It's STARTING, patriots.. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : It's STARTING, patriots..


Skyhook
01-29-2013, 14:42
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/injured-special-forces-soldier-arrested-in-upstate-ny-for-possession-of-high-capacity-ammunition-magazines/

RussP
01-29-2013, 14:52
Test case...

Shinesintx
01-29-2013, 14:58
Nathan H. Haddad, 32, of 25240 Waddingham Road, town of LeRay, faces five felony counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

Wow, it sounds like he killed several people and raped their dog.

cowboy1964
01-29-2013, 14:59
So no one in NY was ever arrested before this for possessing 30 round AR mags??

snerd
01-29-2013, 15:06
New York State.......... love it or leave it. No sympathy from this old geezer. It's time to vote with your feet and/or wallet.

Leigh
01-29-2013, 15:06
Good work there, deputies....glad you are enforcing the law. Jeez.

ronin_the_great
01-29-2013, 15:09
Good work there, deputies....glad you are enforcing the law. Jeez.



It almost makes me wonder if he asked for them to arrest him. I'm very much not a cop, but if I was, no way in hell am I arresting this guy.

BierGut
01-29-2013, 15:12
Test case...

Not really -- He would have been in violation before the change in the law as he was carrying 5 packed 30 round magazines.

I thank him for his service to this country, but it sounds like he suffered "stupid judgement" moment.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130107/NEWS07/701079944

QNman
01-29-2013, 18:18
Not really -- He would have been in violation before the change in the law as he was carrying 5 packed 30 round magazines.

I thank him for his service to this country, but it sounds like he suffered "stupid judgement" moment.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130107/NEWS07/701079944

Why? For carrying loaded magazines? In his car? While otherwise obeying the law?

This isn't a test case... it's a warning shot.

steveksux
01-29-2013, 18:23
Test case...

Indeed, now someone has standing to take it to the courts.

Randy

Ruble Noon
01-29-2013, 18:31
What kind of ****ed up country does this guy live in?

jeanderson
01-29-2013, 18:33
The insanity begins. I suppose there's a libtard anti-gunner somewhere reading this that's saying "well thank God for governor Cuomo, we stopped another mass murder".

QNman
01-29-2013, 18:37
The insanity begins. I suppose there's a libtard anti-gunner somewhere reading this that's saying "well thank God for governor Cuomo, we stopped another mass murder".

Unfortunately, there's probably more than one.

yellowhand
01-29-2013, 18:44
Has this case gone before a judge yet?

juggy4711
01-29-2013, 18:46
What kind of ****ed up country does this guy live in?

And what kind of f'ed up LEO would enforce such a law? That's the real question. The government would be incapable of tyranny if there were not willing enforcers.

What I loathe more than the government are the thugs that impose its will on us.

johnson8861
01-29-2013, 18:48
What about fort Drum soldiers that live off post, are they breaking the law with what was issued to them?

Ruble Noon
01-29-2013, 19:23
And what kind of f'ed up LEO would enforce such a law? That's the real question. The government would be incapable of tyranny if there were not willing enforcers.

What I loathe more than the government are the thugs that impose its will on us.

Very true. If Feinstein and her ilk had to enforce the laws that they pass we would have few worries.

SGT HATRED
01-29-2013, 19:24
The more I hear about NY the more I wish it was wiped from the face of the earth...

sugarcreek
01-29-2013, 19:39
Big Government Progressives should not be allowed to move out of that state as far as I am concerned. Stay the hell there, PLEASE. Sorry to all the good Patriots there but sheesh... Too many are moving this way and upsetting the balance.

akroguy
01-29-2013, 21:25
he had mags, but no weapon in which to insert them? He's a threat in exactly what way? I suppose he could throw them.

Amazing.

domin8ss
01-29-2013, 21:29
Yep. They hurt more when loaded.

sugarcreek
01-29-2013, 21:29
D.Gregory was no threat but I would love him to have gotten burned... Hypocritical? Maybe but I wouldn't wish him JAILED...

ScottieG59
01-29-2013, 21:47
Well, there was no serious crime in New York that day, so law enforcement was able to deal with non-crime crimes. Now, this guy who was arrested may have had other issues and this was what they could get to stick better.

Still, this is a sign of things to come. New York has such a tangle of statutes and corrupt politicians, there is no straight and narrow path even for the collaborators. The governor who wants to be president is desperate to show he is worthy of picking up the leadership of the political elite.

As long as most Americans stand around looking for a handout, those free and productive Americans will continue to struggle.

Our forefathers worked with less and was victorious over a greater opponent.

DOC44
01-29-2013, 21:47
Why? For carrying loaded magazines? In his car? While otherwise obeying the law?

This isn't a test case... it's a warning shot.

I don't fire warning shots anymore.... ammo is too hard to replace.

Doc44

DOC44
01-29-2013, 21:49
The more I hear about NY the more I wish it was wiped from the face of the earth...

That would take a BIG roll of toilet paper.

Doc44

SGT HATRED
01-29-2013, 21:54
That would take a BIG roll of toilet paper.

Doc44

And it would look like this...

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/Merlin-X/2011-10-07130710.jpg

**my actual tp**

pugman
01-30-2013, 05:22
There is something missing here.

"The ammunition was found in his vehicle during a traffic stop, according to the sheriff’s office."

Exactly how were these found? Did he have them laying on the dash? Were they in a bag and the officer asked what was in there. What was the reason for the search of the vehicle if they were "found." Found to me implies a search.

We don't have all the facts here.

stevelyn
01-30-2013, 06:20
The more I hear about NY the more I wish it was wiped from the face of the earth...

Me too.

WT
01-30-2013, 08:29
I can't help but wonder if the SF Soldier was WIA while running a mission in NORTH Korea. The SF CG in Korea did say we were running missions there.

Anyway, since this guy is active let the case be transferred from civilian court to the military court. Let the Army take care of its own.

Gary W Trott
01-30-2013, 08:47
It's sad but nothing new for New York which has arrested people for illegally possessing firearms as they were passing through it's airports on the way to hunting trips or competitions.

