Constitutional Carry

[ThePigStye]

My guess is you're not getting much participation because your attitudes are somewhat different than those of most members here. You bias is showing and you hate law enforcement and therefore that makes them all bad and corrupt. We have members here that are law enforcement; active, retired, etc. You won't make any friends, etc. by going to any forum and start that way.

I'm not trying to make friends, I'm trying to get serious information. If a cop doesn't arrest another cop that breaks the law, he is a corrupt cop.

 

[RiverCity.45]

Aww. I was hoping for rational discourse, but that ended at "murder her unborn human baby." Oh, well. Leading with hyperbole engages the echo chamber, but not useful discussion.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[ThePigStye]

As stated already, I would prefer if all comments would stay centered on the questions, not on what you think about my beliefs. I don't have to answer for you, if you think killing a baby is not murder. You'll answer soon enough. I didn't come here to argue, I came here to have a couple of questions answered. That's all.

 

[ThePigStye]

Hey troll, I'm one of the pigs you spoke of. Troll on little man. Yawn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Troll on little man? When was it that you learned my physical dimensions? Do ya got some kinda direct line to the NCIC or what?

Again, liberals that can't answer questions, always reply with a comment that includes what a ???? the poster is.
Seems like a man with your character wouldn't do childish things like that.

I don't understand your liberalism there Jon, ya can't answer a couple of questions, so instead you comment with name calling?. You say you're one of them pigs I speak of, and a big guy, such as yourself, that have extensive background in civilian and military law enforcement, industrial security, and small unit tactics should know all 8 million plus laws on the books, or since you are a purveyor of leo, none of those 8 million laws doesn't apply to you?

You can't answer a couple of questions that you, as a cop, retired cop, mercenary or whatever ya claim to be, should know the answer to? Why is that Jon? I bet you think "collateral damage" isn't immoral either ......................

 

[diesel1959]

The over/under on how long this troll lasts here is gonna be awesome.

 

[ThePigStye]

I ask some simple questions and I have not gotten one answer. Y'all are some really bright guys !!!! Why
do ya keep name calling instead of just answering questions? Why am I a troll? Because I ain't no stinkin' coward cop lover?

Google this boys.

Otha Thurmond, 91, of Memphis, Tennessee, will finally find his way to criminal court after spending his whole life as a law-abiding citizen. According to Thurmond, he has never been in jail a day in his life. Neighbors agree. And they are up in arms with the treatment they witnessed Thurmond receive when he encountered police on his Memphis sidewalk.
Police say they felt threatened by the elderly man when they claim he waved a stick at them.

Oh, such brave defenders of our freedom. 2 really big guys, scared to death of a 91 year old man that can barely walk. Those "men" are cowards (I can't actually call them what they really are, starts with a p, ends with a y and has 3 letters in between them)

 

[Charlie]

unsubscribed

 

[diesel1959]

Pigstye--not to put too fine a point on things; however, we don't answer to you. None of us. You can pose whatever questions you like, but that doesn't impute a duty to any of us to answer them. Communities like this one operate on trust and shared interests. It just seems like you're running on "E" in the tank of shared interests and/or respect for the members here. So troll on, but don't expect much from the rest of us in return.

 

[ThePigStye]

So lets start all over. Read my original questions, answer them as if I were your friend and I won't comment, so no one answer with a snide remark, instead simply answer the question. When I get an intelligent answer, i'll stop commenting. If I don't get an answer, I'll just take it that not a single one of you know and leave it at that and go to another forum and see if someone can answer my questions. Ya'll talk about how many cops are on here and how cops are supposed to know everything since they are law enforcement and ya can't enforce what ya don't know. I know when people have exact opposite interests, but that shouldn't stop them from answering a question that someone asked them in good faith to answer on a forum. Am I become your enemy because I tell ya the truth?

 

[Jon Payne]

, whether you're 6'6" or 4'1" you're a little man on the inside. Glad you can use Google to look me up. I warn little men to Google me all the time. Now dear troll I bid you goodbye.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Charlie]

Adios ..................

