Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 6
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 129

Thread: Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul53 View Post
    Nope, nope, nope. Laws and rights deal in facts which must be undeniable. What's a gang? I belong to The Emergency Nurses Association. They have backed in writing actions against hospitals that put profit ahead of patients best interest. If just one of these has been ruled illegal, then I can't have a weapon? 60 years old, muscular dystrophy which is why I believe I need help with self defense, clear background checks, CCL, numerous local and state awards, The Presidents Volunteer Action Award, but as an ENA member I'm a gang member? I sympathize with police officers, but wishing weapons would only work for good people and that unicorns will help us is just as good as anybodies opininon of what "a gang" is.
    Actually, there's legalese to define what a gang is:

    The modern notion of organized crime in the United States has expanded beyond the prototypical paradigm of family operations. Organized crime in the early 2000s refers to any group of persons in a continuing operation of criminal activity, including streetGangs. To combat the violence and other illegal activity of street gangs, federal and state legislatures have passed laws pertaining specifically to street gangs. Many states provide extra punishment for persons in street gangs who are convicted of certain crimes.


    On the federal level, a street gang is defined as an ongoing group, club, organization, or association of five or more persons formed for the purpose of committing a violent crime or drug offense, with members who have engaged in a continuing series of violent crimes or drug law violations that affect interstate or foreign commerce (18 U.S.C.A. 521). Any person in a street gang convicted for committing or conspiring to commit a violent federal crime or certain federal drug offenses receives an extra ten years in prison beyond the prison sentence for the actual crime.

    Nevada has a legal definition of a criminal gang, I'll dig it up tomorrow.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  2.   
  3. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues
    In your corner Blues in this discussion/argument except for this:

    ...Many, if not most, cops are also full time criminals, as are prosecutors, judges, attorneys general, presidents and even Supreme Court justices...
    This statement is untrue, preposterous, and even libelous. My long service in the Marine Corps and tangential service to a federal law enforcement agency brought me in regular contact with many, many good people, at all the levels of law enforcement you mention, who are not thugs, brownshirts, and certainly not career criminals. Many? Most? You pose as some kind of constitutional guru, but this is the rant of a crackpot. You need to get out more.
    Libelous? Get real.

    Other than that, I will clarify my thought-process on that score. First though, I "pose" as nothing at all. I don't base any of my conclusions about founding principles on modern musings that I find on the internet. I have spent the better part of my adult life (most of which was pre-internet) studying American history out of a deep interest in it. When I have a question about the meaning of a word, phrase, section or article in the Constitution, I turn to the Federalist Papers and any other recorded speeches, letters or published writings of the men who founded this country for my answers. Just because I possess knowledge that is the result of a voracious appetite for first-hand, contemporaneous-to-the-era scholarship, doesn't make me any more of a "guru" on the subjects that interest me than your first-hand knowledge of the cops you spent time with makes you a guru on the wider LE community. You base your opinions of cops on your first-hand experience, I base my opinions of constitutional precepts and concepts on the first-hand experience of the men who wrote it. If I get something wrong, please do point it out and let's figure out the factual way to state it together, but there's no reason to demean my research by basically dismissing it as the rantings of a "poser" or "guru."

    Now, to my rationale for the "offending" statement. I mentioned DUI checks earlier. Throw in the 100-mile Constitution-free zone that surrounds the borders of the USA, and that's a good place to start that will include most, or maybe all, of the vocations I supposedly "libeled."

    Here is the 4th Amendment:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    So a LAC gets stopped at a DUI or Border Patrol "citizen" check. That's the first crime to his rights. Absolutely no probable cause is used in either of those two types of stops. Cops - local, state and federal - make those stops every single day of the week all across this country. Multiply those daily unconstitutional stops by entire careers of those performing them, and right there you have many "career" criminals.