BuckyP
01-30-2013, 08:47
D.Gregory was no threat but I would love him to have gotten burned... Hypocritical? Maybe but I wouldn't wish him JAILED...

From the article:

While the prosecutors in D.C. decide whether to charge David Gregory, another example of how the laws against possession of high capacity ammunition magazines are applied to the little people is unfolding in upstate New York, as reported by The Watertown Daily Times, Injured veteran arrested in weapons investigation (h/t Tip Line):

We all KNOW he isn't going to get in any trouble for this, as he is part of the ruling class (by proxy) in this ruling class vs us peasants, more commonly known as liberalism. It's better to make an example of a war hero than a "so called" journalist.

BTW: We need to stop the insanity of authoring any completely victimless crime as a FELONY. :steamed::steamed:

janice6
01-30-2013, 09:19
Those must have been some of the "High Velocity Clips" that NY is so worried about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/25shootings.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Hartford
01-30-2013, 10:48
From the article:



We all KNOW he isn't going to get in any trouble for this, as he is part of the ruling class (by proxy) in this ruling class vs us peasants, more commonly known as liberalism. It's better to make an example of a war hero than a "so called" journalist.

BTW: We need to stop the insanity of authoring any completely victimless crime as a FELONY. :steamed::steamed:

That went out the window when conservatives jumped on the band wagon of outlawing any activity that had the potential to harm society. Can't apply the concept to only that with witch you agree like drug laws and seat belt laws, but not gun laws. You empower the government to curtail thing just because you disagree with them and this is the inevitable outcome.

Some people will still not see this.

LASTRESORT20
01-30-2013, 10:59
The more I hear about NY the more I wish it was wiped from the face of the earth...


Yup.... "Escape from New York"................

Paul7
01-30-2013, 10:59
That went out the window when conservatives jumped on the band wagon of outlawing any activity that had the potential to harm society. Can't apply the concept to only that with witch you agree like drug laws and seat belt laws, but not gun laws. You empower the government to curtail thing just because you disagree with them and this is the inevitable outcome.

Some people will still not see this.

50,000 people die each year in the US from drugs, and an untold amount of crime goes with it to procure their fix, so I wouldn't call it victimless.

pmcjury
01-30-2013, 11:03
While the law is bull **** and I am hopeful that he is found not guilty through jury nullification I do want to point out a few things. This arrest was now because of the new law (pile of horse manure) but the old ban on high capacity magazines, and this person is not an active duty solider, he was medically discharged.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

BuckyP
01-30-2013, 12:55
That went out the window when conservatives jumped on the band wagon of outlawing any activity that had the potential to harm society. Can't apply the concept to only that with witch you agree like drug laws and seat belt laws, but not gun laws. You empower the government to curtail thing just because you disagree with them and this is the inevitable outcome.

Some people will still not see this.

Don't make assumptions. Seat belt laws are not felonies, and I don't agree with them anyway. The problem with drug use is many times it does result in victims.

Laugh if you like, I wish there were stronger laws against littering. Living on a main road, I am the victim of this crime daily.

JimP
01-30-2013, 13:09
There's a LOT missing from this article. there is NO Special Forces unit at Fort Drum. There's nothing stating he is an SF soldier other than the title. The facts down't match up here. I'm not agreeing with balling him up for having 5 mags of ammo but this article is very sparse in details.....

J_Rico
01-30-2013, 13:18
Good work there, deputies....glad you are enforcing the law. Jeez.

Maybe it was a great job by the deputies. Maybe they picked this as a good case to highlight how stupid is this law. The veteran angle helps with sympathy.

Could be wishful thinking, but maybe those deputies are on the side of the 2A and doing what they can.

Skyhook
01-30-2013, 13:18
Yup.... "Escape from New York"................


Well, while that's understandable, consider the thought that NY would be an excellent place to launch a counter punch. There are millions of NY-ers (like yours truly) who are into the fight and are trying our damnedest to beat this crap down-- how about some support for that minority, eh, patriot?

New York has many avid hunters and sportsmen and firearms enthusiasts and it is not their fault a place like NYC exists chocked full of slimy Democrat/Progressive sub-human-types.:steamed:

uzimon
01-30-2013, 13:27
Why? For carrying loaded magazines? In his car? While otherwise obeying the law?

This isn't a test case... it's a warning shot.

must be post '94 ban produced mags

Skyhook
01-30-2013, 13:38
must be post '94 ban produced mags


Perhaps, but our shortages come in having to go with what some media outlet threw bout the room.

There is, like several have indicated, a lot of missing detail, but one must wonder; was it the reporter or the cops who said the guy was arrested for those 'High Capacity' mags?

We are awaiting better and more detailed info, but it does have a certain Stalinist/Hitler ring to it at present.

Hartford
01-30-2013, 13:57
50,000 people die each year in the US from drugs, and an untold amount of crime goes with it to procure their fix, so I wouldn't call it victimless.

The ones that die from their own drug use just win the darwin award. As long as they don't hurt anyone in the process that is their choice to make.

The ones that steal, murder and commit other crimes should be punished for those actions. Most of the violence that comes from the drug trade is a direct result of the feds creating a black market for them. The ones that can't handle the high and hurt others, punish them too.

People that get in trouble for mere possession of drugs are the ones that have no victim, and yet they are persecuted. Makes no sense. The gun community is one of the loudest to cry when they get punished for the actions of criminals, and yet they turn around and demand the feds treat others same way. They don't see that it eventually leads to them also.

I have no issue with states enacting their own laws for drugs, just feel the feds should not be involved.

Skyhook
01-30-2013, 14:09
The ones that die from their own drug use just win the darwin award. As long as they don't hurt anyone in the process that is their choice to make.

The ones that steal, murder and commit other crimes should be punished for those actions. Most of the violence that comes from the drug trade is a direct result of the feds creating a black market for them. The ones that can't handle the high and hurt others, punish them too.

People that get in trouble for mere possession of drugs are the ones that have no victim, and yet they are persecuted. Makes no sense. The gun community is one of the loudest to cry when they get punished for the actions of criminals, and yet they turn around and demand the feds treat others same way. They don't see that it eventually leads to them also.

I have no issue with states enacting their own laws for drugs, just feel the feds should not be involved.

