Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 8
Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 129

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

  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    They (bad laws) wont go away UNTIL they (enforcers/thugs and such) refuse to enforce Unconstitutional laws because they are afraid of the 100% justifiable self defense/backlash that their BOSSES (we the people) are imposing on them for their insubordination/unlawful actions...

    If everyone thought like you do, NOTHING will EVER change for the better, it will ONLY get worse...
    Well I would like to hope that by persistent and effective lobbying we can get our lawmakers to change said laws. Maybe I am just too optimistic?
    Knarren und Zigarren!!!

  2.   
  3. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    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:



    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
    .
    You are not the only one who has made a study of our constitution. It was part of my professional duty to do so. The 4th amendment has the word “unreasonable” in it. Your definition of unreasonable is not necessarily the same as mine or someone else, and you are not the sole arbiter of what is or is not unreasonable, or exactly what constitutes probable cause, or what is or is not therefore constitutional.
    .
    You will find in my posts throughout this forum a consistent position against the increase in the size and scope of government, particularly in respect to police powers, and I have never hesitated to speak out against abuses. Quite a few times I have explicitly agreed with you on questions of government authority, and constitutional issues. For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with dragnet DUI/Border Patrol stops. Court decisions, both state and federal, have come down on both sides of the issue, alternately reining in and allowing this activity under specific guidelines. I also unequivocally agree with the quote you offer by James Madison.
    .
    If, after your studies, it is your considered opinion that many/most LEOs, DAs, Judges, etc., are nothing more than “brownshirt Nazi thugs” and “career criminals,” fine. You are entitled to your opinion and are free to express it. I say expressing it in that fashion is unfortunate, because I think such utterances significantly diminish the standing and intellectual rigor of your argument. Your position certainly is not proven and unjustly tars many with a broad brush. I will say that after my studies, it is my considered opinion that such utterances are usually associated with the rantings of a crank. I stand by my post. You can stand by yours.

  4. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    I see what you are saying here but even if they did take the gun away that would not keep the criminal from getting another one. If the criminal was charged and sent to jail at the same time it could make a difference. But usually hardcore criminals are not dragged into the courtroom on mere weapons possession charges since the DAs know they will be back for something "better" anyway. Which actually does make complete sense in a cynic way.
    I agree. Gangsta's will get guns. Those that wish to commit crimes have little to no reservation about committing crimes.

    At present, a GIP that doesn't meet the current threshold for being prohibited from possession isn't breaking a law for being in possession.

    If a GIP law was in place, GIP now has a world of problems to deal with. It's not a matter of they'll simply go get another gun, it's a pain in the butt for them from now on. They have to go through the system as I stated above, booking, bail, court, jail, parole/probation. Where the law gets some teeth would be in the 2nd or 3rd offense. I guess we're fortunate here in that if a person's not allowed to legally possess a gun and they get caught with one, they're going to jail. We only like our good guys to have guns.

    Personally, if a GIP law can be legally and constitutionally enacted, I'd like it to be a felony, forever ending the right of the felon to ever possess a gun, vote, etc. (I'm hard on crime though so before anyone tears me apart for that, don't bother, you won't get me to feel sorry for criminals. I won't try to get you to get tough on crime.)

    Thank you for your post JG.
    "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

  5. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    It can't be done "correctly."

    No matter how many times you say it or how many different ways you say it, you are still talking about disarming people for their legal associations. It is not illegal to be an acquaintance of gang members, or even friends with them. Everything we've read here from you screams that you want to change that, including the way you ended the post I'm replying to. A person is not a criminal until they commit a crime and are able to face their accusers, cross examine them, and have the trier of facts determine that they did indeed commit that crime. To say that "...we know who the bad actors are and that they're going to use it [a gun] in furtherance of criminal activity..." leaves the 5th and 6th Amendments completely out of the equation while imposing punishment for what "we" (which in reality for the purposes of this discussion, is only YOU) know about their bad intentions. That's pre-crime stuff right out of Minority Report!

    The 5th and 6th Amendments say, with emphasis by me:



    That is what makes the proposal lack any and all due process and/or constitutionality.

    Yes, Nevada and all other states and territories can make law that is exclusive to its own jurisdiction, but it has to be worded such that it comports with the federal Constitution. Clearly, taking people's property, passing legal judgments on them without benefit of being able to face their accusers or have a jury of their peers determine the strength of the evidence against them, does not comport with the 5th and 6th Amendment requirements for how people go from citizen to convicted criminal in this country.

    All you have to do to confirm that what your cop friend (or instructor, whatever) proposed is unconstitutional is ask him the next time you see him why such a law doesn't exist already? Ask him to make a constitutional case for it. If he even tries to make such a case, you will know that he just wants more latitude to make his job easier, and he doesn't give one good crap about the Constitution. If he did, he wouldn't hesitate to say, "Well, the question was what would I do if I had my way, not was what I would do constitutional. Clearly, it is not." Then you'd have evidence of an honest cop who gives a crap about the Constitution. Otherwise, he's just looking for the lazy man's way to enforce the quasi-law that he and most cops in this country operate under. Anything goes as long as they can rationalize it in their mind that it serves the "greater good." When it comes to the law, the greater good is only served when it comports with, and adheres to, the Constitution. Otherwise they're just corrupt cops operating in a run-of-the-mill banana republic.

    If you get it now, fine. If not, I'm done, so there's no need to try to explain how I've got it all wrong and all you want to do is talk about it again.

    Blues
    .
    Can't help myself. Blues, overall, this is very good.

  6. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    You know absolutely NOTHING about the subject you are talking about....

    You say that "is proof you don't know what you're talking about".... ok, let us take a look at what you say I was wrong about... You claim that the proof of my wrongness is "laws" that you think are "legal" YET THOSE LAWS ARE 100% UNCONSITUTIONAL!!! How can something that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED without breaking the "law" be infringed and then be legal????

    EVERY example you have given to support your claims is UNCONSTUTIONAL!!!!!

    You should have stopped posting 20 posts ago..............
    You took our jobs!
    "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

  7. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Again guys, I need to submit a disclaimer to keep some of you from thinking I am encouraging/endorsing killing of cops or whoever... I just humbly ( yeah right, did you see what he has been writing?) submit that you dont have to give in to unlawful commands or allow yourself to be arrested when the laws clearly go against the Constitution... Stand up for yourself, make them understand WHY you are not going along with what they are trying to do to you...

    Remind them of their oath... ask them if they want to go home to their family today or if they deem it worth it to possibly die for breaking their oath and enforcing UnConstitutional laws, (the Supreme court actually got one thing right in the past when they ruled FOR self defense, even to the point of justifiable homicide when resisting false arrest) or do they just want to quietly go away and pick on someone who WILL lie down and do whatever they say and not hold them responsible for their actions.....

  8. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    Well I would like to hope that by persistent and effective lobbying we can get our lawmakers to change said laws. Maybe I am just too optimistic?
    Maybe... or maybe there is a middle ground none of us have found yet.... I just know where my line is, and I wont allow it to be crossed.....

  9. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    You took our jobs!

    Really? So... you have zero evidence to dispute a solitary thing I wrote. Only some snarky comment only you understand.... That really helps your side of the discussion! Good job!

  10. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Really? So... you have zero evidence to dispute a solitary thing I wrote. Only some snarky comment only you understand.... That really helps your side of the discussion! Good job!
    I proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt, you just can't grasp the truth. You're so wrapped up in flagging this as unconstitutional that you can't see when you make a glaring and obvious error. I don't know what you're being blinded by, but you need to open your eyes.

    Like you, I don't want to submit to unconstitutional laws and have no intention to do so. Fair enough. But that being said, you and I have a difference on what we think is Constitutional or not. I respect that. You think convicted felons should get their guns back when they get out of jail. I'm fine with them being prohibited from possessing forever. Just because I think the way I do, or you think the way you do, it doesn't mean either one of us is a bad American. I'd bet that that we'd both agree that if we wanted to look for a bad American, we'd have to look no further than our sitting President.
    "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

  11. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    .
    Can't help myself. Blues, overall, this is very good.
    Well I certainly appreciated his post. It was helpful towards the discussion.
    "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 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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