Person A lives in California, person B lives in Free State with relaxed gun laws person A is coming to visit B and he wants to buy 2 pistols which are not on the CA approved list, safe pistols and all just they didn't pay the CA ransom fee.

what would stop person B from selling the friend a pistol or purchasing a used pistol at a gunshow and giving it to person A??

Person A is a responsible shooter that is having a hard time finding a few pistols that cannot be legally sold from out of state

A conscience? Respect for the law? I dont know, if a gun is illegal in CA to buy it is probably illegal to own period.

lack of balls is all that stops you


go for it

I do not know the answer to your question, but, can't the politicans in Kaliforifacation be tried for treason against the United States for NOT supporting the Constitution?

If I could, I say charge them and send them to trial!

[ROFL2][ROFL2]

You're funny...and naive.

Red Beard got it right.

No ones going to be knocking on the door over 2 pistols.

Sgtar15

the way it was explained to me was California has a handgun approved list so the guns that don't pay the 200 a year aren't on the list so if you want a vintage revolver sorry its deemed unsafe.  Even some high end 1911's aren't on the list because the companies refuse to pay.

I think it would be ok as long as person B doesn't get his friend in trouble back in CA.

Say, what branch of the federal goverment you said you work for? [lol]

NsB

Depends on what type of attorney you get to defend you. Have you read the law?
Somewhere buried in Title 10 of the US code it states that if a law is un-Constitutional to begin with it has no force of law and never did from its inception.
So the question to you is this; Does the Califonia Constitution give the legislature the authority to create laws affecting the ownership of firearms?

I am a rogue ATF agent you see when people speak out about california government I go kick in there door and make them dissapear that way we won't have anybody speaking out about how crappy CA is.

What in the hell does conscience have to do with it?  There's not one thing morally wrong with it.

Besides posting your intensions on an open forum where its speculated that its monitored by the Feds, I'd say nothing.


BISHOP

mike45acp, what kind of question is this
?

I didnt say the ATF would be kicking in his door, its called integrity. Respecting the law is not naive.

Theres nothing morally wrong with breaking the law? News to me...

^
Maybe the law itself is illegal?

So you think following a law that forces you to not be able to protect your family is morally superior to breaking the law to protect your family? So, where do you get [i]your[/i] morals from?

I sure hope you have never driven over the speed limit.  You'd be damned to hell for sure.

[i]what would stop person B from selling the friend a pistol or purchasing a used pistol at a gunshow and giving it to person A??[/i]

There are several possibilities of what the charges might be. Straw purchase would be top of the list--a federal offense.

I dont have any...

Agreed

If you don't have any morals, then how is the statement, "Theres nothing morally wrong with breaking the law," news to you?

One time I heard this story about some crazy guys from a few hundred years ago who refused to pay taxes to the British even though the law said they were supposed to.  Can't seem to remember what happened after that.

thanks for the advice guys I guess its not such a bright idea.

Purely hypothetical though, kind of like a philosopy question.

now magazines are another manner as long as person B isnt shipping them to person A its ok as its legal for person A to have them as long as he doesnt import them into Califorina.

What you people dont seem to understand is that by living here you subject yourself, WILLINGLY to every law on the books. It doesnt matter if you dont like it. You are subject to that rule while it is in effect until when andif it is changed. If you dont like it to bad, move or try and change it. Breaking it because you disgaree with it, or even while trying to change it is NOT acceptable.

So I guess all those black folks down south should have just moved up north instead of getting uppity and trying to vote, huh? Or maybe they should have just sat in the back of the bus, too.

Before you give declarations on the law, perhaps you should do some research into it. California law can not overrule the constitution. They cannot say no political speech on thursdays, and if you don't like it, move. The constitution protects every american, even those living in california. And the 2nd Amendment, like the first, overrules unconstitutional laws, even if the current batch of judges and legislators in california don't respect it.

Saying something it's immoral to break a law because "it's against the law" is just a knee jerk reaction usually given by people who can't offer a rational and logical argument in favor of said law.

Or perhaps this is too radical for you: "“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Aww, that's unfortunate. You're wrong again. [>Q]

You see, this is my country too. The people who made the laws don't have more of a right to it than I do. You see, we the people have an agreement with them. The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, etc. They didn't give me those rights, those are natural right. Rights that we are all born with.

Now, if they infringe on those rights, well, then, they've broken the agreement. That being the case, why should I leave if I don't agree with their breaking of the agreement? No, in fact, I think that they should leave.

Gifts to persons not prohibited from owning firearms are not straw purchases.

Got anything to back up your 'the law is the law and you have to obey the law because it's the law' stance?

A law, once passed is in fact a law even if its unconstituional UNTIL it is deemed so and overturned. Just because YOU think, or even the majority of people think a law is unjust it doesnt make it so.

What does the 10th Amendment say?



Hmm...it would seem that taking away guns is prohibited by the 2nd amendment. I guess we don't have to disreguard the 10th, because it disreguards itself. Neat.

That's a good point. I believe that the second amendment covers those. Of course, I also believe that you should pick your battles. And lets face it, even if he does have them, it would seem stupid to admit to it here! [;)]

Yes, exactly! Why would I fight for my freedom to speak if I have nothing to say? Instead, I'll go and live peacefully with those around me. If, one day, I have something to say, [i]then[/i] I will probably be willing to fight for my right to say it.

