Man arrested for having '2 extra bullets' in his sidearm's magazine.


I think we’re off on a tangent here.

My main point since my first post in this thread has been that the proper way to address these issues is within the system, at least at first. I think we both agree on that.

My second point is that civil disobedience only really works if you have a majority of people that agree with you on your side. I’m not sure if we both agree on that.

My second and a half point is that simply ignoring the law isn’t civil disobedience it’s criminal activity. Civil disobedience involves violating a law in protest and still involves settling the issue in court, it also involves being willing to accept the consequences of your actions if the rest of the world doesn’t agree with you.

My third and final point is that whether you think a law is unconstitutional or not you, by yourself, don’t have the power to enforce your will on society. If an Ohio cop catches you in violation of the must inform law you, by yourself, are not going to be able to stop him from arresting you unless you’re willing to start a downward spiral that will end in either your death or your incarceration.

Without addressing the rightness or wrongness of a given law the fact that you only have the options of following it, working within the system to change it or facing the (eventual) consequences of not following it doesn’t change.

That’s what I have been trying to get across in this thread.
 

I think we’re off on a tangent here.

My main point since my first post in this thread has been that the proper way to address these issues is within the system, at least at first. I think we both agree on that. I agree to a point, that point being that the govt is mostly, other than at the local level too far gone for anything short of armed resistance to overcome.

My second point is that civil disobedience only really works if you have a majority of people that agree with you on your side. I’m not sure if we both agree on that. I agree for the most part.

My second and a half point is that simply ignoring the law isn’t civil disobedience it’s criminal activity. I disagree Civil disobedience involves violating a law in protest and still involves settling the issue in court, it also involves being willing to accept the consequences of your actions if the rest of the world doesn’t agree with you. Nope, protests are only ONE way of Civil disobedience, and if that is all you are willing to do, you wont accomplish much at all. The govt , ANY time you interact with it is willing (maybe not immediately, but in ALL cases, eventually) to KILL you if you do not comply with all of their edicts and commands (laws and regulations). Simply "protesting" peacefully these rules/etc.. hasnt accomplished ANYTHING for years, why do you think it can work now? UNTIL they understand that they might not get to go home when they try to enforce these illegal "laws" will things start to change...

My third and final point is that whether you think a law is unconstitutional or not you, by yourself, don’t have the power to enforce your will on society. I do have the power to enforce it on the enforcers and anyone else who confronts me about it... If an Ohio cop catches you in violation of the must inform law you, by yourself, are not going to be able to stop him from arresting you unless you’re willing to start a downward spiral that will end in either your death or your incarceration. I am, I have stated that many different ways, and it looks like you still dont understand my position fully... You ALSO FAILED to think of one of MANY other different outcomes... One of which is that I convince the enforcer that it is in his best interest to go bother someone else and forget he ever met me...

Without addressing the rightness or wrongness of a given law the fact that you only have the options of following it, working within the system to change it or facing the (eventual) consequences of not following it doesn’t change. UNLESS they run out of willing enforcers to submit their UnConstitutional will upon us... You know for a fact they will NEVER come out from behind their "safe" desks to face us (Patriots) themselves...

That’s what I have been trying to get across in this thread.


I respect your position, I just dont agree that it is going to work... 50 years ago maybe your way of thinking could have accomplished much more, but not now... They have gotten away with it for far too long for them to give up ANY of their stolen power without a fight... I just happen to be one who is willing to do the fighting....
 
I agree that the 7 limit is stupid. But it is the law. I've heard lots of blowhards claim how they will not follow the law. If you won't follow the law, then you are a criminal who shouldn't own a firearm.
Like these guys.
.
Link Removed
.
If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.
--- Thomas Jefferson
.
Between you and them, I think I'll side with them. No offense. I'm not advocating people violate the law, mind you. I'm just saying that at some point, laws can be passed that are egregious to the point that disobeying them is no longer a bad thing and no longer deserving of the surrender of your constitutional rights.
 
A stunning demonstration of "willful ignorance".
I don't read the National Enquirer either. That's hardy willful ignorance. WND sometimes gets things right, but they deliberately distort issues with such regularity that to use them as a source sets you up for serious ridicule. There are plenty of conservative or libertarian leaning news sources that do not do that, so why use a source that sets you up for failure when it isn't necessary to do so? Your choice of course, but winning the war is hard enough without using defective ammunition.
 
Since I have such a terrible time getting my point across in words, I'll let Sam speak for me:


“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
Adams wasn't advising anyone to disobey any law. He was advocating that the colonies seek independence as opposed to an agreement of any sort with Great Britain. And the dangers he was speaking of were not for the people he was speaking to. He was speaking of what he saw as the danger to future generations if we sought agreement as opposed to independence.
.
Interestingly enough, what Adams feared for future generations had we not opted for independence, is almost exactly what we're seeing from our own 'independent' government today.
.
Samuel Adams Advocates American Independence - 1776
 
My second point is that civil disobedience only really works if you have a majority of people that agree with you on your side. I’m not sure if we both agree on that.

No, it is NOT a popularity issue, it is whether the law is constitutional or not.

The gun ban in Washington D.C., was overturned in 2008, (Heller vs. CD) not because it was popular, but because it was unconstitutional.
Same with the City of Chicago gun ban, overturned in 2010 (McDonald vs. Chicago), not because it was popular, but because it was unconstitutional.
 
Thank you, but actually technically I am not an American so not sure how that would work then.

I actually do see your point and it's quite honorable. What I don't see is how that is supposed to end well for you. We're after all not actually talking about licking some tyrants boot heel but about laws that were legally put in place and until a court tosses them out we're bound to follow them. You don't get to pick and choose the ones we like.


If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking, but are too cautious to express openly. I hope it never comes to what he is advocating, but I can certainly see where the possibility exists. God help us all if it ever does happen.
PS Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name of

D.H. Garrison, Jr.

Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

---------------------------------

Through regulations, taxation, inflation of the money supply, trade restrictions, and tethers on private associations, government itself is nothing but a massive drain on prosperity. The situation has become deeply dangerous for the future of freedom in America, with young people unable to find jobs, opportunities being destroyed in sector after sector, banks and corporations living on the dole, and so many regulations that we are living under something nearly as egregious as Soviet-style central planning.

Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian.

Henry Ford


Sent from behind enemy lines.
 
If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking, but are too cautious to express openly. I hope it never comes to what he is advocating, but I can certainly see where the possibility exists. God help us all if it ever does happen.
PS Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name of

D.H. Garrison, Jr.

Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

---------------------------------

Through regulations, taxation, inflation of the money supply, trade restrictions, and tethers on private associations, government itself is nothing but a massive drain on prosperity. The situation has become deeply dangerous for the future of freedom in America, with young people unable to find jobs, opportunities being destroyed in sector after sector, banks and corporations living on the dole, and so many regulations that we are living under something nearly as egregious as Soviet-style central planning.

Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian.

Henry Ford


Sent from behind enemy lines.
What guns? I don't have any.
 
District Attorney refuses to prosecute!!!

The DA has said that he will not prosecute Dean for his violation of NY's SAFE Act.

Czajka said that with respect to Dean’s case the decision not to prosecute was made easier by the fact that he was – by all accounts – a responsible gun owner with no criminal record.

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse under the law and this is still a crime but this guy has absolutely no criminal history and is not a danger to society,” Czajka said Friday.

District Attorney won't prosecute man for violating NY SAFE Act magazine limit (VIDEO)
 
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes— we need them every hour.

Sometimes purported to have been made in an "Address to the Second Session of the First United States Congress, 7 January 1790, according to the Boston Independent Chronicle (14 January 1790)", this quote is palpably bogus, as this essay at a pro-gun site makes plain.
-- George Washington - Wikiquote

I really wish more patriots would vet their quotes of the founding fathers through Wikiquote.org.
 
From BC1: "This law was enacted January 15, 2013 and took affect April 15, 2013. He should have known. Ignorance of the law is not a defense."

THIS P.O.S. LAW WAS PASSED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, WITHOUT MEETING NY'S "CONSTITUTIONAL" REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT WAS AN "EMERGENCY!!!!
Yes, passage of this "law" (I use that term lightly) took place without time for exposure to the public, time for our elected 'representatives' (I also use that term lightly) to actually read the legislation, digest it, and make a reasoned (not emotional) decision on how to vote.

First.... lets look at the "emergency"... this was passed without Constitutional requirements because it was an emergency....SO WHY DID IT BECOME EFFECTIVE 90 DAYS LATER??? If it was an emergency, why was it not effective immediately???

Next... if our legislators actually looked at the "law" and thought reasonably about its place and where it stands in the 'grand scheme', they would have realized how ridiculous their reasoning really is... in New York State, having that 8th round in the magazine is now a MORE SERIOUS offense than CHILD MOLESTATION!!!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Any and all of the legislators, if asked during the 3 day Constitutional review period, would have at least had to answer that question.... is an 8th round actually worse than Child Molestation?


While I believe that this "law" is a horrible attempt to limit our Constitutional Rights, I also agree with BC1...it's the current law...and a fact of life for those of us in NY.
As a result, we have to follow that law until it's overturned or amended. So, the man who was pulled over for the light bulb should have been bright enough (pun intended) to know that he was in violation of the "concealed" part of NY law... In violation of the limits on number of rounds... In violation of vehicle and traffic law(driving with a suspended license... and finally, he should have been "bright enough" to know that just because he doesn't like the law, he still has to follow it until it's revoked or amended.

In a state (and county) where they are LOOKING FOR ANY REASON to revoke your permit, why give them "just another reason", even in protest, to take it!

For me, I am following the law, keeping 7 in the mag although it holds more, but now carry multiple 7 round mags.

Finally, every law has unintended consequences which the lawmakers never consider. So, I am also considering purchase of and have been researching larger caliber pistols with 7+1 capacity....
The "unintended consequences" of this legislation will be that while they may have succeeded in limiting my capacity per mag, they will actually have caused me to become more lethal if the need ever arises.
Authorities are not looking to revoke everyone's permit. In fact permits are being handed-out in NYS (not NYC) in record numbers at this time.
.
The statement that it’s a lower offense to molest a child than to possess more than eight rounds in NY is quite incorrect. The sexual abuse of a child is a class A, B or C felony, depending on the actual act. Jail is mandatory in these cases and anyone convicted of the crime is subject to imprisonment for 15-25 years in prison. This is exactly how the myths about NYS get started. Please see NYS Penal Law S70.80 for sentences. A person carrying more than seven rounds in a magazine is subject to a $200 fine. Also see the offenses below.
.
§ 130.50 Criminal sexual act in the first degree.
A person is guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree when he or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with another person:
3. Who is less than eleven years old; or
4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen year old or more.
Criminal sexual act in the first degree is a class B felony.
.
§ 130.96 Predatory sexual assault against a child.
A person is guilty of predatory sexual assault against a child when, being eighteen years old or more, he or she commits the crime of rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree, or course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, as defined in this article, and the victim is less than thirteen years old.
Predatory sexual assault against a child is a class A-II felony.
.
.
.
§ 265.37 Unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices.
If such device containing more than seven rounds of ammunition is possessed in any location other than the home of the possessor, the person so possessing the device shall, for a first offense, be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and subject to a fine of two hundred dollars.
.
A good document to help understand the role of police in conducting searches of peoples handguns is set forth in the “Guide to The New York Safe Act for Members of the Division of State Police.” Link is below.
http://wcfoany.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/nyspolicesafeguide.pdf.
.
This document (page-9) advises police that if a person produces a permit and there are no indications of unlawful conduct, an inspection of the magazine may not be performed. In this case, the weapon should be secured temporarily, in the same condition as it was found, for the duration of the stop and returned to the motorist at the conclusion of the encounter. Unless there is probable cause to believe the law is being violated, there is no justification for checking a magazine to determine whether or not it contains more than 7 rounds.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon
Back
Top