A legal/moral dilemma

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

  1. Ura-Ki

    Ura-Ki Grudge Monkey

    I would still bring this up with your County Sheriff, he may be able to smooth the path if you can show reasonable exceptions i.e. mil. training, NRA approved training, former LEO training/experience ect........
    Might not lead to much, but it cannot hurt. He may also give a little off record advice to help you along the way!
  2. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

    For the original post. Get 28 friends together at 10 bucks a pop solves the problem. I know that does not help all the others but your neighbor has peace of mind. After that is the time to search for ways and means to change the rules. my .02$
    GrayGhost likes this.
  3. GrayGhost

    GrayGhost Monkey++

    While I don't believe the fees are fair, and actually discriminatory, I believe this is going to be the best course of action.
  4. Big Ron

    Big Ron Monkey++

    Move to Arizona? Become an outlaw.Maybe stop worrying so much about carrying a gun and let God sort it out. just Imagine truckers who by law can't carry since they are in a commercial vehicle and cross state lines all the time. Now imagine how many have decided they want to be able to protect themselves since they go to really bad places all the time.So they carry.All of this just makes me think about Lawyers and the mess they have created.A law or regulation about almost everything.
  5. techsar

    techsar Monkey+++

    Yup...there ought to be a law against this :rolleyes:
    Gator 45/70 likes this.
  6. UncleMorgan

    UncleMorgan I eat vegetables. My friends are not vegetables.

    Hey, Bandit--Yeah. Got a few thoughts on that.

    Our government uses a tactic I call context-morphing, at every level.

    For example, no one has to have a Driver's License to drive a car in the ordinary conduct of their lives (according to the US Supreme Court) unless they are commercial drivers. As in CDL drivers, hauling freight.
    So the government licenses Commercial Drivers--and then just includes everyone else that wants to drive by defining them as a "driver"--and then giving them the civilian rate by defining them as an "Operator" rather than a commercial Driver.

    Same deal for Income Tax. Aside from the fact that the Income Tax Amendment was never ratified, the payment of Income Tax is 100% voluntary for almost everyone--although the IRS pretends different and lies happily to conceal the truth. The tax-ower has become the tax-payer. And everyone is now a tax-payer, and only the amount due is at issue.

    With the Second Amendment, it's the same. Guns become "assault weapons" so an obvious exception has to be made. Gun-free zones become "safe", so another exception is made. Machine guns are used by "criminals", so another exception is made. Nuclear weapons must be kept out of the hands of American citizens for the safety of the world--so another exception is made. Rocket-launchers must be kept out of the hands of the obviously insane, so another exception is made.

    And so the definition of a "legal gun" morphs inexorably into and becomes by definition an "illegal gun".

    And our Second Amendment rights evaporate like spit on a hot griddle.

    The problem is simply this: they'll take an inch of every one of your rights, one inch at a time, until there aren't any inches left.

    The time to stop it is now, while you still have at least one-half of one inch of your Constitutional rights left.

    Oh, BTW. The US Supreme Court has no power granted to it by the U.S. Constitution to interpret the Constitution, or hear or decide cases pertaining thereto.

    The Constitution says very clearly that that Right, unless specifically granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government or the States, is reserved to the People.

    I are a People.

    MY decision about Second Amendment rights supersedes any decision presumptuously made by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to 2nd Amendment Rights, and/or the wording, intent, or scope of the 2nd Amendment.

    And my decision is that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

    You may all cite my decision as precedent.
    GrayGhost, Yard Dart and Bandit99 like this.
  7. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    Uncle Morgan, You are definitely one of the smartest guys, if not the smartest, on this forum and I think you have hit the nail on the head with this wisdom.

    But, wait. Were we not taught the 3 branches of government and that the judicial branch interrupts the law? Googling now...Interesting reading actually...their bottom line is basically, "In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution." Hmmm...perhaps I might be more app to believe them if not so many of their decisions were politically based. Anyway, some pertinent stuff below explaining the gist of what they believe...

    "While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution."

    "If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit."

    "Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared."

    The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2017
    DuxDawg and GrayGhost like this.
  8. duane

    duane Monkey+++

    Yes, and Jefferson did not like the decision as a federalist and complained bitterly about winning the battle and losing the war. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that the courts can over rule the legislature and the whole review process is based on power grabs and customs, not constitutional law. The Supreme Court has always played word games with the Legislative branch and often states, if it doesn't like the decision of the court, it can make new rules that more clearly define the wishes of the Legislature and they will rule on those too. The Marbury v. Madison decision and its use in interpreting the commerce clause, the 11th, 14th, and 16th amendments, and the de facto legalization of the Presidential use of executive orders, has gutted the original federalist concept of our national government and the regrettable conflict that occurred between 1861 and 1865, made the concept of a union of states at best a moot point.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2017
    DuxDawg and GrayGhost like this.
  9. natshare

    natshare Monkey+++

    Tell him to move on down here, to Texas. Cost of living is cheaper, and with the recent change from CHL (concealed handgun license) to LTC (license to carry), military veterans pay $25 fee to obtain (plus cost of class, plus $10 electronic fingerprinting fee), then $25 to renew, every 5 years. No class time required for renewal.

    They also changed the law, so if you're caught carrying where signs are posted prohibiting it (the Texas penal code 30.06 and 30.07 signs....you can Google them), it's changed, from like a Class D felony, to a misdemeanor....meaning, it's like getting a speeding ticket, now. Think the fine is up to $250.

    Not saying I do, or I don't, but that's cheap enough to almost be worth carrying everywhere, and damn the signs! :sneaky:
    Yard Dart, GrayGhost and oldawg like this.
  10. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

    ^^^^^^ Some that I know only have the signs for the insurance co. Not perfect yet but we're trying down here.
    GrayGhost likes this.
  11. FTM2 Tartar

    FTM2 Tartar Monkey++

    On the original question, most states that license concealed carry allow open carry untaxed. I believe those were the rules in Colorado several decades ago, he should check...
    Open carry's biggest advantages are teaching outlaws to stay away not just from you but from your neighborhood...

    Also, there many non-licensable defensive actions, even for those not limber enough for kungfu fighting;
    a home made arm is Never a firearm under the federal laws; antiques, blackpowders, bows, squirtguns full of battry acid [I don't like the idea of these but they are extremely popular in europe where even cops can't carry guns now],
    the list is endless...

    Personally I think airlines should issue each passanger a firearm at boarding, and prisons should issue one to each exiting convict, so I'm not very liberal, but it goes to show,

    when one is being persecuted, it is time to think out of the box...
    DuxDawg likes this.
  12. GhettoPass

    GhettoPass Monkey+

    Move to Green Valley, AZ. Carry concealed for free; Rent a nice condo for $700/mo.; enjoy the weather 365; be blessed.
  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