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 06-13-2013, 16:03   #701
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
And that is really more of it than people want to acknowledge.


How many times do we, on gun forums, make comments about the stupid gun control laws in Mass? Well this is the other side of the trade they have been willing to make. Around this area it isn't uncommon to have to ask to search out buildings and property if there is a possibility the quarry may be there. I have talked with members of our SO about the possibilities. Almost never is the request refused. BUT, even in town proper, there would be very little reason to search homes in such a situation unless the goal was to protect the suspect. In some kind of incident like that there would be few unarmed and defenseless households and those folks would probably stay in close contact with an armed neighbor. Out in the rural areas? The suspect would surely be better off surrendering than trying to strongarm home. It is just the way of the people here. Our LEOS would have a hopeless task with their numbers, ridiculous to even contemplate but that is what we have and how we choose to have it.

Is it any real surprise that the people of Boston do not raise a whimper about what happened? That is what most of them want that is what they expect. The laws that have disarmed them were not forced down their throats at gunpoint by a dictator, there own elected officials disarmed them with their approval. Remember that is the way they do it in Boston with an unarmed populace and a large enough LE presence. If we believe in "State's Rights" well then I guess they have the right to do it that way if they want. Being willingly disarmed was more than just a decision about owning an object. It was a statement about who they believe is responsible for their safety. It was sign of their mental state and "Geist" if you will.

It is really a waste of time to say that the sheep dogs were too aggressive chasing the wolf. The sheep aren't going to protect themselves. And the have repeatedly voted to remain sheep.
,
I don't completely disagree with this except that it comes from a collectivist perspective.

What about that one guy who isn't a sheep and doesn't want his house searched? It isn't the proper role of government to decide what's best for him and force him out of his house "voluntarily". That's why simple knock and ask without pressure or intimidation is fine. Sheep can say yes. Non sheep can say no.

And just maybe sometimes people need to see or experience the consequences of their choices. That really is the underpinning of liberty. Maybe next time they don't vote to disarm themselves.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 17:30   #702
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,532
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger1968 View Post
My point exactly;

There WAS no exigency;

It was a heavy handed tactic, with no foundation in law.
Were their actions illegal or criminal or neither?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 17:38   #703
ranger1968
Senior Member
 
ranger1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,997
If they forced their way into homes or coerced the homeowners to allow them to enter, then their actions were a 4th Amendment violation;

That's pretty obvious;

Whether any real "harm" arose from that is something that I do not know, but it IS unlawful; were any criminal charges to arise out of anything they found in the homes, I think it would be suppressed.

This is pretty clear cut law; there are specific criteria for exigent circumstances , and the door to door search of the Watertown Boston area that occurred does not meet that criteria.....That a crime occurred at another location , and that the suspect in that crime is at large is NOT enough to justify the interior search of almost all of the homes in that entire neighborhood , no matter what the crime was, and no matter how inflamed the populace had been become.

Last edited by ranger1968; 06-13-2013 at 17:48..
ranger1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 18:03   #704
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger1968 View Post
If they forced their way into homes or coerced the homeowners to allow them to enter, then their actions were a 4th Amendment violation;

That's pretty obvious;

Whether any real "harm" arose from that is something that I do not know, but it IS unlawful; were any criminal charges to arise out of anything they found in the homes, I think it would be suppressed.

This is pretty clear cut law; there are specific criteria for exigent circumstances , and the door to door search of the Watertown Boston area that occurred does not meet that criteria.....That a crime occurred at another location , and that the suspect in that crime is at large is NOT enough to justify the interior search of almost all of the homes in that entire neighborhood , no matter what the crime was, and no matter how inflamed the populace had been become.
It really is very clear cut. Not very complicated at all. Very easy to simply understand the intent of the application of exigent circumstances to realize that it didnt apply without even needing to apply exact criteria.

It was very disturbing to see so many LEOs here twisting things to justify it and make it fit when it clearly didnt.




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 18:13   #705
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I don't completely disagree with this except that it comes from a collectivist perspective.

What about that one guy who isn't a sheep and doesn't want his house searched? It isn't the proper role of government to decide what's best for him and force him out of his house "voluntarily". That's why simple knock and ask without pressure or intimidation is fine. Sheep can say yes. Non sheep can say no.

And just maybe sometimes people need to see or experience the consequences of their choices. That really is the underpinning of liberty. Maybe next time they don't vote to disarm themselves.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

At what point do we draw a line?

Suppose you are in a State where there are "blue laws" concerning alcohol. Now you certainly have a right to own alcohol but you don't like not being able to buy a beer on a Sunday. Is that State violating your rights ? You have the freedom to move somewhere else.

In this particular case I have heard of a whole lot more complaints from people who weren't there than from the supposed victims. I would also point out that there is a "community standard" issue that may well be at play here. If 99% of the people who were involved state that they consider the searches "reasonable and prudent" well that is a community standard and I am not positive, in my mind, that say, the Federal Government or Court has much business telling a community that they can't have that standard. I realize that we are talking about a Constitutional right but, like joining an HOA, people have a right to give away their rights. As much as I hate the idea and find it a disgusting reflection of the wussification of our society I actually think any legal challenge of this should start in the Court of the community and the rest of the Country should mind its own business.

To say that we support "State's Rights" but then to expect all States to have the same way of dealing with things is a bit silly to me. If we want to be free of an oppressive gigantic Government we are going to have to allow for more "Local Standards" again, yes it is a Constitutional Right issue but lets see how, if it is challenged at all, the local Courts resolve it. So much of what I hear in terms of complaints about it from folks who weren't there, is a bit weak. I have absolutely no problem, from a logical stand point with the idea of searching for a guy who has been connected to murder, bombing, kidnapping. That seems reasonable and prudent to me. Those who like to crow that, the guy was spotted not by the cops but a homeowner, are just not very impressive. That was the way it worked out by luck of the draw. I can't see anyone being happy if the cops had said "well we can't see him, let's all go home and let the civilians work it out and call us if they need us". The devil is in the details here.

Around here a person who can't protect there own is the exception and one of the reasons we don't have the danger of the search and little from a fugitive, but when you have community filled with people who have abdicated their responsibility to defend their community, something has to fill that void, be it cops or crooks.

To nutshell it. I have no sympathy and little interest in what becomes of people who have become helpless and dependent on Government. If there are a few that don't what others are comfortable with they should ^^%& well move because that would be a first step in regaining control over their own lives, but that also includes "Reponsibility For". Being surrounded by helpless neighbors is not a way I would choose to live.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 19:35   #706
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
At what point do we draw a line?

Suppose you are in a State where there are "blue laws" concerning alcohol. Now you certainly have a right to own alcohol but you don't like not being able to buy a beer on a Sunday. Is that State violating your rights ? You have the freedom to move somewhere else.

In this particular case I have heard of a whole lot more complaints from people who weren't there than from the supposed victims. I would also point out that there is a "community standard" issue that may well be at play here. If 99% of the people who were involved state that they consider the searches "reasonable and prudent" well that is a community standard and I am not positive, in my mind, that say, the Federal Government or Court has much business telling a community that they can't have that standard. I realize that we are talking about a Constitutional right but, like joining an HOA, people have a right to give away their rights. As much as I hate the idea and find it a disgusting reflection of the wussification of our society I actually think any legal challenge of this should start in the Court of the community and the rest of the Country should mind its own business.

To say that we support "State's Rights" but then to expect all States to have the same way of dealing with things is a bit silly to me. If we want to be free of an oppressive gigantic Government we are going to have to allow for more "Local Standards" again, yes it is a Constitutional Right issue but lets see how, if it is challenged at all, the local Courts resolve it. So much of what I hear in terms of complaints about it from folks who weren't there, is a bit weak. I have absolutely no problem, from a logical stand point with the idea of searching for a guy who has been connected to murder, bombing, kidnapping. That seems reasonable and prudent to me. Those who like to crow that, the guy was spotted not by the cops but a homeowner, are just not very impressive. That was the way it worked out by luck of the draw. I can't see anyone being happy if the cops had said "well we can't see him, let's all go home and let the civilians work it out and call us if they need us". The devil is in the details here.