Here ya go... digest this http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/chicago-murders-top-afghanistan-death-toll/

There is a price to pay for slavery... but what price, what cost, should extend forever?!?

G19G20
01-30-2013, 14:11
Just another example of why everyone needs to stop consenting to searches of their cars during traffic stops and keep your mouth shut when they ask if you have any weapons. It doesnt matter if you have any weapons unless you tell them you do.

Gunnut 45/454
01-30-2013, 14:40
Hartford

"As long as they don't hurt anyone in the process that is their choice to make."

So all the slaves, people killed(Murdered by the drug Cartels) to get that druggy there high is of no consequence? All the money those druggies give to the murdering scum bag cartels it ok cause the druggies get there high and don't hurt anyone!! They are just as responsible for every death that happens along the chain of the drugs getting into there veins or smoked! Cause if they didn't use then the cartels would need to kill, break laws to supply those innocent druggies which by the way commit many crimes to get there drugs! Ever watch "Drugs Inc" ever see how the druggeis get there money to buy there daily fix- thefts, prositution, dealing any thing to get there next fix!:steamed:

Hartford
01-30-2013, 15:03
Hartford

"As long as they don't hurt anyone in the process that is their choice to make."

So all the slaves, people killed(Murdered by the drug Cartels) to get that druggy there high is of no consequence? All the money those druggies give to the murdering scum bag cartels it ok cause the druggies get there high and don't hurt anyone!! They are just as responsible for every death that happens along the chain of the drugs getting into there veins or smoked! Cause if they didn't use then the cartels would need to kill, break laws to supply those innocent druggies which by the way commit many crimes to get there drugs! Ever watch "Drugs Inc" ever see how the druggeis get there money to buy there daily fix- thefts, prositution, dealing any thing to get there next fix!:steamed:

The real part of this I was trying to point out, and we are now straying from that, is that the federal government has no constitutional authority to control drugs. Under the constitution it should be left to individual states to decide. Once you allow the feds to overstep their constitutional authority there is no end to what they can do. Including gutting the second amendment.

The cartels would not have the power they have now if it were not for the black market making it so profitable. When the prohibition of alcohol ended the mobs power was greatly reduced.

The black market is the exact reason why drugs are so expensive. Remove them from the black market and let the producers come under the protection of the law and prices will fall.

Hartford
01-30-2013, 15:13
Here ya go... digest this http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/chicago-murders-top-afghanistan-death-toll/

There is a price to pay for slavery... but what price, what cost, should extend forever?!?

Your article also states that 98 percent of those murders were committed with handguns. If we are going to allow the feds to overstep their constitutional bounds to control drugs for the safety of society, then we can't be surprised when they come after the second to protect society as well.

History has shown that prohibiton causes more problems than it solves. The way to put the biggest dent in the drug problem in this country the government needs to stop supporting and encouraging deadbeats to have children imho. These children that are raised by irresponsible parents grow up to be just like them for the most. No respect for human life or the property of others. They feel entitled to what they want, and if it is not given to them they take it from others. Drugs are not the cause of this problem in chicago. The problems in chicago and this country are created by the government. This argument is second to the one I was trying make above though.

Hartford
01-30-2013, 15:21
In my first post in this thread I was not trying to single out the poster I quoted, and was not trying to suggest you support any of the laws I mentioned. I used the word you when I should not have.

Can we get back to the original point that when you allow the feds to take on unconstitutional powers it can apply those powers to other things.

syntaxerrorsix
01-30-2013, 16:10
In my first post in this thread I was not trying to single out the poster I quoted, and was not trying to suggest you support any of the laws I mentioned. I used the word you when I should not have.

Can we get back to the original point that when you allow the feds to take on unconstitutional powers it can apply those powers to other things.

We can but the income of several folks stem from the war on drugs and they will defend it to the death. For what it's worth i agree with everything you wrote.

juggy4711
01-30-2013, 20:36
We can but the income of several folks stem from the war on drugs and they will defend it to the death. For what it's worth i agree with everything you wrote.

The WoD is exactly the kind of thing Eisenhower warned of in his farewell address, though I'm not sure he realized how far reaching the warning was.

Coffee Industrial Complex
Paperclip Industrial Complex
Floor Cleaner Industrial Complex
So on and so forth.

As long as the federal government is one of if not the largest consumer of various commodities there will be no change.

Skyhook
01-31-2013, 06:59
Your article also states that 98 percent of those murders were committed with handguns. If we are going to allow the feds to overstep their constitutional bounds to control drugs for the safety of society, then we can't be surprised when they come after the second to protect society as well.

History has shown that prohibiton causes more problems than it solves. The way to put the biggest dent in the drug problem in this country the government needs to stop supporting and encouraging deadbeats to have children imho. These children that are raised by irresponsible parents grow up to be just like them for the most. No respect for human life or the property of others. They feel entitled to what they want, and if it is not given to them they take it from others. Drugs are not the cause of this problem in chicago. The problems in chicago and this country are created by the government. This argument is second to the one I was trying make above though.

I can show you where in the Bill of Rights we both have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.. can you show me where in the Bill of Rights or COTUS where it is written you or I have a RIGHT to drugs? Recreational drugs?
:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
01-31-2013, 07:15
The ones that die from their own drug use just win the darwin award. As long as they don't hurt anyone in the process that is their choice to make.

The ones that steal, murder and commit other crimes should be punished for those actions. Most of the violence that comes from the drug trade is a direct result of the feds creating a black market for them. The ones that can't handle the high and hurt others, punish them too.

People that get in trouble for mere possession of drugs are the ones that have no victim, and yet they are persecuted. Makes no sense. The gun community is one of the loudest to cry when they get punished for the actions of criminals, and yet they turn around and demand the feds treat others same way. They don't see that it eventually leads to them also.

I have no issue with states enacting their own laws for drugs, just feel the feds should not be involved.

