• 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.

Felony in Progress, Unregistered Mace

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
I have a federal client who is vehemently "anti-gun". Of course I don't air my political opinions in the office, and especially not to clients, so she doesn't know my stance. However, this scenario in which she is currently committing a felony. I have half a mind to call the agency's police force and have her hauled off to DC Metro jail.

I approach her desk this morning, I see a bottle of mace on her key chain. I inquire "Was it a hassle to get that registered?" Her, obviously oblivious to the laws she supports responds, "Register what?" I state, "The mace; It is illegal to have unregistered mace in DC." Her response, "Oh" while throwing her hands in the air.

She goes on to demonstrate "how it works," as though apathetic to the point that she is carrying an illegal weapon, She aims it at me :eek: and says "I'm afraid it will just go off sometimes" while she simultaneously demonstrates the trigger mechanism. Conversation continues and she then states she "wants to get a stun gun" obviously equally oblivious to the fact that a stun gun is highly illegal in DC.

I have half a mind to call our agency police on her and help clean up these DC streets! The only reason I'm abstaining is because ultimately it would be my employer who would suffer, as the resultant may be upsetting our client contract. Nonetheless, I wanted to share this exert to demonstrate how bone headed and plain dumb some anti-gunnies are. And for her sake, it's probably safest she is anti-gun, because given how she handles simple mace, I would've defended myself with justifiable force if the nossle of that mace was instead the barrel of a handgun. Ridiculous.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I have a federal client who is vehemently "anti-gun". Of course I don't air my political opinions in the office, and especially not to clients, so she doesn't know my stance. However, this scenario in which she is currently committing a felony. I have half a mind to call the agency's police force and have her hauled off to DC Metro jail.

I approach her desk this morning, I see a bottle of mace on her key chain. I inquire "Was it a hassle to get that registered?" Her, obviously oblivious to the laws she supports responds, "Register what?" I state, "The mace; It is illegal to have unregistered mace in DC." Her response, "Oh" while throwing her hands in the air.

She goes on to demonstrate "how it works," as though apathetic to the point that she is carrying an illegal weapon, She aims it at me :eek: and says "I'm afraid it will just go off sometimes" while she simultaneously demonstrates the trigger mechanism. Conversation continues and she then states she "wants to get a stun gun" obviously equally oblivious to the fact that a stun gun is highly illegal in DC.

I have half a mind to call our agency police on her and help clean up these DC streets! The only reason I'm abstaining is because ultimately it would be my employer who would suffer, as the resultant may be upsetting our client contract. Nonetheless, I wanted to share this exert to demonstrate how bone headed and plain dumb some anti-gunnies are. And for her sake, it's probably safest she is anti-gun, because given how she handles simple mace, I would've defended myself with justifiable force if the nossle of that mace was instead the barrel of a handgun. Ridiculous.
Careful. The law does not define right and wrong. You're perilously close to committing a malum in se act in response to one which is merely malum prohibitum.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,898
Location
SC
Sorry, I'm a little confused.

You want to push this woman under the bus of the injustice system, merely because she didn't fill out a form telling the government she had this defensive tool?

It is a felony; does that make it the right thing to do though? Would you turn in someone who had an unregistered gun?

The biggest crime I see here, is ignorance on her part. She would benefit more from some guidance and training than she would from being labeled a felon for some bureaucratic dip$hittery.

What is your goal? To punish her or educate her? To bring her to the other side of the fence using reason, logic and kindness, or to vindictively rub your hands together because an anti "got served"?
 
Last edited:

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
Careful. The law does not define right and wrong. You're perilously close to committing a malum in se act in response to one which is merely malum prohibitum.
It may very well be "malum in se act" or in simple English "evil," that's an interpretation of motive. However, legal action is sometimes the only way some people learn. Likewise, we regularly advocate civil suits against law enforcement agencies who violate our rights, which could also be considered "evil;" motive is subjective.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
It may very well be "malum in se act" or in simple English "evil," that's an interpretation of motive.
Nope.

It is morally wrong (in and of itself) to subject a person to criminal prosecution for a non-aggressive act. Therefore, malum in se, literally "bad in and of itself".

Motive is irrelevant.

A trivial analysis would confirm that suing for compensation over a prior wrong is not an aggressive act, but that having an individual jailed or fined for an act which wrongs nobody is aggressive.
 
Last edited:

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
Nope.

It is morally wrong (in and of itself) to subject a person to criminal prosecution for a non-aggressive act.

Motive is irrelevant.
I respectfully disagree. There's plenty of laws prohibiting non-aggressive acts: fishing quotas for example, that are necessary.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I respectfully disagree. There's plenty of laws prohibiting non-aggressive acts: fishing quotas for example, that are necessary.
It is not aggressive to destroy the supply of fish that others rely on? I respectfully disagree!

(Keep in mind I'm using the term "aggression" in the broad sense, encompassing simple transgression.)
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
I would leave her alone, she has a right to her opinions, and to self defense. I am stunned OP that you would even consider such an action. I wouldn't even do that to the statists on here.
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
It is not aggressive to destroy the supply of fish that others rely on? I respectfully disagree!

