A legal/moral dilemma

Discussion in 'General Survival and Preparedness' started by GrayGhost, Nov 4, 2017.

  1. azrancher

    azrancher Monkey +++

    That's the problem, I worked on an Army Post, I had an employee that was a little unstable, former Marine, we were putting together the material needed to fire him, (he was an intern). Turns out he lied on his security clearance and would have been fired anyway, he punched out a cop in LA in a bar fight. Long story short, it wasn't legal but I carried my Dad's WWII 1911 everyday in my briefcase just in case. This guy would rent a car, drive it to Nogales AZ, party in Mexico, drive back and wreck the car on the way back, never caught DUI. One story was from a co-worker that went with him one time, you park at McDonalds and walk across, drink, party, and come back across, he couldn't find his keys... turns out he had left them in the Rental Car, locked, engine running... He's still out there somewhere, I carry just in case.

    Gator 45/70, Sgt Nambu and GrayGhost like this.
  2. duane

    duane Monkey+++

    What few rights we are supposed to have are rapidly disappearing into the bureaucracy, often thru the process of fees for permits, codes, taxes, required insurances, required licenses, safety inspections, etc. In the Live Free or Die state, you have to jump thru so many hoops and pay so many taxes and fees that you are controlled by the bureaucrats and their lawyer allies. I live near the border of Mass and there is an excellent rod and gun club that is 15 miles away in Mass. Belonged to it for 30 years and enjoyed shooting there. It is now nearly impossible to legally carry a fire arm into the state of Mass and reached the point that it took 6 months of the year and several hundred dollars to get the required permits and at the end of the year, you had to start all over again. No reciprocity, short term license, few people working in the state office and thus long delays, need endorsements from local NH law, state of NH law, finger prints, ID photos, special cases with locks, etc. If you question any of the rules, you are crucified by the media, accused of having an illegal arsenal if you have a couple of AR's and a few hundred rounds, a few weeks target ammo, and if caught with a firearm and not having the required paper work, an automatic 1 year jail sentence. Meanwhile there are areas in Boston and the other cities where it is worth your life to drive thru and all the laws don't seem to deprive the gangs, drug runners, etc from access to firearms.
    Gator 45/70, sec_monkey and GrayGhost like this.
  3. GrayGhost

    GrayGhost Monkey++

    I could be mistaken, but isn't AZ a constitutional carry state?
  4. GrayGhost

    GrayGhost Monkey++

    The fees sound about right, plus the cost of a CC course.
    Ura-Ki likes this.
  5. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    "The 2nd Amendment carries no restrictive language. It stands as an absolute: OUR right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. That means that every law that restricts the right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional law, and therefore null and void."
    Well said, Uncle! So, how do they get away with it? I mean, it is has just been this past year or two where the laws are starting to change to ensure one's 2nd is not 'infringed.' Many states have moved to 'Constitutional Carry' with many more to do so in the near future. But, that still does not answer the question, 'How do some Cities, Counties or even States get away with having laws and regulations on the books that either deny or impede one's 2nd amendment?' Any thoughts?
    Ura-Ki and GrayGhost like this.
  6. BlueDuck

    BlueDuck Monkey++

    Living in a state with minimal restrictions (not just 2A) has always been a priority with me. The laws and restrictions in this country vary a ton. Its not fair but its real. Make your choice and deal with it. Its pretty much up to you.
    Ura-Ki, GrayGhost and Tevin like this.
  7. Altoidfishfins

    Altoidfishfins Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    True story AZ..

    Arizona is a constitutional carry state. As long as you are not disqualified from owning a weapon (criminal record or certified psycho), you can carry concealed - no permit. You can still get the permits, however. As I understand it, they allow you to carry concealed in reciprocating states and allow you to bypass the background check when purchasing.
    Ura-Ki, sec_monkey and GrayGhost like this.
  8. Tevin

    Tevin Monkey+++

    Somehow whenever a story like this comes up it often includes the fact that the person involved is a veteran, a Marine, a retired cop, etc. I'm not sure if this is done purposely to portray them as a sympathetic figure or is just a simple statement of fact, but it's really not relevant to the issue. There are no separate 2A rights for veterans/military/former cops vs. everyone else, or at lest there's not supposed to be.

    I mention this because in some areas, having military/cop status may actually work against you. If you get mixed up in a gun charge with some pant-pissing liberal prosecutor, they may say that your status means you should have had more awareness of what the rules were in the first place, or you'll be accused of playing the "Patriot Card" to skate out of a charge that would be a huge legal problem for ordinary civilians. Worst case scenario: The prosecutor is a latter day hippy who hates the military, or some black lives matter turd. It's not far fetched...they are out there.

    The best option is to follow the law. I don't mean agree with the law, just follow it. If you're going to play loose the the law, or bend it a bit, or however one wants to classify their actions, then at least be aware of the political atmosphere you are operating in.

    When I was in training for my CCW the legal stuff was taught by an actual lawyer who was a former big city prosecutor. He said quite candidly that in some places the prosecutor is very 2A friendly. They just don't care if you have a carry permit or not and will not pursue charges, assuming you are not otherwise disqualified. In other places, you'll be charged to the max for even the slightest infraction and they'll "go fishing" to find some way to get you.

    Translation: If you're going to take your chances, then make it your business to know what your chances are.

    I guess this is all part of OPSEC. I realize this is hardly a perfect solution, but it's about as good as you'll get without paying the money and doing everything by the book.

    Good luck.
  9. GrayGhost

    GrayGhost Monkey++

    Yes, his military history has no relevance here. It was mentioned purely as a back-story and to paint somewhat of a picture of his socioeconomic status.
  10. azrancher

    azrancher Monkey +++

    I mentioned it only because he was a BIG guy, and not very nice.

    Gator 45/70 likes this.
  11. GrayGhost

    GrayGhost Monkey++

    In the blue states, I reckon it's more a case of 'do as I say, not as I do.' They have a security detail...what do they care.
    Gator 45/70 and Ura-Ki like this.
  12. Motomom34

    Motomom34 Monkey+++

    $200 will get you the class and the permit. Colorado is expensive and I think it is an outrage that people have to pay so much to exercise their rights but that is the society that we live in. I pay to drive my car on the road but those bicyclist do not have to. The whole not fair argument could apply but then life is not fair. We have all these fees but as @snake6264 said, it is just tax.
  13. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    I have been giving thought to my question, 'How do some Cities, Counties or even States get away with having laws and regulations on the books that either deny or impede one's 2nd amendment?' So, I have been Googling this morning...The main reason is that the Supreme Court has yet to hear and rule on a case that would settle this decision once and for all if the 2nd only pertains to the Federal level of law - meaning - it does not pertain to State law. The problem is prior to 1900 there were 3 cases heard by the Supreme Court "that the Bill of Rights, and specifically the Second Amendment, does not prohibit states from setting their own rules on gun ownership" basically saying the Second Amendment does not apply to state law. One of those cases, in 1876, seems to be strictly bias trying to keep firearms from black citizens. Then, in 1939 U.S. v. Miller, a case about an unregistered 18 inch shotgun they ruled, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

    "In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized (District of Columbia v. Heller)--for the first time in American history--the "right to bear arms" as a personal, individual right, permitting law-abiding citizens to possess handguns in their home for their personal protection. Two years later, it held that both state and federal governments must observe this newly discovered right."

    Since this case, there have been two more cases where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the second amendment "applies equally to the federal government and the states' which brings us to the present...

    "In 2017, the Supreme Court declined to hear Peruta v. California, a gun-rights case centering around concealed carry, or the right to carry a concealed handgun in public. California requires that applicants for a concealed carry license show "good cause," such as a specific threat to a person's safety. A Vietnam veteran named Edward Peruta challenged this requirement as a curtailment of his Second Amendment rights. While Heller was a case about keeping firearms in the home for self-protection, Peruta v. California was about whether that right extends to the public sphere. Justice Clarence Thomas and new justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from the refusal to review the case, indicating that the Supreme Court's newest justice may be particularly conservative on gun rights."

    So, I think what we got is a State Rights vs. Federal Rights thing and the question remains open until such a time that the Supreme Court rules on it... I do not understand why they refused to hear the case unless it was for the obvious reason - meaning - they are duty bound to give an honest interpretation, an honest ruling and by doing so they would be forced to rule in favor of the 2nd 'applies equally to the federal government and the states.' So, the only out they had was to declined to hear the case, stall for time, but personally I think it is inevitable and more so as Judge Ginsberg is 84 and cannot last much longer...hopefully Trump will be appointing her replacement; I say, the sooner the better.

    Now, that I think about it, John Ross' book 'Unintended Consequences' gave a very good blow-by-blow account of all of this.
  14. GrayGhost

    GrayGhost Monkey++

    I took my cc class many years ago...recollection tells me it was $125 or so. I'll need to look around, as I may locate a more affordable class for him.
    Ura-Ki and Motomom34 like this.
  15. Motomom34

    Motomom34 Monkey+++

    They do not deny or impede. It is a pay to play world and you can participate if you pay the fees. My kids have a right to a free education but I have to pay fees for them to go to school. Children can go to school and not pay the fees but they will not receive their diploma until the fees are paid. They states and gov always get their share.
    Ura-Ki and GrayGhost like this.
  16. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    At the sure and certain risk of pointing out what appears (to me, at least) obvious, a free education is NOT a right. Schools are rightfully supported by those that get the education as it always has been since before the revolution. People got together and hired a teacher. These days, that's the school board's obligation, or so it seems to me, and if fees are needed to cover (say) diploma printing, well that's OK, sez me and maybe me only.

    Other than a connection with the costs of training, free schooling is a side issue, methinks.
    Ura-Ki and GrayGhost like this.
  17. Ura-Ki

    Ura-Ki Grudge Monkey

    Here is the bigger problem, Most States have the same and in several cases even more specific 2nd rights enumerated in State constitutions that not only uphold the National BoR, but go even further in staying said rights! So, most States are in direct violation of each States BoR! What needs to happen is cases need to be heard at each State and the Supreem needs to uphold it all and force the Several States into full 2nd compliance!
    GrayGhost and Bandit99 like this.
  18. Sgt Nambu

    Sgt Nambu RIP 4/19/2018

    In this case it could be germane, a crazed Marine can do more damage than a 125# Marvin Milquetoast!
    GrayGhost and Ura-Ki like this.
  19. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    @Motomom34 "They do not deny or impede. It is a pay to play world and you can participate if you pay the fees."

    But, that is wrong and is the same as a Poll tax being paid for "various privileges of citizenship, including voter registration or issuance of driving licenses..." "The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, abolished the use of the poll tax (or any other tax) as a pre-condition for voting in federal elections" and, in 1966, "the Supreme Court reversed its decision (on State poll taxes) in Breedlove v. Suttles to also include state elections as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    So, while I am not a lawyer but looking at the definition of Poll Tax, "a tax levied on every adult, without reference to income or resources" it seems to me to be exactly the same but in this case the individual is denied exercising their 2nd Amendment right unless they can pay.

    I am predicting that if this can get in front of the Supreme Court and given the rulings from 2008 until now, they will be forced to rule in favor of the 2nd. Furthermore, given the age of many of the judges of said court and our current president, there is a very good chance of this happening in the next few years.
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2017
    GrayGhost and Ura-Ki like this.
  20. fedorthedog

    fedorthedog Monkey+++

    Most of the court filings have a fee waiver for the indigent. I am guessing that there is some program that allows a waiver of fees. If not contact the NRA or a similar group and brig the issue up as a discrimination issue, they are always looking for a new angle.
    GrayGhost, oldawg and Ura-Ki like this.
  1. Waydah
  2. DKR
  3. Motomom34
  4. Swedish woman
  5. deMolay
  6. HK_User
  7. DarkLight
  8. Motomom34
  9. Motomom34
  10. Tully Mars
  11. M118LR
  12. Motomom34
  13. stg58
  14. arleigh
  15. ED GEiN
  16. Ganado
    Thread by: Ganado, Sep 22, 2016, 17 replies, in forum: General Discussion
  17. Airtime
  18. GOG
  19. Motomom34
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary