Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-12-2012, 3:02 PM Reply   
I can't even see how this would have been legal, let alone constitutional. It looks like the law basically allows no transit of firearms through New York via the air. Very strange. My understanding was that he was abiding by the FAA's laws completely.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/Tea-Par...z/-/index.html

It'll be interesting to see the outcome of this case.
Old    SamIngram            01-12-2012, 3:07 PM Reply   
he had the charges dropped... check his blog... sorry, in the air, and can't find link
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-12-2012, 3:29 PM Reply   
That's good to hear. I guess the real question that I have is why this law is in place in this manner and what would happen to someone that isn't such a public figure had they been in the same situation.
Old    Rich (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       01-12-2012, 4:22 PM Reply   
I don't imagine it would have gone down any different for anyone who wasn't a "public figure". They would have likely been arrested and would likely have been able to make a similar deal... MY question is how could this guy have done this without knowing the consequences? I mean, wether you agree with the law or not, it's still the law. And you pay a price when you break it.
Unless that was his plan all along... to martyr himself to try and prove a point.
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-12-2012, 5:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by digg311 View Post
I don't imagine it would have gone down any different for anyone who wasn't a "public figure". They would have likely been arrested and would likely have been able to make a similar deal... MY question is how could this guy have done this without knowing the consequences? I mean, wether you agree with the law or not, it's still the law. And you pay a price when you break it.
Unless that was his plan all along... to martyr himself to try and prove a point.
I'm not sure he knew the law. He's from CA. As far as I know in CA you're legally allowed to check a firearm in your check in luggage as long as it is unloaded, declared and in a FAA approved locking container.

I guess I would have to ask how you travel with a rifle to hunt if you're leaving NY. Do you have to ship it? Personally I'd be more comfortable with my rifle traveling with me, but I guess a law is a law.
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-12-2012, 5:24 PM Reply   
I guess being a gun advocate from CA I'm very sensitive to things like this. I know we don't have it as bad as some states, but there are so many rules regarding guns that are just rediculous. Clearly writen by people that don't know the first thing about guns. I wish people that are verbal about being anti-gun would take some time to learn, shoot and understand. Sorry getting off topic.....
Old    SamIngram            01-13-2012, 8:43 AM Reply   
Here is his blog...
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-13-2012, 9:18 AM Reply   
I think New York has gone a bit far... Here's another example that alludes to a third example (Nurse). http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/ma...ating-gun-law/
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-13-2012, 9:20 AM Reply   
Now here's an example of negligence IMO. No safe, magazine with 4 round in the gun, and no permit to carry. http://www.mountain-news.com/news/ar...871e3ce6c.html
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-13-2012, 10:19 AM Reply   
Sam, thanks for posting that. Interesting that they chose not to return his firearm and that it's legal to confiscate it when he isn't being prosecuted.

Mik, interesting stuff. I agree, taking a loaded gun into security doesn't seem like a very good idea. Not a real smart guy. About the Marine in NY; Come on.... You have got to be joking. I don't understand what they're trying to accomplish.

People don't seem to understand that it's not the legal, law abiding citizens with guns that they have to worry about. Criminals will aquire guns no matter what (sometimes by the hand of our government.. Much like operation fast and the furious by the BATFE sending guns into Mexico). I'm not sure the average person understands the criteria for purchasing a firearm. They aren't legally obtained by criminals.

This stuff flys because it doesn't affect the average american, going about their business, thinking the world would be a better place if nobody owned a gun. What people dont realize is that it's their constitutional rights that are being infringed on. I feel like people wont stand up until it's too late. Till they gov't try's to take a right that affects them. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I love America and can't think of a place I'd rather be, but people need to open their eyes a bit. Just be aware of what's going on around them.

What's the average life of a democracy?
Old    SamIngram            01-13-2012, 10:48 AM Reply   
Check out the discussions from us gun nuts...

Tea Party Guy's Charges Dropped in NYC

Yes, you should know the law


According to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...."

This is why I can drive my car in Wyoming with an Arizona driver's license. I have the right to do something in Arizona, therefore, Wyoming can't make a law that abridges the privilege of driving in Wyoming. The interesting part is when it comes to guns. I have an Arizona Concealed Carry License and can legally carry a concealed gun, but what happens when I go NY?

Furthermore, how can they abridge my 2nd Amendment Right? Can they also make a law to abridge my 1st Amendment right too?
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-13-2012, 11:37 AM Reply   
These are the very things that were on my mind. I don't understand how states can arbitrarily create their own gun laws. The whole 10 round limit and fixed magazine in CA thing drives me crazy. You know the criminals aren't abiding by these laws. Let's be real here.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-13-2012, 11:49 AM Reply   
Cut & Paste...I have not researched these numbers, but I believe it.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

12 months after gun owners in Australia were forced by law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, homicides were up 3.2 percent, assaults were up 8.6 percent and armed robberies were up 44 percent.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-13-2012, 12:24 PM Reply   
Not to mention the fact that we'd all be British right now without gun rights.....

Like it or not, America is America for a reason. A lot of that gets lost these days. "Land of the free. Home of the brave" ....
Old    SamIngram            01-13-2012, 1:09 PM Reply   
The Constitution, including the Amendments, are basically moot at this point anyhow. Just think about, we have bureaucracies now that have been given the power to write their own rules and that have power to enforce them. The EPA, IRS, etc.. all have the power to write and institute policy that violates our basic rights, mainly our right to private property. Do you realize that with the appointment of one new supreme court justice it all falls apart? The very ideals that were put in place to act as the checks and balances have been strategically eliminated over the last one hundred years. Furthermore, we are not governed by the Constitution, but instead by US Justice Code or Federal Law

Take the idea of Jury Nullification, if the courts allowed people to practice Jury Nullification the guy would take this very case to court, or the case of the Marine doing the exact same thing, and the jury would nullify the law and throw the case out. This is basically how the 18th Amendment was over turned. Up to 60% of all 18th Amendment related cases were thrown out, even against Al Capone, with Jury Nullification.