Around here a person who can't protect there own is the exception and one of the reasons we don't have the danger of the search and little from a fugitive, but when you have community filled with people who have abdicated their responsibility to defend their community, something has to fill that void, be it cops or crooks.

To nutshell it. I have no sympathy and little interest in what becomes of people who have become helpless and dependent on Government. If there are a few that don't what others are comfortable with they should ^^%& well move because that would be a first step in regaining control over their own lives, but that also includes "Reponsibility For". Being surrounded by helpless neighbors is not a way I would choose to live.
Alcohol? I mean yes you have a right to own alcohol as far as the Feds are concerned thanks to the 9th and 10th amendments but a business can certainly be restricted from selling it by municipalities but not by the Feds.

The danger with this situation is that if it isn't challenged or is challenged and upheld, it will be repeated and such things will become considered legitimate police operations. A few on this thread and others have stated or implied that the police can and should do whatever needed to catch a bad guy unless the courts have ruled they couldn't. That's a frightening perspective. There are more important things than catching violent terrorists or saving lives. We don't need police pushing the envelope of power.

My constitutional perspective died more than 100 years ago. I believe the Constitution should only restrict the federal government except insofar as it designates the states' roles and obligations as members of the nation, and those powers granted to it by the Cotus. States should be able to restrict any and all individual liberties, including those codified in the Bill of Rights. If a state wants to prohibit gun ownership they should be able to. Likewise the citizens are free to move to a state that governs its citizens in a manner with which they want to be governed. 50 little experiments in liberty and markets competing for citizens. If that was the case, the people of Boston can allow all of the 4th amendment violations they wish. However, since the SCOTUS corrupted the COTUS that isn't the case so what happens in Boston has potential to affect every other US citizen if left uncontested or upheld.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 06-13-2013 at 19:39..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 19:42   #707
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
At what point do we draw a line?

Suppose you are in a State where there are "blue laws" concerning alcohol. Now you certainly have a right to own alcohol but you don't like not being able to buy a beer on a Sunday. Is that State violating your rights ? You have the freedom to move somewhere else.

In this particular case I have heard of a whole lot more complaints from people who weren't there than from the supposed victims. I would also point out that there is a "community standard" issue that may well be at play here. If 99% of the people who were involved state that they consider the searches "reasonable and prudent" well that is a community standard and I am not positive, in my mind, that say, the Federal Government or Court has much business telling a community that they can't have that standard. I realize that we are talking about a Constitutional right but, like joining an HOA, people have a right to give away their rights. As much as I hate the idea and find it a disgusting reflection of the wussification of our society I actually think any legal challenge of this should start in the Court of the community and the rest of the Country should mind its own business.

To say that we support "State's Rights" but then to expect all States to have the same way of dealing with things is a bit silly to me. If we want to be free of an oppressive gigantic Government we are going to have to allow for more "Local Standards" again, yes it is a Constitutional Right issue but lets see how, if it is challenged at all, the local Courts resolve it. So much of what I hear in terms of complaints about it from folks who weren't there, is a bit weak. I have absolutely no problem, from a logical stand point with the idea of searching for a guy who has been connected to murder, bombing, kidnapping. That seems reasonable and prudent to me. Those who like to crow that, the guy was spotted not by the cops but a homeowner, are just not very impressive. That was the way it worked out by luck of the draw. I can't see anyone being happy if the cops had said "well we can't see him, let's all go home and let the civilians work it out and call us if they need us". The devil is in the details here.

Around here a person who can't protect there own is the exception and one of the reasons we don't have the danger of the search and little from a fugitive, but when you have community filled with people who have abdicated their responsibility to defend their community, something has to fill that void, be it cops or crooks.

To nutshell it. I have no sympathy and little interest in what becomes of people who have become helpless and dependent on Government. If there are a few that don't what others are comfortable with they should ^^%& well move because that would be a first step in regaining control over their own lives, but that also includes "Reponsibility For". Being surrounded by helpless neighbors is not a way I would choose to live.
Also, there is a world of difference between searching for the suspect and pointing rifles at a resident and ordering them out of their homes"voluntarily".

Knock and ask, fine. Search the streets, fine. Search yards, fine.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 19:54   #708
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,558
Blog Entries: 1


Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Also, there is a world of difference between searching for the suspect and pointing rifles at a resident and ordering them out of their homes"voluntarily".

Knock and ask, fine. Search the streets, fine. Search yards, fine.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Substantiate? Who/how many?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
__________________
"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 06-13-2013, 20:46   #709
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
Substantiate? Who/how many?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Dunno. How many are too many?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 21:27   #710
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,532
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Were their actions illegal or criminal or neither?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger1968 View Post
If they forced their way into homes or coerced the homeowners to allow them to enter, then their actions were a 4th Amendment violation;

That's pretty obvious;
Thanks...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 09:55   #711
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Alcohol? I mean yes you have a right to own alcohol as far as the Feds are concerned thanks to the 9th and 10th amendments but a business can certainly be restricted from selling it by municipalities but not by the Feds.

The danger with this situation is that if it isn't challenged or is challenged and upheld, it will be repeated and such things will become considered legitimate police operations. A few on this thread and others have stated or implied that the police can and should do whatever needed to catch a bad guy unless the courts have ruled they couldn't. That's a frightening perspective. There are more important things than catching violent terrorists or saving lives. We don't need police pushing the envelope of power.

My constitutional perspective died more than 100 years ago. I believe the Constitution should only restrict the federal government except insofar as it designates the states' roles and obligations as members of the nation, and those powers granted to it by the Cotus. States should be able to restrict any and all individual liberties, including those codified in the Bill of Rights. If a state wants to prohibit gun ownership they should be able to. Likewise the citizens are free to move to a state that governs its citizens in a manner with which they want to be governed. 50 little experiments in liberty and markets competing for citizens. If that was the case, the people of Boston can allow all of the 4th amendment violations they wish. However, since the SCOTUS corrupted the COTUS that isn't the case so what happens in Boston has potential to affect every other US citizen if left uncontested or upheld.

Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
What's new about that? Since the 1800s, and out here in the west I might add, people have allowed or wanted their Second Amendment rights limited. Some of the first "Gun Control" measures were City ordinances that curtailed the right to carry. It seems the Country survived and, quite in fact many of those old cow towns now have CCW and open carry laws now that drunken cowboys aren't shooting up the town on a Saturday night.

If we are to accept the notion of "States Rights" and "Individual responsibility" and all that goes with it we have to accept the notion that the people somewhere else might choose to do things differently than we do. Even with most of the Country seeing a change in the last couple of decades in gun control laws, mostly for the better, Mass has some of the most severe restrictions on the 2A, by their own supported State Legislature, and they seem to be upheld but it doesn't seem to have caused me any problem where I am at.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 10:27   #712
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
What's new about that? Since the 1800s, and out here in the west I might add, people have allowed or wanted their Second Amendment rights limited. Some of the first "Gun Control" measures were City ordinances that curtailed the right to carry. It seems the Country survived and, quite in fact many of those old cow towns now have CCW and open carry laws now that drunken cowboys aren't shooting up the town on a Saturday night.

If we are to accept the notion of "States Rights" and "Individual responsibility" and all that goes with it we have to accept the notion that the people somewhere else might choose to do things differently than we do. Even with most of the Country seeing a change in the last couple of decades in gun control laws, mostly for the better, Mass has some of the most severe restrictions on the 2A, by their own supported State Legislature, and they seem to be upheld but it doesn't seem to have caused me any problem where I am at.
Correct and I'm actually agreeing with you. The problem is the 9th and 10th are dead so what happens in Boston can affect me. You can't have a foot in both pools and expect to swim across.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 10:37   #713
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Correct and I'm actually agreeing with you. The problem is the 9th and 10th are dead so what happens in Boston can affect me. You can't have a foot in both pools and expect to swim across.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
How, pray tell?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 10:43   #714
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
How, pray tell?
How what?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 10:46   #715
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,558
Blog Entries: 1


How are they dead? (the above is a great example of why folks dropped off this thread).

