View Single Post
Old 11-06-2012, 7:42 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,640
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I cannot argue this on a constitutional level. You will win and you are right. I am simply saying (possibly playing devils advocate and possibly because the question should be asked) that at what point do we say that someone did something so stupid, so ignorant, so irresponsible that we say enough is enough….I mean he had a loaded magazine in his pocket at a party where stuff gets out of control and people drink.

My earlier analogy was weak, but it kind of applies a little……If you have a green light and you see a speeding bus coming, would you pull out in just because you had “the right of way”….?

I am just asking, are there any limits to our support, because I think this one may be getting close to that edge,,,,
Thanks, this is what I needed to hear today.

Your example of the right of way is a little weak too, because it is dependent upon bad action of the bus driver. I think the question you want answered is Bill's hypothetical of driving around with a dead hooker in your trunk, whether you would still be legally okay.

And I would say (and am sure you will think I am out of my mind) that if someone was pulled over driving around with a dead hooker in the trunk, (or 10 kilos of cocaine, or a duffle bag full of robbery loot.) that the legally configured semi-automatic rifle in plain view in the back seat is not searchable beyond conducting a 12031 loaded inspection and certainly not seizable absent evidence of any other crime.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote