Great NEWS-Listen up LEO's

reply to post by Aggie Man


I posted a statistic in another thread, and I don't remember which thread now, but the statistic was less than 2% of all gun crimes are committed with a legally licensed firearm. Therefore, all the gun control laws in the world will only affect less than 2% of the crime.

Now, even that statistic is skewed higher than it should be, because a lot of those crimes are suicides, therefore the number of legally licensed firearms being used in the commission of violent crimes against others is much lower than 2%!

reply to post by mnemeth1

Too bad our obscene system of justice must rob from the community which was harmed in order to pay those who were harmed.

Proper justice would be for the police officers in question to be fired and to then be personally fined for the damages, which they must pay back after getting a job in the private sector.

now that would be justice.

Yes it is about time "Civil Servants" what an oxymoron, were made personally responsible for their wrong doing under the Color of the law

AND GUESS WHAT, THEY ARE!

Color of law refers to an act done under the appearance of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their authority to violate rights guaranteed by federal law.

The following is from the Civil Rights Act:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)

definitions.uslegal.com...

So I hope they sue each of the "Arresting officers" for acting under the color of the law!

reply to post by getreadyalready

...Now, I have encountered a few officers that were extremely uncomfortable about my weapon. They still acted professionally, but I could see the tension and stress in their faces and body language, and I don't think my calm, cool demeanor helped any. It should have helped, but I think it made them even more uncomfortable. Go figure?

Your calm, cool demeanor told them two things. First you are a mature adult comfortable with your self, your gun AND you know the law. Second you were not AFRAID of them. Bullies, and many officers are bullies, are very uncomfortable around those they can not intimidate.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by UmbraSumus

 

In some states you only need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Others you need one to carry it "opened"
But in some states like Main and (last i looked) Connecticut you can carry "open" with out a permit.

You need one to carry if its concealed in Main and Connecticut but not if it is un-concealed (they will still try to put you in jail because most cops don't know the law that well.

Actually in CT, we are issued a "License to Carry Pistols and Revolvers", it is not a "concealed carry" permit. Our law does not differentiate between concealed and open. The license allows us to go beyond the door of our home with a pistol or revolver, concealed or not, such as transporting it to a gun range as well as carrying for self defense purposes. We also need this license to purchase handguns in CT.

THAT SAID, folks here would be very wise to always carry concealed, also because the way the laws are written, if any scaredy-people complain to the police about seeing your firearm, the police can confiscate your permit, which means you can't take any gun (pistol or revolver) out of your home. You can usually get the permit back, but it takes going to a special court (or committee or something) and it may take a LONG time to get it back. Big bummer. And there's LOTS of scaredy-people here.

Great news for that Wisconsin lady!

reply to post by Oaktree

Milwaukee's police chief said he'll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm despite Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully.

If that police chief has openly stated that then he is KNOWINGLY acting under the Color of the law and the next time one of his officers " take down someone with a firearm despite Van Hollen's finding" then he should have his ASS sued off!

Judge's DO NOT like people openly defying them so you may also be able to get him on Contempt of Court!

Cops being ignorant of the laws they are supposed to enforce is big problem. From hassling a kid riding his bike on the road or sidewalk for not riding it where the cop thinks hes supposed to be riding it to drawing weapons on an individual committing absolutely no crime unless exorcising your rights is a crime now.

You'd think with all the time they spend sleeping in their cars or staring at a TV in the donut shop they'd get a chance once in a while to read up on the law.

You and I cant use ignorance of the law as an excuse but the cops do it all day long.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Starred and flagged. Great news

For far too long we've been pushed and the 2nd has been marginalized, and now people are pushing back hard; every victory is a victory for us all, whether you live in a certain state or not.

By and large I respect the police and appreciate the job they try to do. It's usually only a small number of bad-apples in the barrel, and some cops just act out of ignorance with no malice intended. Very public victories are a good way to educate police and the citizenry as well.

Nice to chalk one up for the 2nd amendment!

reply to post by Aggie Man


I think it is what I brought up earlier. When there is no crime, what is the purpose of their job?

They would become irrelevant and placed in the position that they are really in, the role of the tax collector.

Which is what they are. If you look into the funding of police forces now, they are getting a lot less funding from the government. They are becoming like OSHA where they are funded by the fines and penalties they hand out.

Think about it, if we did not have the 600,000+ statutes, what would the purpose be for 95% of the LEO's?

Yes, there would still be REAL crime where there are victims, but not the myriad forms of taxation (fines for breaking the non criminal code).

That is my opinion of course.

Originally posted by kennylee
reply to post by xyankee

 

Are you allowed to open carry in New York? I don't think you are, so you have to have a permit for carrying concealed. I don't think you are allowed to openly carry in NY even with a permit. The permit is for carrying concealed.

that would be funny walking around wall street packing 2 .45 auto's on each hip. that new york arrogance and attitude that they are famous for would disappear in a minute.

well folks, i live in the U.S.S.R.C. (United Soviet Socialist Republic of California) our gun laws are horriable here but there are some citys that open-carry is very leagle san francisco is one but the laws very greatly from city to city also if a city allows it, some businesses may not allow you to enter if you are carrying, its up to the store or business if the want you in there with a weapon


i have friends that preach "its allowable so why not do it?" well, i dont want the hassle that comes with it and belive me, there will be a lot of hassle and harrasment from LEOs most are un informed about laws that make it leagle

just a short story, i do own several firearms, a couple of pistols and rifles, my neighbor was haveing a "domestic dispute" with his wife and the police were called, one officer came to my door to ask me if i saw anything and i happen to have my LR.308 "designated marksmen rifle" sitting on my kitchen table (ok, its a leagle AR10) when he saw it he asked me if i had any others and i said yes i got 3 more rifles here , why? well, he informed me that if an officer sees a weapon they have to run the serial#.............its policy ( i checked later and it is policy), so i said sure go ahead, they are all leagle (i had the other rifles sitting on the floor in there cases) well.....................they took my rifles and lined them all up on the hood of the captians car and ran all the numbers (my hand guns were at work in the safe)

all my neighbors saw my weapons, (my land lord who lives on the property got a kick outa it!!< hes a gun owner too!!) yea ok, most were "assult style" rifles (but i swear, my rifles have never "assulted" anybody!!)

the funny part was, the captain( who was an ex-marine) didnt know that the bolt on my AR10 doesnt lock back, he had to ask me why it doesnt!!!, i told him its a marksman rifle thats why it dont even have a forward assist i was calm and cool and never had any atitude and when they were done the captain told me i can take them back inside and i told him..............in a very stern voice............ "no i wont!!, your officers took them out of my house, your officers can put them back where they found them!!"............shocked, he apoligised and took them back himself

the point of the story is, most LEOs dont have weapons background they got there badge and there gun and they are on the street doing there job, as long as you show them respect they will show you respect......................at least in my town

also one of the officers came back a few days later and wanted to know where i got my LR.308 cuz he thought it was cool and wanted one himself!!LOL


be safe people

Does anyone know the law in TX? Because I have been open carry since I got here, and no one has said anything.
I have a NYS permit which I was told I did not have to surrender and could carry in TX. I have walked right past a group of Rangers in a restaurant, open carry, and no one said a word.

reply to post by xyankee


Alright, from this source-www.opencarry.org...

In Texas-

Article I, Section 23

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Preemption Complete state preemption of firearms laws except localities may regulate the carrying of firearms

* In public parks
* At public meetings of a county, municipality or other governmental body
* At a political rally, parade or official political meeting
* At a nonfirearm-related school, college or professional athletic event

You may carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle only if it is concealed
NOTE: The Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act Restricts Carry to Permit Holders
College Carry Carry Prohibited by Statute
NOTE: Even if Legal, Students May be Subject to Academic Sanctions

Will do more investigation if you want. I want EVERYONE to be within the law, problem is due to the facts of the 2nd Amendment, I see nothing restricted.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
The entire premise of a permit to carry, whether open, or concealed, is unconstitutional.

All gun control laws are by definition an infringement, and must be repealed immediately.

This bears repeating.

Originally posted by 23refugee

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
The entire premise of a permit to carry, whether open, or concealed, is unconstitutional.

All gun control laws are by definition an infringement, and must be repealed immediately.

This bears repeating.

I love guns. I love my guns. I live in NY, where you need a CCW permit and have to carry concealed...so unfortunately i dont have a handgun.

When I first read this story, it made me want to move back to green bay.

But the more I think about it, maybe this isnt a good thing? I mean, now, every gang member can legally be armed walking the street, and cannot be stopped or harrassed (for example to see if they are a felon illegally possessing a firearm) without probable cause. I can see the amount of gang members carrying increasing exponentially while the amount of law abiding citizens carrying legally will go up a little bit.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Hey, do you think you have more rights than a gang member?

I mean, if the government lets a gang member guilty of a crime out of jail, who are YOU to think they should be denied rights?

This is my theory on rights of those that have been charged with crimes, if the government is going to let them out, they should be absolved of all crimes. Otherwise WHY are you letting them out of prison? Is it a monetary thing?

Tell me exactly what you would want in regards to those that are in prison and released. Would you disallow them a choice to vote, a choice to defend themselves, how bout the basic right to free speech?

See, this is the PROBLEM with the liberal mentality of crime and punishment. You think you should be allowed to remove basic human rights. How bout just keep them in prison until they have paid their due to society?

Hmmm?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Hey, do you think you have more rights than a gang member?

I mean, if the government lets a gang member guilty of a crime out of jail, who are YOU to think they should be denied rights?

This is my theory on rights of those that have been charged with crimes, if the government is going to let them out, they should be absolved of all crimes. Otherwise WHY are you letting them out of prison? Is it a monetary thing?

Tell me exactly what you would want in regards to those that are in prison and released. Would you disallow them a choice to vote, a choice to defend themselves, how bout the basic right to free speech?

See, this is the PROBLEM with the liberal mentality of crime and punishment. You think you should be allowed to remove basic human rights. How bout just keep them in prison until they have paid their due to society?

Hmmm?

Uhhh.....a convicted felon cannot vote in 10 states. Why the hell should convicted felons be allowed to carry guns? it is called a deterrent, to keep you from committing crimes in the first place. If you want to benefit from the US constitution, you had damn well better follow the law (the constitution).

Are you saying that if you commit a crime, then do your time, your record should be wiped clean??

Why are you, of all people, defending the rights of felons? I feel like I am in bizarro world, salttheart is getting all liberal on me.

Furthermore, gang members just out of prison are more than likely going to end up back on the streets, committing crimes. So you think it is a good idea that they should be allowed to purchase a gun and carry it around Day 1 out of prison??

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Nope, this is one of the things that I have ALWAYS felt.

Some will say I am getting all soft and #. But NOT SO.

Here is my theory on crime. Crime is only defined as something that occurs where someone is hurt. If society wants to punish that crime with a sentence, they do not have the right to remove rights when that person is released.

Now, you can require meetings and such, but you cannot make them second class citizens.

If you want to do that, keep them in jail. Otherwise you are denigrating the freedoms of a free person.

Otherwise, what was the purpose of putting the person in prison in the first place?

I think this should be another discussion. It could get very involved.

edit to add-

Okay, some may think I am getting all soft here. I am going to explain something on my theory of crime and punishment. If a person commits an act of violence, any type of violence does not matter what it was. 20 years. If a second offense of violence, death.

No, my theories are totally different from the prevalent forms of punishment.

Hell, if you did not harm someone, that is NOT a crime. So I have totally different theories on crime and punishment.

reply to post by crimvelvet


I couldn't agree more.
Just to clarify, Van Hollen isn't a judge, he's the State Attorney General.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


You say:

If you want to benefit from the US constitution, you had damn well better follow the law (the constitution).

There is a huge difference between "the law" which are mostly statutes anyway, and The Constitution of the United States of America.

Why are you, of all people, defending the rights of felons? I feel like I am in bizarro world, salttheart is getting all liberal on me.

.

Defending the God given rights of an individual is not "liberal" nor "conservative".

It is our duty.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I couldn't agree more. Ex convicts are treated like second class citizens after they get let out. And people wonder why people that have been through the system, often commit more serious crimes after they get out. Gee I wonder why. They do their time, try to do the right thing and avoid going back for a while. After the first 30 decent jobs turned down because of the illegal backround checks etc, they figure screw it, why bother. I am not considered a person anymore, might as well act like an animal and live by the jungle rules.