federal lawsuit filed against radnor lake ranger unlawful arrest ak-47

[McX]

imported post

nothing educates those in authority like hefty fines and judgements.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

plzdntshoot wrote:

After skimming through this discussion I found myself wondering.....Why does this guy feel the need to carry a gun in the area? Was this a high crime area where there was potential that he would need to protect himself? I am guessing that he lives in the area where he was stopped...If not why was he even there? What is the explanation?

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Wow, I hope you have your flame proof suit on newbie!

Just to start the flame spray in motion:

Since when do our rights revolve around need? The beauty of rights is that no justification is required to exercise them.

 

[PT111]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

PT111 wrote:

So if it suits your standards then interpretation of the law and intent is fine but if you have a different interpretation then we have to follow the absolute letter of the law. Talk about double-talk, that is about as bad as when I first saw the picture of kwik's orange pistol then later sawy the one that he was actually carrying that only had the tip painted orange. This whole deal is nothing but a bunch of BS by someone trying for his 15 minutes of fame proclaiming that no two people should be held to the same standards under the law. After hearing all the BS rhetoric spewed by you and kwik I think a full body cavity search would have been justified as well as his pockets. When you two get your story straight try to stick to it rather than changing it every other post.

Nice red herring.

I didn't say we "only enforce positive laws and not negative ones".

What I said was (I thought I articulated it quite clearly), that the law is the bare minimum standard for punitive government action, but not every person who has violated any law ought to be prosecuted.

If you had a firm understanding of the history of jury nullification you'd realize this isn't something I made up to have my cake and eat it too, it's the way law was assumed to function when this country was established.

You wouldn't prosecute the plumber with pipes in a school because a jury would (should) refuse to convict because the intent is to far off.

This doesn't mean you get to charge anyone with anything and convict.

It's positive and negative because we are free to not enforce laws which are stupid (like prohibitions on fornication or sodomy), but we are NOT free to enforce laws that we haven't bothered to pass yet.

If Leonard's actions require his punishment, the ONLY proper and appropriate way to do so is by FIRST changing the law, and THEN since laws cannot apply retroactively to wait until he breaks the now-existing law and THEN, finally, he may be punished.

Once upon a time, the people who founded this country had a notion that liberty was best protected by allowing the non-enforcement of laws but requiring the prior violation of the letter of the law to seek a conviction.

Intent may be considered when choosing NOT to apply the law, but once the law is being applied intent is only relevant to clarify the letter of the law, and the letter of the law is what determines the "convictability" of an offense.

This is nothing new; there's loads of authoritative written material which support my contention.

So I gather what you are saying is that if I walk into the school with a pipe in my hand it is OK to arrest me but if a plumber walks in with that same pipe he shouldn't. Isn't that the same reasoning that they use to allow a LEO to walk into a school with a gun but the average citizen can't? Now that you have settled that we shouldn't get any more posts about why should a LEO be able to carry in places that the average person can't. :celebrate

 

[marshaul]

imported post

You can gather whatever you please at this point, but I'll have you know that law you're so obsessed with is retarded, and I would never convict ANYONE under it if I were on a jury.

What point exactly are you trying to make?

I didn't say anything about WHO the law ought to be applied to.

The only thing I've said, about 10 times now, is that not every law should be enforced (nor should every violator of some law be punished), but at the same time there MUST be a violation of a law before government rightfully punishes anyone.

And I'll continue to say that, and you're not going to catch me in an inconsistency by creating red herrings.

I don't know why you think this notion is so complicated. It's really painfully simple; a two-year-old could grasp it if he weren't being intentionally obtuse.

There is nothing inconsistent with saying that many laws are stupid and should never be enforced, but simultaneously demanding that government not punish people without first bothering to pass a law prohibiting the undesired behavior.

I mean really, I'm amazed we're even still discussing this. I'm truly dumbfounded.




Oh, also...

LEOs shouldn't be able to carry where I can't.

In fact, LEOs should be disarmed while on the job, and I should be armed everywhere I please, including in schools.

 

[Grassroots]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Oh, also...

LEOs shouldn't be able to carry where I can't.

In fact, LEOs should be disarmed while on the job, and I should be armed everywhere I please, including in schools.

LMAO... Amazing...

This has become more and more a thread against LEO's and "Anti Government" more so than it is about gun rights. Therefore it should be closed, like the rest of Leonards rants. Different "beginning" with the same exact end... Anti government and LE did this LE did that...

Move on already

EDIT: THANK YOU

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Grassroots wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Oh, also...

LEOs shouldn't be able to carry where I can't.

In fact, LEOs should be disarmed while on the job, and I should be armed everywhere I please, including in schools.

LMAO... Amazing...

This has become more and more a thread against LEO's and "Anti Government" more so than it is about gun rights. Therefore it should be closed, like the rest of Leonards rants. Different "beginning" with the same exact end... Anti government and LE did this LE did that...

Move on already

LOL! So you think that's "anti-government?"

You don't belong here, friend.

Your shillery has become apparent. If you weren't an obvious troll I'd point out that when the U.K. was still a free place citizens were armed as they saw fit, and at the same time police were disarmed by default, and yet their government worked just fine (much better than theirs or ours does today). But, you are a troll, so I won't bother to point that out to you.