Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Hmmm HR 218 conundrums

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    hey hubby..... what a travesty of justice .. first he has to defend himself against Hells Angels and now this...

    I hope that he decides to go thru a jury trial....
    do u think residents would convict a cop shooting a hells angel??

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    i hope he gets a jury trial...

    do u see residents convicting a cop who used deadly force against a hells angel??
    i sure hope not..

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    Ya, that really stinks. I have family that carries state to state with only their federal/police ID.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    IndianaBoy79 wrote:
    Ya, that really stinks. I have family that carries state to state with only their federal/police ID.
    I wrote to Sen. Simpson when Congress was considering the reciprocity law that would allow cc in all 50 states if you had a valid ccp in any state. He wrote back saying he didn't want to violate "state's rights". He might as well have said he didn't want to anger the tooth fairy. Truck drivers would especially benefit from a reciprocity law as they have to drive across several states. So would retirees driving their motor homes. I would love to be able to carry when I visit my folksin the People's Republik of Kalifornia.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    The ATF spokeswoman has lost her mind. Since when is a law not a law unless the implementing agency has passed a Rule in the CFR?

    There is no action to take when it comes to LEOSA, no Rule to promulgate, no databases or standardized IDs needed. The only action required is to take no action if a LEO has ID issued by his agency.





  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Basic Federal Government 101: Law = Statute + Regulation. No regulation? No law, just an unenforceable statute.

    So, apparently police from State A cannot carry in State B unless they fully comply with State B's laws.

    Here's the news article link: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/arti...d898298826.txt

    Of course, muddying the HR 218 waters is this: http://forums.officer.com/showthread.php?p=1388851

    The more you read, the more you get confused.

    Bottom line, apparently, is: If you're a police officer carrying out of state, you still can't violate out-of-state laws concerning carrying.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    IndianaBoy79 wrote:
    Ya, that really stinks. I have family that carries state to state with only their federal/police ID.
    With a federal ID, you don't have to worry this stuff. Most Federal LEO's and the like are exempt due to federal law, they can carry anywhere, anytime. For them a Federal LEO ID is enough.

    For a state or local ID, this can be an issue because if the bar was posted no firearms, then HR 218 does not cover them. If they consumed alcohol, then HR 218 does not apply.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    The ATF spokeswoman has lost her mind. Since when is a law not a law unless the implementing agency has passed a Rule in the CFR?

    There is no action to take when it comes to LEOSA, no Rule to promulgate, no databases or standardized IDs needed. The only action required is to take no action if a LEO has ID issued by his agency.





    She is wrong on that, nothing has to be implemented. The law does not call for implementation. Seattle PD could have told them not to carry, but they legally still can.

    This won't make it past an appeal if it even gets that far. If the bar was posted or if they drank, then HR218 does not apply. But in some states a permit to carry is enough to cover you on posted property or while drinking, I'm not sure about south dakota.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    In response to Ruby Ridge, in the findings of the congressional subcommittee, there was a proposition to dissolve the ATF. This is an agency that must continually justify its existence lest people come to the obvious conclusion that we have no need whatsoever for them. It's too bad Congress didn't follow up on that recommendation. We have as much need for the BATFE as we do for the UN.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post


    idahomilitia wrote:
    In response to Ruby Ridge, in the findings of the congressional subcommittee, there was a proposition to dissolve the ATF. This is an agency that must continually justify its existence lest people come to the obvious conclusion that we have no need whatsoever for them. It's too bad Congress didn't follow up on that recommendation. We have as much need for the BATFE as we do for the UN.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Wow!

    In response I would say I don't know any ATF agents, thankfully. If I did, I would tell them what I think of their career choice (I might be graphic)and wish all the plagues of the apocolypse on them. The ATF is an evil, oppressive, and unconstitutional agency enforcing unconstitutional laws. Gunowners in the know rightfully despise and scorn these thugs. They enforce the unconstitutional 1938 firearms act, tobacco is legal, prohibition has been rescinded, the Treasury department doesn't need armed thugs any more than the IRS does. Let's see, is there anything else?