Likewise with guns. I enjoy owning guns, but they are here to defend my family and myself. Sure, my rights have been infringed because I can't legally own an AK-47. However, I'm not willing to fight for the right to own an AR-15 because I can do whats important to me, ie. defend my family, with my AR-15 replica. As long as my quality of life isn't being degraded, why fight when I don't have to? However, if it starts affecting me, I don't think that it will be immoral to fight.

lol um...wow
what if when YOURE ready to fight for your rights its too late?

bzzt. wrong answer. Competely wrong. In fact it's so wrong, I have to question exactly what you were thinking when you posted it. You are quoting laws, I am quoting the constitution. The constitution limits all laws in the land, not just the federal government.

For example, there have been STATE campaign finance laws that have been struck down (for example, see [url]http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/us_supreme_court/circuit_court_reverses.htm[/url]. They were struck down on the basis of 1st amendment protections. Meaning the STATE in this case went further than the 1st amendment allows. State cases get to the supreme court quite often, and not because they're being too lenient, but because they're being too strict and going against constitution protections.
You're also forgetting that ROE V Wade was a STATE law that was shot down by the US Supreme court on a constitutional basis, albeit a made up one.

I'm not sure how you've managed to be so completely wrong on this. Do you not comprehend the constitution?

Did someone hack into your account and start posting sub-par responses?

This is actually one of the lamer tricks in the book and I'd expect more from you. The unwritten part of all this, and one I thought I wouldn't have to explain because I took for granted that everyone could comprehend, is that the choices we make have actions. Yes, I could choose to disobey all the laws I'd want to. However, since they are on the books and have gone without a challenge, I'd have to deal with the current repurcussions of breaking the law.

Meaning I'd be put in jail. Then I'd have to hire a lawyer or two. If I lost, I'd have to appeal. If I won, the government would appeal. Eventually, if the appeals kept being accepted (and they would if the government lost each time), I'd have to hire quite a few lawyers, who'd spend quite a bit of time on the clock keeping me out of jail. Considering that taking a case the the supreme court withe merely adequate defense attorneys would probably at least $250,000, and I don't have that kind of money, I don't break the law.

However, if I had the resources of bill gates or somone with a lot of money, I probably would consider a challenge to unjust laws, or at least back someone else who chose to do so. Then there would be a chance at succeeding. But without the financial means to survive and continually defend against the government, it's not even an issue.

So please stop making goofy arguments.

[edited to change 'will merely competent' to 'with merely competent']

So youre only willing to break and challenege a law you know youre going to win against?
Geez...go conviction.

Let me guess...low scores in reading comprehension?

No, if I was going to challenge a law, I'd better damn well have the resources to mount the challenge. I do not. I can not hire lawyers out of thin air. The ACLU will not rush to my defense. That is realism.  If I did anything to challenge it now, I would not win. That would not accomplish anything. That would not further any goals. I'd just be grist in the mill at this point.

And I find someone who declares 'laws must be followed because they say so otherwise you are a bad person' mocking ANYONES courage to be laughable.

Surprise surprise youre wrong.

Good thing George Washington was a millionaire otherwise the war might have not been properly financed...[rolleyes]

My goodness. With a name like 'cerebral assasin' you'd hopefully be able to string together a logical argument. Or follow logic.

The time of Washington and the current time are quite different. The 'enemy' is not an ocean away. There is not a shooting war going on. There is a machine built on power that controls the game. They don't need to raise money for their lawyers, they merely tax and they have it.

It takes MONEY to mount a defense. To do anything without money is like fighting a war without bullets. Washington had bullets. I have no money, and therefore no chance at winning. Nothing would be served by fighting, since the only outcome is defeat. It is not 'being certain' of winning, but 'having a remote chance of mounting a credible fight.'

If you can't comprehend that, you need to change your user name, unless the name itself is ironic.

And just to put some more nails in the 'the constitution allows states to govern on their own' coffin:

"The states cannot, even laying the Constitutional provision out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to general government."

-Supreme Court of the United States, Presser v. Illinois (1886).

"All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void."

-Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the bill of rights."

-U.S. v. Emerson, U.S. federal court, Northern District of Texas, 1999


"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be."

- Supreme Court of the United States, Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

Do I need to continue with this??? Does everyone understand what 'supreme law of the land' means???

Thank you. You said that much better than I.

So, it's either live with all the laws/infringements, or live with none of them? No such thing as living with the laws/infringments you can tolerate and fighting the ones you can't? Heh heh, NO COMPROMISE, RIGHT?! [LOL]

I call troll [:K]

I've heard that you can own the weapons in question there, but that they are unable to be purchased in California. What exactly [i]is[/i] the law concerning this?

As far as the court is concerned, if the gov cant prove it, it never happened.

Dont get caught.

Amendment I.2
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV.

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.

Amendment V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X.

[red]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [/red]

Amendment XI.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

I do not agree with California, but here is the Constitution.
The Firearm person A is wanting is not legal to own or purchase because the State of California has deemed as such, and purchasing Firearms illegally is not the best way to conduct business.
The laws have been set forth were a newly purchased Firearm will comply with the Laws and all purchasers of Firearms will have a back ground check performed to conclude they are not involved in criminal activities.
Again I hate California Laws, but if the Gun Owners are purchasing them illegally then it is a strong defense for the anti-gun bastards to try and continue to restrict our Second Amendment Rights.