Video of OCer stopped by officer

KYGlockster · Aug 23, 2012

mobiushky said:
But this law does not make it a crime irrespective of license. I'm looking for the law that says you cannot carry a "machine gun" regardless of license status. The LEO in the video made it very clear his RAS was based on the firearm itself, not the carrier. He clearly delineated that he had reason to believe the gun was full auto. He did not say that he had reason to believe the carrier was not licensed to own an NFA firearm. I'm looking for the law that says that it's a crime for everyone and anyone to carry a firearm based on the condition of it being fully automatic.

The law states it is illegal to possess an NFA item unless those items are registered as required by federal law. Carrying a firearm is possessing a firearm, and carrying an NFA firearm is illegal unless you can show proof that the firearm is registered and state law allows the carry of NFA firearms. It does not matter if the law allows carry of these items or not, if an officer has RAS that you are in possession of an NFA firearm he can verify whether you have it legally or illegally, because unlike regular firearms, NFA items can only be had and possessed if they are registered. I am not speaking of this case because it was very obvious the man was not carrying an NFA firearm, but in a case where the officer would truly have RAS.

KYGlockster · Aug 23, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
Federal law supersedes state law, SCOTUS ruling supersede state law. Since a gun cannot commit a crime where is the RAS? Where are the cites that a guns appearance are RAS?

You also need to understand what preponderance means.

Federal law only supersedes state law in very limited circumstances, like when it comes to interstate commerce and such. If it was a law on intRAstate commerce then the federal government would have no authority to supersede state law. Federal law only superseds state law where the federal constitution allows. There is a clause in the federal constitution that specifically states federal law is the law of the land UNLESS a state law differs with that law and the federal statute violates the state statute.

KYGlockster · Aug 23, 2012

Fallschirmjäger said:
Okay, I'll play the game.
Since an AR looks SIMILAR to an M16 (at least until you get close enough to see the third pin isn't there) and a yellow 6-volt lantern looks EXACTLY like a yellow 6-volt lantern that has been turned into an IED. How does the sight of one give RAS and the sight of the other doesn't?

Since this seems to be a debate; defend your position, please.

This goes back to an officer having RAS. RAS is not when an officer has a hunch to believe something, it is when he has some exigent knowledge that leads him to believe you are violating some criminal statute. The AR is a very common firearm, and unless he has true RAS to believe it is an NFA firearm then he can not conduct a search. Simple possession of a common firearm does not constitute RAS.

EMNofSeattle · Aug 23, 2012

KYGlockster said:
This goes back to an officer having RAS. RAS is not when an officer has a hunch to believe something, it is when he has some exigent knowledge that leads him to believe you are violating some criminal statute. The AR is a very common firearm, and unless he has true RAS to believe it is an NFA firearm then he can not conduct a search. Simple possession of a common firearm does not constitute RAS.

MP-5 clones are not particularily common, least not compared with AR-build rifles.

davidmcbeth · Aug 23, 2012

moonie said:
So what if the officer had said "I think this is stolen." Would that make a difference in your opinions? What about "I think you are a felon."

See the word r-e-a-s-o-n-a-b-l-e ? Ha, its not a mathematical possibility. I would call the chief up and chew him out about this guy and say it will no longer be tolerated. And that I expect that any policeman coming up to me would behave the same--in an attempt to steal my gun unlawfully.

And you can have a gun made only fully auto so there would be no selector switch at all. And you would not tell until you either a) dissembled the weapon or b) fire it He would have to steal the gun to find out.

Fallschirjmäger · Aug 23, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
MP-5 clones are not particularily common, least not compared with AR-build rifles.

That kinda backs up the idea that it wasn't a real MP5 then, doesn't it? After all, the MP5 was developed in late 1966 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 ceased the import of foreign-manufactured fully automatic firearms for civilian sales and possession. Any MP5 in the United States is going to command a 5-figure price, something a kid carrying a .22 lookalike is Very unlikely to have.

mobiushky · Aug 23, 2012

WalkingWolf · Aug 23, 2012

KYGlockster said:
Federal law only supersedes state law in very limited circumstances, like when it comes to interstate commerce and such. If it was a law on intRAstate commerce then the federal government would have no authority to supersede state law. Federal law only superseds state law where the federal constitution allows. There is a clause in the federal constitution that specifically states federal law is the law of the land UNLESS a state law differs with that law and the federal statute violates the state statute.

ALL of the federal gun laws are based on interstate commerce, and almost all guns have been in interstate commerce. The MP5 clone clearly has. SCOTUS rulings on fourth amendment and federal tax laws supersede state laws that would use federal tax information without authorization. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see it.

EMNofSeattle · Aug 23, 2012

Nevermind

tyc · Aug 23, 2012

OC for ME said:
A local cop tried to cite me for non-compliance of the below statute while I was OC.

Then I would have filed the below criminal charge against him

Would it have gone anywhere.....likely not.

Writing the ticket misleads another public servant into believing I owe 35 bucks.

Do you understand, federal law trumps state law - everytime!

Have a look at Practicing Pro Se on this web site.

tyc

tyc · Aug 23, 2012

KYGlockster said:
Federal law only supersedes state law in very limited circumstances, ...

You are not correct with that. Federal law ALWAYS trumps state law.

tyc

EMNofSeattle · Aug 23, 2012

tyc said:
You are not correct with that. Federal law ALWAYS trumps state law.

tyc

only in the sense that adherence to state law is not a defense to violating federal law in federal court, state and local authorities are under no obligation to enforce or report violations of federal law

DWCook · Aug 23, 2012

I did not see how this incident was a problem. For you folks who get their panties up in a bunch over a simple request of wanting to check from the LEO, calm down. Citizen called in saying someone was carrying an automatic weapon, from the looks and a brief spotting of the carrier it can resemble an automatic. This incident to me was not a big deal at all! Cops are people too, stop making every cop encounter seem like the officer was just being a bother. In short, he requested to exam the firearm and then he gave it back, no big deal. Also just because you can spot a weapon that isn't automatic, does not mean everyone else can. When the officer gets the call he has to follow up on the incident, if you know your not doing anything illegal, then why get all steamed up over two min of your time being used. I just get annoyed when people become child like over a simple encounter with a police officer.

WalkingWolf · Aug 23, 2012

DWCook said:
I did not see how this incident was a problem. For you folks who get their panties up in a bunch over a simple request of wanting to check from the LEO, calm down. Citizen called in saying someone was carrying an automatic weapon, from the looks and a brief spotting of the carrier it can resemble an automatic. This incident to me was not a big deal at all! Cops are people too, stop making every cop encounter seem like the officer was just being a bother. IN short, he request to exam the firearm and then hey gave it back, no big deal.

NO he did not request, he took the firearm OVER the owners objections. That is a illegal seizure, it is a big deal.

EMNofSeattle · Aug 23, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
NO he did not request, he took the firearm OVER the owners objections. That is a illegal seizure, it is a big deal.

So rules The Hon. Judge WakingWolf, DRS (doctor of Rocket Surgery)

Freedom1Man · Aug 23, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
ALL of the federal gun laws are based on interstate commerce, and almost all guns have been in interstate commerce. The MP5 clone clearly has. SCOTUS rulings on fourth amendment and federal tax laws supersede state laws that would use federal tax information without authorization. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see it.

That is a false argument. The "commerce clause" is not what you claim it to be.

http://constitution.org/lrev/cjohnson/pandas_thumb.pdf

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...commerce-clause-obliterating-original-intent/

You're supported the twisted/perverted version of it by making that claim.

Now lets get into the NFA in the first place.
http://originalintent.org/edu/docs/Chapter 44 jurisdiction.pdf

Hmm enjoy the reading. Just remember all governments are criminal in nature and yet are a necessary EVIL that our founding fathers did their best to bind the hands of by writing our constitution. However it does take men to hold to the meaning of it and men to corrupt it.

Plato was right.

hammer6 · Aug 23, 2012

Novalis said:
If your going to go out of your way to look for a confrontation, then you get what you deserve. Personally I think it's people like this that make it more difficult for the rest that are carrying for protection vs. grandstanding and looking to hop up on their soap box.

Gee what am I going to do today....... hummmm.... Lets get my MP5 and a camera and walk around out side to see if I can bait a cop.

You all can argue your "opinions" all day, (with some law) but the fact of the matter is he's is baiting the cop. He gets what he asked for, regardless of the outcome, kinda like gambling or russian roulette.

PS save your comments, insults, and opinions. I wont be replying to any of it since most of you are idiots.

I guess I did reply.... oh well....

hey- sweet 8 posts you have there.

hammer6 · Aug 23, 2012

tyc said:
You are not correct with that. Federal law ALWAYS trumps state law.

tyc

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i thought that too....but apparently not true with the second amendment.

hammer6 · Aug 23, 2012

i'm not gonna read through 6 pages of posts about this....but....did anyone pose the argument about carrying a GLOCK 18?

if he were carrying a GLOCK, would that officer had done the same thing? prolly not. so why do it just because it's a rifle?

GLOCK 18 carried on the right side looks like any other semi-auto GLOCK:

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/282/4/0/Glock_17_and_Glock_18C_by_sudro.jpg

NoTolerance · Aug 23, 2012

hammer6 said:
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i thought that too....but apparently not true with the second amendment.

The Second Amendment isn't a law. It's a Right. Each State has adopted their own interpretation into their own Constitutions, most similar, but still different.

Video of OCer stopped by officer

Activist Member

Activist Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Banned

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member