    Oh yes, they arrested my good friend Col. Wayne Fincher (a militia commander like myself) for the perfectly constitutional activity of designinga machinegun for the Washington County Militia of Arkansas. They entrapped Randy Weaver with trumped up charges that resulted in a standoff that killed his wife and 14 year old son.

    So yes, every patriotic American hates the BATF (busy ambushing terrified families) like God hates sin. They should be dissolved, their members indicted and imprisoned.

    In my meek, humble opinion

    CPT James Ambrose

    Idaho Citizens' Constitutional Militia

    Commanding Officer

    www.idahomilitia1.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    259

    Post imported post

    idahomilitia wrote:
    In response to Ruby Ridge, in the findings of the congressional subcommittee, there was a proposition to dissolve the ATF. This is an agency that must continually justify its existence lest people come to the obvious conclusion that we have no need whatsoever for them. It's too bad Congress didn't follow up on that recommendation. We have as much need for the BATFE as we do for the UN.
    Oh absolutely, I agree. Lets abolish the BATFE! That way we can give alcohol to children over the age of 12, cigarettes to anyone who can breathe on their own, a gun to every single person who has an index finger, and import/export high explosives to people who think a blasting cap is a kind of ball-point pen!

    It makes PERFECT sense.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    BrianEMT wrote:
    idahomilitia wrote:
    In response to Ruby Ridge, in the findings of the congressional subcommittee, there was a proposition to dissolve the ATF. This is an agency that must continually justify its existence lest people come to the obvious conclusion that we have no need whatsoever for them. It's too bad Congress didn't follow up on that recommendation. We have as much need for the BATFE as we do for the UN.
    Oh absolutely, I agree. Lets abolish the BATFE! That way we can give alcohol to children over the age of 12, cigarettes to anyone who can breathe on their own, a gun to every single person who has an index finger, and import/export high explosives to people who think a blasting cap is a kind of ball-point pen!

    It makes PERFECT sense.
    A myopic argument indeed. We don't need the ATF to enforce these laws, the police do it just fine. When they pass another unconstitutional law against your Glock and the ATF comes to enforce it, what will you do then?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    259

    Post imported post

    idahomilitia wrote:
    BrianEMT wrote:
    idahomilitia wrote:
    In response to Ruby Ridge, in the findings of the congressional subcommittee, there was a proposition to dissolve the ATF. This is an agency that must continually justify its existence lest people come to the obvious conclusion that we have no need whatsoever for them. It's too bad Congress didn't follow up on that recommendation. We have as much need for the BATFE as we do for the UN.
    Oh absolutely, I agree. Lets abolish the BATFE! That way we can give alcohol to children over the age of 12, cigarettes to anyone who can breathe on their own, a gun to every single person who has an index finger, and import/export high explosives to people who think a blasting cap is a kind of ball-point pen!

    It makes PERFECT sense.
    A myopic argument indeed. We don't need the ATF to enforce these laws, the police do it just fine. When they pass another unconstitutional law against your Glock and the ATF comes to enforce it, what will you do then?
    Other than the fact that it will never happen, the ATF is just another federal agency that not only CREATES regulations, but also cracks down to enforce them for the good of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. This involves the use of a FEDERAL jurisdiction to monitor and track interstate activity of these regulated substances and firearms.

    This is something that local or state level police simply cannot manage, and the US Marshal Service has enough on their plate. Lo and behold, another agency is there to manage it.