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
__________________
"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 06-14-2013, 10:51   #716
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
How are they dead? (the above is a great example of why folks dropped off this thread).

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Excuse me?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 11:05   #717
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,558
Blog Entries: 1


Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Excuse me?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Let's look at his question of your post:

Civil Liberties Issues

--------

It should be simple to deduce the only possible questions are:

1. How are the 9th and 10th dead?
2. How can what happened in Boston affect you?
3. What are the pools each foot are in, and what is being crossed?

You are the one who says a complicated subject is "easy" and "clear", yet can't deduce the above? I'm not buying it.
Just an example of not exchanging in good faith, imho.

It's what I tired of in this thread. It would be pages shorter if being intentionally obtuse or disingenuous were eliminated.

This is an appeal to leave that stuff behind, and just partake straight up.

That is all, nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
"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 06-14-2013, 14:55   #718
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
Let's look at his question of your post:

Civil Liberties Issues

--------

It should be simple to deduce the only possible questions are:

1. How are the 9th and 10th dead?
2. How can what happened in Boston affect you?
3. What are the pools each foot are in, and what is being crossed?

You are the one who says a complicated subject is "easy" and "clear", yet can't deduce the above? I'm not buying it.
Just an example of not exchanging in good faith, imho.

It's what I tired of in this thread. It would be pages shorter if being intentionally obtuse or disingenuous were eliminated.

This is an appeal to leave that stuff behind, and just partake straight up.

That is all, nothing more, nothing less.
Out of that one question you now make 3. And you wonder why I responded for clarification, huh?

Oh, this is too rich. The guy known for avoiding direct answers and lobbing in short riddle-like statements is criticizing my posts as disingenuous. Frankly, that's the most words I think I've ever seen you post.

There was nothing disingenuous about my statements on this thread. I've engaged at length dozens of times. In this case I'm actually having a dialogue with a poster I seldom agree with and finding common ground. Why you choose to jump in with this nonsense now is beyond me. Besides, several left this thread pages ago because they were made to look foolish because someone like me knew more about exigent circumstances than professional LE (commanders and supervisors according to Russ). I can see where that is embarrassing.

You asked a question and made a statement. The question was absurd on its face so I wasn't sure I understood it correctly. Further, I didn't understand the purpose of your statement. I replied with a question for clarification so I could answer appropriately.

1. The 9th and 10th are dead because the federal government has seized power in areas not authorized by the Constitution and, in most cases, done so in extra-constitutional ways. I'm surprised this comes as a revelation to you as it has been debated and written about in legal and political circles extensively. Would you like examples?

2. I've already answered this several times but will again. I guess you haven't read through. Russ scolded me for the same thing just a few posts back. You should be fine though. Anyway, if the people of Boston choose to surrender their 4th Amendment rights and no one challenges some of the police searches, they can stand as precedent and become a component of acceptable police procedures, because as LE on this thread have said, police should do whatever the courts haven't specifically already told them they can't, in order to catch a violent criminal even if they break the law, believing that they coukd "hang a jury". Others believe its ok to disregard the law and someones rights because they could hide behind reasonsble and prudent. If they are challenged and upheld new case law will be written that weakens the 4th Amendment. Because the 9th and 10th are dead, what happens in boston may not stay in boston. If affirmed by a corrupt court, federal law will support this being acceptable police tactics and scenes like what we saw will happen again and with greater frequency, and with federal LE too.

On the other hand, if the 9th and 10th were still more than ink on old parchment, Boston and the state of Mass could do whatever they wish.

