Civil Disobediance

Nightmare said:

Where is (the implication of an affirmative) right to homosexual marriage in natural law or constitutional law?

Click to expand...

Crap, idk where it says 'gov can dictate' anything about marriage.

Dave_pro2a said:

Politically motivated culture shifts change the legal system in many different directions.

Rights are never the primary concern.

BTW I'm pro-equal suffering. Gay people deserve misery too, and all the divorce drama. Ok, not really. What I mean is, "Government has no right to require a marriage license for anything."

Click to expand...

Gotcha. There I completely agree. I don't see why marriage has anything to do with the government

Nightmare said:

Where is (the implication of an affirmative) right to homosexual marriage in natural law or constitutional law?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying there is. But the supreme court based their ruling and the gay rights won the case on that arguement.

NavyLCDR said:

And the B.S. gets even deeper:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/nov/13/gun-rights-activists-plan-i-594-protest-at-capitol/
Now wait a minute.... 2 and 2 are adding up to 3 here. How permanent does a loan have to be to become a transfer? I loan my gun to my friend on capitol grounds and that isn't enough of a loan to be a transfer....what if I loan my gun to my friend at my house and they leave my house to go to the shooting range for the day without me...is that loan permanent enough to become a transfer? Officer Calkins, I am very confused....

Click to expand...

I alluded to this issue in post #41, asked directly in post #45, and then rephrased the question in post #114.

Rereading this thread, and keeping the St Louis OC walk back in October in my mind, LE will not enforce this law when there are a bunch of opportunities to get this law in front of a appellate judge. Just as STLPD did not check for CC permits as is required in RSMo 21.750.3 and risk A5 nullifying all gun laws, even CC laws.

Right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and certain accessories--exception--rights to be unalienable.

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.

Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.

(Amended August 5, 2014)

(2004) Section does not prohibit the General Assembly from enacting statutes allowing or disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons; the Concealed-Carry Act is therefore constitutional. Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844 (Mo.banc).

Click to expand...

"Does not justify CC" has been removed from the amendment and the footnote about CC is now void as is all of the CC statutes.

Cop discretion is being used for the civil disobedience event and likely any other group event. If a individual "transfer/loan" is witnessed or reported I suspect that cop discretion will not be exercised.Again, move this event to Seattle.

So, back to the op, Cop Calkins...when is a transfer engaged in/completed? Hmm? What is the definition of "loan?"

Essentially Calkins will not enforce this law because it may be detrimental to the law. The language of the law clearly shows the intent of the law. Without clarification of the language I can claim to have let my buddy "borrow" my gun for as long as I do not need the gun, I certainly did not transfer the gun given the words used in the law.

The fireworks/nail gun thing...puh-lease...cops trolling Homedepot to catch grandpa transferring a Ramset without a BC? Rubbish, this law is aimed squarely at real firearms, antiques gats, I'm not so sure of.

J_dazzle23 said:

I'm a little lost....

2. Primus says as an LEO he doesn't want to enforce it.

...

Click to expand...

I'm confident that Primus will enforce or not enforce the same law based on what he thinks at the time regardless of the language of the law. His view of LE is not very far afield of any other cop's view of LE...he is the first responder of the state, the employee that picks and chooses who will be subject to the state's undivided attention. The state has unlimited funds and adheres to or disregards the rules that we are all told that we must abide by.

Reality is very simple...Calkins will not enforce this law if it does not benefit him to do so. If it benefits him to enforce the law, then handing your gat to your buddy at the range is a violation and he will let a judge sort out any misunderstandings. Cops really do like this aspect of our respective justice systems...the abdication of any responsibility for the fate of the citizen, a fate that was placed in jeopardy by as few as one cop.

OC for ME said:

I'm confident that Primus will enforce or not enforce the same law based on what he thinks at the time regardless of the language of the law. His view of LE is not very far afield of any other cop's view of LE...he is the first responder of the state, the employee that picks and chooses who will be subject to the state's undivided attention. The state has unlimited funds and adheres to or disregards the rules that we are all told that we must abide by.

Reality is very simple...Calkins will not enforce this law if it does not benefit him to do so. If it benefits him to enforce the law, then handing your gat to your buddy at the range is a violation and he will let a judge sort out any misunderstandings. Cops really do like this aspect of our respective justice systems...the abdication of any responsibility for the fate of the citizen, a fate that was placed in jeopardy by as few as one cop.

Click to expand...