    Granted, there are certain regulations that are imposed that I do not exactly enjoy myself, however it is undeniable that a majority of them are probably "good for you". Nothing the ATF does is unconstitutional or it wouldn't have happened.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Granted, there are certain regulations that are imposed that I do not exactly enjoy myself, however it is undeniable that a majority of them are probably "good for you". Nothing the ATF does is unconstitutional or it wouldn't have happened.
    A very idealistic view of a very criminal organization. Let's make this clear. The 1938 firearms act is one of the most unconstitutional laws ever passed and a flagrant violation of the 2nd Ammendment. It was passed because of yet another idiotic act, the Prohibition era which created a criminal element that used automatic weapons to wack each other. The 2nd Ammendment was not created so you can carry your Glock into Walmart, it was created to maintain a balance of powers between the governed and the government. Either the people should possess automatic weapons or the government should give them up..I'd be happy with either solution.

    It's naive to think that they could never pass a law against personal ownership of firearms and don't put too much faith in the recent Supreme Court ruling. The 1938 Firearms act was passed in flagrant violation of the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs Cruikshank 1875 which said:
    The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."
    They made it clear that Congress had no authority to pass laws that regulate firearms, and yet they did...and the ATF enforces it. So if you think the BATFE are a bunch of fun loving, civic minded individuals, then you need to educate yourself further. Their very existance offends the Constitution.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    idahomilitia wrote:
    Wow!

    In response I would say I don't know any ATF agents, thankfully. If I did, I would tell them what I think of their career choice (I might be graphic)and wish all the plagues of the apocolypse on them. The ATF is an evil, oppressive, and unconstitutional agency enforcing unconstitutional laws. Gunowners in the know rightfully despise and scorn these thugs. They enforce the unconstitutional 1938 firearms act, tobacco is legal, prohibition has been rescinded, the Treasury department doesn't need armed thugs any more than the IRS does. Let's see, is there anything else?

    Oh yes, they arrested my good friend Col. Wayne Fincher (a militia commander like myself) for the perfectly constitutional activity of designinga machinegun for the Washington County Militia of Arkansas. They entrapped Randy Weaver with trumped up charges that resulted in a standoff that killed his wife and 14 year old son.

    So yes, every patriotic American hates the BATF (busy ambushing terrified families) like God hates sin. They should be dissolved, their members indicted and imprisoned.

    In my meek, humble opinion

    CPT James Ambrose

    Idaho Citizens' Constitutional Militia

    Commanding Officer

    http://www.idahomilitia1.com


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    BrianEMT wrote:
    Other than the fact that it will never happen, the ATF is just another federal agency that not only CREATES regulations, but also cracks down to enforce them for the good of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. This involves the use of a FEDERAL jurisdiction to monitor and track interstate activity of these regulated substances and firearms.
    checking the URL quickly...

    Wow. Did I wind up on Democratic Underground by mistake???



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    ROFL

    Passionate people. With the risk of sounding like a nutcase, I'd kind of have to say I'm not a big fan of the ATF either. Nothing against anyone personal though....I've yet to meet an ATF agent myself. I just agree with the constitutional aspect of it; They stake most of their authority on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution....regulating even what I manufacture right here and sell right here in my own state.

    I'm a libertarian at heart...I diispise any government branch that claims authority unjustly or regulates the interactions of two willing participants. That being said, I still FOLLOW the law, and jump through the hoops. So long as there is still as system in place to change things and redress our grievences, there is still hope.

    To Brain: If the D.C. gun ban was never unconstitutional, it wouldn't have happened, right? And no, I don't think kids need alcohol, guns, or tobacco at school. I just want contol over that aspect to go to the local police power.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    --

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    I don't think you risk sounding like a nutcase at all when you say you're no fan of the ATF. Even other LE agencies don't like ATF.

    Beginning with the fact that NFA'34 and GCA'68 are without Constitutional authority, all laws and regulations flowing from those acts are unconstitutional. The ATF, as the enforcers of those laws and regulations, are violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

    There's nothing wrong with antipathy towards ATF; every gun owner, freedom lover, constitutionalist, or civil libertarian should have nothing but contempt and hostility towards the organization, no matter how polite and professional individual employees might be.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •