• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OT: Man Arrested for Stockpiling Guns/Ammo

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

amlevin wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Many of you have accepted the FALSE PREMISE that "keeping" arms is subject to regulation..... HE HAD NO ILLEGAL WEAPONS ACCORDING TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

It isn't that we accept it, it is just the way it is. The Supreme Court states that reasonable regulation is allowed under the Constitution. Under our Constitution, it says what the SCOTUS says it says. They, and only they, have the final say on interpretation.
That's where you are completely and 100% wrong.... you've accepted a premise that was not there at the founding or ratification of the Constitution.

The truth is quite simple actually... and only people who do not like... or who hate our Constitution will tell you otherwise....

Article One, Section One of the Constitution says that ALL legislative authority is VESTED in the Congress. So, it’s Congress that “makes law”. It’s the legislative branch – NOT the judiciary – that is VESTED with lawmaking authority and therefore, cannot delegate.

So, no matter what... the SCOTUS does NOT MAKE LAW... all of its rulings are just opinions and have ZERO WEIGHT... save for whether or not the Congress actually wants to follow those suggestions... and then... they MUST be able to rationalize it against the most basic rights THEY have to actually make law.... Congress has 17 enumerated powers... and most of what they're doing now IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

A great example is ROE v WADE.... how in holy hell do you find a right to slaughter babies in the Constitution.... NOWHERE!!! Another example is the whole Health care debate.... No Constitutional right to mandate any kind of expenditure exists... yet they make us spend money anyway... Our governments have been bastardizing the Constitution and our Republic from its very beginning... and why? Because power corrupts... the moral busybodies have taken the reigns of power and are using the Whip of 'supposed law making authority' to pass any and all laws they like to their hearts desire completely ignoring the Constitution where it lays out their powers;

Congress only has the power to;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government (notfor the people)and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; — And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

_________________________________________________________________

The rules the Congress makes are all for CONGRESS and GOVERNMENT... NOT FOR THE PEOPLE!!! And the SCOTUS has even fewer rights. The SCOTUS must ask for clarification from the Congress since Congress is the ONLY LAW MAKING BODY IN THIS COUNTRY...And, the Amendment process was put in place so that Congress could clarify points of contention or modify the Constitution for unseen future needs.... in no way was anything supposed to be "interpreted"... but rather, it was supposed to be taken at face value. No reading between the lines, no guessing at meaning, there was no need to guess.... our founders wrote many papers on the meaning behind the Constitution... one set of these are the Federalist Papers... maybe you've heard of them.

Again, you have accepted the premise that the SCOTUS has the last word on what the Constitution says... and this is just not true... in fact, nowhere in the Constitution is this authority granted to the SCOTUS.... so tell me... how is it they've so easily convinced you to become a serf once again?
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

The SCOTUS may not be a legislative authority, but the effect is the same. They have decided to make a system of precedents, which basically tells all other judges how to rule in related cases. If the SCOTUS hands down a ruling giving an "alternate interpretation" of the law, every other judge in the country is going to use that ruling as a guide in all similar cases.

So yeah, they're not making laws... technically. They're just re-defining the meaning of those laws as they apply to any cases that go to court, which effectively makes their "interpretation" = the law.

National healthcare wouldn't force anyone to pay for insurance at the federal level. This is how Congress gets around their limitations - they say "we're not making this law, but if any of you states want federal funding, you'll make this law by yourselves".

That's what makes it so difficult to decide whether or not to act - they're not *technically* breaking the law, just finding creative ways to weasel through it.
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

antispam540 wrote:
The SCOTUS may not be a legislative authority, but the effect is the same. They have decided to make a system of precedents, which basically tells all other judges how to rule in related cases. If the SCOTUS hands down a ruling giving an "alternate interpretation" of the law, every other judge in the country is going to use that ruling as a guide in all similar cases.

So yeah, they're not making laws... technically. They're just re-defining the meaning of those laws as they apply to any cases that go to court, which effectively makes their "interpretation" = the law.

National healthcare wouldn't force anyone to pay for insurance at the federal level. This is how Congress gets around their limitations - they say "we're not making this law, but if any of you states want federal funding, you'll make this law by yourselves".