Strong post

OC for ME said:

I'm confident that Primus will enforce or not enforce the same law based on what he thinks at the time regardless of the language of the law. His view of LE is not very far afield of any other cop's view of LE...he is the first responder of the state, the employee that picks and chooses who will be subject to the state's undivided attention. The state has unlimited funds and adheres to or disregards the rules that we are all told that we must abide by.

Reality is very simple...Calkins will not enforce this law if it does not benefit him to do so. If it benefits him to enforce the law, then handing your gat to your buddy at the range is a violation and he will let a judge sort out any misunderstandings. Cops really do like this aspect of our respective justice systems...the abdication of any responsibility for the fate of the citizen, a fate that was placed in jeopardy by as few as one cop.

Click to expand...

So in other words.....he isn't going to enforce it until he is made to.

Sounds like the best possible scenario to me.

But what do I know, in my area 32 sheriff deputies all wrote to the white house and told them they wouldn't be enforcing laws that are infringing on the 2nd amendment.

I guess your statement is unilaterally true, eh?

MAYBE...you round up these guys like primus and use them to promote repealing this law.

Or you can just make them the scapegoat, which changes....nothing.

J_dazzle23 said:

MAYBE...you round up these guys like primus and use them to promote repealing this law.
Or you can just make them the scapegoat, which changes....nothing.

Click to expand...

On the former, People like this are on "our" side.
On the latter....you can return to the "bully" style tactics, continue to beat down and drive what could be an ally away.

J_dazzle23 said:

So in other words.....he isn't going to enforce it until he is made to.

...

Click to expand...

I stated no such thing, you do. I stated, essentially, that he will, or will not, enforce this law as he deems appropriate. The fact that many (most?) top cops opposed this is now irrelevant, it is the law. The I-594 Homedepot thread is a appropriate dovetail to this thread. The language of the law is very clear in it plain reading, what is not clear is who provided Calkins the legal opinion that supports his interpretation of the law?

Don't get me wrong, you don't get busted good for you, but of all the transfers that occur each day in WA as they are defined in this law, someone will be busted. Or, the law is unconstitutionally vague and needs to be addressed post haste by the legislature or WA Supreme Court. The museum thread is but one early example of what cautions Washingtonians will do to avoid any potential interaction with LE.

How about you read what I actually wrote.

I alluded to this issue in post #41, asked directly in post #45, and then rephrased the question in post #114.

Rereading this thread, and keeping the St Louis OC walk back in October in my mind, LE will not enforce this law when there are a bunch of opportunities to get this law in front of a appellate judge. Just as STLPD did not check for CC permits as is required in RSMo 21.750.3 and risk A5 nullifying all gun laws, even CC laws.

Click to expand...

Just cuz Calkins says he is against this law, which I do not know to be true or not, it matters not, he is at risk for not performing his official duties, if such a charge could be made in WA.

OC for ME said:

I stated no such thing, you do. I stated, essentially, that he will, or will not, enforce this law as he deems appropriate. The fact that many (most?) top cops opposed this is now irrelevant, it is the law. The I-594 Homedepot thread is a appropriate dovetail to this thread. The language of the law is very clear in it plain reading, what is not clear is who provided Calkins the legal opinion that supports his interpretation of the law?

Don't get me wrong, you don't get busted good for you, but of all the transfers that occur each day in WA as they are defined in this law, someone will be busted. Or, the law is unconstitutionally vague and needs to be addressed post haste by the legislature or WA Supreme Court. The museum thread is but one early example of what cautions Washingtonians will do to avoid any potential interaction with LE.

How about you read what I actually wrote.

I alluded to this issue in post #41, asked directly in post #45, and then rephrased the question in post #114.

Just cuz Calkins says he is against this law, which I do not know to be true or not, it matters not, he is at risk for not performing his official duties, if such a charge could be made in WA.

Click to expand...

he has been clear he does not deem enforcing this law appropriate, at least as it is on the books now.

This is the internet, all we have to go by is what someone writes.

I'm not suggesting cops are all angels that have our back no matter what.

What I AM suggesting, is if you have an unconstitutional law that a lot of LEO'S don't like, round them up, get the political process moving. It's not the cops fault the law got passed. Essentially the state voted, handed them the bag of $ hit and said "here, you deal with this"

OC for ME said:

I stated no such thing, you do. I stated, essentially, that he will, or will not, enforce this law as he deems appropriate. The fact that many (most?) top cops opposed this is now irrelevant, it is the law. The I-594 Homedepot thread is a appropriate dovetail to this thread. The language of the law is very clear in it plain reading, what is not clear is who provided Calkins the legal opinion that supports his interpretation of the law?

Don't get me wrong, you don't get busted good for you, but of all the transfers that occur each day in WA as they are defined in this law, someone will be busted. Or, the law is unconstitutionally vague and needs to be addressed post haste by the legislature or WA Supreme Court. The museum thread is but one early example of what cautions Washingtonians will do to avoid any potential interaction with LE.

How about you read what I actually wrote.

I alluded to this issue in post #41, asked directly in post #45, and then rephrased the question in post #114.

Just cuz Calkins says he is against this law, which I do not know to be true or not, it matters not, he is at risk for not performing his official duties, if such a charge could be made in WA.

Click to expand...

OHHHH, you mean this:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024203376_potofficerxml.html

Seattle police are investigating the conduct of a veteran officer who has written about 80 percent of the tickets for using marijuana in public this year, including some that referred to City Attorney Pete Holmes, a strong advocate of pot legalization, as “Petey Holmes.”

In addition, the officer indicated he used a coin toss in one instance to decide who would be cited, new Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole said in a statement...

Blacks were disproportionately cited, with 37 percent of the tickets, the report said.

Click to expand...

Primus is going to act like a cop, because he is one. So did the guy mentioned in the above article.

His penalty for totally screwing up the lives of his victims?

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com...endurance-runners-and-more-from-in-other-news

Seattle Municipal Court judge Fred Bonner dismissed 100 tickets for public use of marijuana, including 66 written by Bicycle Officer Randy Jokela, 52. Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole said she is considering suspending Jokela, described as having a political agenda, for three days without pay.

Click to expand...

He MIGHT receive a 3 day suspension.

100 victims chewed on by the meat grinder, and nothing has happened to him.

Primus said:

Takes me maybe 5-10 seconds for average post. So max 100 seconds. That's 1.5 minutes per day.
If your retired and don't have 1.5 minutes to spare I'm sorry to hear that.....
Hell even it I took a full minute to type a post that's 10 minutes per day.
Add: if your doing research you might've noticed it's all being done from phone. So easy to be mobile and do it.

Click to expand...

Deflection. False premises, hence invalid conclusion. Your "calculations" ignore all the time you spend reading everyone else's posts.

rapgood said:

Deflection. False premises, hence invalid conclusion. Your "calculations" ignore all the time you spend reading everyone else's posts.

Click to expand...

Ok so multiply time by 1.5. It took me less time to read your post then it did type this one.

Primus said:

Ok so multiply time by 1.5. It took me less time to read your post then it did type this one.

Click to expand...

I think you are being dishonest. You post from an Ipad or similar device, and it takes longer than that to post from my PC.

sudden valley gunner said:

I think you are being dishonest. You post from an Ipad or similar device, and it takes longer than that to post from my PC.

Click to expand...

I do? That's some good telepathy. Should become a detective.

Primus said:

I do? That's some good telepathy. Should become a detective.

Click to expand...

Are being purposefully obtuse?

sudden valley gunner said:

Are being purposefully obtuse?

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Are being purposefully obtuse?

Click to expand...

No. You clearly have telepathy if you can call me a liar and say I have an "iPad" in my hands. With those skills should he a detective.

On the other hand I'm glad others and yourself have so little going on in you can/will spend so much time concerned with what device I'm using to type with and/or how much time I spend of my life doing it.

Should use this extra time doing something like curing cancer. At least it'd be productive.

Primus said:

No. You clearly have telepathy if you can call me a liar and say I have an "iPad" in my hands. With those skills should he a detective.

On the other hand I'm glad others and yourself have so little going on in you can/will spend so much time concerned with what device I'm using to type with and/or how much time I spend of my life doing it.

Should use this extra time doing something like curing cancer. At least it'd be productive.

Click to expand...

I said I think you are being dishonest. I still do.

You have made the same claims in the past with tapatalk tagline included in all your posts showing you were not on a PC.

As Rapgood pointed out.....you are making fallacy claims and for you to continue to do so would mean you are not being fully forthright about the time you spend on the forum. Yet you evade that and go on with more fallacious and tangetial arguments.

The Truth said:

Click to expand...

It was only recently that tapatalk tagline disappeared from his posts. It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out he was using a tablet or his phone or similar device.