Georgia Woman Arrested After Running Out Of Gas !

[Darth]

Come on now, even you have to know this is phooey.

Don't you always complain about how badly a cop can mess up innocent lives? I mean you believe in like 5 laws and think only citizens can enforce them. That being the case, obviously my robotic, mercenary-like, illegally granted power holds more weight than your musings.

What?

Don't follow the "logic."

 

[GOPerfect]

Name one state that doesn't issue (on law not because they choose to not issue) a form of concealed carry licnese

As of right now, none. However, California for example, issues concealed carry less than 4% of the time. Imagine those numbers in all blue states.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Could you imagine what the prison population would be like if the 2A wasn't infringed upon at all and drugs and prostitution were legal?

There would be no need for cops in the numbers you have today. The prisons would damned near be empty, gangs wouldn't have anything to sell, and criminals would think twice because a crime might mean their lives.

Oh. The horror!

 

[meketrefe]

Boy O Boy @meketrefe your avatar is so appropriate for this responds ^^^ !!!

NYS will do whatever it takes to freeze reciprocity even if it becomes law and history says they will not care about the implications for law
abiding citizens.

 

[meketrefe]

Right but your original statement was some shit about new york changing the state law or some shit and then some shit about may issue some nonsense.

Ok so if somehow (don't forget it's county to county) the state is all you need to be super mean on who you approve for a pistol permit, most counties will do what they do now and well issue how they already issue.

And it' not like the state itself can just rewrite the law to then make it so the state doesn't issue any licenses to any of the people living in the state. Worse case get stuck with a made up restricted license and get an out of state licenses.

And didn't watch your video but I'm half convincrd it was done by the nra themselves to scare people into not wanting national reciprocity

Here, UNSAFE ACT and Reciprocity impact explained....

 

[meketrefe]

Here another good one about HR-38...

 

[Marine Cpl]

NYS will do whatever it takes to freeze reciprocity even if it becomes law and history says they will not care about the implications for law
abiding citizens.

Just like they did with LEOSA and FOPA right?

 

[GOPerfect]

Just like they did with LEOSA and FOPA right?

He'll, I wish they would just copy LEOSA. I really do. Make it the exact same for all people.

 

[Marine Cpl]

My point is that they tried to ignore both but it didn't work. The only way for them to successfully combat reciprocity is to abolish concealed carry and like I said, that isn't going to happen. Judges, the politically connected, and retired cops who live in NY would be left with no way to carry.

 

[meketrefe]

My point is that they tried to ignore both but it didn't work. The only way for them to successfully combat reciprocity is to abolish concealed carry and like I said, that isn't going to happen. Judges, the politically connected, and retired cops who live in NY would be left with no way to carry.

UNSAFE was not supposed to happen neither. ...specially passed the way they did.

 

[Marine Cpl]

UNSAFE was not supposed to happen neither. ...specially passed the way they did.

That's neither here nor there. Bad analogy. It isn't federal law.

 

[Airborneguy]

What?

Don't follow the "logic."

Darth, usual argument: Cops decisions ruin people's lives daily.

Darth, today: Cop's decision weighs the same as mine.

 

[Darth]

Darth, usual argument: Cops decisions ruin people's lives daily.

Darth, today: Cop's decision weighs the same as mine.

Yes, because I don't have the authority to do such.

Darth today: Let's nuke NK.

Trump today: Let's nuke NK.

Both interpretations carry the same weight on right or wrong. Both can be just as illegal.

One has the ability to use their interpretation to ruin lives, the other doesn't.

 

[Airborneguy]

Just as illegal, fine. Just as important, wrong. When Darth defines an oath, it means nothing. When the Supreme Court does, it has meaning. That's the difference here, and it's quite a large one.

 

[Darth]

Just as illegal, fine. Just as important, wrong. When Darth defines an oath, it means nothing. When the Supreme Court does, it has meaning. That's the difference here, and it's quite a large one.

We aren't defining an oath. Those words are as clear as day.

We are defining things the oath covers. Specifically the constitution.

 

[meketrefe]

That's neither here nor there. Bad analogy. It isn't federal law.

I don't agree. The SAFE ACT didn't care about federal or constitutional laws and it DID IMPACT conceal carriers in NYS in
several ways.

 

[nortatoga]

We aren't defining an oath. Those words are as clear as day.

We are defining things the oath covers. Specifically the constitution.

And just WHO defines the Constitution?

 

[Darth]

And just WHO defines the Constitution?

Members of this forum, often.

 

[nortatoga]

I didn't know that we had SCOTUS justices on this forum!!!! Silly ME!!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don't agree. The SAFE ACT didn't care about federal or constitutional laws and it DID IMPACT conceal carriers in NYS in
several ways.

So you are saying that a federal law passed banning safe acts and they didn't care and passed it anyway?

Now you see why it isn't the same thing?

Reciprocity would be a federal law just like LEOSA and FOPA both of which NY didn't want to follow but were forced to anyway.

Did you even read the bill? It clearly had punishments for those that choose to ignore it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

And just WHO defines the Constitution?

The Constitution itself. Unless you think the founding fathers intended them to ban muskets based on features.

 

[nortatoga]

The Constitution itself. Unless you think the founding fathers intended them to ban muskets based on features.

And has that made it to the SCOTUS?

 

[Marine Cpl]

And has that made it to the SCOTUS?

So the Constitution needs to go to SCOTUS. That's what you are saying?

 

[nortatoga]

So the Constitution needs to go to SCOTUS. That's what you are saying?

When it is challenged yes!

 

[Airborneguy]

We are defining things the oath covers. Specifically the constitution.

Perfect, thanks. You don’t define the Constitution, the Court does. As we say when we close cases: No further necessary.

 

[Airborneguy]

So you are saying that a federal law passed banning safe acts and they didn't care and passed it anyway?

Now you see why it isn't the same thing?

Reciprocity would be a federal law just like LEOSA and FOPA both of which NY didn't want to follow but were forced to anyway.

Did you even read the bill? It clearly had punishments for those that choose to ignore it.

I consider Heller settled law and choose it before NY law whenever necessary. It’s not the same thing because the Supreme Court of the land is higher than NY’s state courts.

Two months ago, a NJ resident walked into our precinct with a handgun to figure out what he needed to do (it left with me, Ruger .22), I handled it like free citizens because Heller says handguns are protected by the 2nd.

NY law is invalidated by Heller whether FUAC likes it or not, but contrary to forum musings, the Court decides that, not the internet.

 

[Marine Cpl]

When it is challenged yes!

And you think it should be challenged. You believe that the 2A is vague? Are the words "the right to keep and bear and shall not be infringed" confusing? Does it say anywhere in that text "certain arms" or "arms that have scary, cosmetic features?"

Come on dude. I know you don't really believe that. Unless you really do think it's okay for states to infringe upon rights until it's settled by politically bought men and women in robes.

Do you think Ginsberg and Sotomayor rule fairly?

I have a brand new fully featured NY legal AR rifle that accepts detachable magazines that I'll sell to you.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I consider Heller settled law and choose it before NY law whenever necessary. It’s not the same thing because the Supreme Court of the land is higher than NY’s state courts.

Two months ago, a NJ resident walked into our precinct with a handgun to figure out what he needed to do (it left with me, Ruger .22), I handled it like free citizens because Heller says handguns are protected by the 2nd.

NY law is invalidated by Heller whether FUAC likes it or not, but contrary to forum musings, the Court decides that, not the internet.

And the court is just too right? It's settled then.

Your internet argument is sad. You know what the founders intended. I know you can read English.

 

[Darth]

Perfect, thanks. You don’t define the Constitution, the Court does. As we say when we close cases: No further necessary.

So I tell you that we both define the constitution, and then you say "no the court does", when no, it doesn't, lest we couldn't overrule it.

Some twisted logic it takes to "go home to your family at night", but whatever floats your boat.

 

[nortatoga]

And you think it should be challenged. You believe that the 2A is vague? Are the words "the right to keep and bear and shall not be infringed" confusing? Does it say anywhere in that text "certain arms" or "arms that have scary, cosmetic features?"

Come on dude. I know you don't really believe that. Unless you really do think it's okay for states to infringe upon rights until it's settled by politically bought men and women in robes.

Do you think Ginsberg and Sotomayor rule fairly?

I have a brand new fully featured NY legal AR rifle that accepts detachable magazines that I'll sell to you.

Again you have not read the Heller ruling have you?

And no I don't think Ginsberg or Sotomayor or the other two liberals rule fairly!!