    Searches ensue from many of those stops for any number of reasons. Maybe the person being stopped actually is running drugs or guns or driving impaired, but read the 4A above and show me upon what authority the search is predicated if there's no probable cause as the beginning of a forced LE contact. So now we've doubled the number of crimes; a no-PC stop and an unreasonable search, and that's all before we get into all that...."particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized...." mumbo-jumbo that cops seem to be incapable of understanding and/or abiding by. The cop at the DUI check thinks he smells alcohol on the breath of the subject, and says, "Mr. Citizen, have you been drinking tonight?" Citizen answers honestly, "Yes Sir, I had one beer with dinner three hours ago." Guess what that is? The question is asking Mr. Citizen to incriminate himself, and thinking he's got nothing to hide, or that he's nowhere near impaired, he does just that - incriminates himself. Why? Because some politician at the State Capitol managed to get a law passed that lowers the BAC so that it becomes "probable cause" to run sobriety tests or breathalyzer tests if admissions of any alcohol consumption within the last six to eight hours are given, regardless of Mr. Citizen's complete lack of any impairment.

    And even if Officer Notsofriendly doesn't have that new "tool" with which to "take drunk drivers off the streets," where does he get off asking questions that could incriminate a subject without giving them their Miranda rights?

    We go from there to a prosecutor who knowingly prosecutes cases that were the result of at least one constitutional violation before a single word was spoken between citizen and cop, and judges who likewise allow the case to go to trial and (sometimes) find people guilty, further depriving their 4A rights by either seizing their person and putting it in jail, or their property in the form of fines.

    Now, the above is an admittedly lightweight example. It's purposely simple. If we wanted to get into the more complicated examples, we might ask where in the Constitution does it give Chief Justice John Roberts the authority to rewrite both the letter and spirit of a law he's judging the constitutionality of by changing the word "fine" to the word "tax" because he saw it as his "duty" to try to find a way to make ObamaCare "constitutional?" Another might be the code of silence that unquestionably permeates law enforcement in this country, where one cop falsifies a report, or plants evidence, or severely injures or maybe even kills someone in their custody, and several other cops on the scene know it and say nothing. Withholding evidence is a crime, and if the evidence being withheld involves a brother/sister-cop, the incidence of crossing that code of silence is notoriously minuscule in this country.

    The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and while I will concede that most law-breaking cops, prosecutors and judges have the best of intentions, their complicity in violating founding principles and constitutional constraints in the name of "protecting" the citizenry makes them no less criminal than those who flout the law with bad intentions.

    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison.

    Likewise, being a habitual law-breaker is insidious to the point of not being able to recognize it as such when your government and justice system support you from first illegal forced contact with a citizen to opening fire on innocent women delivering newspapers in SoCal during the Dorner hysteria (none of the eight cops who fired on them are charged with a crime).

    Objective observation of what goes on in this country informs me that you are mistaken, JCliff. There is nothing preposterous, untrue, or certainly not libelous (truth is an absolute defense against libel) about the assertion you commented on. It can be honestly and truthfully said that there are degrees of criminality, but many, even most, cops are career criminals to one degree or another whether or not it's intentional or just plain rote succumbed to because of the consequences of crossing that thin blue line.

    I rest my case.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    116
    Has this discussion devolved from the OP or what?

    In this edition, help me to understand the difference between the GIP law proposed and the existing "No Fly" lists.

    The No Fly list prohibits access to commercial aircraft when an individual is identified as a member of that list. No restriction on travel, just on the method of travel. If singled out, does one of these prohibited individuals encounter additional detention, illegal search, etc?

    Regarding the GIP law, even with the protections envisioned like a waiting period to contest the entry to the list and a remediation period allowing one to leave the list, the GIP list infringes on Constitutional protections. And, by changing the force of the law to delay removal of the firearm and/ or reinstatement of it, the intent of the law s gutted: removing access to firearms from known gang members. This point alone argues for abandoning the effort to create additional tools for LEO's to remove guns from gangs through additional laws.

    There may be reasons for legislating additional penalties or mandatory sentences for GIP firearms, but a primary offense of GIP should be avoided. Just my additional $0.02
    ________

    DRNurse1

  5. #54
    What's the point? All this time and effort wasted on who can carry what and where. Criminals won't play by those rules in any case.

    It would be much easier to simply punish those few that abuse guns promptly and decisively than fiddle with all sorts of laws and restrictions that get ignored by the few people that are the problem as opposed to us which are not.
    Knarren und Zigarren!!!

  6. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    You should actually read what I've been saying. You don't have to agree with me, it would be nice if you added something constructive to the conversation other than just making a nondescript insult. And in the end, if what I'm saying is so bothersome to you, why are you reading it?

    Dude, NO-ONE agrees with you... Multiple people on here have schooled you and shown you how wrong you are in almost all of the posts in this thread, YET YOU KEEP INSISTING ON DIGGING YOURSELF INTO DEEPER HOLES.......

    Nearly everything you suggest infringes on other rights, yet you insist that they dont.... If multiple people on a "Rights" Forum, (most of them with MANY more posts and likes than you) say you are not correct in your thinking, then you should start to get a clue.... Really though, I doubt if you are.... You keep proving that you know even less than even we thought you do....

    Here is an example of how most of us see you now after all you have written in this post:

    You: the sky is pink
    US: sorry guy, the sky is blue
    You: No way! it is off red!
    US: really guy, it is blue, you need to think about this
    You: fine I see your point, it is pink....
    US: shut up already and get a clue...
    You: really guys, just think about it, if we only look through these special glasses (not reality) then it is pink and always will be, and there will be unicorns and ....
    US: go away

  7. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,097
    When the truth be told no one should be considered a safe bet to possess a firearm. Christopher Dorner is only one shiny example of LEO gone outta control. Is a guy that pushed his nagging wife out of his way so he could leave the house only to be charged with and convicted of domestic violence any more dangerous with a gun than say....Martha Stewart. We have gotten way too caught up in the myriad of definitions of what constitutes a dangerous threat. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of a man. I suppose a drunken psychotic shouldn't have a gun but by law neither should Scooter Libby. But by law Bill Clinton is not prohibited from possessing a firearm. Scooter Libby may have gotten some facts wrong but Bill Clinton is a known sexual predator. Let God sort em' out. Until he got sent to prison for his last crime OJ Simpson was not prohibited from possessing a firearm. Now that really makes sense doesn't it? The entire purpose of defining certain people as being prohibited is leading to all persons being defined as prohibited. An armed society is a safe society!

  8. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Dude, NO-ONE agrees with you... Multiple people on here have schooled you and shown you how wrong you are in almost all of the posts in this thread, YET YOU KEEP INSISTING ON DIGGING YOURSELF INTO DEEPER HOLES.......

    Nearly everything you suggest infringes on other rights, yet you insist that they dont.... If multiple people on a "Rights" Forum, (most of them with MANY more posts and likes than you) say you are not correct in your thinking, then you should start to get a clue.... Really though, I doubt if you are.... You keep proving that you know even less than even we thought you do....

    Here is an example of how most of us see you now after all you have written in this post:

    You: the sky is pink
    US: sorry guy, the sky is blue
    You: No way! it is off red!
    US: really guy, it is blue, you need to think about this
    You: fine I see your point, it is pink....
    US: shut up already and get a clue...
    You: really guys, just think about it, if we only look through these special glasses (not reality) then it is pink and always will be, and there will be unicorns and ....
    US: go away
    I think I have been more than fair and level headed. I asked for discussion. Instead, what I got was a very limited response, It's unconstitutional. Not that anyone here is a Constitutional Scholar, a Judge, a Lawyer, a Law student, intern, or high school civics teacher. (Not that I put much faith in anything our current Constitutional Scholar In Chief has to say), but still, I thought I could get a reasoned and civil discussion. I was wrong. For the record, once again, whenever anyone did deign to elaborate, I thought their points had merit. I simply offered my feeble solution to a reasonable problem, but somehow that got twisted into me being all knowing and inflexible. WTF!

    For the record, I'd like to point out that there is not one single time during this thread that I took a position that any of this IS Constitutional. Every single time someone pointed out a specific thing that could be unconstitutional I thought their point was reasonable and I offered up something that I, in my common man level of comprehension of the law, would address the concern and would still make a law like this possible. For that, I was treated like I'm the person the nation has to count on to defend this law to the Supreme's. Instead of discussing the merits and concerns of law, I found myself having to address the precept that all cops are criminals, Nazi Brown Shirts, and that nobody likes me and I should go away.

