Deleted post

[AustinBR]

Hypothetical.

Tomorrow all semi autos are banned, and you have to hand them over in 30 days.

In addition to this, ALL other firearms must be registered with the state AND federally, and you have 30 days to comply or face jail time.

Is this Just? Are you gonna comply? After all it’s the law now.

Im going to guess you would bow your head, get on your knees and comply. Your choice.

Your neighbor next door decides that these so called “laws” are “unjust” and decides to not comply. Some how the feds are tipped off that he supposedly has
Unregistered firearms, and they show up in force and haul him away never to see his family again potentially.

Still no sympathy or he had it coming because he should have been willing to accept the consequences because a group of rouge sociopaths decided him having the right to protect himself was a right he no longer should have.

I dont expect you to answer any of these questions openly. I wouldn't, but we have a bunch of incompetent, self preserving, double standard, narrsasistic psychopaths running this country, and the scenario above is becoming potential reality daily.

I don't mind answering your questions.

I wouldn't comply. Just as I don't comply with plenty of traffic laws.

My point is that anyone who chooses not to comply with the laws should be prepared for the consequences. That is all.

There is also a big difference between breaking a law to consume a drug to get high vs breaking a law that is fundamental to self-protection. Let's not forget that.

 

[GunRelated]

There is also a big difference between breaking a law to consume a drug to get high vs breaking a law that is fundamental to self-protection. Let's not forget that.

I disagree. While one may seem more important than the other, it does not make it any less intrusive to the right of the individual to make their own choices, ie, liberty. An unjust law can be no more or less unjust than another, they are simply unjust.

 

[AustinBR]

I disagree. While one may seem more important than the other, it does not make it any less intrusive to the right of the individual to make their own choices, ie, liberty. An unjust law can be no more or less unjust than another, they are simply unjust.

There are plenty of justified laws that limit the "liberty" of an individual. The classic example of not being allowed to yell "fire" in a movie theater comes to mind.

But anyway, the topic of weed and the enforcement of the laws on it ultimately comes down to our beliefs. I have no problem with the enforcement of it so long as the laws stand. It's not something I partake in, though I do think it should be legal.

 

[Griz375]

Forget the law. I have a probation officer in my family. She said to call the probation officer and ask because a lot of those decisions are made at their own discretion. As long as you 2 are showing that you are trying to do the right thing you probably won’t have a problem.

----------------

probably is one of those things like maybe, but or I'm not sure.

You need the documents so you can get an accurate response from her PO or maybe even the court.

In general, intent is the key word in any legal scenario.

The OP may be well advised to expand his circle of acquaintances because if an issue arises, he's possibly an accomplice which may be an issue for him to own, possess or use firearms going forward.

It may even be a good idea to get a lawyer to ask for clarification of the order in writing from the issuing judge .

 

[GunRelated]

There are plenty of justified laws that limit the "liberty" of an individual. The classic example of not being allowed to yell "fire" in a movie theater comes to mind.

Right, but we aren't talking about justified laws, which typically directly affect the health and well being of other people.

 

[AustinBR]

Right, but we aren't talking about justified laws, which typically directly affect the health and well being of other people.

"Justified" is subjective.

I subjectively disagree that weed being banned is unjust. Just as I would argue that banning cocaine, fentanyl, acid, and the like are just laws.

I would support removing the ban on weed, but I don't think it's an unjust law and I strongly believe that anyone who has intentionally broken the law deserves to face the consequences.

 

[thperez1972]

I disagree. While one may seem more important than the other, it does not make it any less intrusive to the right of the individual to make their own choices, ie, liberty. An unjust law can be no more or less unjust than another, they are simply unjust.

One seems more important because one is more important. You have a right to self defense. You do not have a right to get high.

 

[GunRelated]

One seems more important because one is more important. You have a right to self defense. You do not have a right to get high.

Individual choice, so long as that choice does not directly negatively affect others, is the foundation of true liberty. I'll leave it at that, as to not take the thread any further off topic.

 

[thperez1972]

Individual choice, so long as that choice does not directly negatively affect others, is the foundation of true liberty. I'll leave it at that, as to not take the thread any further off topic.

A duck and an ostrich are both birds. But they cannot both fly. Two thing being in one specific category does not force them to be equal in all categories.

 

[machinedrummer]

This situation seems like it could be easily explained by the Crazy Hot Matrix.

 

[Waldowiseman]

If my wife is on probation for something that didn't make us enough money to move out the country to live out our lives on the beach somewhere.. Then time to find another wife. Lol

Lmao bro I so hear that but she's honestly a 9.5. She could be a lot of things and I'd have a hard time leaving tbh.

 

[Gator 45/70]

First, I don't log into here often at all so I see replies every couple weeks. Second, no I'm not sending a fap pic of my gf lol. But I'll say she was convicted of trespassing on her daughter's property bc her daughter lives next door on property that she bought and signed over to her. Little family feud.

Okay, okay, okay, Trespassing is pretty heavy duty stuff and a 500.00 fine around here.
By chance how would you rate the daughter? Asking for a friend on board.

 

[thperez1972]

First, I don't log into here often at all so I see replies every couple weeks. Second, no I'm not sending a fap pic of my gf lol. But I'll say she was convicted of trespassing on her daughter's property bc her daughter lives next door on property that she bought and signed over to her. Little family feud.

Out of curiosity, why asking the question if you don't plan on frequenting the site very often to hear the answer?

 

[jdindadell]

Here is my take on "the laws"

There are a lot of laws, tons of them, way too many of them for me to remember, let alone try to fully understand and integrate into my decision making matrix. I'm not talking about the moral based laws, like murder and theft, I referring to the other laws, that can be applied to paperwork and property and taxes and all manner of other technicalities.

So should i "run afoul" of one of these laws that I have never heard of (which may as well be all of them) then I will just use the excuse that I was not aware of said law.

I know that ignorance is not an excuse, however I will use this in court as a reason to have my legal consul try to find someone who can recite all of the laws and their impact on my situation in court. No cheating using books, the internet, or anything like that, just read them off the top of your head and make some real world examples.

Get an expert witness perhaps, or maybe subpoena the arresting officer and have him recite the la penal code, or perhaps the judge presiding the case, no one better than a judge to know all of the laws and be able to properly apply them to the situation at hand. Its not like said laws are written in a way that they are up to interpretation...

Of course you all see the folly in this line of thought. Not a chance that I would find a single person who knew all of the laws and could apply them reasonably... Just too many laws and the way they are written leaves gaping holes in their application and interpretation.

Expecting anyone to know the "consequences" to all of the laws on the books is not reasonable, at all. Plus, since most of these laws are up to interpretation, and a judge or jury will end up weighing in on the situation, even if you knew all of the laws, you would not be able to even approximate the 'consequences"...

So the BS regurgitated rhetoric that "someone should have known the consequences" falls apart under the slightest amount of scrutiny.