Gov of NY -- gun confiscation expected to be a viable option

http://www.infowars.com/new-york-gov-mandatory-gun-sale-to-state-and-confiscation-are-options/

In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.


All in NY should be filing their notices of trespass to keep gov't officials off your land or they will be coming and knocking on your door .. just to say "hi!" I'm sure.

What the Governor of New York is seriously considering implementing, in violation of his oath of office and the Constitution of the United States, is exactly what the President of the United States is working toward. Mr. Obama is just not being quite as open and truthful about his nefarious intentions.

davidmcbeth said:

...All in NY should be filing their notices of trespass to keep gov't officials off your land or they will be coming and knocking on your door .. just to say "hi!" I'm sure.

Click to expand...

This guy is gonna get someone arrested or, worse, killed. He keeps telling folks to file these notices, as though they will be a magic bullet to keep LEOs off their property, prompting God-knows-what when that magic bullet does not work and the police are lawfully on you property, notice of trespass or not.

Notice that he never cites law, never explains the intricacies of it; he just throw a quasi-legal term out there and lets you flounder, never caring about any consequences.

In this case, he names a specific State. If he truly wanted to encourage "notice of trespass," or whatever they call it in NY, if such a thing even exists in NY, he would cite the law, the procedure, and its effect on law enforcement, the latter probably requiring some study of case law. But that takes effort.

Nope, no effort forthcoming here, just a magic bullet.

The thing about magic bullets: They change flight in mid-air. Don't get hit by your own magic bullet. Don't listen to this guy unless and until he cites black-letter and case law. Or you could do that hours of research yourself. Please share with us if you do. You might save a life from the potential damage caused by irresponsible posts like this one.

eye95 said:

Notice that he never cites law, never explains the intricacies of it; he just throw a quasi-legal term out there and lets you flounder, never caring about any consequences.

.

Click to expand...

I already have cited case law and asked for other to post case law that counters ... nobody could or did.

So suck it up eye95 .. we have a right to keep cops off our land. You tend to believe that we don't. So let them search your property if you wish; others may not wish to.

Again he irresponsibly oversimplifies and does not back up that simplistic and overbroad statement with citations. Folks, you can get better legal advice from Lucy for a nickel.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

Again he irresponsibly oversimplifies and does not back up that simplistic and overbroad statement with citations. Folks, you can get better legal advice from Lucy for a nickel.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

I understand your concern but it really is not based on the reality of the law.

Post some case law and we can discuss some more.

You can tell when someone doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. They don't back their assertions and ask you to back up the refutation when that refutation was asking them to back up their assertions.

Some posters apparently don't think that others can go back and read what was posted.

Folks, don't listen to this guy until he makes precise (not overbroad) statements of the law and then backs them up with citations of black letter and case law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

You can tell when someone doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. They don't back their assertions and ask you to back up the refutation when that refutation was asking them to back up their assertions.

Some posters apparently don't think that others can go back and read what was posted.

Folks, don't listen to this guy until he makes precise (not overbroad) statements of the law and then backs them up with citations of black letter and case law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

I have already posted case law .. you have not. Game, Set, Match.

davidmcbeth said:

I have already posted case law .. you have not. Game, Set, Match.

Click to expand...

So you keep saying.

davidmcbeth said:

I have already posted case law .. you have not. Game, Set, Match.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Eye95, if you post things like this, please every time post case law with it. Incase new members come across this.

In other words... Proof please, or Please remain quiet.

( Also what you are preaching is against forum rules "Advocating breaking the law" )

moriar said:

I have to agree with Eye95, if you post things like this, please every time post case law with it. Incase new members come across this.

In other words... Proof please, or Please remain quiet.

( Also what you are preaching is against forum rules "Advocating breaking the law" )

Click to expand...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...3440&q="notice+of+trespass"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...9579&q="notice+of+trespass"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48

http://www.narlo.org/tlaw.html

http://www.whitmanpubliclibrary.org/...f_trespass.pdf

http://culpepersheriffsoffice.com/wp...rocedures1.pdf

http://www.milton.govoffice2.com/ver...2E8AADD}.PDF

http://www.plattecountywyoming.com/S...20Trespass.pdf

http://www.charltonpd.org/pub/form_noticeoftrespass.pdf


Its a common law right ... if your state does not specifically address it, then you are good to go .... plus its just a notice, not a complaint

My police have examined the law and have agreed to remain off all my land ... even the curtilage.



This argument is getting old ... its proven to my satisfaction ...

davidmcbeth said:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...3440&q="notice+of+trespass"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...9579&q="notice+of+trespass"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48

http://www.narlo.org/tlaw.html

http://www.whitmanpubliclibrary.org/...f_trespass.pdf

http://culpepersheriffsoffice.com/wp...rocedures1.pdf

http://www.milton.govoffice2.com/ver...2E8AADD}.PDF

http://www.plattecountywyoming.com/S...20Trespass.pdf

http://www.charltonpd.org/pub/form_noticeoftrespass.pdf


Its a common law right ... if your state does not specifically address it, then you are good to go .... plus its just a notice, not a complaint

My police have examined the law and have agreed to remain off all my land ... even the curtilage.



This argument is getting old ... its proven to my satisfaction ...

Click to expand...

Sorry, but six of your URLS have been cut off, or no longer in circulation on the website.

Also, if you want to cite. Do not cite google. Google is not a reputable cite location.

If it comes from Library of Congress = legit.

If it comes from Shembob Google = not legit.

Also, you have to understand, just cause you find 2-3 cases that might support your view or representation of the law... there is another case that totally deep six's your's.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2013/jan/16/can_dea_hide_surveillance_camera

That case involved a sign ... a notice is different (of course they would have had to file one with the cops, likely something a criminal is not going to do)... but that case made me laugh.

No way this is going to be OKed by SCOTUS .. they already nixed putting in gps devices on cars ...

We'll see. A good case to post - it lets folks know to what extent the police will go to.

All for some w-e-e-d ...

Throwing out a bunch of cases without discussing how each case supports the contention is lazy and dishonest. Anyone can find a list of cases that touch on a subject and post them implying that they somehow support the contention.

Not impressed.

An honest person makes the contention, cites the law or the case, and uses some of the words from the law or the case to demonstrate that it supports their contention. Of course this poster does not.