PDA

View Full Version : Technically they can't touch our receivers (or built ARs)


j2ws2000
03-08-2006, 8:46 PM
I was in history today and the Dred Scott case came up, apparently the federal government canít take our legal property even if itís not approved by our state. Of course Dred Scott was a slavery case but it still applies. My history professor, a proud AR15 owner, told us that if we moved to Nevada and cars were outlawed there, and we brought our car, they couldnít take it without due process. We could do donuts on our lawn all day and the federal government canít say a thing.

So, technically speaking, we could buy our receivers here (or out of state), build them (out of state legally) and keep them. I wouldnít test it, but really thatís the law to my understanding.

Did I miss something?

TonyM
03-08-2006, 8:54 PM
Who said anything about anyone taking anything from anyone?

natrab
03-08-2006, 9:00 PM
Well, if you're talking about the seized receivers, they've been taken by the state, and so far they haven't said why they still have em (the original issue was with the FFL's safe).

j2ws2000
03-08-2006, 9:01 PM
Well I assumed taking one's rifle would be included with the 10 year prison sentence. Long story short property is property, and if it's (the AR15) legally yours in the United States the Supreme Court ruled that ANY branch of government can't tell you that you can't have it.

Henry47
03-08-2006, 9:04 PM
ANY branch of government can't tell you that you can't have it.

and if they do, what are you going to do about it? Do you have the money and time to spend fighting it, or are you just going to sit around and see what happens?

TonyM
03-08-2006, 9:04 PM
Well I assumed taking one's rifle would be included with the 10 year prison sentence. Long story short property is property, and if it's (the AR15) legally yours in the United States the Supreme Court ruled that ANY branch of government can't tell you that you can't have it.


They usually don't take them from you, unless you have them on you when you get arrested for a felony. You are supposed to dispose of them, that's why so many convicted Felons end up with a second Felony for having firearms.

j2ws2000
03-08-2006, 9:07 PM
and if they do, what are you going to do about it? Do you have the money and time to spend fighting it, or are you just going to sit around and see what happens?

Calm down. I was merely stating a blatant fact, we all know the risks and difficulty involved which is why it has been going unchallenged. It can be fought, and I'd donate to the cause for your information, although I haven't seen anybody take up a serious collection or make a vigilant effort in that direction.

ohsmily
03-08-2006, 9:19 PM
I was in history today and the Dred Scott case came up, apparently the federal government canít take our legal property even if itís not approved by our state. Of course Dred Scott was a slavery case but it still applies. My history professor, a proud AR15 owner, told us that if we moved to Nevada and cars were outlawed there, and we brought our car, they couldnít take it without due process. We could do donuts on our lawn all day and the federal government canít say a thing.

So, technically speaking, we could buy our receivers here (or out of state), build them (out of state legally) and keep them. I wouldnít test it, but really thatís the law to my understanding.

Did I miss something?

WOW, what a novel revelation!!! Thanks for the social studies lesson! So, you mean the state can't take legally owned and acquired property without good cause or due process? who woulda' thunk it? no way!

And as to the last part of your post...not sure what you are trying to say about buying them here or out of state or building them out of state etc.

Right now, you can go to AZ and use your CA legal AR-15 with all the evil features you want, but it has to be SB23 compliant when it comes back across the border into CA.

And no, you can't buy an AR in another state unless you are a resident there (with few exceptions).

So, not sure what your "understanding" is, but that is the situation. When you are here in CA, you have to be SB23 compliant.

PIRATE14
03-08-2006, 9:32 PM
Technically this is a free country......but....

They'll take what they want and you'll have to prove that it's your right to own it.....

I do like the lofty ideas though.....

Scotty
03-08-2006, 9:33 PM
That's why so many people took their AR's out of state when the AW registration started in 2000.

JALLEN
03-08-2006, 10:02 PM
I was in history today and the Dred Scott case came up, apparently the federal government canít take our legal property even if itís not approved by our state. Of course Dred Scott was a slavery case but it still applies. My history professor, a proud AR15 owner, told us that if we moved to Nevada and cars were outlawed there, and we brought our car, they couldnít take it without due process. We could do donuts on our lawn all day and the federal government canít say a thing.

So, technically speaking, we could buy our receivers here (or out of state), build them (out of state legally) and keep them. I wouldnít test it, but really thatís the law to my understanding.

Did I miss something?

I wouldn't accept this as legal advice from your history teacher. I don't know about his example.

There are all sorts of laws dealing with property you are not allowed to have. Illegal drugs come to mind here. The distinction between what your teacher was trying to say and reality is probably buried in the concept of due process. The government can take your property, they just have to afford due process in the process. Due process includes those rights fundamental to a concept of ordered liberty.... in a word, fairness. When the property is taken away, you have a right to a hearing of some sort and to present evidence, the courts will use their power to compel the attendance of witnesses you wish to be there by means of subpoenas, the right to cross examine witnesses, usually the assistance of counsel if you wish, things like that. If you want to demand a hearing and go through the motions about whose suitcase full of smack the government has confiscated, have at it. Usually, discretion is the better part of valor, etc.

There are cases not infrequently in some states, usually southern where the police stop a car on a public highway, and in the course of searching , or just looking around, or asking questions of the occupant, discover a load of cash. Since large sums of cash are frequently associated with drug dealing, the police seize the cash. You have the right to contest the seizure, but since about 80% of all $20 bills show some signs of cocaine traces when tested, you have to prove where you got the cash, that you are not dealing, etc. Most of the time, the cash goes to the police agency that captures it, so there is a hell of a fight to prove you are the BG. Some people can't stand the level of scrutiny this involves, for one reason or another.

EBWhite
03-08-2006, 10:10 PM
You could technically purchase a gun private party out of state but it must stay there, for example you have 2 homes, one in vegas and one in LA.

Gregas
03-08-2006, 10:10 PM
I wouldn't accept this as legal advice from your history teacher. I don't know about his example.

There are all sorts of laws dealing with property you are not allowed to have. Illegal drugs come to mind here. The distinction between what your teacher was trying to say and reality is probably buried in the concept of due process.

Not to mention that with the recent supreme court ruling, the government can forcibly buy your real estate (at their price) and sell it to the developer whose pocket they are in, as long as you receive due process.

Life.....something....pursuit of happiness. What was that middle part again?

-aK-
03-09-2006, 6:42 AM
America stopped being a free country when the CFR took over the country oh about 70 years ago.

grammaton76
03-09-2006, 7:29 AM
America stopped being a free country when the CFR took over the country oh about 70 years ago.

CFR? I've heard a fair number of acronyms, but I think that's the first I've heard that one.

PanzerAce
03-09-2006, 7:34 AM
CFR? I've heard a fair number of acronyms, but I think that's the first I've heard that one.

+1. damnit, finally an acronym that I dont know.

glen avon
03-09-2006, 7:42 AM
Not to mention that with the recent supreme court ruling, the government can forcibly buy your real estate (at their price) and sell it to the developer whose pocket they are in, as long as you receive due process.

Kelo did not do that.

Kelo has to be the most misunderstood case ever.

Kelo reaffirmed existing redevelopment law, that's all.

states are free to opt in or out. so are local governments.

here in CA, redevelopment agencies already had the right to take property under eminent domain and sell it to a developer. it happens all the time. BFD.

Kelo is being twisted and misrepresented to people as standing for something it doesn't, and the public dutifully accepts all the inflammatory rhetoric and freaks out.

Life.....something....pursuit of happiness. What was that middle part again?

actually, the original quote was "life, liberty, and ownership of property." The US changed that to "Pursuit of hapiness."

glen avon
03-09-2006, 7:46 AM
I wouldn't accept this as legal advice from your history teacher. I don't know about his example.

ha. why should history teachers be treated any differently that the erstwhile attorneys here on this forum practicing law without a license? :D

glen avon
03-09-2006, 7:49 AM
WOW ... [quite a rant]....

hey now, this poor dude repeats what his teacher says and you are all over him like a cheap suit. others endlessly expound all sorts of legally mistaken theories on this board and you give them a pass?

he is no farther off base than about half the legal BS I see here every day.

cut him some slack, he's one of us, 'K?

ohsmily
03-09-2006, 7:57 AM
cut him some slack, he's one of us, 'K?

says the guy who says "aaaaaaa shaddup" to someone who is on our side as well.

anywho, I think your cynicism is valuable on this forum to keep people from being completely enamored with SOMETIMES half-baked ideas (though I often disagree with you).

TheMan
03-09-2006, 8:02 AM
CFR? I've heard a fair number of acronyms, but I think that's the first I've heard that one.

Council on Foreign Relations. I've had some conspiracy theorists tell me about how it really controls the US govt. While I don't think it has as much power as they claim, it is interesting to read about, and see who are members.

http://www.cfr.org/

glen avon
03-09-2006, 8:08 AM
says the guy who says "aaaaaaa shaddup" to someone who is on our side as well.

that was supposed to be a humorous ending.

-aK-
03-09-2006, 9:00 AM
CFR? I've heard a fair number of acronyms, but I think that's the first I've heard that one.

Council on Foreign Relations

associated with the Round Table group in England.

"Them"

Conspiracy to rule the world.

Every single president since Woodrow Wilson (I THINK) has been a member of the CFR, EXCEPT Kennedy... and we all know what happened to him.

The CFR is based from the big banking families. JP Morgan, Chase Manhattan, Rockefeller....

They bring members up, educate them at Yale and Harvard and such using The Rhodes Scholarships and then they insert them into important State Department positions.

Just about every single powerful person in our government is a member of the CFR.

They founded the United Nations and are pushing towards the goal of a one world government and a socialist society.

Look it up.. its an eye opener!

glen avon
03-09-2006, 9:03 AM
Council on Foreign Relations

The CFR is based from the big banking families. JP Morgan, Chase Manhattan, Rockefeller....

They bring members up, educate them at Yale and Harvard and such using The Rhodes Scholarships ....

why do rich bankers need scholarships???

-aK-
03-09-2006, 9:11 AM
Thats how they recruit. They pay for education and have more people, sons, friends sons whatever brought up and educated with their beliefs.

They have all sorts of tax free foundations. Masters of tax sheltering.

So while they manipulate our government. Start wars. Tax the middle class... they aren't paying very much in taxes.

When the world is in war they make money.

the very basis theory way back in the beginning of this idea for this conspiracy to rule the world was to lend money to governments.

xenophobe
03-09-2006, 10:14 AM
You could technically purchase a gun private party out of state but it must stay there, for example you have 2 homes, one in vegas and one in LA.

That's not true. Once you legally purchase a firearm, you can bring it anywhere you want within the US. The only exception would be AWs. Bringing unregistered AWs into California is a State and Federal crime.

Technically, in determining firearm purchase eligibility if you're a resident of two states, you must only buy handguns in your primary state of residence. Ask the state to prove which is your primary state of residence though. ;)

-aK-
03-09-2006, 10:26 AM
Something I just ran across on a different forum.

Interesting to say the least. I can't wait for it to come out.

www.freedomtofacism.com

30Cal
03-09-2006, 1:16 PM
The upper echelon of the CFR is known as the Pentaveret (you know, the Queen. The vatican. The Getty's. The Rothschilds. AND Colonel Sanders before he went teets up!) They meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado known as The Meadows.

JALLEN
03-09-2006, 3:55 PM
ha. why should history teachers be treated any differently that the erstwhile attorneys here on this forum practicing law without a license? :D

Well, not everyone. In real life I am a lawyer.... been one for more than 30 years. However, I follow these forums trying to practice gunsmithing without a license, or at least learn something about it, anyway.

I used to follow a number of flying forums in which pilots would practice acting like lawyers, and lawyers would practice acting like pilots. Really quite convivial!

The big difference is that these non-lawyers rant on and on when they aren't properly trained and don't know what they are talking about, and we lawyers rant on and on but are trained to do so whether we know what we are talking about or not..... the training makes a big difference.

j2ws2000
03-09-2006, 5:03 PM
Well there was certainly enough hostility directed towards my post. How disappointing. I'll be sure never to say anything that might be of interest. Sorry for forcing you to click and read my thread ohsmily, you sad sorry internet thug.

Serious posts only please.

ohsmily
03-09-2006, 8:40 PM
Sorry for forcing you to click and read my thread ohsmily, you sad sorry internet thug.

Serious posts only please.

So, what does that make you? A "sad, sorry, internet" geek who gets hung on his locker by his underwear? HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

Ok clown, I guess I have to respond to your post (both the above and the original).

Your original post sounded like an excited little kid who just discovered a new word or something like that. Problem is, we aren't children, nor does this situation lend itself to abstracted, basic, and (wrong) application of case law that has no bearing.

Next time, you might want to advance your opinion about your newfound "knowledge" in the form of a question and ask if perhaps it might help out our situation rather than trumpeting an absolute which was incorrect, childish, and wrong.

j2ws2000
03-12-2006, 10:00 PM
So, what does that make you? A "sad, sorry, internet" geek who gets hung on his locker by his underwear? HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

Ok clown, I guess I have to respond to your post (both the above and the original).

Your original post sounded like an excited little kid who just discovered a new word or something like that. Problem is, we aren't children, nor does this situation lend itself to abstracted, basic, and (wrong) application of case law that has no bearing.

Next time, you might want to advance your opinion about your newfound "knowledge" in the form of a question and ask if perhaps it might help out our situation rather than trumpeting an absolute which was incorrect, childish, and wrong.

Wow, shameful.

Jeff Rambo
03-12-2006, 10:08 PM
Keep it civil or the thread gets closed.