Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/29/2002 10:43:22 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 10:50:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 10:50:43 AM EST by Wobblin-Goblin]
It would take a man with balls the size of Texas to be the first one to step forward on this one. All it takes is one, then one more, then one more. Soon, we'll have a movement underway. Of course, I could step forward but it wouldn't do us any good. Thus far I am obeying every firearm law, as far as I know.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 10:51:41 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 10:54:16 AM EST
[img]http://www.northbridgetraining.com/images/rick.gif[/img] Rick Stanley Colorado freedom activist Rick Stanley, Libertarian candidate for Senate in Colorado's recent race, is the creator of the nationwide Bill of Rights Day rallies. Rick made headlines when he holstered a pistol at a rally on the anniversary of the Bill of Rights' ratification, an act of civil disobedience protesting Denver's unconstitutional gun ban for which he was arrested. [url]http://www.stanley2002.org/[/url]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 10:56:28 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 10:59:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 10:59:42 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:00:29 AM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: OK, so Rick Stanley talks the talk and walks the walk... what about those on this board?
View Quote
They vote Republican...
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:04:05 AM EST
The laws mentioned are so ridiculous, that no law man would enforce them, it would be a waste of time both the officers and the courts. If you have ever seen a court calendar and the delay for a trial I think you would see the point, I mean someone, any one, give an example of a federal prosecution of "an individual" being prosecuted for a restricted cap magazine possession. I don't flaunt them, I just ignore them.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:05:05 AM EST
[img]rbad.ar15.com/antiussa1.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:06:33 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:06:53 AM EST
soooo, you think the guy in NY who shot the robber with a "illegal" pistol is a idiot who got what he deserved. BUT....if the same guy had done it with the intent of flaunting the law as an act of civil disobedience you would find him courageous and a hero ?? I agree with 82ndAbn on this one.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:08:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:09:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Originally Posted By Kar98:
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: OK, so Rick Stanley talks the talk and walks the walk... what about those on this board?
View Quote
They vote Republican...
View Quote
Ouch... but maybe some truth in that. IF all gunowners saw things as we do, maybe all of us voting together might make a difference. However, if we all votes for XYZ party instead of Republicans... well with how close some margins have been in recent elections, maybe we ensure demonrats win and things get worse. I don't know. [red]82nd, you make a valid point... but those who are willing/seeking to die in a blaze of glory should consider a prison stint to be a minor sacrifice for the cause.[/red] Hell if enough otherwise law abiding citizens faced prosecution for violating these laws don't you think enough folks who aren't gun owners would say, "hey I know Joe and Bob and Mary and they are good folks, what's going on here?"
View Quote
I doubt it's the prison time that people would fear, it's the felony conviction and all the penalties that come with it.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:10:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:16:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:23:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:23:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: soooo, you think the guy in NY who shot the robber with a "illegal" pistol is a idiot who got what he deserved. BUT....if the same guy had done it with the intent of flaunting the law as an act of civil disobedience you would find him courageous and a hero ?? I agree with 82ndAbn on this one.
View Quote
Courageous and a hero, no? But I might not think him a hypocrite... Don't really know the man, can't speak to his beliefs. But I have read your posts spectre and I have to wonder why you don't take a post-ban receiver, put an illegal stock and upper on it and walk into the ATF and say, screw you, what ya gonna do about it?"
View Quote
ummmm, just because I disagree with the stupid laws does'nt mean that I disobey them and I HIGHLY doubt that I have ever advocated someone willingly break the law. How about you cite some of these incriminating posts you are refering to. I am politically active and do whatever I can through LEGAL means to change the unconstitutional and idiotic gun laws....HOWEVER, last time I checked, it's not illigal to BITCH about the gubmint. (at least not yet) and I LOVE to bitch about the gubmint. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:52:39 AM EST
Because while I disagree with the laws I also believe in the system.
View Quote
There are plenty of disarmed Australians who also "believe in the system". Ditto for the citizens of dozens of other repressive countries. I'm sure some of the jewish citizens of 1930's Germany also "believed in the system" and thought that anyone who disobeyed it got what they deserved. It's a convenient mechanism for self-delusion, nothing more. [b]HiranRanger[/b], if you truly believe in the spirit of civil disobedience, then YOU should challenge these unjust laws. We'll follow your lead. Honest, we will!
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:52:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: The philosophers who our founding fathers relied upon believed that by living within a society and accepting its benefits and protections also binds you to obey its laws, even those you disagree with. By accepting the societal compact you agree to live by certain laws and accept certain authority over you.
View Quote
Erm, then WHY did they rebel against England?
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 11:55:53 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 12:07:50 PM EST
You first, Hiram. Go right ahead. I'll send you mail in prison.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 12:35:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 12:39:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: 82nd, you make a valid point... but those who are willing/seeking to die in a blaze of glory should consider a prison stint to be a minor sacrifice for the cause.
View Quote
they dont spend a small stint in jail, they die in a blaze of glory. and then are called waco nutcases, bt the majority of US.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 12:39:50 PM EST
There is no way for us to fight gun laws thru civil disobedience without facing prison terms and felony convictions. On top of that, purposely tring to get arrested for gun law violations isn't gonna get any positive attention for our cause. All it is gonna do is ruin your own life. In fact it will hurt our cause because it will be negitively portrayed in the media For me personally, I'd rather die defending my own rights then get fucked up the ass for 5 years in federal prison.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 12:51:09 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 12:58:54 PM EST
There is a difference between civil disobedience and stupidity... The truth is we do have a cause we believe in, and we know it was protected in the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms was not granted us in that second amendment, it was simply enumerated... It is a god given right which no one and no government has the power to remove from the people. Our forefathers sought to protect us from the nutcase liberals who do not understand our nations security lies in those words. We firmly stand on the promise given us by our forefathers, and we believe this nation can still aspire to great things. Yes, many gun laws are overly restrictive. Civil disobedience will come when self preservation becomes criminal. I will never surrender my arms, I will never allow anyone to remove a god given right from me. I, however, will not walk into the ATF with an "illegally configured assault weapon" and tell them what I think. I would not further the cause by those actions. I will continue to use the political process to stand up for my rights until it becomes necessary for a revolution. God help us if we see that day...
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 1:06:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: The gun laws are passed by legislators we elect, signed into law by governors and presidents we elect, reviewed and interpreted by judges we either elect or who are nominated and confirmed by people whom we elect. Are you seeing the difference?
View Quote
How many "WE" people here on ar15.com elected the people who authored and voted for gun control laws? I'd say close to 0.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 1:17:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 1:18:25 PM EST by HiramRanger]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 1:22:33 PM EST
SCOTUS, Marbury v Madison Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
View Quote
Just something from a couple of centuries ago. Read into it what you will.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 1:25:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 1:26:08 PM EST by Kar98]
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Give me a break, just because you didn't vote for them doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law.
View Quote
Mostly correct, but then there's, or used to be, jury nullification. Edited to add a simple definition of j.n.: "The law is bullshit, let him go!"
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 1:26:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 1:28:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 1:28:36 PM EST by HiramRanger]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 1:41:10 PM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Originally Posted By Silence:
SCOTUS, Marbury v Madison Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
View Quote
Just something from a couple of centuries ago. Read into it what you will.
View Quote
Yes, Marbury vs. Madison established the principle of judicial review if I recall and basically said that the Supreme Court will determine ultimately what laws are repugnant to the Constitution. Therefore, should they choose not to act then de facto the law is not repugnant. With reference to gun control, the Miller decision certainly affirmed that the state has a role in determining the extent of the 2nd amendment as it relates to citizens. Until such time as SCOTUS revisits the decision or issue it stands and since SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the law, gun control is not repugnant in the aforementioned sense.
View Quote
Ahh, but you missed something, the law isnt just void from the point it is reviewed, it is void from the moment it was passed. That You do not have to obey an unConstitutional law because it is already VOID, even if the SCOTUS hasnt ruled on it. Reread Miller, it could VERY VERY, EXTREMELY easily be read to conclude that the NFA of '34 as it applies to Full-Auto weapons is 'void'. Do I think the 'Second' prohibits all gun laws? No, not in the least, I dont even think it prohibits registration (err that will get me tarred and feathered I bet) at least it doenst prohibit a non-infringing registration, think of the way we register voters. I dont even think it prohibits concealed carry permits, as long as they are shall issue and have reasonable requirements. Anyone who relies on Miller to decide gun law is foolish, it is a bad case written by arguably the WORST justice in the 20th Century over a case that the defendant had no representation, and wasnt even over a decision, it was a reinstatement a case that had been dismissed by a lower court (If Miller, or laywers, or anybody from his side, had been in the Supreme Court, we wouldnt be arguing this today). I do on the other hand think 'bans' or 'restrictive' registration is a violation of the Second Amendment, and its enumeration of a Right. I think the New York 'Sullivan' laws are a violation, I think Robert-Roos is a violation, I think the DC and Chicago bans are a violation. Hell I dont think it is a 'state' issue. The 14th Amendment killed that argument 130ish years ago.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:03:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Originally Posted By Kar98:
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Give me a break, just because you didn't vote for them doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law.
View Quote
Mostly correct, but then there's, or used to be, jury nullification. Edited to add a simple definition of j.n.: "The law is bullshit, let him go!"
View Quote
And last I checked jury nullification is illegal and grounds for disbarrment for the lawyer who argues it.
View Quote
check yore facts again. jurry nullification is still and allways has been legal. the courts have tried valiently to remove this right, but have only secceded in makeing "fully informed juries" a thing of the past. judges no longer are required to inform of this right, and defence lawyers are "probably prohibited" from bringing the issue up. but jurry nullification is not illegal......
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:04:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Give me a break, just because you didn't vote for them doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law.
View Quote
OK, HR, so what's the point of this thread?
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:07:14 PM EST
Since I live in probably the worst area when firearm laws are concerned, it might be better to fly under the radar. However, if there were an organization with extremely DEEP pockets that was willing to back my legal defense I would consider fighting the constitutionality of NYC's gun laws with my criminal record on the line. I am outnumbered and out-spent in this city.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:10:14 PM EST
Anyway, the spirit of civil disobedience as evinced by Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, etc. was one where they broke the law hoping to be arrested and punished, thereby calling public attention to laws they found to be unlawful. Why is it then that those of you who think these gun control laws to be so evil and such an infringement do not go out and violate them publicly and invite prosecution and incarceration to draw attention to our cause?
View Quote
Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, etc. did not have to face the JBTs at the ATF. It's one thing to risk riding in the back of the bus. It's quite another to be booted into Club Fed to serve 10 to 20 with Bubba.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:18:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 2:19:15 PM EST by Kar98]
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: And last I checked jury nullification is illegal and grounds for disbarrment for the lawyer who argues it.
View Quote
Whoever told you this lied to you. J/N was designed as ultimate check against unjust laws. Read on: [url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22jury+nullification%22[/url]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:25:59 PM EST
Do anybody really expect a reply that advocates anyone to completely disobey gun laws here? It is known that this site is monitored by an alphabet soup of JBTs. What sort of idiot would post information about their premeditated violation of multiple federal felonies? The folk who do practice civil disobedience are not going to advertise it until they can get the type of support that rosa parks or ml king had. Lots and lots of dollars and the best lawyers that can be dredge from the sewers. Stanley did it because he felt very strongly about it and had the money to back himself up. I feel very strongly but as a working class stiff I would be tossed in the big house for a good ten years at least. I do believe that "unlawful laws" are null and void by definition and as such no one is obligated to abide by. Of course when did obeying the law have anything to do with staying out of jail?
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:32:48 PM EST
The consequences for violating gun control laws today are more severe than when Rosa Parks violated a city ordinance, and refused to give up her bus seat to a white man. The usual violation of a gun control law is a felony conviction. This means that: (a.) you can't vote (not a great loss considering our choice of viable political party candidates), (b.) never being able to obtain or losing your job as a: policeman, teacher, lawyer, etc., (c.) never being able to legally own a firearm (a death knell to us "gunny's"), (d.) trouble getting a passport and visa. The sad thing is that a felony conviction has no "statue of limitations" afterwhich your conviction no longer limits. Instead it is a punishment that will last the rest of your life unless you happen to be one of the lucky and affluent few who manage to obtain a presidential pardon. I think that this is a serious flaw in our judicial system. It simply does not allow for redemption. Everyone screws up, and everyone changes as they get older. A lot of us are just lucky we never got caught.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:33:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 2:35:12 PM EST by HiramRanger]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:42:17 PM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Thanks, followed the link you provided... third or fourth site down I found this:
View Quote
Very well, now read all the information posted at the remaining 12,099 websites ;)
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:43:34 PM EST
You ask why we don't announce our willful disregard of these abominations and get arrested hoping to make change. Simple, at least for me it's simple. For me, I don't obey a single gun-law. I don't do it for civil disobedience purposes. I do it because in the very near future I will be called upon to make good on my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The inalienable rights given us by God are being violated with these anti-life, anti-freedom abominations (read: gun laws) and my disobedience of them means that I will have all the tools necessary when the time comes to assist in bringing freedom back to this once fine nation. For me, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with civil disobedience. If I were to announce my willful disobedience, and get arrested, well, then I've taken myself out of the fight, and that is not an option. I should not have to state this again, but this has nothing to do with bayonets and flash hiders, and in fact has everything to do with freedom or death. You can make your choice, I have already made mine.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:48:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 2:55:06 PM EST by HiramRanger]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:50:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:58:24 PM EST
How about this You get into an argument and your spouse calls the police and a restraining order is placed on me? I just got Unarmed with one pieace of paper! no violence no nothing! I stand before a judge and he say's stand! if I have to ever really defend myself I am fucked. never happend to me but I was giving an example. All my weapons went through a NCIS check and never had went afoul with the law yet!
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 3:00:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 3:27:20 PM EST by DScottHewitt]
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: You forget, I am not the one screaming that all gun control is unconstitutional. I believe that the state has the right to regulate even our most sacred rights to an extent. [red]I don't believe that requiring a pistol permit is in and of itself unconstitutional.[/red] I believe that a process which unfairly administers such a system to be perhaps unconstitutional.
View Quote
Are you a closet Democrap? What part of "...shall not be infringed" do [b]YOU[/b] not understand? Scott
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 3:04:02 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 3:07:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 3:09:37 PM EST by HiramRanger]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 3:16:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Yes, Marbury vs. Madison established the principle of judicial review if I recall and basically said that the Supreme Court will determine ultimately what laws are repugnant to the Constitution. Therefore, should they choose not to act then de facto the law is not repugnant. With reference to gun control, [red]the Miller decision[/red] certainly affirmed that the state has a role in determining the extent of the 2nd amendment as it relates to citizens. Until such time as SCOTUS revisits the decision or issue it stands and since SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the law, gun control is not repugnant in the aforementioned sense.
View Quote
That dog won't hunt, either. U.S. won U.S. v. Miller simply because Miller was financially unable to present his side before the Supreme Court..... Scott
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top