Burglary and theft happen often because the addict needs another fix and has ran out of money. People aren't robbing pharmacies because legal drugs are illegal, and most certainly are not robbing people, cars and homes to get money for drugs because they are illegal. There is a lot of deign use related crime that has nothing to do with them being illegal. That being said, I'm all for decriminalization as long as some reasonable measures are put into place to ensure users are paying their way. Things like requiring secondary insurance to pay for drug related illness, and drug testing as a requirement for public assistance.

syntaxerrorsix
01-31-2013, 07:54
I can show you where in the Bill of Rights we both have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.. can you show me where in the Bill of Rights or COTUS where it is written you or I have a RIGHT to drugs? Recreational drugs?
:dunno:

The COTUS is not an all inclusive list of rights of the people it's an all inclusive list of the powers of the federal government. If it's not found there then the federal government doesn't have that power.

The BOR's was created to enunciate what was and was not under the purview of the federal government.

Skyhook
01-31-2013, 09:40
The COTUS is not an all inclusive list of rights of the people it's an all inclusive list of the powers of the federal government. If it's not found there then the federal government doesn't have that power.

The BOR's was created to enunciate what was and was not under the purview of the federal government.


I still and yet fail to see any real comparison of recreational drug use and the second amendment.

Your Right to self protection is clearly spelled out, whereas there exists no such right to using drugs, as suggested by the post above.

domin8ss
01-31-2013, 10:05
I still and yet fail to see any real comparison of recreational drug use and the second amendment.

Your Right to self protection is clearly spelled out, whereas there exists no such right to using drugs, as suggested by the post above.

Well put. It's not like the writers of the Constitution didn't have to deal with drugs in their days. They existed then, too.

syntaxerrorsix
01-31-2013, 10:09
I still and yet fail to see any real comparison of recreational drug use and the second amendment.

Your Right to self protection is clearly spelled out, whereas there exists no such right to using drugs, as suggested by the post above.


You are still operating under the premise that the COTUS gives you the right to defend yourself. It doesn't. It protects (or is suppose to protect) the federal government from interfering with your ability bear arms. The BOR's is a restriction on the government not a gift of rights.

There is no right to drive or right to take non-prohibited substances like alcohol or nicotine yet here we are clearly allowed to do so.

Liberty = The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life..

syntaxerrorsix
01-31-2013, 10:11
Well put. It's not like the writers of the Constitution didn't have to deal with drugs in their days. They existed then, too.


Clearly, several founders grew marijuana and crafted their own beers and spirits.

RussP
01-31-2013, 10:12
The COTUS is not an all inclusive list of rights of the people it's an all inclusive list of the powers of the federal government. If it's not found there then the federal government doesn't have that power.

The BOR's was created to enunciate what was and was not under the purview of the federal government.Why is that so not understood?

The problem is the bastardation of "Right". Too many people use it to describe what they "want". I want a free ______! becomes It's my right to have a free __________!

syntaxerrorsix
01-31-2013, 10:16
Why is that so not understood?

The problem is the bastardation of "Right". Too many people use it to describe what they "want". I want a free ______! becomes It's my right to have a free __________!

Agreed.

Hartford
01-31-2013, 14:01
I can show you where in the Bill of Rights we both have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.. can you show me where in the Bill of Rights or COTUS where it is written you or I have a RIGHT to drugs? Recreational drugs?
:dunno:

The bill of rights doesn't grant us our rights. It puts limitations on Feds and states.

Now can you point out where in the constitution the fed are granted the power to regulate "drugs".

snerd
01-31-2013, 14:07
....... Now can you point out where in the constitution the fed are granted the power to regulate "drugs".
It clearly doesn't. But ever since the Civil War, the winners have been writing history. They have succeeded in convincing the populace that they have much more power than what they have, and what was originally intended. It's gone so far that I can say with confidence that it cannot be turned back around. This ain't the movies........ good doesn't always triumph over evil. Take that and do with it what you will.

Hartford
01-31-2013, 14:14
Burglary and theft happen often because the addict needs another fix and has ran out of money. People aren't robbing pharmacies because legal drugs are illegal, and most certainly are not robbing people, cars and homes to get money for drugs because they are illegal. There is a lot of deign use related crime that has nothing to do with them being illegal. That being said, I'm all for decriminalization as long as some reasonable measures are put into place to ensure users are paying their way. Things like requiring secondary insurance to pay for drug related illness, and drug testing as a requirement for public assistance.

I don't think there should be public assistance from the feds at all. If individual states want to have a system of welfare it is up to them how they implement. If my state chose to have its own welfare programs I would be in favor of a provision like that. I would also be looking to move to another state that left welfare up to charities.

Most crimes that are committed in order to afford ones drug habit are directly related to the inflated price of these substances due to illegal nature of them. I can go down to my local gas station and by six oz of tobacco for around eight dollars. If I go to the friendly neighbor hood drug dealer I'd be looking at increasing that price anywhere from 100% to 200% depending on the grade required. That is not because it is that much harder to grow and produce, it is a direct result of federal regulations regarding this substance. It's the same for every other illegal drug.

If I get script for a painkiller from the doctor i get my pills for pennies. If I turn around and sell them on the black market to people that can not legally buy them I can get a dollar a milligram for them at the friend discount. More for those I don't know. The black market prices of drugs play a huge role in why so many addicts commit crimes to be able to continue their habit.

Allow the market to come under the protection of the law and prices drop dramatically. I am not arguing the morality of drug use or drug trafficking. My original point in this thread was to address a posters question about how the government feels it can infringe on our constitutionally protected rights. I was merely trying to point out that when you accept government infringement in one area you may/should expect it in others. I allowed myself to get sidetracked from that one point.

syntaxerrorsix
01-31-2013, 14:17
I don't think there should be public assistance from the feds at all. If individual states want to have a system of welfare it is up to them how they implement. If my state chose to have its own welfare programs I would be in favor of a provision like that. I would also be looking to move to another state that left welfare up to charities.

Most crimes that are committed in order to afford ones drug habit are directly related to the inflated price of these substances due to illegal nature of them. I can go down to my local gas station and by six oz of tobacco for around eight dollars. If I go to the friendly neighbor hood drug dealer I'd be looking at increasing that price anywhere from 100% to 200% depending on the grade required. That is not because it is that much harder to grow and produce, it is a direct result of federal regulations regarding this substance. It's the same for every other illegal drug.

If I get script for a painkiller from the doctor i get my pills for pennies. If I turn around and sell them on the black market to people that can not legally buy them I can get a dollar a milligram for them at the friend discount. More for those I don't know. The black market prices of drugs play a huge role in why so many addicts commit crimes to be able to continue their habit.

Allow the market to come under the protection of the law and prices drop dramatically. I am not arguing the morality of drug use or drug trafficking. My original point in this thread was to address a posters question about how the government feels it can infringe on our constitutionally protected rights. I was merely trying to point out that when you accept government infringement in one area you may/should expect it in others. I allowed myself to get sidetracked from that one point.

How refreshing :wavey:

hooligan74
01-31-2013, 14:39
I can't help but wonder if the SF Soldier was WIA while running a mission in NORTH Korea. The SF CG in Korea did say we were running missions there.

Anyway, since this guy is active let the case be transferred from civilian court to the military court. Let the Army take care of its own.


He was discharged from the Army in 2010.

So, civilians shouldn't be expected to comply with state laws, just because they are veterans? Sweet! Time to go speed and run some stop signs, then!

Be right back...

certifiedfunds
01-31-2013, 15:17
50,000 people die each year in the US from drugs, and an untold amount of crime goes with it to procure their fix, so I wouldn't call it victimless.

75,000 killed by alcohol

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/

certifiedfunds
01-31-2013, 15:19
I can show you where in the Bill of Rights we both have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.. can you show me where in the Bill of Rights or COTUS where it is written you or I have a RIGHT to drugs? Recreational drugs?
:dunno:

That's not how the COTUS works. Show me where we don't have the right.

At least at the federal level.

States do as they wish.

syntaxerrorsix
01-31-2013, 15:27
That's not how the COTUS works. Show me where we don't have the right.

At least at the federal level.

States do as they wish.

Silly tenth amendment.

certifiedfunds
01-31-2013, 16:53
I don't think there should be public assistance from the feds at all. If individual states want to have a system of welfare it is up to them how they implement. If my state chose to have its own welfare programs I would be in favor of a provision like that. I would also be looking to move to another state that left welfare up to charities.

Most crimes that are committed in order to afford ones drug habit are directly related to the inflated price of these substances due to illegal nature of them. I can go down to my local gas station and by six oz of tobacco for around eight dollars. If I go to the friendly neighbor hood drug dealer I'd be looking at increasing that price anywhere from 100% to 200% depending on the grade required. That is not because it is that much harder to grow and produce, it is a direct result of federal regulations regarding this substance. It's the same for every other illegal drug.

If I get script for a painkiller from the doctor i get my pills for pennies. If I turn around and sell them on the black market to people that can not legally buy them I can get a dollar a milligram for them at the friend discount. More for those I don't know. The black market prices of drugs play a huge role in why so many addicts commit crimes to be able to continue their habit.

Allow the market to come under the protection of the law and prices drop dramatically. I am not arguing the morality of drug use or drug trafficking. My original point in this thread was to address a posters question about how the government feels it can infringe on our constitutionally protected rights. I was merely trying to point out that when you accept government infringement in one area you may/should expect it in others. I allowed myself to get sidetracked from that one point.

Well done

JohnnyReb
01-31-2013, 18:24
And what kind of f'ed up LEO would enforce such a law? That's the real question. The government would be incapable of tyranny if there were not willing enforcers.


And there is our biggest issue. If arresting the man for some high cap magazines is okay with their morals, confiscating "Illegal Firearms" is a drop in the bucket.

What the citizens of that county should do, is vote in a Sheriff that will refuse to enforce those laws.

That's why the Sheriff's system is the best, the top law enforcer is directly responsible to the people.

If I were a member of that county, I'd be writing the Sheriff, and DA, and tell them my thoughts, and how they will be losing votes.

Your greatest protections come from the local level guys.

Ringo S.
01-31-2013, 22:18
And what kind of f'ed up LEO would enforce such a law? That's the real question. .
There is old saying in Russia: "Austerity of russian law softens a lot by optionality of its application"
I don't know how it happen in USA...

Nemesis.
01-31-2013, 22:57
...........

RussP
02-01-2013, 09:23
I can't help but wonder if the SF Soldier was WIA while running a mission in NORTH Korea. The SF CG in Korea did say we were running missions there.

Anyway, since this guy is active let the case be transferred from civilian court to the military court. Let the Army take care of its own.

There's a LOT missing from this article. there is NO Special Forces unit at Fort Drum. There's nothing stating he is an SF soldier other than the title. The facts down't match up here. I'm not agreeing with balling him up for having 5 mags of ammo but this article is very sparse in details.....He was injured during a training exercise in Korea.

Skyhook
02-01-2013, 11:56
The bill of rights doesn't grant us our rights. It puts limitations on Feds and states.

Now can you point out where in the constitution the fed are granted the power to regulate "drugs".


Nope, I cannot.

There is a magnificent hole to be explored by the feds, though, and it has something about 'the *general good* in it somewhere..'

If unbridled use of a substance commits the general population to sustain financial loss and other damage, then the feds have traditionally used that as a kind of club. Drugs cause massive debilitation and incur great financial loads on public offices (police) and health care facilities. Drug users are notoriously and seriously without means to support their addictions so the 'general' part of the 'general good' have been traditionally harnessed with the expenses and damages.

If there was some acceptable way to let those weak minded and weak willed enough to seek addiction to not burden the rest of us, I'd be for 100% legalization.

Until then..

hooligan74
02-01-2013, 12:59
Try not to be stupid. Oops. Too late.

Good to know who thinks badge heavy cops take precedence over the Constitution.

Maybe you and your buddies would like to go out and kill somebody's pet?


I have no idea what the personal insults have to do with my question.

#1 - a law isn't legally unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is. Until then, it's still the law. Whether you or I agree with it is completely beside the point.

#2 - do veterans get some sort of pass on following the laws of the state that they choose to live in?

The law in question, as of this moment, has not been ruled unconstitutional. Veterans are required to obey laws just like everyone else.

Explain to me, again, what the problem is?

:dunno:

JohnnyReb
02-01-2013, 13:36
I have no idea what the personal insults have to do with my question.

#1 - a law isn't legally unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is. Until then, it's still the law. Whether you or I agree with it is completely beside the point.

#2 - do veterans get some sort of pass on following the laws of the state that they choose to live in?

The law in question, as of this moment, has not been ruled unconstitutional. Veterans are required to obey laws just like everyone else.

Explain to me, again, what the problem is?

:dunno:

No it has nothing to do with him being a veteran, it has to do with him getting jammed up with a tyrannical law.

It is not beside the point. It has everything to do with what we agree with.

If enough people stand up things change.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

certifiedfunds
02-01-2013, 15:00
I have no idea what the personal insults have to do with my question.

#1 - a law isn't legally unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is. Until then, it's still the law. Whether you or I agree with it is completely beside the point.

#2 - do veterans get some sort of pass on following the laws of the state that they choose to live in?

The law in question, as of this moment, has not been ruled unconstitutional. Veterans are required to obey laws just like everyone else.

Explain to me, again, what the problem is?

:dunno:

When it comes to laws, the SCOTUS isn't the final word. There is the moral component as well.

The SCOTUS could rule child rape legal under freedom of religion. It could rule individual gun ownership illegal. Looking to the SCOTUS as the final arbiter is a mistake. The SCOTUS is a political body comprised of lawyers in fancy robes. The people have a duty to defy immoral laws. The state hires enforcers to punish them.

Hartford
02-01-2013, 15:29
Nope, I cannot.

There is a magnificent hole to be explored by the feds, though, and it has something about 'the *general good* in it somewhere..'

If unbridled use of a substance commits the general population to sustain financial loss and other damage, then the feds have traditionally used that as a kind of club. Drugs cause massive debilitation and incur great financial loads on public offices (police) and health care facilities. Drug users are notoriously and seriously without means to support their addictions so the 'general' part of the 'general good' have been traditionally harnessed with the expenses and damages.

If there was some acceptable way to let those weak minded and weak willed enough to seek addiction to not burden the rest of us, I'd be for 100% legalization.

Until then..

Once the feds are allowed to overstep their bounds for the general good in regard to drugs, health care and many other things, then firearms are only a step away. In the wrong hands they do greatly endanger the general good. The argument above also holds no water because the duties of the feds are clearly outlined in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution.

You want drug laws fine. Campaign for them on a state level. Every conservative should be against them on a federal level. Just like every conservative should be against federal welfare, health care, retirement, marriage laws and many other things the feds do should be left to the states. Every conservative should scream at the top of their lungs against all these intrusions because they just lead to more. Thing is, a lot of conservatives have pet issues they want the feds involved in. Consequences of the involvement are overlooked due to some disconnect in the though process.

Again this thread has been derailed by this discussion from the original story it was about. It is my fault. I addressed a posters question, that may have been rhetorical, because i always see conservatives wonder why the feds stick their noses into areas they don't belong. Just trying to point out that many past and present conservatives have indirectly and directly invited these actions by the feds on issues they agree with.

Ruble Noon
02-01-2013, 16:57
Once the feds are allowed to overstep their bounds for the general good in regard to drugs, health care and many other things, then firearms are only a step away. In the wrong hands they do greatly endanger the general good. The argument above also holds no water because the duties of the feds are clearly outlined in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution.

You want drug laws fine. Campaign for them on a state level. Every conservative should be against them on a federal level. Just like every conservative should be against federal welfare, health care, retirement, marriage laws and many other things the feds do should be left to the states. Every conservative should scream at the top of their lungs against all these intrusions because they just lead to more. Thing is, a lot of conservatives have pet issues they want the feds involved in. Consequences of the involvement are overlooked due to some disconnect in the though process.

Again this thread has been derailed by this discussion from the original story it was about. It is my fault. I addressed a posters question, that may have been rhetorical, because i always see conservatives wonder why the feds stick their noses into areas they don't belong. Just trying to point out that many past and present conservatives have indirectly and directly invited these actions by the feds on issues they agree with.

Good post.

certifiedfunds
02-01-2013, 17:07
Once the feds are allowed to overstep their bounds for the general good in regard to drugs, health care and many other things, then firearms are only a step away. In the wrong hands they do greatly endanger the general good. The argument above also holds no water because the duties of the feds are clearly outlined in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution.

You want drug laws fine. Campaign for them on a state level. Every conservative should be against them on a federal level. Just like every conservative should be against federal welfare, health care, retirement, marriage laws and many other things the feds do should be left to the states. Every conservative should scream at the top of their lungs against all these intrusions because they just lead to more. Thing is, a lot of conservatives have pet issues they want the feds involved in. Consequences of the involvement are overlooked due to some disconnect in the though process.

Again this thread has been derailed by this discussion from the original story it was about. It is my fault. I addressed a posters question, that may have been rhetorical, because i always see conservatives wonder why the feds stick their noses into areas they don't belong. Just trying to point out that many past and present conservatives have indirectly and directly invited these actions by the feds on issues they agree with.

+1 Excellent

If you support unconstitutional federal power grabs in areas you agree with be prepared to accept them in areas you disagree with.

Stubudd
02-02-2013, 06:22
I can show you where in the Bill of Rights we both have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.. can you show me where in the Bill of Rights or COTUS where it is written you or I have a RIGHT to drugs? Recreational drugs?
:dunno:

sigh...

hooligan74
02-02-2013, 06:40
When it comes to laws, the SCOTUS isn't the final word. There is the moral component as well.

The SCOTUS could rule child rape legal under freedom of religion. It could rule individual gun ownership illegal. Looking to the SCOTUS as the final arbiter is a mistake. The SCOTUS is a political body comprised of lawyers in fancy robes. The people have a duty to defy immoral laws. The state hires enforcers to punish them.

What I said was that the SCOTUS was the highest authority of what laws were and were not constitutional. It was in response to calling this magazine-capacity limit law "unconstitutional", which it is not from a legal standpoint.

If the people have a duty to defy immoral laws, they should be prepared to have the confidence of their convictions and pay the price when caught breaking those laws. Wouldn't obeying the laws while working within our society's legal system to get them changed be a better course of action?

hooligan74
02-02-2013, 06:44
No it has nothing to do with him being a veteran, it has to do with him getting jammed up with a tyrannical law.

Well, for it having "nothing to do" with it, the article (and lots of posters here on this forum) are sure playing up his veteran status. Odd.

It is not beside the point. It has everything to do with what we agree with.

What I said was the fact that you or I may disagree with it is beside the point within the context of constitutionality, and it is.

If enough people stand up things change.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Sure. I fully support working within the system to get laws changed.

hooligan74
02-02-2013, 06:46
+1 Excellent

If you support unconstitutional federal power grabs in areas you agree with be prepared to accept them in areas you disagree with.


:thumbsup:

Skyhook
02-02-2013, 07:14
sigh...


Do not do that unless you mean it. :cool:

Skyhook
02-02-2013, 07:21
+1 Excellent

If you support unconstitutional federal power grabs in areas you agree with be prepared to accept them in areas you disagree with.

I, also, agree 100% with most stated, here.

There is a large can of worms waiting to be opened by trying to justify elimination of central government and devolving into Balkan-like states of confusion or somehow attempting to maintain that central power while keeping such governments (like we are now experiencing) from blasting totally out of control while the members of that government pass tyrannical laws while enriching and (love this term) EMPOWERING themselves.



BTW, no one here can point to any statements I have made supporting " unconstitutional federal power grabs". That, if applied to me, is a fabrication.

RussP
02-03-2013, 10:53
This thread started close to three weeks after Haddad's arrest in early January.

The new New York SAFE Act was passed almost two weeks after the arrest and isn't effective until 03/16/2013. 265.36 - Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Effective Date: 03/16/2013 (http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm#p265.36)

So Haddad's arrest was based on existing law. How long had the pre-ban mag law been on the books?

Haddad lived in NYS since at least 2009 when a story was written about his therapy and recuperation - INJURED SOLDIERS HIT POOL (http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090924/NEWS03/309249952).

Simple question, did he know he broke the law?Posted by Michael Haddad... (http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc#description)

...he was arrested because he broke the law. that is something that neither he nor i dispute.HOWEVER, in an earlier post, Michael posted at the same link...On Sunday January 6th he was arrested for possession of five, 30 round empty magazines that he believed were pre-ban magazines when he purchased them.

Funds are being raised for his defense on the site I linked to for Michael's posts.

Skyhook
02-03-2013, 14:23
This thread started close to three weeks after Haddad's arrest in early January.

The new New York SAFE Act was passed almost two weeks after the arrest and isn't effective until 03/16/2013. 265.36 - Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Effective Date: 03/16/2013 (http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm#p265.36)

So Haddad's arrest was based on existing law. How long had the pre-ban mag law been on the books?

Haddad lived in NYS since at least 2009 when a story was written about his therapy and recuperation - INJURED SOLDIERS HIT POOL (http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090924/NEWS03/309249952).

Simple question, did he know he broke the law?HOWEVER, in an earlier post, Michael posted at the same link...

Funds are being raised for his defense on the site I linked to for Michael's posts.

:upeyes:

Professional LE being diverted to arresting someone with empty 30-rnd magazines--- anyone else see the little dog humping the man's leg, here?

As to it being "against the law"- WTF isn't against the law, anymore in NYS... except raiding the tax coffers by back-sliding, Obama voters, that is?
:steamed:

hooligan74
02-04-2013, 11:05
...Simple question, did he know he broke the law?...

Another simple question: Does ignorance of the law provide a valid defense in this case? In some situations, yes. In most situations, no. I have no idea what NYS law has to say on this topic.

Beware Owner
02-04-2013, 11:09
The existing law is still unconstitutional.

hooligan74
02-04-2013, 11:11
The existing law is still unconstitutional.

Not according to the SCOTUS and their opinion is the only one that matters, legally.

BuckyP
02-04-2013, 11:17
Not according to the SCOTUS and their opinion is the only one that matters, legally.

Where and when did the SCOTUS rule on this law?

syntaxerrorsix
02-04-2013, 11:20
Not according to the SCOTUS and their opinion is the only one that matters, legally.

No, 9 guys using an assumed power of the Judicial Branch is not the only thing that matters.

Beware Owner
02-04-2013, 12:00
The Constitution precludes the SCOTUS....

certifiedfunds
02-04-2013, 12:50
What I said was that the SCOTUS was the highest authority of what laws were and were not constitutional. It was in response to calling this magazine-capacity limit law "unconstitutional", which it is not from a legal standpoint.

If the people have a duty to defy immoral laws, they should be prepared to have the confidence of their convictions and pay the price when caught breaking those laws. Wouldn't obeying the laws while working within our society's legal system to get them changed be a better course of action?

Well that depends on whether the enforcers enforce immoral laws or if enough people mind their conscience that it overwhelms the system.

RussP
02-04-2013, 13:09
:upeyes:

Professional LE being diverted to arresting someone with empty 30-rnd magazines--- anyone else see the little dog humping the man's leg, here?Were they empty? There is conflicting information being floated. Some say empty, some say loaded.

Diverted? What do you mean?

RussP
02-04-2013, 13:12
Another simple question: Does ignorance of the law provide a valid defense in this case? In some situations, yes. In most situations, no. I have no idea what NYS law has to say on this topic.You are assuming ignorance of the law.

In fact, he did know the law. It is stated that he purchased the mags believing they were pre-ban. Knew the law, believed he was complying with the law.

hooligan74
02-04-2013, 13:57
You are assuming ignorance of the law.

In fact, he did know the law. It is stated that he purchased the mags believing they were pre-ban. Knew the law, believed he was complying with the law.


In this case, wouldn't mistakenly believing he had compliant magazines, when he did not, equate to ignorance of the law?

:dunno:

hooligan74
02-04-2013, 13:58
No, 9 guys using an assumed power of the Judicial Branch is not the only thing that matters.

Do we agree that the SCOTUS, by design, is the ultimate authority on whether or not a law is unconstitutional?

hooligan74
02-04-2013, 14:07
Well that depends on whether the enforcers enforce immoral laws or if enough people mind their conscience that it overwhelms the system.

Based on whose morality, though? Yours? Mine? Your friends and family?

In a civilized society, you are obligated to obey the laws of the land or face the consequences assigned to breaking those laws. If you disagree with them, there are mechanisms in place to get them changed.

certifiedfunds
02-04-2013, 16:33
Based on whose morality, though? Yours? Mine? Your friends and family?

In a civilized society, you are obligated to obey the laws of the land or face the consequences assigned to breaking those laws. If you disagree with them, there are mechanisms in place to get them changed.

Mine, yours and our friends and family. All of the above. Remember that laws restrict behavior. It's a kindergarten thang.

In a free society you are obligated to disobey immoral laws and face the consequences, if you can't avoid them.

Servants, meet masters.

This is why tax evaders are modern patriots. Taxation has reached the point of immorality.

syntaxerrorsix
02-04-2013, 16:41
Do we agree that the SCOTUS, by design, is the ultimate authority on whether or not a law is unconstitutional?

The SCOTUS may act this way but they do not have the power to determine if something is constitutional or not nor do they have the power to interpret the COTUS. There is no power of judicial review. It was an assumed power that was never ratified by the states.

Here is the power granted to the legislative branch.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii


We should not entrust 9 unelected people to legislate from the bench by decree of constitutionality.

RussP
02-04-2013, 19:43
In this case, wouldn't mistakenly believing he had compliant magazines, when he did not, equate to ignorance of the law?

:dunno:Here is a more complete accounting of what happened...MILLER: N.Y. vet arrested for 30-round magazines (Part 1) (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/feb/1/miller-ny-vet-arrested-30-round-magazines-part-1/)

Nathan's brother, Michael, has updated this page, too. Nathan Haddad's legal fund (http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc)

domin8ss
02-04-2013, 22:03
The SCOTUS may act this way but they do not have the power to determine if something is constitutional or not nor do they have the power to interpret the COTUS. There is no power of judicial review. It was an assumed power that was never ratified by the states.

Here is the power granted to the legislative branch.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii


We should not entrust 9 unelected people to legislate from the bench by decree of constitutionality.

Have you heard of Mabe v. Marbury. Judges do interpret the law, and nobody else. Their rulings become law through precedent. The judicial branch exists to do checks and balances on the executive and legislative branches. If the judicial branch didn't create or interpret the law then why is Illinois currently under federal court order to enact concealed carry by 5/11/13 because the federal appellate courts believed Illinois' gun ban was unconstitutional because it violated the 2A?


And, my $0.02 on morality. It is constantly evolving, and not always in a positive way. Morality is based on sanity. Sanity is based on a statistical valuation determined by the norms and values of the current society. As societies norms and values shift so do the trends of sanity. If you don't believe me, ask a doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. The one example I'll give you to explain my point is this: In the early 20th century a case wa brought upon the SCOTUS. In this case the plaintiff declared the Commonwealth of Virginia did not have the right to sterilize mentally deficient people and criminals beyond rehabilitation. SCOTUS ruled in favor of Virginia. Is Virginia still involved in sterilization? No. Why? It's not widely accepted by society today -- thus the norm for what is accepted today versus 110 years ago has shifted. Many would call that evolution. I simply see it as a shifting paradigm.

syntaxerrorsix
02-05-2013, 05:06
Have you heard of Mabe v. Marbury. Judges do interpret the law, and nobody else. Their rulings become law through precedent. The judicial branch exists to do checks and balances on the executive and legislative branches. If the judicial branch didn't create or interpret the law then why is Illinois currently under federal court order to enact concealed carry by 5/11/13 because the federal appellate courts believed Illinois' gun ban was unconstitutional because it violated the 2A?


And, my $0.02 on morality. It is constantly evolving, and not always in a positive way. Morality is based on sanity. Sanity is based on a statistical valuation determined by the norms and values of the current society. As societies norms and values shift so do the trends of sanity. If you don't believe me, ask a doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. The one example I'll give you to explain my point is this: In the early 20th century a case wa brought upon the SCOTUS. In this case the plaintiff declared the Commonwealth of Virginia did not have the right to sterilize mentally deficient people and criminals beyond rehabilitation. SCOTUS ruled in favor of Virginia. Is Virginia still involved in sterilization? No. Why? It's not widely accepted by society today -- thus the norm for what is accepted today versus 110 years ago has shifted. Many would call that evolution. I simply see it as a shifting paradigm.


So any interpretation made by the SCOTUS could eventually lead to a power not given to them by the COTUS? Nice. That pretty much sums up legislation from the bench to a "T". Yes I'm quite familiar with all the intracasasies of judicial review to include Marbury v Madison.

The whole point of the BOR's is to keep the Federal government from interfering with ANY of the rights listed. Not to grant them or force them on a State that has excersized it's 10A powers. Kinda the point. Just because it was "good" for gun owners in Illinois does not mean it was good constitutionally or for the 10A.

The SCOTUS nor the Federal government reserve the power to determine what is or is not a power of the SCOTUS or the federal government. That's all been laid out in the COTUS.

domin8ss
02-05-2013, 21:00
SCOTUS cannot create laws. That is up to the Legislative branch. However, the Congress is not always clear with the intent of the law they pass. When applied to actual lives there are grey areas. The courts, not just SCOTUS, determine how that law would apply. This also allows the Judicial Branch to tell Congress a law they passed conflicts with a higher power, such as COTUS, thus that law will not be allowed. They can kill the law in its entirety or in part. When there is no law for a certain problem, and the problem is brought to the courts by the affected parties, the courts can make a ruling. That ruling becomes law. It'd called case law.

evlbruce
02-05-2013, 22:05
Po-ta-toe, po-tat-oe.

The only thing stopping the SCOTUS from creating whatever zany madcap ruling they want is whatever sense of legal ethics they possess and threat of impeachment.

syntaxerrorsix
02-06-2013, 05:33
Po-ta-toe, po-tat-oe.

The only thing stopping the SCOTUS from creating whatever zany madcap ruling they want is whatever sense of legal ethics they possess and threat of impeachment.

Pretty much.