Dangerously close

F5guy · Apr 6, 2019

Seems lawmakers would be more worried about laws that don’t get prosecuted more than making more that erode rights and don’t affect criminal behavior. https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2019/04/ex-judge-sobs-after-being-acquitted-of-felony-gun-charge.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PowPow · Apr 6, 2019

I have no problem with her purchasing a shotgun, DUI or otherwise. She should be able to defend herself for any reason. She is not in jail. Someone send that woman a machete for Pete's sake!

PorP · Apr 6, 2019

So what I got from that is probation prevents her from buying a gun but it perfectly ok for a position on city counsel...

rseymorejr · Apr 6, 2019

So, did she lie on the 4473?

j_h_smith · Apr 6, 2019

As the law is written, she should have been found guilty. Period.

Doctor_M · Apr 6, 2019

Jury nullification of sorts. I've no problem with her getting off. She is not a threat to anyone.

F5guy · Apr 6, 2019

j_h_smith said:
As the law is written, she should have been found guilty. Period.

Federally ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PowPow · Apr 6, 2019

She was charged with DUI. If DUI in her state is either a felony or punishable by more than 1 year in jail, and she answered NO on the related 4473 questions (11b & 11c), that would be a federal problem.

Steve_Zissou · Apr 6, 2019

PowPow said:
I have no problem with her purchasing a shotgun, DUI or otherwise. She should be able to defend herself for any reason. She is not in jail. Someone send that woman a machete for Pete's sake!

Exactly. We don't restrict any of your other constitutional/amendment rights because you're a felon or are on probation, why do we let the government strip only people's 2nd amendment rights? If we can entrust them with their 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc rights, then we can entrust them with their 2nd rights, too.

If we don't trust them with the 2nd, then they should still be in prison.

F5guy · Apr 6, 2019

Steve_Zissou said:
Exactly. We don't restrict any of your other constitutional/amendment rights because you're a felon or are on probation, why do we let the government strip only people's 2nd amendment rights? If we can entrust them with their 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc rights, then we can entrust them with their 2nd rights, too.

If we don't trust them with the 2nd, then they should still be in prison.

It according to law she committed a crime, yes?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Steve_Zissou · Apr 6, 2019

F5guy said:
It according to law she committed a crime, yes?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like I said, does the fact that you're on probation supercede your rights to freedom of speech/association, your right not to self-incriminate, or your right to freedom from cruel/unusual punishment? If not, then why are 2nd amendment advocates OK with the system using probation, etc to strip people of their 2nd amendment rights?

All it does is set up a "separate but equal" sort of situation in which the 2nd becomes this punching bag that can be trampled willy-nilly while the other amendments remain more or less sacrosanct. I understand the pragmatic reasoning behind it, but it still flies in the face of the "shall not be infringed" business.

Or to put it this way, I'd rather deal with the ramifications and fallout from letting felons and folks on probation buy guns than have the situation we have today, where "common sense" 2A restrictions on folks on probation or with felony charges are used as president to strip regular citizens of their 2A rights.

F5guy · Apr 6, 2019

I understand your point and tend to agree I was just pointing out that she broke the law. The further issue is these crimes are not being prosecuted while more laws are being added.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PowPow · Apr 6, 2019

Okay, I did some digging.

Dick's employees denied her and called up the Sheriff.

Steve_Zissou · Apr 6, 2019

F5guy said:
I understand your point and tend to agree I was just pointing out that she broke the law. The further issue is these crimes are not being prosecuted while more laws are being added.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would say that regulatory creep will be the death of this country, but I think we're honestly a good ways past that point by now. Just look at how easy it is to add yet another unconstitutional law to the books vs how long it takes for get rid of them. It's a losing battle, and they don't want to enforce existing laws because that would make things better in the now and rob them of the urgency they need to justify their birthing even more beaurocratic bloat.

F5guy · Apr 6, 2019

So perhaps no 4473 was filled and and therefore no combine commuted. Pretty much Dicks is the real mistake she made.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PowPow · Apr 6, 2019

This woman is definitely a piece of work. Her drama has been going on for a few years. She does seem to have a problem with alcohol and should consider help. I'm not sure why going to Dick's and trying to buy a shotgun is a violation of her probation.

If society thinks she is worthy of being on the street, she should be able to defend herself as she chooses. If not, she obviously belongs in jail as a danger to society.

Steve_Zissou · Apr 6, 2019

PowPow said:
If society thinks she is worthy of being on the street, she should be able to defend herself as she chooses. If not, she obviously belongs in jail as a danger to society.

Exactly. If you can't be trusted with your 2nd rights, you should still be in the hoosegow.

PowPow · Apr 7, 2019

F5guy said:
So perhaps no 4473 was filled and and therefore no combine commuted. Pretty much Dicks is the real mistake she made.

Yeah, I don't think it got that far. This woman and her drama are famous.

You know what? If I was the owner of a gun store, I wouldn't sell to someone I thought to be unsafe, dangerous, irresponsible, or unlawful. That someone would need to go buy it elsewhere. Maybe that's all that was in play here. But, Dick's also called the Sheriff.

j_h_smith · Apr 7, 2019

As the laws of the land are written, she should have been found guilty. If you want to change the law, then that's a different story. But as of today, she was in violation of the law.

You can't say that your speeding ticket is invalid because the speed limit should have been changed to the speed you were operating your vehicle. The laws are the laws, agree or disagree with them.

Steve_Zissou · Apr 7, 2019

j_h_smith said:
As the laws of the land are written, she should have been found guilty. If you want to change the law, then that's a different story. But as of today, she was in violation of the law.

You can't say that your speeding ticket is invalid because the speed limit should have been changed to the speed you were operating your vehicle. The laws are the laws, agree or disagree with them.

There never was anything in the Constitution about speeding tickets, so that's a shitty example by default. Laws that contradict the Constitution are industrial-grade BS from the outset, and if you agree with them you're doing little more than telling the kommendant that his boot isn't on your neck firmly enough.

Dangerously close

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Where's the beef?

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Certified Mad Scientist

Active Member

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics