Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 12/25/2005 7:09:19 AM EDT
ALBANY — Following up on the passage of the "heroes law," Gov. Pataki yesterday announced the state will hire 100 state troopers to crack down on illegal gun trafficking.

Pataki said the specially trained troopers will work with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and local police to track down illegal guns that make their way into New York.

"We will go after guns from the streets to the source and not just in New York, but outside of New York," Pataki said.

The State Police investigators — who will be in addition to those already working on illegal gun trafficking — will be deputized by the ATF to be able to make arrests outside the state, he said.

In the city, eight out of 10 illegal guns recovered by police originally came from out of state, many of them from the South, where gun laws are looser, Pataki and ATF Special Agent William McMahon said.

All told, McMahon said, between 12,000 and 15,000 guns are seized by police each year in New York, many of them in the city.

In making the announcement yesterday, Pataki said he was looking to build on the momentum created from a successful special legislative session Wednesday that he called to pass legislation strengthening penalties for those who illegally sell or possess firearms, or kill or injure cops.

Pataki called the session after two city cops, Dillon Stewart and Daniel Enchautegui, were recently killed in the line of duty.

"It's a tough law and we're starting to enforce it right now," Pataki said in announcing the new anti-gun-trafficking task force.

The state will initially spend $4 million to pay and train the new troopers and another $500,000 that will go to local law enforcement — including in New York City...


from nypost.com


This is rather troubling to non NY residents
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:11:11 AM EDT
Yep, I can see alot of potential for abuse there
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:11:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:12:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 7:13:59 AM EDT by repub18]
I would think the state legislature in the neighboring states would be pretty ticked by this.



Actaully every state IMO.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:13:46 AM EDT
here is an idea, make it easier for people to get guns legaly and maybe, just maybe there will be less illegal guns in the state
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:14:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 7:15:21 AM EDT by warlord]
Many states seem to always plead poverty for various projects that they are against, but always manage to get the needed funds for their pet projects and causes that they support/favor.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:16:03 AM EDT
Another reason no northeastern "Republican" will ever get my vote
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:16:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:19:06 AM EDT
alright, 100 more cops who know even less about the laws they are supposed to be enforcing.


YAY!
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:19:37 AM EDT
So what we're going to have, then, is NY cops travelling around the country arresting people because guns bought legally somewhere else wind up in New York. Potentially as far as right here in Indiana. Am I reading this correctly?


Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:20:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:40:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 7:41:42 AM EDT by ar-wrench]
Some yankee (make that some damned yankee) starts questioning me about a gun I sold legally under my state laws is likely to get a cold/rude response. I can see extradition across state lines being difficult.

We Southerners may squabble amongst ourselves, but iffn a carpetbagger shows up to inflict the "rules of the north" on us, we are likely to present a Totally Unified Front!


Link Posted: 12/25/2005 7:57:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 8:00:26 AM EDT by TimeTraveler]
"NY State Troopers to be deputized as 'Federales' by ATF........ "


It's all about the ongoing federalization and militarization of law enforcement. A long term consolidation of power. TT
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:04:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ar-wrench:
Some yankee (make that some damned yankee) starts questioning me about a gun I sold legally under my state laws is likely to get a cold/rude response. I can see extradition across state lines being difficult.

We Southerners may squabble amongst ourselves, but iffn a carpetbagger shows up to inflict the "rules of the north" on us, we are likely to present a Totally Unified Front!





<-------- UnReconstructed Victim of Northern Aggression
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:10:19 AM EDT

I know tc556guy will be volunteering for this one.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:11:41 AM EDT
Correct answer: go fuck yourself, you are out of your jurisdiction.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:13:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
I know tc556guy will be volunteering for this one.


Not a Trooper here. And you should see the legislation they are pushing that HASN'T been passed. Its going to make life as a Dealer in NY much more difficult.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:19:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Correct answer: go fuck yourself, you are out of your jurisdiction.

- Not if deputized.

Our Violent Crimes unit was sworn as deputy US Marshals for the longest time.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:22:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By lippo:
I know tc556guy will be volunteering for this one.


Not a Trooper here. And you should see the legislation they are pushing that HASN'T been passed. Its going to make life as a Dealer in NY much more difficult.



You always talk about "legislation", even when it's OBVIOUSLY UnConstitutional. Follow along and do your job, no matter who it places Tryanny on. I am beginning to think you have no idea what the word, "Tyranny" means, along with Freedom and Liberty. The real end of this country is when people like you are willing to follow tryanny because some elected traitor says it's ok. And that's already happened repeatedly and is getting even worse.

You think we all villify ALL officers. We don't, only ones that don't have a clue what our Constitution means and will not stand up for it. I have a few LEO friends and each one has said they would not go along with a confiscation law. It sounds like you would and tell everyone to take it up in court. Please tell me I am wrong, but you sure have placed yourself in that category.

You said in the other thread that marching people into death camps is wrong and that you do not know one officer that would follow it. I beg to differ. The only difference between those guys and you, is where you place your line in the sand. And your's is a LOT closer to the death camp thing, than with Liberty.

Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:26:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
I know tc556guy will be volunteering for this one.




Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:29:06 AM EDT
So late me get this straight the reason for gun crimes in New York City, is because of gun laws in other states? If they let citizens buy handguns and get conceal and carry permits crime would go down. Why is it that the states that do allow conceal and carry have lower crime rates then the states that ban handguns? I may not be the brightest guy out there, but I think I see a conection.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:33:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
You always talk about "legislation", even when it's OBVIOUSLY UnConstitutional. Follow along and do your job, no matter who it places Tryanny on. I am beginning to think you have no idea what the word, "Tyranny" means, along with Freedom and Liberty. The real end of this country is when people like you are willing to follow tryanny because some elected traitor says it's ok. And that's already happened repeatedly and is getting even worse.



In this case, i am talking about "legislation" because thats what it is: proposed bills that will come before the state legislature during the spring term. This bill was only the tip of the iceberg.

As to the Constitutionality of an issue, that has to be determined by the Courts by a Plaintiff bringing the case through the legal process. There is no "obviously" about it as you state; what some people here call "obviously" unconstitutional is determined to be perfectly constitutional when the matter actually gets to court. What you have at that point is someones opinion on the internet that something is unconstitutional. And we all have opinions.

Tyranny, freedom, etc all mean different things to different people. So i don't share your definition, perhaps. Doubtful that you'll fins many people sharing the same definition of anything.


You think we all villify ALL officers. We don't, only ones that don't have a clue what our Constitution means and will not stand up for it. I have a few LEO friends and each one has said they would not go along with a confiscation law. It sounds like you would and tell everyone to take it up in court. Please tell me I am wrong, but you sure have placed yourself in that category.


And here we go again with the poster essentially saying ( not an actual quote here, so don't get all upset with the quotation marks)" I have a few LEO friends and they're all good guys, unlike the rest of you JBTs". As I have said before, you fail to realize that the majority of officers are no different than the ones you happen to personally know. Every officer has blocks of instruction in their basic school about Constitutionality issues. It is not a foreign subject to LEOs as yous eem to think.

And there are plenty of people on the net who most certainly express obvious hared for LE. That attitude is not as prevalent on AR15 as it is on some of the more fringe gun sites, but it come sout in soem threads here, which only reinforces to the casual observer that many "gun nuts" are marginal sorts who are off their rockers.


You said in the other thread that marching people into death camps is wrong and that you do not know one officer that would follow it. I beg to differ. The only difference between those guys and you, is where you place your line in the sand. And your's is a LOT closer to the death camp thing, than with Liberty.




Thanks for your opinion, but you are wrong.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:36:16 AM EDT
markmars: Controlling crime is not what they are after, these people want to control guns. These people, believer of the "all guns are bad" crowd, determined philosopically that all guns are the roots of evil.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:44:22 AM EDT
This is what's gonna happen, JOhnny reb in georgia or vaginee is gonna sell some guns either privatly or at a gun show to "some guy". This will be a perfectly legal transaction. Then that gun will show up in Brooklyn somewhere 5 years later. The ' Nueva York Estatos Policia federales' will trace the gun to john reb, They will drive down there abduct him to some NYC court room and then Liberal judges will have their way with him. How'dya like them apples!
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:48:57 AM EDT
If I was a tropper in NY I would volunteer for this duty just to keep the other officers in line of trying to make a crime where there is no crime...STUPID STUPID...I can see this going bad for a few people...
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:51:52 AM EDT
Thanks for YOUR opinion, but you are wrong.

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
which only reinforces to the casual observer that many "gun nuts" police officers are marginal sorts who are off their rockers.