That's what makes it so difficult to decide whether or not to act - they're not *technically* breaking the law, just finding creative ways to weasel through it.
And is the reason why we must dissolve this government by completely getting rid of EVERY Bureaucracy and starting over with a clean slate.... unfortunately, we may very well get the chance to do this in a very messy and violent way if our government refuses to stop spending and completely bankrupts the country.... We have no idea what the effect of millions of those stuck on the government teat for survival will do when the spigot runs dry and they're out of food in a week... what happens when no Federal employee gets paid because the government has no money?

And.... turning back to the issue at hand... above is the end result of a government and judiciary NOT ADHERING strictly to the Constitution.... their hubris and unconstitutional behavior is the reason why we are headed right off a cliff. The SCOTUS making it up as they go along calling it 'precedent' is so offensive to those of us who KNOW the Constitution and know the wishes of the Founding Fathers and the various reasons behind the original framework of the Constitution. We know that if things do not change soon... bad things... very bad things are waiting for us just around the bend. People seem to think that things won't change... or that if they are going to change... that those changes are decades off... what people don't understand is that those changes we were told are decades off.... you know, like Social Security going bust... are happening NOW...

SCOTUS says are legit? The laws that are supposedly "Common Sense" gun laws are just as wrong and just as dangerous as those laws that kill babies or steal from the youth to give to the old for votes "SS and Medicare" or steal from everyone to give to the poor "Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, WIC, etc".

The reason why I rail against all these laws... and against any sort of gun law is because we're ALWAYS getting smashed by the "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES!" There is no such thing as a "Common sense" gun law... I mean, when did restrictions on guns ever stop bad guys? This argument cannot be restricted to JUST GUN laws or they'll just come at us laterally. E.G. they make a tax law that requires an extreme tax on a particular weapon which then gives them the ability to regulate it and force us to jump through hoops to get it... and then, at every hoop, they can deny us.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

When you find one please do let me know. This country may be lousy in a lot of ways, this in particular, but it sure as hell beats whatever is in second place. How about this: instead of bitching about it, why don't we try to save it from the statists?
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
Fascinating, but something that did not happen in Washington State...
Didn't read further into the thread?

M1Gunr wrote:
Felony charges have been filed against one of the men arrested with a cache of weapons in their car near Sultan over the weekend.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960626&slug=2336411

Man charged in weapons cache
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000316&slug=4010326

Tukwila man's 'safe room' packed with guns, saw-blade, mace
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/415176_STOCKPILE08.html
Once it happens in one State, those seeking to completely disarm us if they can jump on the band wagon.... if they cannot get us with straight up bans... they come at us sideways, upside down and even a few times, from far left field. Their whole goal is to make the legal system so bloody convoluted that somewhere in the laws, they'll find a way to get you.... its what they do.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Which were not the point of the original article. I see one case where a man had an illegal shotgun, and another where there were credible threat charges filed. Aside from the absurdity of barrel length laws, in these cases existing laws were broken, it wasn't the fact that there were "caches" of weapons owned that lead to the arrest, they were incidental to the arrest. The pot grower with machine guns was also a case where the "cache" was not the reason for initial arrests. The suggestion that anyone with a gun collection is at risk for targeting is a bit absurd, albeit nicely sensational. In each case here people were breaking laws. The caches were not the reason for arrest. This is not to debate the validity of those laws, but rather to point out that the gun collections were not the primary reason for arrest.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
amlevin wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Many of you have accepted the FALSE PREMISE that "keeping" arms is subject to regulation..... HE HAD NO ILLEGAL WEAPONS ACCORDING TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

It isn't that we accept it, it is just the way it is. The Supreme Court states that reasonable regulation is allowed under the Constitution. Under our Constitution, it says what the SCOTUS says it says. They, and only they, have the final say on interpretation.
That's where you are completely and 100% wrong.... you've accepted a premise that was not there at the founding or ratification of the Constitution.

The truth is quite simple actually... and only people who do not like... or who hate our Constitution will tell you otherwise....

Article One, Section One of the Constitution says that ALL legislative authority is VESTED in the Congress. So, it’s Congress that “makes law”. It’s the legislative branch – NOT the judiciary – that is VESTED with lawmaking authority and therefore, cannot delegate.
A couple months ago when a reporter asked about the constitutionality of the health care bill in the House Queen Pelosi said "You can't be serious?" She and the rest of the Progressive Left have utter contempt for the Constitution because it stands in the way of their statist agenda. Therefore, their goal is to DESTROY ITENTIRELY along with the capitalist economic system and replace it with their vision of the utopian State. To this end they use any number of weapons to do ends-around the Supreme Court, and promoting massive social programs at unsustainable cost whose sole purpose is to overwhelm the economy and bring about its collapse. Balanced budget? That is not the point. They are following the road maps laid out by Cloward and Piven and Saul Alinsky, and --- bet not many have heard of this guy except as a 1970's governor of Colorado: Richard Lamm. His plan is to destroy America by creating a multi-lingual and multi-cultural state, as in Quebec. Read this and see if you can come away without shaking in your boots: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

We think our whole world is the Second Amendment. That's only part of the problem, folks.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

Richard6218 wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
amlevin wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Many of you have accepted the FALSE PREMISE that "keeping" arms is subject to regulation..... HE HAD NO ILLEGAL WEAPONS ACCORDING TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

It isn't that we accept it, it is just the way it is. The Supreme Court states that reasonable regulation is allowed under the Constitution. Under our Constitution, it says what the SCOTUS says it says. They, and only they, have the final say on interpretation.
That's where you are completely and 100% wrong.... you've accepted a premise that was not there at the founding or ratification of the Constitution.

The truth is quite simple actually... and only people who do not like... or who hate our Constitution will tell you otherwise....

Article One, Section One of the Constitution says that ALL legislative authority is VESTED in the Congress. So, it’s Congress that “makes law”. It’s the legislative branch – NOT the judiciary – that is VESTED with lawmaking authority and therefore, cannot delegate.
A couple months ago when a reporter asked about the constitutionality of the health care bill in the House Queen Pelosi said "You can't be serious?" She and the rest of the Progressive Left have utter contempt for the Constitution because it stands in the way of their statist agenda. Therefore, their goal is to DESTROY ITENTIRELY along with the capitalist economic system and replace it with their vision of the utopian State. To this end they use any number of weapons to do ends-around the Supreme Court, and promoting massive social programs at unsustainable cost whose sole purpose is to overwhelm the economy and bring about its collapse. Balanced budget? That is not the point. They are following the road maps laid out by Cloward and Piven and Saul Alinsky, and --- bet not many have heard of this guy except as a 1970's governor of Colorado: Richard Lamm. His plan is to destroy America by creating a multi-lingual and multi-cultural state, as in Quebec. Read this and see if you can come away without shaking in your boots: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

We think our whole world is the Second Amendment. That's only part of the problem, folks.
Very true, but the state of the 2nd Amendment is a better indicator than most as to the level of breakdown of a stable and just government.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
So, no matter what... the SCOTUS does NOT MAKE LAW... all of its rulings are just opinions and have ZERO WEIGHT...
You are correct, SCOTUS does not make law. They do, however, decide whether the laws are Constitutional and as such they have somewhat of a "Final Say". Congress can pass all the laws they want but if anyone challenges it they do so on the basis of its following the Constitution and its amendments. These challenges often end up in the SCOTUS and that's when the "Supremes" decide what the Constitution says or doesn't say. It's all in the interpretation and like it or not, those sitting on the bench have the final say. THAT is what keeps the other branches in check, just like it says in the Constitution.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

amlevin wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
So, no matter what... the SCOTUS does NOT MAKE LAW... all of its rulings are just opinions and have ZERO WEIGHT...
You are correct, SCOTUS does not make law. They do, however, decide whether the laws are Constitutional and as such they have somewhat of a "Final Say". Congress can pass all the laws they want but if anyone challenges it they do so on the basis of its following the Constitution and its amendments. These challenges often end up in the SCOTUS and that's when the "Supremes" decide what the Constitution says or doesn't say. It's all in the interpretation and like it or not, those sitting on the bench have the final say. THAT is what keeps the other branches in check, just like it says in the Constitution.
One needs to remember thatNO court or justice has any enforcement power. A judge can issue all the rulings they want to but it is up to the exective branch to carry out those rulings. Almost all SCOTUS rulings are an interpretation of the conflict of two laws, even in the Heller case. They do not make laws, rather they decide which law takes precedence over the other. Courts cannot enforce laws nor can the make either Congress or the President (and his entire branch) enforce those laws.
 

n16ht5

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
187
Location
, ,
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Many of you have accepted the FALSE PREMISE that "keeping" arms is subject to regulation..... HE HAD NO ILLEGAL WEAPONS ACCORDING TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

What part of "Shall not be infringed" does everyone seem to happily IGNORE!!!

I swear... the reason why they can keep us all cowed like sheep is that we refuse to stand together...

Remember the immortal words of Ben Franklin... "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately!"

And the States DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS... because if they do... then nothing is sacred, we are all serfs and we might as well start the damn armed insurrection right now.

Stand now peacefully... or I guarantee you, we will not be able to avoid a violent revolution... John F Kennedy said it best when he said "Those that make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

We cannot accept the false premise laid down for the past 200 years... we have to fight... demand our Liberty... and if they refuse us our basic, natural rights... we must take them.


+ 10000! COMON people, get with it!
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
imported post

Tear gas grenades for armageddon?

What? Does he plan on smoking out the four horsemen?

Gonna make the devil's eyes water?

If the brimstone doesn't do it, what makes him think CS will?

Gives whole new meaning to "infernal device", huh?





......gonna pepper spray me some demons. Uh huh. You'll see. Make that snot run right out of ol' Beelzebub's nose.

Watch what happens when I gets my taser. Swarms of locusts are the least of your worries.
 

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
imported post

M1Gunr wrote:
Felony charges have been filed against one of the men arrested with a cache of weapons in their car near Sultan over the weekend.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960626&slug=2336411

Man charged in weapons cache
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000316&slug=4010326

Tukwila man's 'safe room' packed with guns, saw-blade, mace
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/415176_STOCKPILE08.html

Looking for the Trifecta...

At least two men pistol-whipped and robbed a man
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2010330664_man_pistol-whipped_robbed_at_s.html?prmid=obinsite

A woman leaving work at Bellevue Commons around 5 p.m. Wednesday was pistol-whipped by a man
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2011039080_woman_pistol-whipped_at_bellev.html?syndication=rss
The News Agencies are spinning things to make it sound like these guys were arrested for having too many guns or ammo.

First one:
charged in Snohomish County Superior Court with unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun; Searches ... yielded three-quarters of a pound of marijuana, ..., two sawed-off shotguns, an assortment of grenades ...

Second one:
one count of manufacturing marijuana and one count of possessing unregistered weapons (should read machine guns) seized ... about 20 machine guns, ... and 127 marijuana plants

Number three:
charged with harassment on allegations that he'd threatened his mother's life (believed to be mental)

Number four and five:
Had nothing to do with weapons caches but with criminal assault.

In the first two articles, the criminal activity was drugs and one had machine guns and the other grenades. But all the rest of the guns and ammo, knives, "mace" were all perfectly legal. Their description of a mace sounded like it wasn't very functional.

It is not illegal to own a bunch of firearms and a crap ton of ammo. It is illegal to have all that while committing a felony like growing pot.:banghead:
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

amlevin wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Many of you have accepted the FALSE PREMISE that "keeping" arms is subject to regulation..... HE HAD NO ILLEGAL WEAPONS ACCORDING TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

It isn't that we accept it, it is just the way it is. The Supreme Court states that reasonable regulation is allowed under the Constitution. Under our Constitution, it says what the SCOTUS says it says. They, and only they, have the final say on interpretation.
Unless Congress overrules them. But that fight hasn't happened in over a hundred years.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

heresolong wrote:
amlevin wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Many of you have accepted the FALSE PREMISE that "keeping" arms is subject to regulation..... HE HAD NO ILLEGAL WEAPONS ACCORDING TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

It isn't that we accept it, it is just the way it is. The Supreme Court states that reasonable regulation is allowed under the Constitution. Under our Constitution, it says what the SCOTUS says it says. They, and only they, have the final say on interpretation.
Unless Congress overrules them. But that fight hasn't happened in over a hundred years.
Congress can't overrule the Supreme Court. They can merely pass more laws that if challenged, will end up before the Supreme Court for them to rule whether the law (or provisions of it) are Constitutional. In the end, the Supreme Court has the final say. that is unless Congress passes a law that is not challenged by anyone.
 
Top