Marine faces 15 years behind bars for unknowingly violating gun law

[M14 Shooter]

Ah so..I can own a thermal nuclear device? You know..for my own protection. Nukes. The only way to be sure.

:yawn:
Perhaps you could now post a response that actually addresses what I said.

BTW: Thermonuclear

Yawn, what? Read the clause. It doesn't grant you a right to concealed weapons. And..it makes absolutely no distinction about what arms you can bear.

You wanna go down this rabbit hole? I'm right with ya.

Your red herring clearly illustrates your inability to effective argue the issue.

The issue here is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, as applied to the states theu the 14th amendment - you know, the basis for the argument to force states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

When you think you can discuss the issue at hand, please get back with us.

 

[Sallow]

:yawn:
Perhaps you could now post a response that actually addresses what I said.

BTW: Thermonuclear

Yawn, what? Read the clause. It doesn't grant you a right to concealed weapons. And..it makes absolutely no distinction about what arms you can bear.

You wanna go down this rabbit hole? I'm right with ya.

Your red herring clearly illustrates your inability to effective argue the issue.

The issue here is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, as applied to the states theu the 14th amendment - you know, the basis for the argument to force states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

When you think you can discuss the issue at hand, please get back with us.

Discuss what.

You seem to think that the right to carry a gun should be unfettered. Well the Constitution doesn't even advocate that. It doesn't even mention "guns".

And that seems to be the only part of the constitution you think that applies too. Free Speech? Right to assemble? Naw.

And then you go on about same-sex marriages..as if it's relevent. The constitution doesn't even cover marriage. But one thing I do know about the Constitution..it's about granting rights..not taking them away.

 

[Sallow]

It is my understanding that state's rights apply to any area that isn't the purview of the Federal government (the enumerated powers) but that the Constitution also disallows any government (local, county, state or fed) from infringing on unalienable rights, one of which happens to be the right to keep and bear arms.

And there's no provision that allows you to conceal those arms.

If he had been openly carrying, you would not then support his arrest? That's illegal too in New York I believe.

Yep. But had he done that..he wouldn't be facing a mandatory sentence.

 

[eflatminor]

But one thing I do know about the Constitution..it's about granting rights..not taking them away.

Well, to be fair, it's also about restricting what the Federal government can do. Not that we care about such things much anymore.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Right.

Like voting ids and picking up illegals.

Gotcha.

Oh..and Free Speech...and the right to assembly is also as "unfettered" as you guys assume gun laws to be.

Hence breaking up the OWS camps..were unconstitutional.

I have no problem with assembly as long as those who assemble do not violate anyone else's rights. But the OW Sheep were impeding the rights of others by blocking access to public property and in some cases trespassing on private property.

And I don't get how picking up illegals violates a constitutionally guaranteed right. As far as voter IDs how do you propose that one proves he is indeed eligible to vote is that he is indeed a US citizen of legal age?

They weren't "violating" anyone else's rights.

And the Constitution clearly delineates immigration as being under Federal jurisdiction.

The Constitution makes no requirement for a citizen to prove anything in order to vote. Actually quite the contrary..charging a "tax" of any sort is prohibited.

It also doesn't grant anyone the right to concealed weapons.

Blocking access to public and private property is a violation of another's rights.

If I set up a barrier of tents at the end of your driveway and prevented you from going about your personal business would I not be violating your rights while exercising mine?

the phrase "To bear arms" does not restrict how said arms are carried does it?

 

[eflatminor]

And there's no provision that allows you to conceal those arms.

If he had been openly carrying, you would not then support his arrest? That's illegal too in New York I believe.

Yep. But had he done that..he wouldn't be facing a mandatory sentence.

But would YOU then stand against his arrest. If the basis of your argument is that the 2nd amendment doesn't allow concealed carry, then surely you would support open carry, right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ah so..I can own a thermal nuclear device? You know..for my own protection. Nukes. The only way to be sure.

:yawn:
Perhaps you could now post a response that actually addresses what I said.

BTW: Thermonuclear

Yawn, what? Read the clause. It doesn't grant you a right to concealed weapons. And..it makes absolutely no distinction about what arms you can bear.

You wanna go down this rabbit hole? I'm right with ya.

Neither does it restrict how arms are carried or what arms are carried does it?

 

[Sallow]

If he had been openly carrying, you would not then support his arrest? That's illegal too in New York I believe.

Yep. But had he done that..he wouldn't be facing a mandatory sentence.

But would YOU then stand against his arrest. If the basis of your argument is that the 2nd amendment doesn't allow concealed carry, then surely you would support open carry, right?

Nope.

But he would have a good case..since he had a permit. He would have probably been released..and told to keep his gun locked up in the hotel.

That would have been it.

By the way..he's probably not going to jail anyway..because of the permit.

 

[Sallow]

:yawn:
Perhaps you could now post a response that actually addresses what I said.

BTW: Thermonuclear

Yawn, what? Read the clause. It doesn't grant you a right to concealed weapons. And..it makes absolutely no distinction about what arms you can bear.

You wanna go down this rabbit hole? I'm right with ya.

Neither does it restrict how arms are carried or what arms are carried does it?

Hence my desire for a nuke..and your support..I am sure.

 

[Warrior102]

The Marine isn't too bright. Personally, I question the validity of the story itself. A 28-year old "former gunner?" What the hell is that? He made warrant in 10 years and got out? Or did they mean "Gunny," who got out at 28 years old.?

Regardless....

I have a concealed weps permit in Virginia and I know I can't ride a Metro in D.C. with the damned thing. Laws very - doesn't mean a permit is valid cross country.

I visit this site before making any sort of a trip with a weapon.

Agreed. That's like you or me walking in to the post office on Rt. 1 next to the Harley shop and asking where to check our gun. We know that we can't carry in the PO or aboard MCB Quantico, so we leave our weapon at home.

Most CC permit holders know that the laws in Commifornia, New Yuck, and similar places are as they are because they do not trust their citizens with firearms and surely do not trust us out-of-staters. What about the nurse in the article that wanted to "check" her gun at the World Trade Center. I never turn over my weapons to anyone. Carrying comes with responsibilities, and that includes where one cannot carry.

I don't turn over mine to anyone either. I seriously doubt the validity of the story Senior. Sounds awfly bogus. And you're right - when I do my commissary run at Quantico, I sure as hell don't have a weapon with me.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yawn, what? Read the clause. It doesn't grant you a right to concealed weapons. And..it makes absolutely no distinction about what arms you can bear.

You wanna go down this rabbit hole? I'm right with ya.

Neither does it restrict how arms are carried or what arms are carried does it?

Hence my desire for a nuke..and your support..I am sure.

Good luck because it is illegal to acquire fissionable materials without the proper licensing.

That particular so called argument is the biggest red herring around.

 

[eflatminor]

Nope.

You've undermined your own argument. What exactly then does "keep and bear" mean to you?

 

[Sallow]

Neither does it restrict how arms are carried or what arms are carried does it?

Hence my desire for a nuke..and your support..I am sure.

Good luck because it is illegal to acquire fissionable materials without the proper licensing.

That particular so called argument is the biggest red herring around.

Dare to dream.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSjeTFx5JI4]Don't Be A Menace - "Do We Have A Problem?" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Nope.

You've undermined your own argument. What exactly then does "keep and bear" mean to you?

The whole damn thing means something entirely different to me then it does to the gun lobby.

Initially this was the government's way of maintaining a ground force. With civilians. This country wasn't meant, as a matter of original intent, to have a professional army under federal control.

 

[Crackerjack]

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

However, relying upon interpretations of the law by a government official may be an excuse.

 

[Crackerjack]

But one thing I do know about the Constitution..it's about granting rights..not taking them away.

Negative. The Constitution restricts government. It doesn't grant rights.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I think anything over a year would be pretty outrageous - but it was sort of gross neglegence to go vacationing and not look into the gun laws where you're going - and even grosser neglegence of his parents and teachers to not have known that different states have different gun laws.

New York's gun laws are pretty well known nationwide.

Don't come here with your shootin' irons.

That's why NY is such a safe place!

 

[eflatminor]

This country wasn't meant, as a matter of original intent, to have a professional army under federal control.

My understanding of the Federalist vs anti Federalist debates differs dramatically for yours. Everything I've read suggests that we agreed on a standing army under the control of the commander in chief in exchange for the Bill of Rights...which we now choose to ignore.

However you view history, your argument that "the Constitution does not permit conceal carry" has pretty much been flushed down the crapper. You should be honest about your position from the beginning.

 

[eflatminor]

I think anything over a year would be pretty outrageous - but it was sort of gross neglegence to go vacationing and not look into the gun laws where you're going - and even grosser neglegence of his parents and teachers to not have known that different states have different gun laws.

New York's gun laws are pretty well known nationwide.

Don't come here with your shootin' irons.

That's why NY is such a safe place!

Chicago too!

 

[Mad Scientist]

But one thing I do know about the Constitution..it's about granting rights..not taking them away.

Negative. The Constitution restricts government. It doesn't grant rights.

Tell em CrackerJack! Sallow needs to be educated.