Absolute BULLSHIT

[dreadpiratetom]

Well I would say these charges are crap. Marijuana laws are ridiculous and completely useless, most gun laws are just as dumb, and from the limited information available, the children didn't seem to be endanger.

 

[bodecea]

Well I would say these charges are crap. Marijuana laws are ridiculous and completely useless, most gun laws are just as dumb, and from the limited information available, the children didn't seem to be endanger.

Ding!

 

[AllieBaba]

My brother got his first shotgun at 12, I think. My boys were about the same age. I have lots of pictures of kids holding guns.

And it's not illegal to purchase a weapon from someone selling it. We aren't required to register to purchase guns unless you're buying them from a licensed gun dealer.

But regular joes can and do sell guns all the time. Nothing illegal about it.

 

[strollingbones]

We have now had 2 different people claim I blamed Liberals. Of course you can not actually find where I did any such thing. I have asked both of them to quote me and prove I did any such thing. I won't hold my breath waiting for either of these two to respond.

look you whiney little paranoid fucker....i did not say you said shit about liberals....i made the statement that the issue has nothing to do with liberals...a statement of fact...you dont seem to be able to comprehend those too well do you?

plus i am still waiting for you to back up your statement about palin being bankrupt..oddly enough you pathetic excuse for a man ....you like to make statements that are total lies than call for others to prove what they say....

so hold your mother fucking breath and do us all a favor.

 

[Liability]

Well I would say these charges are crap. Marijuana laws are ridiculous and completely useless, most gun laws are just as dumb, and from the limited information available, the children didn't seem to be endanger.

Ding!

The information I've seen so far IS limited. So although I am generally reticent to agree with Bodey, she may have a point here, at least to date.

In NY, if one possesses a gun without a license, one has (in most circumstances) committed a crime.

This raises the first obvious question: did mommy have a gun license/permit?

If so, and if she "posed" the kids in her own home while the gun was not loaded, then there is no valid case against her.

If she had no license/permit, then even possession inside her home would be a misdemeanor. (And, if unloaded, it would also be just a misdemeanor outside unless the the gun was stolen or defaced or if the 'defendant" had previously been convicted of a crime, in which cases, it would be a felony).

NY's Penal Law says, in relevant part,

§ 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when:
(1) He possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star";

AND

§ 265.00 Definitions.
As used in this article and in article four hundred, the following
terms shall mean and include:
* * * *
3. "Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique firearm.

* * * *
15. "Loaded firearm" means any firearm loaded with ammunition or any firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm.
* * * *

Of course, there's also this:

§ 265.20 Exemptions.
a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11, 265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
* * * *
3. Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license
therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter; provided, that such a license shall not preclude a conviction for the offense defined in subdivision three of section 265.01 of this article.

and

§ 400.00 Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms.
* * * *
15. Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a
class A misdemeanor.
* * * *
17. Applicability of section. The provisions of article two hundred
sixty-five of this chapter relating to illegal possession of a firearm,
shall not apply to an offense which also constitutes a violation of this
section by a person holding an otherwise valid license under the
provisions of this section and such offense shall only be punishable as
a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section. In addition, the
provisions of such article two hundred sixty-five of this chapter shall
not apply to the possession of a firearm in a place not authorized by
law, by a person who holds an otherwise valid license or possession of a firearm by a person within a one year period after the stated expiration date of an otherwise valid license which has not been previously cancelled or revoked shall only be punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section.

So, based on what we know so far about the mom, her license status and the loaded or unloaded status of the gun in question, I'd say we don't know much of anything about how valid or invalid the official charge(es) might be. But my hunch is the case is going to sooner or later just "go away" by way of an 'adjournment in contemplation of dismissal' ESPECIALLY if the gun did not meet the legal definition of "loaded."

 

[JenT]

Well I would say these charges are crap. Marijuana laws are ridiculous and completely useless, most gun laws are just as dumb, and from the limited information available, the children didn't seem to be endanger.

Ding!

The information I've seen so far IS limited. So although I am generally reticent to agree with Bodey, she may have a point here, at least to date.