    I started the thread for the reasons I gave in the first post, I wanted a discussion. That concept seems lost on some. I also believed that for the most part, we are all kindred spirits in that we all want to protect our 2nd Amendment rights and we all have a vested interest in getting ahead of crime. I knew before I started this thread that there are some people here that have widely different opinions. I KNOW there's some that think the 2nd gives everyone the right to have a gun, even if they've been convicted of murdering a classroom full of children. I know that some here think the police are every bit as much a criminal as Al Capone. I think we can all agree that we don't always agree the same. What I was foolish about was thinking others would be like me and respect that we all have varying opinions on what is right or wrong and that we can still have an intelligent discussion about those differences. What I find amazing is how many times I clarify someththing, it's interpreted as if I said something exactly opposite. How many times did I have to clarify what the loophole is? How many times was I painted at writing legislation? How many times did I explain that all I wanted to do was talk, only to be told once again that I'm proposing legislation?

    Axeanda45, I think your posts are nothing but comical, but perhaps the most dangerous. Even more than my alleged gun grab because a) I'm not advocating that and b) all I asked for was discussion, pro and con. You want me to go away. "I don't think like you, go away. Nobody likes you, go away". Others at least took the time to tell me why I'm an idiot, you just said I'm an idiot, nobody likes you, go away.

    So Axeanda, here's what your posts made me think of. You probably won't get the correlation.

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    I think I have been more than fair and level headed. I asked for discussion. Instead, what I got was a very limited response, It's unconstitutional. THAT RIGHT THERE is what we have been trying to tell you!!! THAT is the END of that, if it isnt Constitutional, END OF rational debate, period, fineto, quit, stop, dont type any more about it, end it already!!!!

    *snip*


    For the record, I'd like to point out that there is not one single time during this thread that I took a position that any of this IS Constitutional. Every single time someone pointed out a specific thing that could be unconstitutional I thought their point was reasonable and I offered up something that I, in my common man level of comprehension of the law, would address the concern and would still make a law like this possible. YET AGAIN, AFTER it has ALREADY been explained to you AND YOU AGREED that it is UnConstitutional, YOU STILL KEEP ON INSISTING THAT IF YOU CHANGE ONE TINY THING ABOUT IT it might not be anymore.... For that, I was treated like I'm the person the nation has to count on to defend this law to the Supreme's. BULLCRAP...

    *snip*


    I started the thread for the reasons I gave in the first post, I wanted a discussion. That concept seems lost on some. ONLY on You dude, Only on you... You seem to think that discussion of the same thing over and over will change the answer.... I also believed that for the most part, we are all kindred spirits in that we all want to protect our 2nd Amendment rights and we all have a vested interest in getting ahead of crime. I knew before I started this thread that there are some people here that have widely different opinions. I KNOW there's some that think the 2nd gives everyone the right to have a gun, even if they've been convicted of murdering a classroom full of children. It does protect that right once they have served their debt to society and are released back into society.... but obviously you dont believe the truth even when it is repeatedly told to you time and time again... (I know the ex con part is somewhat debatable, I happen to sid eon full rights restoration)I know that some here think the police are every bit as much a criminal as Al Capone. I think we can all agree that we don't always agree the same. What I was foolish about was thinking others would be like me and respect that we all have varying opinions on what is right or wrong and that we can still have an intelligent discussion about those differences. How can it be an intelligent discussion when you agree that we are right and then come back with the exact same argument and try to say it isnt???? What I find amazing is how many times I clarify someththing, it's interpreted as if I said something exactly opposite. How many times did I have to clarify what the loophole is? How many times was I painted at writing legislation? How many times did I explain that all I wanted to do was talk, only to be told once again that I'm proposing legislation? Wayyyyy tooo many, that is why I keep trying to get you to stop making a fool out of yourself (to no avail)

    Axeanda45, I think your posts are nothing but comical, but perhaps the most dangerous. Now you are the Comical one with that statement.... Even more than my alleged gun grab because a) I'm not advocating that Bullcrap, we have shown you time and again that ALL you propose is Anti 2nd Amendment..and b) all I asked for was discussion, pro and con. We give you the con of it and you have refused to listen, .............wait for it.............. TIME AND TIME AGAIN... You want me to go away. "I don't think like you, go away. Nobody likes you, go away". Others at least took the time to tell me why I'm an idiot, you just said I'm an idiot, nobody likes you, go away. I never called you an idiot, that would be against forum policies for one, and Ignorance is not stupidity (idiocy) It is simply not knowing something. I told you to go away because you wont stop spouting off the exact same thing time and time again and REFUSED to learn anything when others tried very hard to correct you. You yourself admitted above that they were right but you "just wanted to try something to still make it legal when time and time again you ignore that just the very premise of it is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.... How many times are YOU going to beat the same exact dead horse?????


    *snip*]
    I watched about 20 seconds of the video, it was too annoying to watch further, so I guess you are right, I dont get it....

  10. If we look at what they are really trying to do with "gun control" they don't want to disarm the criminals, they want to disarm everybody else. If they passed a law like that they could next call the NRA, or USA Carry a gang, and all of us on the e-mail lists could be instantly on the list, our CCWs revoked, and ordered to turn in our weapons. That is what they want.

  11. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    I watched about 20 seconds of the video, it was too annoying to watch further, so I guess you are right, I dont get it....
    You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your word on what's Constitutional or not. You're comment:


    it does protect that right once they have served their debt to society and are released back into society.... but obviously you dont believe the truth even when it is repeatedly told to you time and time again... (I know the ex con part is somewhat debatable, I happen to sid eon full rights restoration)

    is proof you don't know what you're talking about, at least as far as Nevada is concerned. Anyone convicted of a felony can not possess a gun. It's the law. By the way Mr. Constitutional authority, it's a state law. A law that's legal because of the 10th Amendment of the Bill Of Rights. So please try to understand, if I don't accept that what you're saying is the final authority on what is the truth on matters of Constitutionality, it's only because of your emphatic efforts to prove that you don't. But you keep telling yourself that because YOU want it to be true it must be so, even though it isn't.

    I don't keep insisting that if you change one thing everything is all hunky dory. What I said was people brought up legitimate concerns. Lack of judicial oversight, due process, specific criteria based of facts admissible in court, arbitrary placement on the list, abuse of authority, notification of being placed on the list, appeals, and expiration, convictions of prior criminal acts, valid legal proof of criminal gang membership, are all valid points. Every one of these concerns can be addressed, yet all you want to hear is that I want to unconstitutionally take guns away from people who should be able to have them.

    You keep waving the Us Constitution and label me as a person that doesn't care about it. Nobody has ever said that about me ever since I've been able to spell Constitution.

    You're making a 2nd Amendment defense, I'm trying to discuss a possible solution for my state. Once again, read the 10th Amendment of the Bill Of Rights. What isn't spelled out in the Federal Constitution is left up to the States to decide. Say what you want about how the 2nd should be applied nationally, but it is well established law that States can place reasonable restrictions on gun possession. Now I will go on record as FIRMLY supporting States having rights to legislate gun possession, ownership, etc. The only reason for this is how easy it would be for a few lunatics in DC to take our guns away on a national level should the winds change. We're one seat on the Supreme Court from losing our right to keep and bear arms. I'm fortunate that I live in a State that thinks LAC's carrying a gun in public is a good thing. Let me reiterate that, my state supports good guys having guns.

    My state has the right and legal authority to enact legislation regulating possession of a gun by bad guys. Our laws are tough and they are enforced, but there is a hole. It's not the gun show loophole, it's the loophole that organized crime can't have their gun taken away, even when we know who the bad actors are and that they're going to use it in furtherance of criminal activity. Now, how to do it it correctly has to be given very serious consideration.

    One thing's for sure, one of us is sure making a fool of themselves.

    You should watch the video to the end, it's funnier than all get out and it gets better the farther along you go.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast