Day444
.223 Rem
If the law is the law , she wouldn't have been arrested in the first place. That's exactly the problem.
Your point is well made.
If the law is the law , she wouldn't have been arrested in the first place. That's exactly the problem.
The UCMJ isn't unconstitutional.Did you follow and obey the UCMJ?
Anyone feel safer?
Reciprocity can't come quick enough.
Yes, what I'm saying is that if you enforce a clearly illegal law, in order to protect a pension, you are the problem.
Cop bashers again.
If you described the SAFE act to someone 40 years ago they would have told you that you were nuts and to stop with the ridiculous hypotheticals too.
It's certainly not defined by the 9th Circuit...It’s safe to assume that “clearly illegal” is defined by you as opposed to the highest court in the land. Got it.
So I'll ask again. If a Circuit Court compromised of the enemy or SCOTUS compromised of the enemy whether Communist or Rhino interprets that handguns aren't protected by the 2A and bans them only for active law enforcement, is that what you will follow because it's the law of the land?It’s safe to assume that “clearly illegal” is defined by you as opposed to the highest court in the land. Got it.
It's certainly not defined by the 9th Circuit...
So I'll ask again. If a Circuit Court compromised of the enemy or SCOTUS compromised of the enemy whether Communist or Rhino interprets that handguns aren't protected by the 2A and bans them only for active law enforcement, is that what you will follow because it's the law of the land?
Do you see what I'm getting at or will you just make excuses to protect police actions?
And please don't say that the above scenario is far fetched. Give it some years. 25 years ago we would have never thought AR's would be illegal. They were just rifles back then.
But you still implied that my view was somehow less relevant because there are courts higher than I.Funny, I didn’t mention them. They’re as relevent to my comment as the High Court of Mars which will be invented for real in 300 years or in hypotheticals proving the “slippery slope” right now!
Boy you are really ignoring the point and focusing on things that do not matter. How about this scenario? You insert what a court banned next that is ridiculous and politically motivated that is legal today. This court is compromised of your enemies. Let's see what you say now. You can't use the ridiculous scenario argument now.Heller already said that handguns are specifically protected by the 2nd. The Court almost never reverses itself (look it up). So in other words, another pointless hypothetical.
I’m not defending police actions with made up nonsense like you are trying to pick apart police actions, with made up nonsense.
Stay in the NOW when making logical decisions. Anything else is sensationalism. Period, end of story.
Maybe reciprocity is the reason NYS needs to suspend many licenses
and make the may issue the norm.
I think reciprocity the way it is right now is very dangerous for new Yorkers.
I am less worried going other places than people coming here with a gun
because of the kind of thugs we are dealing with here in government.
...the workarounders near King Cuomo I mean.
But you still implied that my view was somehow less relevant because there are courts higher than I.
That's simply not true.
Boy you are really ignoring the point and focusing on things that do not matter. How about this scenario? You insert what a court banned next that is ridiculous and politically motivated that is legal today. This court is compromised of your enemies. Let's see what you say now. You can't use the ridiculous scenario argument now.
Your argument seems to mean that you agree with court decisions because they are court decisions and who are you to judge. I know you don't really believe that the founding fathers intended for the Sullivan and the Safe Acts but you use the courts as scapegoats to enforce those unconstitutional laws for a paycheck.
I'm out of here. Keep defending the boys in blue.
Look. I'm not specifically calling you out about enforcement so don't get defensive. Whether you do or not is none of my business. What I'm saying is that the founding fathers where clear. Shall not be infringed. They didn't mean shall not be infringed except for handguns in NY and certain type of rifles with plastic, cosmetic features. You know that and I know that no matter what the politically motivated 2nd Circuit or Supreme Court says.I’ve never enforced either of those laws. Well sort of Sullivan, but on people who’ve deserved it.
Sorry, I’ve been clear and consistent: I don’t do hypotheticals. We can talk about the facts at hand that actually happened or you can play imagination with Darth. Not my thing. Not being facetious.
If it’s a fact I cannot legally use to make a decision at work, then it’s not real and I don’t care about it (in regards to a policing conversation that is).
This doesn't even make any sense
It carries exactly the same weight as yours. You deciding "well this law is OK because nobody shot it down yet" is exactly the same as me deciding it's not. You simply choose to enforce to save the cash flow.Nothing decided by Darth has the force of law in this country. Relevent to this conversation, what I said was true and always will be. Your definition of any oath, except maybe your D&D club’s, is just yours.
With the ninth circuit ruling against not extending the 2nd amendment outside the home and on top SCOUTS not picking it up
to fix that ruling it’s gonna be an lawsuit fest in communist states like Maryland, New York, California, etc...
This is why reciprocity can become a shit storm for NY conceal carriers.
The antis have been very clear they will do whatever it takes to stop this in NY.
I hope you are not trusting Cuomo and his gang to follow federal and constitutional law when they have pissed all over them in the past.
She explains this very well...
Please explain why it would be a disaster.Boy O Boy @meketrefe your avatar is so appropriate for this responds ^^^ !!!
Please explain why it would be a disaster.
Nope.Guess you didn't watch the video either?
Nope.
I'm at work so I can't but I wouldn't either if I could. I would really like to know though how they would skirt federal law.That figures!!
I'm at work so I can't but I wouldn't either if I could. I would really like to know though how they would skirt federal law.
NYS would have to amend the penal law and take over licensing. In that case, my out of state license would cover me unless they made it a no issue for everyone. That wouldn't happen. Retired cops, judges, and the politically connected wouldn't be able to carry.Just imagine if NY State decided to slow the process down even further.
Imagine if the made the Sullivan Act stronger.
Imagine if NY State decided that only one hand gun was allowed.
Imagine if all Permits issued were non-carry.
Not saying they would do all of this, but it could always be worse.
It carries exactly the same weight as yours. You deciding "well this law is OK because nobody shot it down yet" is exactly the same as me deciding it's not. You simply choose to enforce to save the cash flow.
Just imagine if NY State decided to slow the process down even further.
Imagine if the made the Sullivan Act stronger.
Imagine if NY State decided that only one hand gun was allowed.
Imagine if all Permits issued were non-carry.
Not saying they would do all of this, but it could always be worse.