I don't give 2 fucks what law the New York po-po are coming to my town under the color of. If some cop from NY comes to my house looking for a gun bust, I'm going to tell him to FOAD. If that doesn't resolve the matter, we'll just have to jump up and dance, I suppose.
Fuckin' cops. The more I hear, the more I hate.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 8:54:00 AM EDT

If that doesn't resolve the matter, we'll just have to jump up and dance, I suppose.
- bet you'll be rewarded with some silver bracelets at the end of your tango.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:01:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
This is what's gonna happen, JOhnny reb in georgia or vaginee is gonna sell some guns either privatly or at a gun show to "some guy". This will be a perfectly legal transaction. Then that gun will show up in Brooklyn somewhere 5 years later. The ' Nueva York Estatos Policia federales' will trace the gun to john reb, They will drive down there abduct him to some NYC court room and then Liberal judges will have their way with him. How'dya like them apples!




Umm.... exactly the scenero I expect.

Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:15:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By lippo:
You always talk about "legislation", even when it's OBVIOUSLY UnConstitutional. Follow along and do your job, no matter who it places Tryanny on. I am beginning to think you have no idea what the word, "Tyranny" means, along with Freedom and Liberty. The real end of this country is when people like you are willing to follow tryanny because some elected traitor says it's ok. And that's already happened repeatedly and is getting even worse.



In this case, i am talking about "legislation" because thats what it is: proposed bills that will come before the state legislature during the spring term. This bill was only the tip of the iceberg.

As to the Constitutionality of an issue, that has to be determined by the Courts by a Plaintiff bringing the case through the legal process. There is no "obviously" about it as you state; what some people here call "obviously" unconstitutional is determined to be perfectly constitutional when the matter actually gets to court. What you have at that point is someones opinion on the internet that something is unconstitutional. And we all have opinions.

Tyranny, freedom, etc all mean different things to different people. So i don't share your definition, perhaps. Doubtful that you'll fins many people sharing the same definition of anything.


You think we all villify ALL officers. We don't, only ones that don't have a clue what our Constitution means and will not stand up for it. I have a few LEO friends and each one has said they would not go along with a confiscation law. It sounds like you would and tell everyone to take it up in court. Please tell me I am wrong, but you sure have placed yourself in that category.


And here we go again with the poster essentially saying ( not an actual quote here, so don't get all upset with the quotation marks)" I have a few LEO friends and they're all good guys, unlike the rest of you JBTs". As I have said before, you fail to realize that the majority of officers are no different than the ones you happen to personally know. Every officer has blocks of instruction in their basic school about Constitutionality issues. It is not a foreign subject to LEOs as yous eem to think.

And there are plenty of people on the net who most certainly express obvious hared for LE. That attitude is not as prevalent on AR15 as it is on some of the more fringe gun sites, but it come sout in soem threads here, which only reinforces to the casual observer that many "gun nuts" are marginal sorts who are off their rockers.


You said in the other thread that marching people into death camps is wrong and that you do not know one officer that would follow it. I beg to differ. The only difference between those guys and you, is where you place your line in the sand. And your's is a LOT closer to the death camp thing, than with Liberty.




Thanks for your opinion, but you are wrong.




Imagine that, a blue liner telling us that we need the court to determine what the Constitution means. Here's a clue, if you have to find a way around or explain around the constitution, it's probably a bad fucking law.

TXL
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:15:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 9:16:56 AM EDT by MST2]
New York's gun laws are un-Constitutional to begin with.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:25:56 AM EDT
i wish police officers and politicians would

1. learn to read
2. read the constitution
3. realize that they work for the people

ps ncpatrolar

good luck trying that crap in Texas

you'll need it

Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:26:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 9:30:38 AM EDT by Recon_Rabbit]

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

If that doesn't resolve the matter, we'll just have to jump up and dance, I suppose.
- bet you'll be rewarded with some silver bracelets at the end of your tango.



I'll see your bet and raise you a bullet to the chest. That's where this federalization of the police is going. Shoulda been done in NOLA to those fuck nuts from California that were illeagaly confiscating firearms from lawful citizens.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:28:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Correct answer: go fuck yourself, you are out of your jurisdiction.



- Not if deputized.

Our Violent Crimes unit was sworn as deputy US Marshals for the longest time.



My, my isn't someone an eager little bee?
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:29:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ixy:
ps ncpatrolar

good luck trying that crap in Texas

you'll need it


- Resisting lawful arrest is the same in TX as it is in NC. Wouldnt be the 1st time I'd have to drop an ass-whooping on someone that was trying to fight me.


Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:31:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By ixy:
ps ncpatrolar

good luck trying that crap in Texas

you'll need it


- Resisting lawful arrest is the same in TX as it is in NC. Wouldnt be the 1st time I'd have to drop an ass-whooping on someone that was trying to fight me.





One can resist arrest legally.
The B-D were found to be acting in self defense you know.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:31:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLewis:
Imagine that, a blue liner telling us that we need the court to determine what the Constitution means. Here's a clue, if you have to find a way around or explain around the constitution, it's probably a bad fucking law.

TXL



You obviously have no idea about how minutely some laws get reviewed to determine their constitutionality, and who will argue that an aspect of some law is illegal on whatever constitutional issue. It has nothing to do with a law being "wrong". It has to do with people having different interpretations and opinions, and someone having to settle the dispute. THAT is the courts job.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:31:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Recon_Rabbit:
I'll see your bet and raise you a bullet to the chest. That's where this federalization of the police is going.

- Somehow I doubt you even think about actually following through with that. Amazing how people talk tough on here, but once they push themselves away from the keyboard reality sets back in.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:32:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
One can resist arrest legally.
The B-D were found to be acting in self defense you know.


Maybe in YOUR state, but regardless of the state involved, the place to dispute the lawfulness of an arrest is the courtroom.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:34:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Correct answer: go fuck yourself, you are out of your jurisdiction.



- Not if deputized.

Our Violent Crimes unit was sworn as deputy US Marshals for the longest time.



My, my isn't someone an eager little bee?



Nope. If I'm going to do Fed work, I'll do it as a Fed. I have enough local criminals to deal with without having to cross state lines to find more.


One can resist arrest legally.

- Maybe where you live. Around here its only lawful to resist an unlawful arrest. If you want to try it, go for it. If I'm arresting you for something, it'll be more than lawful.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:37:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 9:38:06 AM EDT by Recon_Rabbit]

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By ixy:
ps ncpatrolar

good luck trying that crap in Texas

you'll need it


- Resisting lawful arrest is the same in TX as it is in NC. Wouldnt be the 1st time I'd have to drop an ass-whooping on someone that was trying to fight me.



Don't be suprised when someone drops you with a 168gr lead infusion.

The devil's in these details, Thugasaurus Rex:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:42:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:


- Resisting lawful arrest is the same in TX as it is in NC. Wouldnt be the 1st time I'd have to drop an ass-whooping on someone that was trying to fight me.



you definately sound like a JBT who does not understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Ass-whooping? resisting arrest? I was talking about the courts down here, dipsh!t.

An unprovoked attack (aass-whooping) by a law enforcement official from out of state would prolly be "stopped" by the local Sheriff's Department among others. Who said anything about resisting arrest you neanderthal with a small pecker and a big gun. Shove your whoop-ass up your own.

do you feel better beating up on people?
does it make you feel better about yourself?

With some po pos there is very little difference between them and criminals, only which side of the law they are on.

ps been around LEOs all my life, most are good people, but the ones like you give them all a bad name
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:42:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By Recon_Rabbit:
I'll see your bet and raise you a bullet to the chest. That's where this federalization of the police is going.

- Somehow I doubt you even think about actually following through with that. Amazing how people talk tough on here, but once they push themselves away from the keyboard reality sets back in.



Not picking a fight, dude, but do you have any concept of State's Rights?

You did see the article about the local SDs in the county outside N.O. that recovered their shipment of Diesel fuel from the FEMA goons that siezed it?

This was done at gunpoint, and the Federalies were smart enough to keep their weapons holstered.

I have worked security details that involved local, state, and federal LEOs on the same location. I was working with the local folk, and had trouble with one of the Feds. The Fed lost, was sent home.

If you are working on someone else's turf, you had best have your ducks in a row. The local AHJ is the king of his little kingdom, don't matter what D.C. says.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:46:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Recon_Rabbit:
Don't be suprised when someone drops you with a 168gr lead infusion.

The devil's in these details, Thugasaurus Rex:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

- Keep running your suck and ignore the points of the arguement. As I've said before, but I'll repeat for the slow, if I'm arresting you; its for a lawful reason. If you want take things to the next level, your choice.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:52:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By TxLewis:
Imagine that, a blue liner telling us that we need the court to determine what the Constitution means. Here's a clue, if you have to find a way around or explain around the constitution, it's probably a bad fucking law.

TXL



You obviously have no idea about how minutely some laws get reviewed to determine their constitutionality, and who will argue that an aspect of some law is illegal on whatever constitutional issue. It has nothing to do with a law being "wrong". It has to do with people having different interpretations and opinions, and someone having to settle the dispute. THAT is the courts job.




I know EXACTLY how such laws are reviewed and scrutinized. That's my problem. When someone has to ask, while writing a law, is this constitutional, can we word it in such a way to pass it, then there is a fucking problem. This country was supposed to be one in which we were free. You should not have to be a fucking lawyer to know whether something is legal or not. Lord knows enough cops know shit about gun laws. Many of them have the attitude, fuck it, arrest 'em all, let the courts sort it out. It's a bullshit way to operate.

TXL
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:55:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:
As I've said before, but I'll repeat for the slow, if I'm arresting you; its for a lawful reason.



Thats what they all say.

Even those chumps who beat up that guy in New Orleans and got videotaped doing it.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:57:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ixy:


Ass-whooping? resisting arrest? I was talking about the courts down here, dipsh!t.

- cute how all the "anti-JBTs" are the 1st to resort to name calling in an attempt to display their mock anger. Can't make your point in a reasonable manner?


An unprovoked attack (aass-whooping) by a law enforcement official from out of state would prolly be "stopped" by the local Sheriff's Department among others. Who said anything about resisting arrest you neanderthal with a small pecker and a big gun. Shove your whoop-ass up your own.
- Nice way to take what I said out of context and make your pseudo-tough guy talk even more macho sounding. Refer to the above post about arresting someone. If you pay attention you'll notice the "ass-whooping" is far from unprovoked.


do you feel better beating up on people?
does it make you feel better about yourself?

- Nope. Having to fight someone in order to take them into custody usually requires paperwork and causes me to break a sweat. I much prefer talking someone into cuffs.



ps been around LEOs all my life, most are good people, but the ones like you give them all a bad name

- If you think so
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 9:57:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 10:01:42 AM EDT by drjarhead]

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
One can resist arrest legally.
The B-D were found to be acting in self defense you know.


Maybe in YOUR state, but regardless of the state involved, the place to dispute the lawfulness of an arrest is the courtroom.



While I agree that is the way our system is structured I would submit that you are for it as it allows you power to enforce unconstitutional laws with impunity. The average person has no ability to fight such laws, while the gov't steals from the rest of us and uses that unlimited power and money against us, and as they themselves determine the lawfulness of their actions.

The Constitution of the United States is pretty damn clear and anyone with an 8th grade reading level is able to comprehend it. That line seems to end with socialist activist judges who legislate from the bench. While the courts may need to determine its application in some fringe cases, the meat of it is not open for interpretation.

In the case at hand though, guns getting into the hands of criminals is a legitimate law enforcement issue. I really have to wonder whether that will be the ultimate focus of their investigations, however. Clearly, I have lost faith in our gov't and its enforcement of law as well as their attempts at usurpation of power and that lack of faith is warranted.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:01:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ar-wrench:
Not picking a fight, dude, but do you have any concept of State's Rights?

- Wait let me think. That might have been covered during one of my multiple classes on Constitutional Law and its application for law enforcement.

I dont know of too many people working under federal authority on the LE side that dont have their ducks in a row before they go out of their original jurisdiction during an investigation.
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:01:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:
- Keep running your suck and ignore the points of the arguement. As I've said before, but I'll repeat for the slow, if I'm arresting you; its for a lawful reason. If you want take things to the next level, your choice.



And what's YOUR definition of an "unlawful order"?
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:03:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By ar-wrench:
Not picking a fight, dude, but do you have any concept of State's Rights?

- Wait let me think. That might have been covered during one of my multiple classes on Constitutional Law and its application for law enforcement.




And what do they tell you guys about the BOR and, more specifically, the 2nd Amend?
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:04:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bulldog1967:

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:
- Keep running your suck and ignore the points of the arguement. As I've said before, but I'll repeat for the slow, if I'm arresting you; its for a lawful reason. If you want take things to the next level, your choice.



And what's YOUR definition of an "unlawful order"?

- an order that if completed would violate an established law.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top