3. Countrygun is saying that if we want stronger states rights we must allow the people of Boston to handle this (surrender the 4th). I agree with that conceptually, if the 9th and 10th were still in full effect, but since they aren't, see #2. Countrygun offers as evidence states with more gun restrictions than his. I don't know where he lives so I can't comment on his state specifically but if he thinks that gun control hasn't propagated in the form of a weakened second amendment because of anti's success in some states he would be mistaken in my opinion. I offer you the unconstitutional BATFE as one of many examples and every federal gun law on the books when the Constitution expressly prohibits it. How did these commonly accepted violations of the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendments happen? A corrupt court decided that an obscure clause negates the entire bill of rights if the activity crosses state lines or doesnt cross state lines.

Now, were we still the same Constitutional nation the U.S. were founded as, that wouldn't be the case because the 9th and 10th would prohibit it.

Now TBO, I can't get any more straight up than that. I've been straight up throughout the Boston threads. You can't say the same. Use more words in your posts, say what you mean, answer questions clearly, and perhaps your intent may be clearer.

The fact that it required this:


Quote:
It should be simple to deduce the only possible questions are:

1. How are the 9th and 10th dead?
2. How can what happened in Boston affect you?
3. What are the pools each foot are in, and what is being crossed?

You are the one who says a complicated subject is "easy" and "clear", yet can't deduce the above? I'm not buying it.
Just an example of not exchanging in good faith, imho.

It's what I tired of in this thread. It would be pages shorter if being intentionally obtuse or disingenuous were eliminated.

This is an appeal to leave that stuff behind, and just partake straight up.

That is all, nothing more, nothing less.
To explain what you wanted when you posted this:

Quote:
How are they dead? (the above is a great example of why folks dropped off this thread).
ought to illustrate that for you

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 06-14-2013 at 17:28..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 08:40   #719
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,532
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
1. The 9th and 10th are dead because the federal government has seized power in areas not authorized by the Constitution and, in most cases, done so in extra-constitutional ways...Would you like examples?
Let's start with the 9th...yes, examples, please.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921

Last edited by RussP; 06-16-2013 at 08:41..
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 09:20   #720
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,532
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
2. How can what happened in Boston affect you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
2. I've already answered this several times but will again. I guess you haven't read through. Russ scolded me for the same thing just a few posts back. You should be fine though.
I do not recall that post. Could you link me to that, please...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 12:20   #721
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
I do not recall that post. Could you link me to that, please...
#682




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 12:35   #722
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Let's start with the 9th...yes, examples, please.
Lets go straight to everyone's favorite: federal drug laws - fed has no authority to regulate narcotics therefore you have a right to own, consume or manufacture any substance unless prohibited by the state in which you reside.

After that: federal gun laws, specifically NFA or even FFL licensing. The fedgov has no authority to regulate firearms, accessories or the manufacture/sale of such. Therefore you have a right to own or manufacture a machine gun unless prohibited by your state.

Then: EPA regulation of private property

Followed by: virtually every federal power, regulation or supporting agency justified via the interstate commerce or necessary and proper clause.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 17:11   #723
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,532
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Lets go straight to everyone's favorite: federal drug laws - fed has no authority to regulate narcotics therefore you have a right to own, consume or manufacture any substance unless prohibited by the state in which you reside.

After that: federal gun laws, specifically NFA or even FFL licensing. The fedgov has no authority to regulate firearms, accessories or the manufacture/sale of such. Therefore you have a right to own or manufacture a machine gun unless prohibited by your state.

Then: EPA regulation of private property

Followed by: virtually every federal power, regulation or supporting agency justified via the interstate commerce or necessary and proper clause.
Okay...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 17:12   #724
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,532
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
#682
Really? You didn't understand before that post, and you did not understand that post.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921

Last edited by RussP; 06-16-2013 at 17:15..
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 18:57   #725
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Okay...
That's it? Ok?

Why did you want examples?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
arrogance of ignorance, brownshirts, jbterrific, no court needed, statists, the usual suspects
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 On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:01.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,082
312 Members
770 Guests

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