this power in the modern sense. Regardless of what some here want to believe it isn't explicitly mentioned in the COTUS, even after so much debate.

I'm not a fan of Hamilton though I expect many on this thread are, but here is a very interesting quote from him on the subject that applies very well to the heart of this thread:

Quote:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.
Which is precisely why the people can ignore laws they deem unconstitutional. You folks seem to favor the servant being above his master.

In fact, he argued that the Court
Quote:
“bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.”
when in fact it has done precisely the opposite.

Note that nowhere does it give the court the power to deem legislation constitutional but rather to deem it unconstitutional. Many here with limited intellect and rural guns will argue that they are one in the same. They are not. One empowers the government, the other limits it. The intent of the court was very clear -- to limit the power of the government congruent with the "tenor" of a very limited Constitution. 20th century reality was quite different and incongruent with arguments in support of judicial review in the federalist papers and more congruent with the concerns expressed by Brutus.

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 02-14-2013 at 21:48..
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:43   #100
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,792


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
And, what, do you think this part means?

"the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
I think it means exactly what it says, which is not the modern application of judicial review and, in fact, NOT judicial review as debated by Hamilton.
certifiedfunds is online now   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 09:46.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,189
345 Members
844 Guests

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