PDA

View Full Version : Would you do anything about this?


DrDavid
06-10-2012, 9:37 AM
So, let's assume there's a hypothetical individual who wants to carry a gun concealed. However, the county in which they live will not (easily) give a CCW. Furthermore, the person has stated that to me (and in writing), even if they could receive a CCW, they wouldn't even bother as the 2nd Amendment would apply, so there wouldn't be a need in any event.

Furthermore, assume that this hypothetical individual both lives and works within ~1000' of a Elementary school. Home and business are about 1700' away from each other. To go between the two buildings requires traversing through the GFSZ. There is no possible way to avoid it -- and, frankly, by walking out their front door, the person is only 750' away from the school. The business is located ~1030' away.

This hypothetical individual carries a 1911 - .45ACP. (Probably doesn't matter.)

I've never seen this hypothetical person with a gun, but he has told me (hypothetically speaking) that he carries the gun daily and that he would never leave his home without the gun. Such statements were made freely. I have no reason to doubt he was being truthful.

So, in my understanding of the law, what this person is doing is a federal felony. Would you report this person? To whom would you report it?

Please note, any resemblance to any real person is purely coincidental. This question is purely for my academic interest.

AragornElessar86
06-10-2012, 9:40 AM
MYOB. As long as you've made this person aware of the legalities of the situation, forget about the whole thing.

the86d
06-10-2012, 9:45 AM
MYOB. As long as you've made this person aware of the legalities of the situation, forget about the whole thing.

^THIS, unless you believe that "Mr. Hypothetical" is a danger to himself, or other law-abiding people.

blakdawg
06-10-2012, 9:46 AM
I would do nothing. If I still shot .45 ACP regularly, I might ask if he wanted to split a case of ammo.

Demonicspire
06-10-2012, 9:48 AM
yeah, just leave him to do whatever. I don't think you have any obligation to report him anyway. If he gets caught, his own fault.

CitaDeL
06-10-2012, 9:49 AM
So, let's assume there's a hypothetical individual who wants to carry a gun concealed. However, the county in which they live will not (easily) give a CCW. Furthermore, the person has stated that to me (and in writing), even if they could receive a CCW, they wouldn't even bother as the 2nd Amendment would apply, so there wouldn't be a need in any event.

Furthermore, assume that this hypothetical individual both lives and works within ~1000' of a Elementary school. Home and business are about 1700' away from each other. To go between the two buildings requires traversing through the GFSZ. There is no possible way to avoid it -- and, frankly, by walking out their front door, the person is only 750' away from the school. The business is located ~1030' away.

This hypothetical individual carries a 1911 - .45ACP. (Probably doesn't matter.)

I've never seen this hypothetical person with a gun, but he has told me (hypothetically speaking) that he carries the gun daily and that he would never leave his home without the gun. Such statements were made freely. I have no reason to doubt he was being truthful.

So, in my understanding of the law, what this person is doing is a federal felony. Would you report this person? To whom would you report it?

Please note, any resemblance to any real person is purely coincidental. This question is purely for my academic interest.

Any law that is not congruous to the Constitution is invalid. You either have the right to keep and carry arms or you do not. How one asserts this is completely personal. Anyone who would report someone asserting their right to self-defense is a social statist meddling in others affairs and hates liberty.

littlejake
06-10-2012, 9:51 AM
No I would not. I'm not the police; and I have no obligation tell them.

I believe in Constitutional Carry. I am also an originalist in my interpretation of the Constitution.

I think this hypothetical person would be foolish to tell anyone what he does.

I see CitaDel said it better then I.
Any law that is not congruous to the Constitution is invalid. You either have the right to keep and carry arms or you do not. How one asserts this is completely personal. Anyone who would report someone asserting their right to self-defense is a social statist meddling in others affairs and hates liberty.

DrDavid
06-10-2012, 9:55 AM
What if I changed the situation slightly... He is (hypothetically) quick to anger and knows the law very well. He (hypothetically of course) has said, "Being arrested is a good way to change the law". Would that change anything?

DrDavid
06-10-2012, 9:57 AM
Any law that is not congruous to the Constitution is invalid. You either have the right to keep and carry arms or you do not. How one asserts this is completely personal. Anyone who would report someone asserting their right to self-defense is a social statist meddling in others affairs and hates liberty.
This is true. But, we are a nation of laws, are we not? Who decides which law is incongruous? My belief is that it's the courts. Without the courts saying, "This law is bad", shouldn't we follow it?

For the record, I believe that we should have constitutional carry.. But, since we don't in California (yet), shouldn't we follow the laws as it is?

Demonicspire
06-10-2012, 10:00 AM
What if I changed the situation slightly... He is (hypothetically) quick to anger and knows the law very well. He (hypothetically of course) has said, "Being arrested is a good way to change the law". Would that change anything?

Well, I admire his conviction, and I think people need to stand up, buuut, from a purely utilitarian point of view, this guy is cruising for a bruisin. If you're worried, just keep nagging him. You will not at all help him by turning him in.

A cop might be a bit rough with him if they find it during a stop, but it will be one cop, and hopefully he won't do something stupid like take a swing. If the cops are INFORMED he's carrying an illegal weapon, they'll start salivating, requisition every piece of heavy gear they have, bust down his door at 5 am, flashbang him, shoot his dog, and beat the living hell out of him. Well I'm exaggerating, but not much. It will be theater, and he could get hurt bad.

Anti-Hero
06-10-2012, 10:08 AM
So you're hypothetically asking if we think you should snitch on this hypothetical person for hypothetically carrying a pistol for his hypothetical self defense.

Hypothetically you should take a leap off of a hypothetical cliff, chivato.

meaty-btz
06-10-2012, 10:13 AM
This is true. But, we are a nation of laws, are we not? Who decides which law is incongruous? My belief is that it's the courts. Without the courts saying, "This law is bad", shouldn't we follow it?

For the record, I believe that we should have constitutional carry.. But, since we don't in California (yet), shouldn't we follow the laws as it is?

So you do what others tell you to do without consideration?

In your position they could legalize (and have to some extent, see the "soft touch" for assaults by minors on others) assault by a minor and you would be ok with people beating the crap out of you as long as they were "just kids".

That is why your stance fails the reason and logic test. We have, defacto "just kids" decisions by judges all over this nation. That does not make it right, but it IS a court interpretation, so in your position you would have to accept the beating as not self-defense as well if you were to defend yourself.

The basis of the constitution is Natural Law, which is not something open for interpretation and is pretty much graven in the very fabric of our universe. We may change wordings to try and gain some advantage over another but that does not change the actual law, that is just humans playing games of power and control.

OleCuss
06-10-2012, 10:13 AM
I don't think I'd report him unless you really believe he is a very real and imminent danger to others.

You also do not truly know that he is telling the truth about carrying a firearm unless you have actually seen him doing so. And what if he is not carrying at the time you report? No need for false reports and bothering cops and the hypothetical individual over a lie the guy tells you.

Truth is that there isn't a really good answer. Without a compelling situation, however, the best thing is to leave the hypothetical individual alone and avoid anyone who is exercising such poor judgment.

I'd probably not even bother to point out to him that if he gets caught he'll be convicted despite the constitutional questions and responsible gun rights organizations won't even support him because he will be making bad case law.

FalconLair
06-10-2012, 10:18 AM
you could always hypothetically report him to the hypothetical police? :)

Russ Florian
06-10-2012, 10:26 AM
I would file that info. in the back of my mind.Talk is cheap and not worth the panty twist.

adrenaline
06-10-2012, 10:34 AM
I would help the guy out by donating to the CalGuns foundation and fight for constitutional carry.

littlejake
06-10-2012, 10:41 AM
We are free men with free will. We may indeed choose which laws we will follow... Being aware that unjust men may punish us.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963

CitaDeL
06-10-2012, 11:35 AM
This is true. But, we are a nation of laws, are we not? Who decides which law is incongruous? My belief is that it's the courts. Without the courts saying, "This law is bad", shouldn't we follow it?

For the record, I believe that we should have constitutional carry.. But, since we don't in California (yet), shouldn't we follow the laws as it is?

I would counter that we are and always have been a nation of liberty, not of law. The more numerous the laws, the less liberty we have.

Is a free man obligated to follow laws that are morally and Constitutionally reprehensible? Would you turn in your neighbor because they will not follow an ordinance that violates their choice to worship or not to worship a deity? How about if they told you they would refuse to submit to random warrantless searches and seizures?

These are essentially the same thing. And I dont approve of people (particularly self-appointed meddlers) pointing to a invalid or immoral law and saying "You should obey, because the law says so."

guitar-nut
06-10-2012, 11:41 AM
I think you should mind your own damn business...

REH
06-10-2012, 12:07 PM
If you feel he is danger to you or others then report him. Be prepared to live with the results of that decision.

NYsteveZ
06-10-2012, 12:16 PM
I would MYOB, and truthfully, NOT associate with Mr. Hypothetical. He sounds like he wants to prove a point and go about it his own way. What if the cops start asking Mr hypo if he has any friends with guns..."Oh yeah, my friend Mr Assume (you) is into guns too". For the price he paid to defend himself, he couldve donated to CGF or NRA to reverse, overturn or fight stupid laws like AB249.

socalbowhunter
06-10-2012, 12:17 PM
I live by a very strict code. "Snitches get stitches". :)

scarville
06-10-2012, 1:31 PM
If he is aware if the consequence then leave him be. Let him choose his mistakes and you can choose yours.

Chaparral
06-10-2012, 1:37 PM
This is true. But, we are a nation of laws, are we not? Who decides which law is incongruous? My belief is that it's the courts. Without the courts saying, "This law is bad", shouldn't we follow it?



I can decide which laws are incongruous and the first thing I would do is vote with my feet and my actions by keeping my mouth shut.

It might be added that we are becoming less and less a nation of laws every day and it has started at the very highest corridors of power. Me being "Dudley Do Right"over victimless "crimes" will help no one.

Maestro Pistolero
06-10-2012, 1:38 PM
The law sucks, doesn't accomplish a thing, but it IS the law a this time. He would be wrong about an arrest in his circumstances being helpful in any way.

But unless he is dangerous, he is way more likely to save a life (his own or someone else's) than to put one in danger.

Just fuggetaboutit.

jimx
06-10-2012, 1:45 PM
I originally had a sarcastic flame here but after reading

This is true. But, we are a nation of laws, are we not? Who decides which law is incongruous? My belief is that it's the courts. Without the courts saying, "This law is bad", shouldn't we follow it?

For the record, I believe that we should have constitutional carry.. But, since we don't in California (yet), shouldn't we follow the laws as it is?

I deleted it.

Suvorov
06-10-2012, 1:48 PM
The very fact that a Calgunner would consider turning such a hypothetical person into the police is the very reason we are in the state we are in in this State.

Man's got to do what a man's got to do. If a law is illegal (which most of California's gun laws are), then they decide for themselves if they wish to follow it or not, KNOWING FULLY that if they decide not to follow the law, they are placing themselves in harms way concerning the "powers that be."

That is the way it has been for thousands of years. Sadly, neighbors who are willing to snitch on them to the authorities, even when they know the authorities are in the wrong" has also been the way it has been for thousands of years. :(

donw
06-10-2012, 1:52 PM
i think i would avoid the situation like the plague...:gene::leaving:

Gryff
06-10-2012, 2:01 PM
Based on what you described:

A) the hypothetical person would be a moron. Carry illegally AND tell people about...son, you should never go full retard.

B) a don't know why this would be a "federal felony." He is only hypothetically violating state laws.

C) you should mind your own business. Unless you feel that he has a likelihood of being a threat to the safety of others, you shouldn't be a rat just because you know he's breaking a law.

This is true. But, we are a nation of laws, are we not? Who decides which law is incongruous? My belief is that it's the courts. Without the courts saying, "This law is bad", shouldn't we follow it?

Used to be laws allowing slavery or Jim Crow. Is this the same? Probably not. But something being law does not magically endow it with universal goodness.

alfred1222
06-10-2012, 2:01 PM
i think i would avoid the situation like the plague...:gene::leaving:

THIS

Intimid8tor
06-10-2012, 2:04 PM
Myofb and if it makes you uncomfortable then don't hang with him.

bwiese
06-10-2012, 2:22 PM
The guy is an idiot thinking that this will advance various legal matters. It won't.

As CA NRA gun lawyer Chuck Michel says, "We don't need no martyrs."

I note your dude wasn't smart enough to apply for carry permit, get initial denial, and then continue
with any appeals process etc till all local issuance chances are exhausted.

That could be *possibly* slight mitigation. [I note none of the UOC folks ever did that either, so none
of the UOC 'heroes' had a chance to be even of remote use if something escalated.]
.
If the gun is not papered to him (i.e., common situation due to old family gun, brought in from out of
state without being papered, etc.) then if/when he's popped he'll be charged with a felony (felonies).
He'll easily be popped for concealed handgun and loaded concealed handgun.
.
School zone issues - Federal and CA matters - are on top of this.
. .
The fact he told someone (you, likely others) indicates a low IQ. Very good chance this person likely does
not have the income level/savings necessary to defend himself fully in a criminal trial.

Then this idiot will turn around and ask gun groups (NRA, CGF etc) for money and ***** at them all over the
web for lack of support and call these groups anti-gun because they chose not to back a losing horse.
.
Between this guy and your loser politician buddy, you've got some not-too-bright friends.

TommyGun
06-10-2012, 3:12 PM
The very fact that a Calgunner would consider turning such a hypothetical person into the police is the very reason we are in the state we are in in this State.

Man's got to do what a man's got to do. If a law is illegal (which most of California's gun laws are), then they decide for themselves if they wish to follow it or not, KNOWING FULLY that if they decide not to follow the law, they are placing themselves in harms way concerning the "powers that be."

That is the way it has been for thousands of years. Sadly, neighbors who are willing to snitch on them to the authorities, even when they know the authorities are in the wrong" has also been the way it has been for thousands of years. :(

I fully agree with the above. My father was born in Nazi Occupied Czechoslovakia and he and lots of my family lived for years under communism after that. In the end very few people actually believed in it but 99 percent of people would turn in their neighbors for next tonothing except brownie points.
My grandfather spent years in communist prisons (Pankraz, Bory, Jihlava) because a neighbor told the authorities that he still had his pistol and PPSH41 from his days as a partisan in WW2. He even had valid permits from a top communist who he fought with during the war. They did not care and there was no real trial. His best friend from the war was a lawyer and tried to help. His law license was stripped and he dug ditches and worked in mines for years after as punishment.
My grandfather has since been declared innocent, thanks to efforts of his lawyer friend mentioned before - a few years after his death. If you don't believe in the law and nobody is getting harmed why would You harm your hypothetical friend?

CitaDeL
06-10-2012, 3:13 PM
I note your dude wasn't smart enough to apply for carry permit, get initial denial, and then continue with any appeals process etc till all local issuance chances are exhausted.

That could be *possibly* slight mitigation. [I note none of the UOC folks ever did that either, so none of the UOC 'heroes' had a chance to be even of remote use if something escalated.]

Bolded isnt wholly accurate. There have been circumstances where an open carry advocate had been licensed in an allegedly permissive issuing jurisdiction, been revoked for open carry and there was not then sufficient interest in pursuing the matter before the statute of limitations expired. This same advocate has since had their application denied twice. So the descriptors of 'none' and 'ever' are somewhat misused here.

Agent Orange
06-10-2012, 3:35 PM
...Man's got to do what a man's got to do. If a law is illegal (which most of California's gun laws are), then they decide for themselves if they wish to follow it or not, KNOWING FULLY that if they decide not to follow the law, they are placing themselves in harms way concerning the "powers that be."...

Agreed. Although it's interesting most here, even those that talk the talk about how wrong they feel certain laws are, don't walk the walk when it comes to ignoring them.

DrDavid
06-10-2012, 3:42 PM
Between this guy and your loser politician buddy, you've got some not-too-bright friends.
Believe me when I say this: "I don't want to have these idiots as friends!" Actually, they aren't friends as much as clients. Idiots have money too.. :(

Funny thing about web design (which is what I do); I work with people in all walks of life. Never a dull day.

bwiese
06-10-2012, 3:47 PM
Bolded isnt wholly accurate. There have been circumstances where an open carry advocate had been licensed in an allegedly permissive issuing jurisdiction, been revoked for open carry and there was not then sufficient interest in pursuing the matter before the statute of limitations expired. This same advocate has since had their application denied twice. So the descriptors of 'none' and 'ever' are somewhat misused here.

Fair deal.

Instead of "all", 99%.

IVC
06-10-2012, 3:57 PM
Each one of us is responsible for our own decisions. Your decision is not gun-related - *his* decision is gun related. Your decision is on "playing cops", making allegations without proof and bringing a legal nightmare on both of you. That has nothing to do with 2A or guns.

Simple question: would you report your neighbor for having an "overnight guest" of the same gender in a state that still has a sodomy law? The answer to this question should be the answer to your dilemma. Again, it's not about your friend's guns, it's about your interfering.

sharxbyte
06-10-2012, 6:20 PM
Hypothetically someone who hypothetically might go to my church allegedly built and owns a hypothetical fully automatic m16. While this hypothetically violates state and national law, my personal decision is to hypothetically not associate with this hypothetical person, and ESPECIALLY never go shooting with said person.

oni.dori
06-10-2012, 7:04 PM
What if I changed the situation slightly... He is (hypothetically) quick to anger and knows the law very well. He (hypothetically of course) has said, "Being arrested is a good way to change the law". Would that change anything?
No, let them dig their own hypothetical grave. Best not to get involved. Besides, there is just as much a chance that he does amazing good and saves innocent lives from ACTUAL bad people with ACTUAL bad intentions by having that firearm with him, hypothetically speaking.

P.S. This REAKS of anti symmantic argument and manipulation to me.

-hanko
06-10-2012, 7:07 PM
This is true. But, we are a nation of laws, are we not? Who decides which law is incongruous? My belief is that it's the courts. Without the courts saying, "This law is bad", shouldn't we follow it?

For the record, I believe that we should have constitutional carry.. But, since we don't in California (yet), shouldn't we follow the laws as it is?
First battle in the Revolution involved British seizing colonial guns.

You need to do what you think is "correct" for your own situation. Some will agree with your viewpoint, others may not.

I'd let the "hypothetical friend" be. Don't sweat situations you can't control.;)

Further, I'm somewhat amazed at your "hypothetical friend's/client's" personal decision as to how he'll approach his CCW decision is important enough to create this thread in the first place. :confused: Most of us have enough ongoing drama in our own lives, let alone devoting time to someone else's drama.

The thread is a waste of bandwidth.:rolleyes:

hth

-hanko

whatpain
06-10-2012, 7:15 PM
wow is this what california has come to??? this guy is seriously considering tattle telling on some guy who is carrying concealed?? are you any way affiliated with the police?? is this guy a general law abiding citizen or does he commit drive buys with the gun?? why do you care so much?? and really how is it your business?? are you against rkba or for it??

oni.dori
06-10-2012, 7:39 PM
are you against rkba or for it??

I voiced my suspicions of this as well. Something just doesn't "feel" right about this discussion and "hypothetical" situation. Almost like they are phishing for a specific response...

DrDavid
06-10-2012, 7:47 PM
I voiced my suspicions of this as well. Something just doesn't "feel" right about this discussion and "hypothetical" situation. Almost like they are phishing for a specific response...
Geez.. Quit thinking there's a conspiracy to get some special answer. Just something I was curious about. Not fishing for anything.

Anti-Hero
06-10-2012, 7:50 PM
Whatever chivato

oni.dori
06-10-2012, 8:52 PM
Geez.. Quit thinking there's a conspiracy to get some special answer. Just something I was curious about. Not fishing for anything.

Then why even bring it up here if you weren't looking to restrict his rights? If he isn't threatening anyone, or carrying it solely white the intent to belligerently harm anyone or commit crimes with it, why is it even worth mentioning?

ubet
06-11-2012, 5:56 AM
Hypotheticals are stupid. Op, if YOU want to carry your weapon cc without a license thats your deal. But that LAST thing I would do is come on a board with 100k+ people that is constantly monitored by doj and make a post like yours.

OleCuss
06-11-2012, 6:17 AM
It was a legitimate question with interesting philosophical and legal implications.

The question was worth asking - and answering.

Note that DrDavid did not say he was going to report the hypothetical individual. He asked what was the right thing to do given those circumstances.

There is nothing in the presented hypothetical which suggests DrDavid was even considering doing such a thing himself. There's no DOJ risk to him.

No need to jump his case or to get snippy with him. He's one of the good guys.

email
06-11-2012, 6:38 AM
Unless you think he's a danger, MYOB

Manolito
06-11-2012, 6:59 AM
I have a serious interest in the question. Wife and I worked with neglected children. On a home visit we found marks on the children and reported them. The Father was arrested and sent to jail pretty good thing huh?

We went back to the home and found the cildren harmed again. End of story Dad took the fall for Mom an addict so she didn't have to go through withdrawls. I learned a valuable lesson and have quit working as a volunteer because what you think you see and what is actual is not always the same thing.

What if you turn this person in and they loose their guns and the following week a home invasion takes place and the family is killed. How did your intervention work?

I think we should return to minding our own business unless children are involved and then my duty ends at the original report. (I know this is symplistic and not a good alternative but it is how I feel today. )

he may be in your office when a hostile takeover occurs and he may have your six.

Just some random thoughts from an old guy.

QQQ
06-11-2012, 7:24 AM
Whenever you report something to the police, you are literally bringing armed men into the situation. Always take that into consideration.

DrDavid
06-11-2012, 8:51 AM
Hypotheticals are stupid. Op, if YOU want to carry your weapon cc without a license thats your deal. But that LAST thing I would do is come on a board with 100k+ people that is constantly monitored by doj and make a post like yours.
I have a CCW.. This post isn't about what I may or may not do.

I carry every day. I live inside of a GFSZ. I went the "legal" route and got my permit.

12voltguy
06-11-2012, 9:39 AM
I have a CCW.. This post isn't about what I may or may not do.

I carry every day. I live inside of a GFSZ. I went the "legal" route and got my permit.

so what now you are pissed off this guy didn't?
grow up:rolleyes:

DrDavid
06-11-2012, 10:04 AM
so what now you are pissed off this guy didn't?
grow up:rolleyes:
You're assuming that it's not an academic discussion... :)

12voltguy
06-11-2012, 10:08 AM
You're assuming that it's not an academic discussion... :)

well I think it's Lame, no assuming on that one,LOL:D

Anti-Hero
06-11-2012, 11:00 AM
The "Dr." believes he has something academic to add to every discussion.

DrDavid
06-11-2012, 11:05 AM
The "Dr." believes he has something academic to add to every discussion.
Sorry, I should just ask your opinion next time I'm curious about something. That work for you?

Anti-Hero
06-11-2012, 11:18 AM
Sorry, I should just ask your opinion next time I'm curious about something. That work for you?

We could have an academic discussion about how you came to the conclusion that was what I was implying.

SgtMerc
06-11-2012, 11:20 AM
Jeez guys, the guy asked a question and everyone jumps on his butt.

Lighten up. This is a discussion board, not a place to feel "holier than thou" because of our beliefs regarding the constitution.

Personally, I can see the dilemma posed in the original post, and it is more worthy of discussion than obama-flaming or zimmerman threads.

FX-05 Xiuhcoatl
06-11-2012, 3:01 PM
don't be a "tattle tale" :hide:

FX-05 Xiuhcoatl
06-11-2012, 3:02 PM
let the guy be, he will learn his lesson when he gets pull over or uses his .45 for self defence.

CBruce
06-11-2012, 3:06 PM
If I felt the guy was in any way a threat to me, my family, or the community at large I wouldn't hesitate to alert the authorities and let them sort it out.

rugershooter
06-11-2012, 3:08 PM
My opinion; you should (hypothetically) myob. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, regardless of any other laws. Our rights are not determined by the Courts; if the Court explicitly says I don't have the right to self defense, that doesn't make it true.

My thinking basically goes like this: 1) US Constitution is supreme over CA law. 2) SCOTUS and State law both say the police have no obligation to protect me. 3) The responsibility of protection is mine, which is how I arrive at 4) I will do whatever I need to in order to protect my life. In short, it's his right regardless of what state or federal laws says. It's also his risk.

gbp
06-11-2012, 3:36 PM
to the OP
quit being a troll and trying to bait people into an answer, you know the law, quit with you're hypothetical bull ****
called entrapment DB,

POLICESTATE
06-11-2012, 3:40 PM
MYOB. That's my take. Lots of people say/claim many things, does not make it so.

Even if he were to "flash" his weapon for me to know that he is in fact carrying a real weapon in the manner described I'm going to MYOB.

So what if he's quick to anger? Many regularly armed folks are quick to anger.

DrDavid
06-11-2012, 3:44 PM
to the OP
quit being a troll and trying to bait people into an answer, you know the law, quit with you're hypothetical bull ****
called entrapment DB,
Huh? Entrapment?

This is a discussion board, no? I wanted to discuss something. Kinda don't understand the agression.

The law of the land is the 2nd amendment. So, according to that, I should be able to buy a fully-automatic 50cal and shoot targets in my backyard (inside a city).

Now, the law of the state/county/city says otherwise.

The question is valid.. If someone is violating the law, would you report it? The nuance is that while the law may not be valid, at this moment in time, it's certainly being enforced.

One step further--if you wouldn't report it, at what point WOULD you report it? If they were violent? If they were under 21? If they were over 65?

Would it matter if this hypothetical person has been kicked out of public events due to violent behavior?

gbp
06-11-2012, 3:56 PM
Dr David
you with your "hypothetical Bull ****" are just trying to manipulate the "What ifs" one by one until you come up with whatever it is you have already formulated in your mind

If you already know the law why would you try and manipulate people to provide an answer different than what is described within the law on a public forum? if you were not baiting?

Now this is JM$0.02 Worth but it is probably worth more than yours

POLICESTATE
06-11-2012, 3:57 PM
Huh? Entrapment?

This is a discussion board, no? I wanted to discuss something. Kinda don't understand the agression.

The law of the land is the 2nd amendment. So, according to that, I should be able to buy a fully-automatic 50cal and shoot targets in my backyard (inside a city).

Now, the law of the state/county/city says otherwise.

The question is valid.. If someone is violating the law, would you report it? The nuance is that while the law may not be valid, at this moment in time, it's certainly being enforced.

One step further--if you wouldn't report it, at what point WOULD you report it? If they were violent? If they were under 21? If they were over 65?

Would it matter if this hypothetical person has been kicked out of public events due to violent behavior?

Point 1: Read the SCOTUS decisions Heller vs D.C. and McDonald vs Chicago.

Point 2: People deciding behavior as violent can be very subjective. I've seen it many times, I've seen agitated people described as violent where sure it could have gone that way, but it didn't. Not the same thing.

oni.dori
06-11-2012, 4:45 PM
Personally, I can see the dilemma posed in the original post, and it is more worthy of discussion than obama-flaming or zimmerman threads.

While I do pretty much agree with this (although, how can it be flaming if it is mostly true?), the answer is short & sweet; if he isn't a direct and blatant threat to people's safety, MYOB.

The law of the land is the 2nd amendment. So, according to that, I should be able to buy a fully-automatic 50cal and shoot targets in my backyard (inside a city).

Essentially, yes, that is exactly what the Constitution means. It also means you must take full responsibility for your choices and actions, and fully deal with the consequences. Trying toad opiate and bait the conversation to get a pre-conceived desired outcome/response won't change that. What you don't realize is, the more you try to prove your "point", the more suspicious you appear, and the more you seem to out yourself.