(Keep in mind I'm using the term "aggression" in the broad sense, encompassing simple transgression.)
Exactly, "aggression" is being used in a very broad sense, as such this is completely subjective to the point beyond reason. Is it aggressive to open carry and disrupt the emotions of others? :shocker::shocker:

WalkingWolf said:
I would leave her alone, she has a right to her opinions, and to self defense. I am stunned OP that you would even consider such an action. I wouldn't even do that to the statists on here.
I am stunned that if she votes for the laws, she shouldn't be held to the same standard.

Conversely, if this were a person who did not strongly advocate their "anti" view-point, I'd be apathetic towards this mace situation.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Exactly, "aggression" is being used in a very broad sense, as such this is completely subjective to the point beyond reason. Is it aggressive to open carry and disrupt the emotions of others? :shocker::shocker:
What genuine (negative) rights are infringed by my doing so?

As I said, the analysis of aggression is (usually) trivial, and it is certainly not subjective. Aggression is the infringement of a right. A right is any activity which does not limit another's ability to equivalent liberty. While these may be in some cases ambiguous, they aren't really subjective.

When folks say they have a "right to feel safe", they're confusing their negative right to make themselves feel safe (e.g. by leaving an unsafe environment) with a non-existent "positive right" to force others to behave in a given manner around them. They aren't correct, even subjectively; they simply lack familiarity with the well-developed philosophical tradition of rights.

We both have a right to fish to the extent that we don't infringe on each other's right to fish, but neither of us has the right to throw the other in prison for possessing some object.
 
Last edited:

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
What genuine (negative) rights are infringed by my doing so?

As I said, the analysis of aggression is (usually) trivial, and it is certainly not subjective. Aggression is the infringement of a right. A right is any activity which does not limit another's ability to equivalent liberty. While these may be in some cases ambiguous, they aren't really subjective.

When folks say they have a "right to feel safe", they're confusing their negative right to make themselves feel safe (e.g. by leaving an unsafe environment) with a non-existent "positive right" to force others to behave in a given manner around them. They aren't correct, even subjectively; they simply lack familiarity with the well-developed philosophical tradition of rights.

We both have a right to fish to the extent that we don't infringe on each other's right to fish, but neither of us has the right to throw the other in prison for possession some object.
That's all great in theory and as you stated, philosophically. Back in reality-land you or I (with few expections: ex. LEO) would be thrown in jail for possession of "some object" in: DC, NY, CA, MA, MD.. and the list continues.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
That's all great in theory and as you stated, philosophically. Back in reality-land you or I (with few expections: ex. LEO) would be thrown in jail for possession of "some object" in: DC, NY, CA, MA, MD.. and the list continues.
True, but my point is that doesn't make it OK.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,898
Location
SC
That's all great in theory and as you stated, philosophically. Back in reality-land you or I (with few expections: ex. LEO) would be thrown in jail for possession of "some object" in: DC, NY, CA, MA, MD.. and the list continues.
If you are willing to use these laws against her, how are you any better?

You send a message that these laws are justified to exist, merely for a vendetta against someone with opposing views.

How very liberty oriented of you.
 

independence

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
339
Location
Tennessee
I believe that the right to keep and bear arms applies to swords, guns, knives, clubs, nunchucks, brass knuckles and even pepper spray. Sure, this woman apparently could benefit from some very basic training. However, the fact remains that when the government infringes on the RKBA in any way, you have tyranny. And there are those who would love to put a ban on your guns and then turn you in. So why would want to be a part of the problem?

Sent from an app instead of a browser simply because browsers on mobile devices are incapable of basic usability by design so that people can sell apps.
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
I don't think cirrusly meant any harm. He was probably just venting some of his frustration at the fact that antis tend to have a double standard, a "control over thee, but not over me" mentality.

I must admit, the temptation to "teach them a lesson" or "give them a taste of their own medicine" is strong, but the OP admitted some hesitation; I think it was more the desire to abstain from the deceitful practices of the antis than the potential loss of income:
"I have half a mind to call our agency police on her and help clean up these DC streets!" -cirrusly
 

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
Careful. The law does not define right and wrong. You're perilously close to committing a malum in se act in response to one which is merely malum prohibitum.
How many persons, who were denied the self defense tool of their choice, have died from the indirect actions of this woman?

I say report her anti-liberty a$$ and let her experience her own liberty removal.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
How many persons, who were denied the self defense tool of their choice, have died from the indirect actions of this woman?
None? Laws don't actually dictate behavior. They merely punish the innocent (or guilty) after the fact.

I say report her anti-liberty a$$ and let her experience her own liberty removal.
Two wrongs making a right?

It's not like you can be said to be meaningfully more pro-liberty (given the above post). That being the case, who cares about your petty vindictiveness?
 

Lyndsy Simon

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
209
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Nope.

It is morally wrong (in and of itself) to subject a person to criminal prosecution for a non-aggressive act. Therefore, malum in se, literally "bad in and of itself".

Motive is irrelevant.

A trivial analysis would confirm that suing for compensation over a prior wrong is not an aggressive act, but that having an individual jailed or fined for an act which wrongs nobody is aggressive.
If she's anti-gun and she votes, this could be construed as an aggressive act against those subject to the laws she's supporting.

Reporting her would likely result in her felony conviction - incidentally barring her from voting in the future.

In this light, reporting her for a felony act might in fact be the minimum amount of force required to stop her aggression.

(Note I am not supporting this viewpoint - merely engaging in a thought exercise)
 
Top