Cool. But that doesn’t make her a good person. Do you have info we don’t?
Pleasant Valley, NY CT Woman Arrested Weapon Possession !
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
Cool. But that doesn’t make her a good person. Do you have info we don’t?
Under the "privileges and immunities clause" in the constitution, you do have a "right" to travel freely, but that doesn't guarantee the right to do so by driving a vehicle! You can walk, you can take public transportation. And sure, you can ride a horse, but you won't be able to do it on certain roadways. Or will you argue that you should be able to ride the horse wherever you want as well? There is currently a (not well known) case to argue your positions of "Right vs Privilege" as to "operating a motor vehicle" on public roads, whereas a particular person is fighting the need for a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle. If you feel that strongly in the position, I suggest you give it a whirl and report back how well that works out for you, ie, no license, no insurance, registration, inspection... Because being free, means not subjecting ourselves to government regulation in the exercising of Rights, no? Lol, just busting em' a bit...
Again, the argument could stretch into undiscovered realms, but that's complicating what we have here... A simple traffic stop as noted, for "multiple" infractions/violations which led to the discovery of criminal possession of a firearm. It isn't so complicated at all...
I'd be shocked to learn they opened her trunk without a warrant and discovered a locked box with an unloaded handgun in it and the ammo separate while she was traveling to a 3 gun competition in PA! LMAO!
Disclaimer: This example is not meant as a qualifier for possessing, it's just something that popped into my head.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
oh no don't add peta into the mix 
I would love to see people start putting up or shutting up. Start by cancelling their drivers license, car insurance, registration, pistol permit and so forth.
All this talk and absolutely no action. Ever!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
If you are referring to me.....
One. I never said that I was going to. And two, I'd be a fool to when there are agents of the government willing to enforce those laws.
Last edited:
innocent until PROVEN guilty makes her a good person, until the State can demonstrate that she is not.
And, absent any proof that she is not a good person, her Right to Bear Arms should never have been infringed. Likewise, her Right to be Secure in her Papers and Effects (which, IMHO, also includes her car).
We, as a Society, are being carefully conditioned to accept these constant little infringements on our Rights.
VTL should not cause an immediate loss of Constitutional Rights. Just because you speed should not mean you lose the right to deny a search. There should be other mitigating factors, 'just cause', if you will.
I'm not talking about the court of law. I'm talking about the difference between what we know via two short articles and what really happened. I'm confident my posts were clear enough in explaining that, but:
I mean that I am fairly certain the police who arrested her know more about her status than we do.
Clearer now?
That said, your last sentence strongly suggests that just like Will, you know more about this situation than I do. You mention speeding and an "immediate" loss of rights, the articles do not. Whatever else you know that I don't, I'm all ears.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Correct. This is a forum though. We speculate based on what's written. If we didn't, there would never be anything to ever write about unless you want every post and thread in this entire website to be scrubbed until the official report comes out complete with body cam footage.
Ok, so then you speculate that we're always dealing with good people, and I'll speculate based on the fact that cops very rarely arrest good people, as stats bear out year in year out.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
Really? This statement is a bit ridiculous GP. Just because I personally believe that driving isnt a privelage doesnt mean i believe that there arent certain things that should be in place to operate a vehicle on a public road. We, as the public, have a RIGHT to use a road that we pay taxes to maintain, but if/when we directly effect the rights of others our rights end. So driving a car and crashing into someone without the ability to pay for the damage is unacceptable so thats why there is insurance. There needs to be consequences for not following the rules of the road, but that doesnt mean we dont have a right to it.
I said your comment is ridiculous because one has nothing to do with the other. Its easy to "try and call people out" if someone is a robot that blindly does what they are told all the time.
Additionally, just because someone doesnt agree with a system thats been in place since before they were born doesnt mean they are crazy enough to snub the system, as a single person, and risk incarceration. And you are smart enough to know this so I dont get why you would make such a statement.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
My point is that the Constitution applies to good and bad people. The 2A doesn't say the right of GOOD people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You are basically saying fuck her because she may have been arrested in the past.
And since we like to follow the law here, she's innocent until proven guilty.
And what makes a person bad? I think we would agree that to be a person that commits a capital crime like rape and murder. But what if the crime committed was marijuana possession? Does that make the person bad? If I got caught carrying a 15 round magazine does that make me a bad person? Should anytime I get pulled over afterwards result in a loss of constitutional rights?
We've all committed crimes in the past. Many here have smoked pot in the past and sold some to friends. If they were caught 20 years ago, would they be bad people?
Most crimes are drug related. I don't view those as bad crimes since I believe drugs should be legal. Very few people actually rape and murder someone.
Last edited:
Article posted with MINIMAL amount of INFORMATION!! Some forum members have MAXIMUM OPINIONS!! That some how this persons RIGHTS are being VIOLATED!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It isn't an opinion. It's fact. The 2A is clear. It doesn't say unless you are a felon or a bad person.
Read my Signature, From Heller v DC that is the law of the land at this time!! No matter if you agree with it or not!! @Willjr75 does not have a seat on the SCOTUS so all you have is OPINION!!
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Always more to these "news" stories than meets the eye. Where's the details? Further, New York has always done this. They force you to mention FOPA. If you are in legal possession of the firearm, they release you. Fair? Absolutely not! Major League hassle? Absolutely!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Let not go through this nonsense again with corrupt, politically bought judges who can't read English and pull out shall not be infinged to mean that it can for those with felonies.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I guess you believe that if you owned a bakery you should be forced to bake a cake with the inscription "Allahu Ackbar! Death to America!" with little figures of blown up children just because SCOTUS said so.
I know it a long read but you should read the whole decison! As you say you did, I don't think so!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
What makes you think I didn't? I told you I did before.
Has the SCOTUS ruled on the bakery case yet, I don't think so!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I thought they did. My mistake on using that example. I could bring up another politically motivated one if you like.
Which side of the bench is ruling politically in all Courts the left are they not? So I don't totally disagree with you!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
The right too unless you believe the 2A was by limited to inside the home when it was written.
Again Dick Heller only Sued for a permit to carry in the home 3rd paragraph!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That doesn't matter. If I sue for not being able to have a 15 round Glock magazine a ruling shouldn't only be on Glock magazines.
Last edited:
There is where you problem is! You don't under stand how Court case's work!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Read the edit above.
That would be a foolish case, As you would be trying to prejudice the Court against other gun manufacturers! And they would rule against you!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You either are not getting the point or are refusing to so that so that you can further your point. Nevermind the manufacturer. The point is that DC was infringing on gun rights. The matter should have been resolved regarding DC infringing on the 2A.
I just find it funny that at this point with what we know we could be dealing with anyone from Mrs. Daisy to a full on gun runner, yet people are holding this up as another reason for reciprocity, assuming it was a fishing expedition, calling her a poor sap, claiming it was reckless driving, calling people brainwashed and implying the search was unlawful (last three were you).
How about you put away the pitchforks until you know more than "someone got arrested, she had a gun"?
It's just the smart thing to do is all.