In NY, if one possesses a gun without a license, one has (in most circumstances) committed a crime.

This raises the first obvious question: did mommy have a gun license/permit?

If so, and if she "posed" the kids in her own home while the gun was not loaded, then there is no valid case against her.

If she had no license/permit, then even possession inside her home would be a misdemeanor. (And, if unloaded, it would also be just a misdemeanor outside unless the the gun was stolen or defaced or if the 'defendant" had previously been convicted of a crime, in which cases, it would be a felony).

NY's Penal Law says, in relevant part,



AND



Of course, there's also this:

§ 265.20 Exemptions.
a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11, 265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
* * * *
3. Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license
therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter; provided, that such a license shall not preclude a conviction for the offense defined in subdivision three of section 265.01 of this article.

and

§ 400.00 Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms.
* * * *
15. Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a
class A misdemeanor.
* * * *
17. Applicability of section. The provisions of article two hundred
sixty-five of this chapter relating to illegal possession of a firearm,
shall not apply to an offense which also constitutes a violation of this
section by a person holding an otherwise valid license under the
provisions of this section and such offense shall only be punishable as
a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section. In addition, the
provisions of such article two hundred sixty-five of this chapter shall
not apply to the possession of a firearm in a place not authorized by
law, by a person who holds an otherwise valid license or possession of a firearm by a person within a one year period after the stated expiration date of an otherwise valid license which has not been previously cancelled or revoked shall only be punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section.

So, based on what we know so far about the mom, her license status and the loaded or unloaded status of the gun in question, I'd say we don't know much of anything about how valid or invalid the official charge(es) might be. But my hunch is the case is going to sooner or later just "go away" by way of an 'adjournment in contemplation of dismissal' ESPECIALLY if the gun did not meet the legal definition of "loaded."

Sure but the drumbeat to ban all guns has been pounding, so even a toe over the line is a big deal.

Obama sees the Constitution as restrictive. I see it as a wall of defense and worthy of guarding.

(sound of shotgun racking) step away slowly

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you know you are defending a women who broke the law. It doesn't matter if it is wrong she still broke the law.

But that doesn't give the police the right to search and seizure. We have laws and freedom for a reason. I am not defending anyone breaking the law, but I am defending my right to privacy.

Are you suggesting the police should be able to search any of our homes for something like a picture of kids with guns?

A picture like this?

we don't know if the cop had a search warrant, i presume he did.

we don't know if the picture alone sent them there or the eyewitness testimony of her friend who turned her in....we do know that once the pictures were given to the police by the witness filing a complaint, and no permits for the guns showing up as registered, that the police had no other choice but to investigate. AS luissa said, if harm happened due to these illegal guns, then the cops and city could be culpable....if they had not followed through...

looks like the friend was a rat fink, but again, we still don't know the friend's reasoning...true concern, or some vendetta not related?

You just made all that up. You have no evidence the cops investigated anything. No evidence they had any reason to suspect those weapons were even the parents weapons. You do this all the time, create supposed facts out of thin air and then use them to justify your "feelings".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have now had 2 different people claim I blamed Liberals. Of course you can not actually find where I did any such thing. I have asked both of them to quote me and prove I did any such thing. I won't hold my breath waiting for either of these two to respond.

look you whiney little paranoid fucker....i did not say you said shit about liberals....i made the statement that the issue has nothing to do with liberals...a statement of fact...you dont seem to be able to comprehend those too well do you?

plus i am still waiting for you to back up your statement about palin being bankrupt..oddly enough you pathetic excuse for a man ....you like to make statements that are total lies than call for others to prove what they say....

so hold your mother fucking breath and do us all a favor.

Lying asshole, Ohh and quote where I said she was bankrupt, Go ahead prove your point, but do it in another thread moron.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well I would say these charges are crap. Marijuana laws are ridiculous and completely useless, most gun laws are just as dumb, and from the limited information available, the children didn't seem to be endanger.

Ding!

The information I've seen so far IS limited. So although I am generally reticent to agree with Bodey, she may have a point here, at least to date.

In NY, if one possesses a gun without a license, one has (in most circumstances) committed a crime.

This raises the first obvious question: did mommy have a gun license/permit?

If so, and if she "posed" the kids in her own home while the gun was not loaded, then there is no valid case against her.

If she had no license/permit, then even possession inside her home would be a misdemeanor. (And, if unloaded, it would also be just a misdemeanor outside unless the the gun was stolen or defaced or if the 'defendant" had previously been convicted of a crime, in which cases, it would be a felony).

NY's Penal Law says, in relevant part,



AND



Of course, there's also this:

§ 265.20 Exemptions.
a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11, 265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
* * * *
3. Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license
therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter; provided, that such a license shall not preclude a conviction for the offense defined in subdivision three of section 265.01 of this article.

and

§ 400.00 Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms.
* * * *
15. Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a
class A misdemeanor.
* * * *
17. Applicability of section. The provisions of article two hundred
sixty-five of this chapter relating to illegal possession of a firearm,
shall not apply to an offense which also constitutes a violation of this
section by a person holding an otherwise valid license under the
provisions of this section and such offense shall only be punishable as
a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section. In addition, the
provisions of such article two hundred sixty-five of this chapter shall
not apply to the possession of a firearm in a place not authorized by
law, by a person who holds an otherwise valid license or possession of a firearm by a person within a one year period after the stated expiration date of an otherwise valid license which has not been previously cancelled or revoked shall only be punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section.

So, based on what we know so far about the mom, her license status and the loaded or unloaded status of the gun in question, I'd say we don't know much of anything about how valid or invalid the official charge(es) might be. But my hunch is the case is going to sooner or later just "go away" by way of an 'adjournment in contemplation of dismissal' ESPECIALLY if the gun did not meet the legal definition of "loaded."

But her kids won't just come home, that is NOT how child services work. Once they have them they do not just give them back. They have a vested interest in keeping kids as that is how they make money.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

note the part about she emailed the pics to friends and relatives...one of which turned her into to child protective agency....i would say the smoke charges are the real reason for the arrest....not the pics..the pics just allowed the cops in the door...

so the moral of this story is.....figure out who to trust....has nothing to do with liberals....but has all to do with being reported to child protection agency by friend or family.....

but dont let the facts bother you there sunshine...is palin still bankrupt? you seem to be the only person aware of her declaring bankruptcy...i am shocked the liberal media is not all over it....

Go ahead dumb ass explain the second paragraph. You made a comparison , a false comparison. No one but you prior to this had anything at all to say about Liberals. Is it a knee jerk reaction by you because of the situation to ASSUME it might have been Liberals? Or to assume I meant liberals? In either case that is YOU not me, making comparisons that are not there, making claims I never made.

 

[strollingbones]

you are a fucking nutzo...sorry ...there is no use talking to you....you lie and twist shit....

i never said you said shit now did it.....

i said it has nothing to do with liberals has everything to do with her family or friends reporting her to social services.....show me the lie ..you fucking whiner

 

[Luissa]

We have now had 2 different people claim I blamed Liberals. Of course you can not actually find where I did any such thing. I have asked both of them to quote me and prove I did any such thing. I won't hold my breath waiting for either of these two to respond.

look you whiney little paranoid fucker....i did not say you said shit about liberals....i made the statement that the issue has nothing to do with liberals...a statement of fact...you dont seem to be able to comprehend those too well do you?

plus i am still waiting for you to back up your statement about palin being bankrupt..oddly enough you pathetic excuse for a man ....you like to make statements that are total lies than call for others to prove what they say....

so hold your mother fucking breath and do us all a favor.

Lying asshole, Ohh and quote where I said she was bankrupt, Go ahead prove your point, but do it in another thread moron.

I am 110% sure you started a thread saying the law suits were bankrupting sarah pa8 lin.
The fact is palin was governor which means long hours and time away from home, please deny a governor of any states only works 8 to 5. The you have her husband who works for BP and from a reliable source I know he works at the gathering station which is in north alaska near the artic cyrcle and a ten hour flight from wassila and my source works two or three weeks on and then has two weeks off. So who is taking care of their children and parenting them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

look you whiney little paranoid fucker....i did not say you said shit about liberals....i made the statement that the issue has nothing to do with liberals...a statement of fact...you dont seem to be able to comprehend those too well do you?

plus i am still waiting for you to back up your statement about palin being bankrupt..oddly enough you pathetic excuse for a man ....you like to make statements that are total lies than call for others to prove what they say....

so hold your mother fucking breath and do us all a favor.

Lying asshole, Ohh and quote where I said she was bankrupt, Go ahead prove your point, but do it in another thread moron.

I am 110% sure you started a thread saying the law suits were bankrupting sarah pa8 lin.
The fact is palin was governor which means long hours and time away from home, please deny a governor of any states only works 8 to 5. The you have her husband who works for BP and from a reliable source I know he works at the gathering station which is in north alaska near the artic cyrcle and a ten hour flight from wassila and my source works two or three weeks on and then has two weeks off. So who is taking care of their children and parenting them.

She had amassed a debt of 50000 and no end in sight. So ya it was BANKRUPTING here, I did not say she WAS bankrupt as Dumb Ass keeps claiming.

And since when is it YOUR business how a family cares for their children? Since we have absolutely no reports of neglect, and believe me with the spot light on her we would know, your little assumption is proven ignorant. Usual crap from the usual sources, make shit up and then pretend it is true. Must be nice to be able to dictate to others how they work and how they take care of their families. How about WE do the same for you?

 

[Luissa]

Lying asshole, Ohh and quote where I said she was bankrupt, Go ahead prove your point, but do it in another thread moron.

I am 110% sure you started a thread saying the law suits were bankrupting sarah pa8 lin.
The fact is palin was governor which means long hours and time away from home, please deny a governor of any states only works 8 to 5. The you have her husband who works for BP and from a reliable source I know he works at the gathering station which is in north alaska near the artic cyrcle and a ten hour flight from wassila and my source works two or three weeks on and then has two weeks off. So who is taking care of their children and parenting them.

She had amassed a debt of 50000 and no end in sight. So ya it was BANKRUPTING here, I did not say she WAS bankrupt as Dumb Ass keeps claiming.

And since when is it YOUR business how a family cares for their children? Since we have absolutely no reports of neglect, and believe me with the spot light on her we would know, your little assumption is proven ignorant. Usual crap from the usual sources, make shit up and then pretend it is true. Must be nice to be able to dictate to others how they work and how they take care of their families. How about WE do the same for you?

go after me!

 

[Luissa]

But that doesn't give the police the right to search and seizure. We have laws and freedom for a reason. I am not defending anyone breaking the law, but I am defending my right to privacy.

Are you suggesting the police should be able to search any of our homes for something like a picture of kids with guns?

A picture like this?

we don't know if the cop had a search warrant, i presume he did.

we don't know if the picture alone sent them there or the eyewitness testimony of her friend who turned her in....we do know that once the pictures were given to the police by the witness filing a complaint, and no permits for the guns showing up as registered, that the police had no other choice but to investigate. AS luissa said, if harm happened due to these illegal guns, then the cops and city could be culpable....if they had not followed through...

looks like the friend was a rat fink, but again, we still don't know the friend's reasoning...true concern, or some vendetta not related?

You just made all that up. You have no evidence the cops investigated anything. No evidence they had any reason to suspect those weapons were even the parents weapons. You do this all the time, create supposed facts out of thin air and then use them to justify your "feelings".

in another source they investigated the ownership from the picture and when they went to the apartment they had guns that they legally could not have in their home.
I will never fill bad for anyone who owns a gun illegally.

 

[strollingbones]

sgt will you ever bore with your smoke and mirror show?

 

[Luissa]

my brother was shot by a seventeen year old who illegally had a gun. if it is against the law follow that law or move.

 

[Liability]

Ding!

The information I've seen so far IS limited. So although I am generally reticent to agree with Bodey, she may have a point here, at least to date.

In NY, if one possesses a gun without a license, one has (in most circumstances) committed a crime.

This raises the first obvious question: did mommy have a gun license/permit?

If so, and if she "posed" the kids in her own home while the gun was not loaded, then there is no valid case against her.

If she had no license/permit, then even possession inside her home would be a misdemeanor. (And, if unloaded, it would also be just a misdemeanor outside unless the the gun was stolen or defaced or if the 'defendant" had previously been convicted of a crime, in which cases, it would be a felony).

NY's Penal Law says, in relevant part,



AND



Of course, there's also this:



and

§ 400.00 Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms.
* * * *
15. Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a
class A misdemeanor.
* * * *
17. Applicability of section. The provisions of article two hundred
sixty-five of this chapter relating to illegal possession of a firearm,
shall not apply to an offense which also constitutes a violation of this
section by a person holding an otherwise valid license under the
provisions of this section and such offense shall only be punishable as
a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section. In addition, the
provisions of such article two hundred sixty-five of this chapter shall
not apply to the possession of a firearm in a place not authorized by
law, by a person who holds an otherwise valid license or possession of a firearm by a person within a one year period after the stated expiration date of an otherwise valid license which has not been previously cancelled or revoked shall only be punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section.

So, based on what we know so far about the mom, her license status and the loaded or unloaded status of the gun in question, I'd say we don't know much of anything about how valid or invalid the official charge(es) might be. But my hunch is the case is going to sooner or later just "go away" by way of an 'adjournment in contemplation of dismissal' ESPECIALLY if the gun did not meet the legal definition of "loaded."

Sure but the drumbeat to ban all guns has been pounding, so even a toe over the line is a big deal.

Obama sees the Constitution as restrictive. I see it as a wall of defense and worthy of guarding.

(sound of shotgun racking) step away slowly

I personally don't know enough about the facts of this case to reach any firm conclusion about it.

I am convinced that the 2d Amendment restricts the power of the FEDERAL Government, but not convinced that it does (properly) restrict the power of the State Governments to require permits, etc.

President Obama is SUPPOSED to see the constitution as restrictive because in many regards what it says is designed to restrict his powers and Congress' powers. The problem in this President's attitude is that he appears more than willing to simply ignore those restrictions. [As my old buddy you to say, "He ain't right."] And Congress is not inclined to keep President Obama in check -- hell they are willing accomplices. The Federal Courts have largely abdicated their duties in this regard. The "press" is in league with them and wouldn't dare "report" the import of what Washington D.C. is actually up to.

So our system of a Constitutionally limited REPUBLIC is left almost without any of its intended or evolved checks and balances.

That leaves just TWO of the vanguard of checks and balances still available.

Federalism.

And, us. We, the People.

 

[Care4all]

These gun owners act all tough like ret gysgt, but they certainly don't hesitate to cry like a baby and call wolf ever time they turn around....THIS IS WHAT HURTS the second amendment...the faux outrage over perfectly legal procedures and moves by the police and acts as though the cops are doing something wrong...taking their 2nd amendment rights away....HOW LOONY can one get?

Crying wolf constantly ain't gonna help when the wolf shows up and is really present, ya know?

be careful retgysgt...choose your complaints wisely, and your voice will be heard, but continue this kind of crap will only end up hurting your cause.

 

[dilloduck]

These gun owners act all tough like ret gysgt, but they certainly don't hesitate to cry like a baby and call wolf ever time they turn around....THIS IS WHAT HURTS the second amendment...the faux outrage over perfectly legal procedures and moves by the police and acts as though the cops are doing something wrong...taking their 2nd amendment rights away....HOW LOONY can one get?

Crying wolf constantly ain't gonna help when the wolf shows up and is really present, ya know?

be careful retgysgt...choose your complaints wisely, and your voice will be heard, but continue this kind of crap will only end up hurting your cause.

But it's all the rage. About every special interest group I know of goes apeshit when something even remotely threatens their agenda.