 

[Charlie]

So lets start all over. Read my original questions, answer them as if I were your friend and I won't comment, so no one answer with a snide remark, instead simply answer the question. When I get an intelligent answer, i'll stop commenting. If I don't get an answer, I'll just take it that not a single one of you know and leave it at that and go to another forum and see if someone can answer my questions. Ya'll talk about how many cops are on here and how cops are supposed to know everything since they are law enforcement and ya can't enforce what ya don't know. I know when people have exact opposite interests, but that shouldn't stop them from answering a question that someone asked them in good faith to answer on a forum. Am I become your enemy because I tell ya the truth?

You are certainly not our enemy, just some dumbass troll demanding folks on here to agree with you or tell you why they don't.

 

[Younggun]

As stated already, I would prefer if all comments would stay centered on the questions, not on what you think about my beliefs. I don't have to answer for you, if you think killing a baby is not murder. You'll answer soon enough. I didn't come here to argue, I came here to have a couple of questions answered. That's all.

I'd like to hear some opinions on how this works (actually doesn't work).

Let's use Rowe vs. Wade for an example. That's a Supreme Court ruling that allows every woman in the US to murder her unborn human baby,with impunity (exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action). This is the "law of the land", am I correct?

Doesn't every human that lives in AmeriKa, including cops and goverment, have to uphold and obey ALL these "laws of the land?. Does not this Federal Law trump all local/city, county, and state laws?

Because this is (supposedly) a woman's right, therefore, no woman would need a license (because it's her right and not a privilege) to do the deed and she'll never get into any trouble with "the law" for doing this. Am I correct here? I believe I am.

Now onto the next example. In AmeriKa, there is what is know as The Bill of Rights. These rights are what all human beings supposedly have, that can never be taken away, as they are rights and not privileges granted by The State.

The 2nd item in this Bill of Rights says that all human beings have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right shall not be infringed.

Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary defines "infringe" as
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

Notice in the first example,
A prince (or goverment in our case) infringes an agreement by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
Now back to the "Law of the Land" and "Rule of Law". Since the US Gov says that Supreme Court rulings are "the Law of the Land" and must be strictly adhered to, Supreme Court ruling

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense ...................

The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to possess a firearm for self defense. That becomes "Law of the Land", just as Rowe vs. Wade is, right ? Can ya only defend the life of yourself and your family (and your property), inside your home? WRONG.
The 2nd Amendment does not specify how you can bear this arm (concealed or openly), therefore, both are acceptable

A human being has a right to life, liberty and property (5th Amendment) not in his home only, but every single place he travels.

Now look at the next Supreme Court ruling, which is the Law of the Land

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”

So, going by the United States of AmeriKa, Inc. own laws, someone tell me, without contradicting yourself or contradicting the laws of the US, why I need to get a "license" to bear arms for self defense? Remember, 2nd Amendment gives me that RIGHT, UNINFRINGED; Shuttlesworth vs, Birmingham guarentes it as being a never overturned "Law of the Land". Forcing one to PAY to exercise their rights are an infridgement to their rights and 2nd Amendment says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Comments please..............................................................................

I'm going to answer every post you've made so far not directed at an individual and maybe some that are.

To this post, SCOTUS makes rulings based on interpretations on law. The BoRs can and is often considered a list of laws and has been called as much in the federalist papers. The interpretation of the 2A has been ruled on multiple times by SCOTUS and each time that ruling is applicable only to the circumstances in which the case was brought. There has not yet been a SCOTUS ruling as to whether or not licensing in and of itself is an infringement and until SCOTUS rules that it is, licensing is a perfectly legal practice as it relates to the carry and possession of firearms. Feelings on the matter are irrelevant, that's how the system works.

 

[Younggun]

Presedent: an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

What earlier event would void these rulings? Are not the laws for EVERYONE? Costumed clowns with pretty gold stars are NOT immune from these laws.
They can have machine guns and we mundanes are disallowed? These clowns can kill unarmed people because what? These clowns can steal your money, jewelry,cars, homes, land with impunity, why?

You've now jumped from SCOTUS to your personal issue with law enforcement. You are attempting to dehumanize them in order to more easily attack them (costumed clowns with pretty gold stars).

They can not have machine guns any more than you or I. The departments have ownership and they can possess them. Officers are subject to the same laws as you or I when it comes to ownership. Most departments do not issue automatic weapons to their officers, DPS troopers carry an AR-15 you could buy at academy.

The rules regarding use of force for law enforcement are typically more stringent than for you or I despite what the main stream media may lead you to believe.

They are also not free to legally steal anything from you or anyone else. They would be arrested and face the same charges as you or I for theft.

 

[Younggun]

I've been open carrying for 3 or 4 years now without any permits.

There are many legal ways to carry without a permit. This sounds like bait.

I live about 50 miles east of Dallas.

Irrelevant.

I remember on September 1, 2007 when on the local Dallas News (and I believe it was in the Dallas Morning Newspaper too), the journalist asked the Dallas DA, about the the new law vs. a concealed carry permit. DA says the people have the right to carry a loaded handgun in their automobile when traveling (if you are in your automobile and it's running and moving, you are traveling). You can also carry a loaded handgun from your private property to your automobile, also carrying a loaded handgun from your automobile back onto your private property (or anyone else's private property as long as they are fine with it).

You remember all this from a news article 10 years ago?

You've left a lot out here, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything you've asked so moving on.

You can't leave a firearm unattended in your automobile,

Say who?

so you have to carry it with you, (back then, it would have to have be concealed since Texas then didn't have open carry, but since Texas passed open carry, you would be able to carry it openly now).

Relevance?

Then DA proceeded to say, the new law basically undermines the need for a concealed carry permit, as far as the "law" reads.............

What new law are you talking about from 10 years ago? Please ramble more specifically.

I see 99 cops have quit the Dallas piggy force in the last 10 weeks YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY !!!!!!!!!!

You obviously have already made up your mind on certain aspects of this conversation which appear to be irrelevant to your initial query. From what I've read so far, you've reached your conclusion with a poor understanding of the information available to you.

 

[Younggun]

I've been open carrying for 3 or 4 years now without any permits.

There are many legal ways to carry without a permit. This sounds like bait.

I live about 50 miles east of Dallas.

Irrelevant.

I remember on September 1, 2007 when on the local Dallas News (and I believe it was in the Dallas Morning Newspaper too), the journalist asked the Dallas DA, about the the new law vs. a concealed carry permit. DA says the people have the right to carry a loaded handgun in their automobile when traveling (if you are in your automobile and it's running and moving, you are traveling). You can also carry a loaded handgun from your private property to your automobile, also carrying a loaded handgun from your automobile back onto your private property (or anyone else's private property as long as they are fine with it).

You remember all this from a news article 10 years ago?

You've left a lot out here, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything you've asked so moving on.

You can't leave a firearm unattended in your automobile,

Say who?

so you have to carry it with you, (back then, it would have to have be concealed since Texas then didn't have open carry, but since Texas passed open carry, you would be able to carry it openly now).

Relevance?

Then DA proceeded to say, the new law basically undermines the need for a concealed carry permit, as far as the "law" reads.............

What new law are you talking about from 10 years ago? Please ramble more specifically.

I see 99 cops have quit the Dallas piggy force in the last 10 weeks YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY !!!!!!!!!!

You obviously have already made up your mind on certain aspects of this conversation which appear to be irrelevant to your initial query. From what I've read so far, you've reached your conclusion with a poor understanding of the information available to you.

 

[easy rider]

I'll answer your question ...... I don't think all laws are right, but I'm not a martyr and I can't afford to spend the rest of my life fighting them in court. I can only help to change them to what they should be through legal means.

 

[Younggun]

A troll, I am not. I'm simply seeking answers to otherwise complicated questions.

Answers or affirmation?

The only good government is self-government.

What is your definition of "self-government"? Anarchy?

Question to you, Jon Payne.

Why would any one, in their right mind, pay someone to do what is their responsibility in the first place? That makes those people irresponsible Jon. Are ya irresponsible Jon?

Like mowing the yard, changing oil in the car, patching the roof, remaining objective when researching questions related to constitutional law, obtaining clean drinking water?

Only to have those same benefactors that they are paying to rule over them, screw them senseless,

It seems you are still on about cops so let's fallow the bread crumbs. You elect a city council and mayor. They appoint a chief, the chief hires law enforcement officers. If you are unhappy with your LEO you should be taking it to your city leaders to pressure or replace the chief.

County sheriff is elected. Elect a better sheriff.

by taxing and fee-ing them to death, taking 20% to 60% or more of the peoples income,

Please provide a source for a 60% tax rate. Once we have accurate and verifiable data we can begin to discuss why taxes are too high and how to bring the operating costs of our government down and decrease the burden on tax payers.

caging humans because they violated one of their statutes or commercial codes (yet no crime is commited),

Example please. I won't attempt to support or defend such a broad and unsupported claim.

ruining lives and families;

Drunk drivers? Rapists? Murderers? Meth addicts? The cop that arrested the meth head and ruined his families life? You'll have to be more specific about the circumstances in which these lives were ruined.

while these power hungry benefactors offer benefits to other irresponsible people that are too lazy to work and would rather mooch
off the government and certainly do not deserve that free, stolen money.

On this we might agree.

These benefactors steal this money
either by conning people or by intimidation thru threat of violence or by out right force).

Using the word benefactor may sound intelligent but in this case it creates confusion as to whether you are referencing government employees or welfare recipients.

On certain philosophical levels taxation is theft. But once again, that taxation is implemented via elected officials operating within the confines of the constitution as laid out by the founding fathers of this nation. Vote them out.

Force never equals freedom.

We certainly didn't remove ourselves from the British Empire by asking the king politely over a cup of tea.

Texas independence didn't happen after a cordial meeting with Santa Anna where Sam Houston politely requested he respect the sovereign Republic of Texas.

[quoteLook Jon, for the last 6000 years, corrupt, power hungry people have decided to make these "governments". And for the last 6000 years, EVERY single one of these governments have been CORRUPT to the core,

And before that there were scattered nomadic people who would rape and pillage each other's tribes.

[quotefrom the piggies in the small towns all the way up to the king or president himself.

Quite the generalization you've made there. I can't imagine the traveling you must have done.

Jon, why would anyone in their right mind think that , some how, all of a sudden, they can "vote" in a government that will save them all?

That's not the purpose of government.

It just won't ever happen with humans, ever

So humans are unable to function as a society, but individual humans each self governing will create an era of peace? This idea throughout history has lead to some of the worst atrocities imaginable. Typically the most evil gaining power.

Jon. Get over it. Power hungry people have a severe mental problem.

I'm not sure what Jon is supposed to get over.

Now, instead of answering like a liberal, answer the questions at hand like someone with some common sense.

Thanks

You have basically told Jon that unless he gives the answer you want to here he is a liberal. This takes me back to something I asked in my first or second reply. Do you want answers or affirmation?

 

[Younggun]

It ties in as that's 99 more people that will not be taking our freedoms away from us.

You believe they changed their careers?

Actually, no. Not yet any way.I stay way away from any cop.

Maybe this is why you are so misinformed.

I don't call them law enforcement, because they rarely do that.

They do it pretty often actually. Accept when they are spending years in court because they shot a man of a different race who was attempting to grab their firearm.

They are nothing more than code enforcers.

No, code enforcement enforces codes. Even in small towns.

Piggies basically harass and intimidate, so they can fulfill their quotas,

Harrasment and intimidation would have no effect on any quota LE might have. Also, quotas are no longer legal in Texas. Closest thing is an efficiency report. It's obviously not all that important as I commonly pass LE doing 5-10 over the limit and don't get harassed or intimidated.

and generate more income for the State,

Do you know what percentage of the annual budget for any city, county, or state budget is generated by law enforcement?

so they can keep their lush jobs, riding around in their cruisers,

This statement proves you have little knowledge of the job. Or you've redefined the word "lush".

breaking their own laws with impunity

Just imagine me laughing.

and getting obese while eatin' donuts and drinking coffee

Donut jokes? C'mon, you can do better.

or doin' steroids so they can over power helpless old grandmas and mentally challenged folks.

Show me evidence that this is anything more than baseless character defamation in order to dehumanize those you dislike so that they may be more easily attacked without being troubled by your own conscience.

I have seen WAY too many people get screwed by corrupt cops.

I've seen way to many people say this without actually seeing it happen to anyone. But it sounds good and supports your opinion.

No such thing as a good cop.

Those cops that have arrested murderes, rapists, kid knappers, pulled people from burning cars on the highways...fucking pigs.

The only good cop is an ex-cop. Those that have seen the error of their ways and watched as other corrupt piggies have abused their supposed authority, while they watched on and could do nothing to change the abuse, since doing so would only get them fired and black listed. They finally had enough and quit "the force".

So in your eyes a cop who quits because whistle blowing would get him fired is a good cop?

Your reasoning on law enforcement has as much logic as a leftist saying that anyone right of far left is racist.

But why isn't anyone answering my original post questions?

Because you immediately changed the subject and started ranting about law enforcement.

I would rather spend my afternoon getting answers, instead of chattin'.

Answers or affirmation?[/quote]

 

[Younggun]

I don't hate any person, cop or not, but when cops break the laws that they are sworn to uphold, they are corrupt, and I hate corruption.

And they face the same legal ramifications as anyone else.

How many times have you leo's went over the speed limit with no lights and siren on? I have seen many in Dallas do it. That's breaking one of your laws, yet you get by with it. Cops should NEVER have impunity.

You realize that they don't always have the lights and siren going when responding to a call, right? Also, I'm sure most of us have passed a cop while going over the limit and not been stopped.

So I don't care for corrupt cops. That's my business.

You seem intent on making everyone aware of your business.

But since there are so many cops,retired and current, lurking on this forum, and they supposedly KNOW the law, why didn't any of them simply answer the questions right off the bat, instead of posting some liberal comment?

Nothing liberal was posted. Saying something is "liberal" doesn't make you right or them wrong.

Is it because they are ignorant of the law themselves and don't want to look like a moron?

So being ignorant of constitutional law makes one a moron, but you came here because you don't understand the constitutional law?

As you can see from the replies, most of the posters are some of those power hungry people I speak of.

You can't poke a bear with a stick then run and tell everyone how viscous the bear is.

Ya know, once police were there to stop crime. CRIME: Harm to ones person or ones property or stealing ones property. If there is no crime, cops have no right to interfere in someone else's business.

There is crime. Physical and property crimes are pretty common. In order for LE to have a reasonable chance of stopping it we would need a far greater number of cops. Are you saying that we should hire hundreds of thousands more law enforcement in the state of Texas alone so that they will be within earshot at all times to stop all crimes?

Check this out. A real PEACE officer would know his job is simply to protect and serve the taxpayers that pay their paychecks.

As apposed to what?

Now everything has changed to law enforcement officer for the State Corporation.

This is a meaningless statement with no substance. Just another jumble of words that is applicable only at an emotional level but fails when logic is applied.

The more I read about cops, the more I see that they are getting even more corrupt by the hour.

You must be reading Mother Jones or something. The Verge maybe.

Stop the whinin' with liberal comments and just answer my question I posted.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

How hard is that? Or are the steroids starting to get to some of y'all?

Unfounded character definition in order to strengthen your own position. A terribly dishonest and transparent tactic used when your own arguments can't stand on their own merit.

Diesel, what part or RvW am I supposed to be concerned with, in the original full written case? Should I read every single letter, just so I can get the jest of it? I'm anti-abortion, as you can tell. Murder is murder, period.

Abortion has no relevance to laws regulating firearms. You are attempting to put too many jumbled ideas in to one conversation and creating a convoluted mess.