More interesting reading...

A Guide to Surviving as a Juror

Have Gun, Don't Travel

and my favorite:

Jury Nullification Advocate Is Indicted - 2/25/2011

I have to go, my take off window is almost here.
Old    Bruizza (bruizza)      Join Date: May 2009       01-13-2012, 1:45 PM Reply   
I think what a lot of people don't understand is most of the gun laws they don't like are state laws and not federal laws. Yet it seems like a lot of people blame the federal govt not their state govt. for instance this thread is about a state's gun law not a federal law.
Old    SamIngram            01-13-2012, 1:52 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizza View Post
I think what a lot of people don't understand is most of the gun laws they don't like are state laws and not federal laws. Yet it seems like a lot of people blame the federal govt not their state govt. for instance this thread is about a state's gun law not a federal law.
ys and no state can make a law limting my 1 amendment but for some reason is ok with the 2nd ?
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-13-2012, 2:12 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
ys and no state can make a law limting my 1 amendment but for some reason is ok with the 2nd ?
Although I agree with you, the issue is how each state interprets "The right to bare arms". I dont know NY state law, but for instance they believe they are just limiting your rights. I assume one can have the right own a gun in NY if legal obligations are met.
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-13-2012, 3:35 PM Reply   
All interpretation of the Constitution, I guess. As far as I read it there is no stipulation about type of arms you may bear. Purely that you have a right to "keep and bear arms."

I guess you can read this two ways:
1) That it's up to the states to create their own laws within the vague statute of the constitution.
Or the more literal interpretation:
2) That you may keep and bear arms without restriction as to function or type.

Here's how I read it with regards to the period in which the Constitution was drafted; An individual has a right to be armed with the same available resources as they would encounter if a foreign or domestic threat were made on US soil. I.E. Citizens shall not be limited by type or function of weapons.

Again, I re-itterate, law abiding citizens aren't who you need to be worried about AND a criminal intending to do harm will not follow state or federal guidelines. For example... An officer acquaintance of mine recently pulled a full auto uzi out of a vehicle after a hi speed chase. Do you think that gun was legally obtained??? c'mon. Polititcians are bored again and looking for a way to stay employed.
Old    Ben Sampson (816)      Join Date: Dec 2011       01-13-2012, 3:57 PM Reply   
I read his blog, looks like a way to get free publicity
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-13-2012, 5:15 PM Reply   
"An individual has a right to be armed with the same available resources as they would encounter if a foreign or domestic threat were made on US soil. I.E. Citizens shall not be limited by type or function of weapons."

So we should be able to buy grenades, rocket launchers, ICBM's, chemical weapons, etc.?
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-15-2012, 7:51 AM Reply   
Jeremy, I totally agree with where you're going. For obvious reason there are certain restrictions that go into place, but those open the door for further restrictions. The Constitution was writtten in a different tiime, when different weapons were available.

I think it goes without question that the idea was\is that citizens should be armed to form an able militia if our shores were threatened. Again, it was written in a different time. We have a very able military right now. I'm not too concerned about defending my country against a foreign army. I don't think invasion is imminent, but in the spirit that America was created, I believe that citizens should be armed and capable.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-15-2012, 8:42 AM Reply   
"
So we should be able to buy grenades, rocket launchers, ICBM's, chemical weapons, etc.?"

Uh, you can buy these items. Many people have these types of items. You can make chemical weapons and people have. You have to have the correct license but you can buy them. Many people have rocket clubs that fire rockets very high in the air and there are private companies looking to do commercial space travel. You will be surprised about what private citizens have and they have not killed the masses.

As far as the federal government laws regarding guns. Many laws are state laws that people reference but the federal government will make laws that cut just deep enough that the states can now make their laws without going against the federal law.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-15-2012, 9:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by guido View Post
Jeremy, I totally agree with where you're going. For obvious reason there are certain restrictions that go into place, but those open the door for further restrictions. The Constitution was writtten in a different tiime, when different weapons were available.

I think it goes without question that the idea was\is that citizens should be armed to form an able militia if our shores were threatened. Again, it was written in a different time. We have a very able military right now. I'm not too concerned about defending my country against a foreign army. I don't think invasion is imminent, but in the spirit that America was created, I believe that citizens should be armed and capable.
To take this comment a step further, I will say this is a fundamental issue with the economics of this country. We no longer raise our kids (many expect public schools to do that). We no longer watch over and protect our community (we expect police & fire to do that). We are no longer expected to protect our country in the event of attack (we expect or soldiers to do that). We no longer take care of out neighbors in need and lack people who are willing to better their community (many expect the government social services to do that)

No one want to get their hands dirty, yet still complain when it's time to pay for these services in taxes. Everyone wants smaller government, but most cry when the lack of service impacts them. The constitution was written in a different time, but much of societies fundamentals remain the same. Gun ownership is a necessary piece of society becoming less dependent on government.
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-15-2012, 7:54 PM Reply   
People have become very complacent, but that's a whole other thread on its own.

God bless those willing to do the dirty work. Praise the men and women willing to hone a skill. Peoeple deserve what they're willing to earn.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:12 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us