Pocket pistol

[bofh]

Yes, that’s right. Under the 8th amendment the issue of bail is addressed in the Constitution; but it did, indeed, take the Supreme Court to first qualify how bail might be recouped. In recent years the Court’s original bounty hunter ruling has continued to change and be reinterpreted - Mostly on the level of state government. Still, for many decades and in some states, even today, bounty hunters can enter into a home without a warrant; and that’s the point I’d hoped to make. Don’t go shooting no bounty hunter, or game warden if he enters onto your property, or kicks in your front door because, depending upon where you live, you might be charged with murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_hunter

Bounty Hunting History - HowStuffWorks

Well, the United States Supreme Court case was in 1873, i.e., 143 years ago. State laws for bounty hunters are about further restricting bounty hunting and not about circumventing the United States Supreme Court decision from 1873 (and the Constitution) by expanding the rights of bounty hunters. There is not a single state in which a bounty hunter can enter the property of anyone other than the fugitive without a warrant or the owner's permission. If a state permits bounty hunting, then a a bounty hunter can enter the property of the fugitive without a warrant based on the United States Supreme Court decision from 1873.

If a bounty hunter kicks in my door, he will likely get shot as I am not a fugitive and the bounty hunter is invading my home. It would be justifiable homicide if it comes to that.

 

[DavidWhite]

Yes, that’s right. Under the 8th amendment the issue of bail is addressed in the Constitution; but it did, indeed, take the Supreme Court to first qualify how bail might be recouped. In recent years the Court’s original bounty hunter ruling has continued to change and be reinterpreted - Mostly on the level of state government. Still, for many decades and in some states, even today, bounty hunters can enter into a home without a warrant; and that’s the point I’d hoped to make. Don’t go shooting no bounty hunter, or game warden if he enters onto your property, or kicks in your front door because, depending upon where you live, you might be charged with murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_hunter

Bounty Hunting History - HowStuffWorks

Sorry but I won't take "Wikipedia" as being a reputable source to quote..

And you are STILL wrong.

 

[Arc Angel]

Sorry but I won't take "Wikipedia" as being a reputable source to quote ... And you are STILL wrong.

No matter how much you'd like me to be wrong I'm mostly right; and the viewpoint I've presented should, at the very least, be considered. I, also, think that you should be more careful. You might like to believe that, 'your home is your castle' and no force of law can infringe upon your property; but that simply isn't true. As you, now, know: The Constitution does address unwarranted search and seizure; but, just like the other amendments the right isn't absolute; and, whether you like it or not, the Eighth Amendment is subject to legal interpretation and popular (law enforcement) executive protocol.

Go ahead and pretend that your Second, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment Rights are inviolable if you must; but, at the same time, be careful about what you post; or you might end up by dragging other gun owners down with you. The same Founding Fathers who gave us ALL of these basic rights, to begin with, also left them open to interpretation, and future modification. (This is, in fact, what all the modern fuss is about! It is the legal rationale behind diverse interpretations by individual states, as well.)

 

[DavidWhite]

No matter how much you'd like me to be wrong I'm mostly right; and the viewpoint I've presented should, at the very least, be considered. I, also, think that you should be more careful. You might like to believe that, 'your home is your castle' and no force of law can infringe upon your property; but that simply isn't true. As you, now, know: The Constitution does address unwarranted search and seizure; but, just like the other amendments the right isn't absolute; and, whether you like it or not, the Eighth Amendment is subject to legal interpretation and popular (law enforcement) executive protocol.

Go ahead and pretend that your Second, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment Rights are inviolable if you must; but, at the same time, be careful about what you post; or you might end up by dragging other gun owners down with you. The same Founding Fathers who gave us ALL of these basic rights, to begin with, also left them open to interpretation, and future modification. (This is, in fact, what all the modern fuss is about! It is the legal rationale behind diverse interpretations by individual states, as well.)

Incorrect information is the bane of this forum...

"Officials" of ANY organization have zero authority to enter MY property and or land.
If they do not present a warrant, they are trespassing and in violation of the "Law".

As such, they will be TOLD to leave, (not "asked nicely" to leave).
If they refuse, they will be presented with two options..

Leave or die.

NO GUBERMENT OFFICIAL GETS A FREE PASS TO TRAMPLE YOUR RIGHTS!

They are not above the very laws they impose on us.
I will be more than happy to show them that.

YOU, arc, need to wake the frig up and grow a pair.
They will continue to violate your Rights, not mine, as long as you choose to allow it it.
Yes.
I said allow it!

This God Damn Country better wake up and realize that those "in charge" are playing by there OWN RULES!
They believe that they are above the law. Beyond its reach because "they" are the ones who pass legislation, doesn't mean they are going to abide by it themselves though.

This current Government is no longer representing the will of the people.

Link Removed

Link Removed

 

[DavidWhite]

Link Removed



A portion of Dean Garrisons article,

"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."


See, "We" do not live in a democracy. Majority does NOT rule.
the Supreme Law of the Land is the United States Constitution.

Period. Those who choose to continue down this path will invoke the wrath of the American People.

The actions of the officials will dictate the direction of the people.