Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

OOPS, HE DID IT....


Recommended Posts

In the U.S. very few. I hear there was a big mass killing with them back in the 40'S.

I thought the E.O. was about the re importation of military weapons sold overseas? There are a whole lot of weapons sold overseas and the Garand is only one of them.

The point is not that the Garand (or any other weapon sold overseas by our government) is a problem. It is about limiting the number of firearms in total. I can understand how some people would applaud that as a step in the right direction. It is also plain that it does absolutely nothing to curb gun violence nor does it affect anyone's ability to own a gun.

So I can see why he did that. It was a token gesture that is more symbolic than anything.

It is the other order that has the pitfalls. While I agree that it only helps to enforce existing laws today it sets the stage for much greater control down the line.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An aspect of this EO that seems to be overlooked is now the owners of these guns now can be ask to prove where and when they acquired them. If the answers aren't good enough will the firearms be taken as evidence? This EO is not as benign as one might first think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An aspect of this EO that seems to be

overlooked is now the owners of these guns now can be ask to prove where and when they acquired them. If the answers aren't good enough will the firearms be taken as evidence? This EO is not as benign as one might first think.

Really? I have read the E O and did not catch that... Are you saying anyone who has a Garand (or other US weapon brought here crom overseas) will have to prove something???

That seems absolutely impossible to enforce and redundant since the gov must approve them all anyway.

Could you tell us where you are getting that info?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question was where you got the info that the executive order requires owners of re imported weapons to prove where they came from. That was your claim about the EO that bans re importation. I believe that claim is false and the EO has no such language.

I was speaking about the other EO. My question was specifically about your claim that people would have to somehow prove where they got their imported weapons and the musings that they would be confiscated if their answer was not suitable.

Can you reference any part of the EO that wpuld support your claims? Just trying to keep it real here. I think your statement was based on something besides feality and was very specific as to a hidden threat in the EO.

In all fairness when we make a claim that something is the way it is we should be able to back that up. You told me that you would expect that of me and I honor that....Now please support your claim the EO will require people to prove where they got their re imported weapons.

If the claim is real then it should be no problem. Otherwise you need to tepresent it as your opinion or conjecture...not as a factual element of the EO.

I believe that if you re read your post that you will agree you have mis represented the facts or at least presented conjecture as fact. In fact there is no provision that anyone is going to have to prove anything...is there???

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a person hangs a Thompson sub-machine gun in his gun rack in the back of the pick-up window how long before he's stopped to prove he has legal ownership of that weapon.....

In the same gun rack he also hangs a Ruger semi-auto .22 with a sound suppressor how long before he is stopped to prove he has legal ownership of that weapon.....

Now in his three gun, gun rack he also hangs a M1 Garand how long before he's stopped to prove he has legal ownership of that weapon.....

It's a procedure some people don't think kindly of called LAW ENFORCEMENT...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't be stopped and checked for anything unless you are breaking a law or there is probable cause. Having a gun is simply not probable cause.

Not a. fully autoThompson, not a suppressed Ruger and not a Garand. That is basic search and seizure.

Nothing in any executive order changes that. You can have any gun in your gun rack and unless you are violating a law or have demonstrated probable cause you have no issue at all.

And there is nothing in the EO that comes close to dealing with that either. It only says guns that were sold overseas can't be re imported. It says NOTHING about an individuals right to keep and bear any weapon of any type nor does it force an individual to prove anything at all. The subject of this EO is light years away from any second amendment issue.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EEGAD BB! No where did I say the EO states that you must account for the provenience of a collectors military rifle. I am saying it "sets the stage" for such questioning should authorities so choose. Enough of this (for now).

I'm going mining-wish me luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Arizona they want to be able to pull you over and check your papers if you look like a Mexican but won't stand for police checking the numbers on their machine guns.

Go figure.

A cop can pull you over with probable cause and ask any question he wants to. You must answer some questions but you may decline others depending on which State you live in. If you allow him to railroad you he will.

It is the magic of the "Terry stop" and peoples misunderstanding of authority that makes them think they are being searched under law when in fact they are submitting to a search that they don't have to.

Only a Federal officer within 100 miles of the border has the right to stop you. And he must have probable cause or consent to search you. If he wants to run your gun or ask for info he can do that but you must CONSENT. Otherwise he must let you go down the road or he is in violation of your rights.

Here we have the duty to identify and show vehicle insurance and registration. Not much more. If in the course of this process the cop sees other suspicious things he can ask about it. If you give him probable cause he will force a search. If you do not answer questions that are not obligatory and ask to be allowed to leave he must let you go or arrest you.

So if you submit to a search it is not the fault of the law. Just demand that you be allowed to travel on and they will let you pass. Unless they have grounds to arrest you already or detain and question you for probable cause you will be allowed to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An aspect of this EO that seems to be overlooked is now the owners of these guns now can be ask to prove where and when they acquired them. If the answers aren't good enough will the firearms be taken as evidence? This EO is not as benign as one might first think.

I am afraid you did say that. Read your posts again and tell me what aspect of the EO says owners can now be asked to prove where and when they got them. This is your exact words. It is simply not true and your post was not factual.

Good luck!

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave three perfect probable causes which you failed to recognize....been awhile since you wore a badge and rode patrol huh?

You are dead wrong about that. While you have the obligation to produce paper for a permitted weapon in the course of a search the posession of that weapon is not probable cause that a crime is being committed and therefore is not cause for a search. It is called a TERRY STOP. You have the choice to produce the info on those guns until their is grounds for a search. If you consent to a search it is your obligation to produce the paper. It is the same with drugs, guns, or a truck load of chickens.

Now, if you are cruising around with a gun and a cop wants to stop you and ask about it he can. And as a responsible gun owner I will always satisfy his curiosity. But that is my CHOICE and not an obligation under the law. And if I was packing a fully auto weapon and refused to show the papers on it I would expect to be detained until the info came out. But I would be breaking no law by asserting those rights and any "resisting arrest" or "obstruction" charges would be dropped, dismissed or overturned....If I had the resources to fight it in court. A wealthy man can always afford to fight for his rights under the constitution but a poor schmuck will probably have to live with some minor charges for refusing to submit to the police.

It has been a while since you put on a badge too I see.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get your nose out of the search engine and ride with a New Mexico State Trooper ( some of the best) and see how the real world operates.....

When I was working patrol on I-40 in Okla. country, yes it was a few years back, we loved stopping self ordained lawyers. After they told us the law we would on occasion give them free room and board for two or three nights courtesy of the county. Two or three days later when they walked or bailed out they then had to deal with the impound lot.

Now to get back on the subject of having a firearm that by law has to be registered with the Federal Gov. and a police officer observes it in a vehicle you will most likely be stopped and questioned, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! And the EO does absolutely nothing that would change that in any way!

It only deals with the re importation of firearms. It does not make owners of a Garand subject to proving anything nor does it allow an Oklahoma cop to stop you and harrass you simply because you have a Garand in your back window.

That is the sweet thing about the constitution. A cop can't just lock you up and impound your car for not blindly obeying him and telling him all about your guns.

Maybe they get by with that in Oklahoma but the New Mexico State Police ARE some of the best and are very familiar with a well armed populace. They have never hassled me about any weapons and have handled themselves well in my experience. And NEVER have they used my weapons as an excuse to force some sort of an inquisition.

If a cop here did what you describe that you did there would be riots. We already have a huge problem with bad cops doing very bad things. So far the NMSP has been the only reliable law in a lot of areas. Hassling gun owners who are not otherwise committing a crime would really destroy them in the eyes of the people here.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'mornin BB;

Thanks for wishing me luck-picked up a pretty little 3.5dwt nugget yesterday.

In the national forest where I live a permit is required from the USFS to cut firewood. If I have a legal load of firewood in my truck that came from one of my construction projects on private property and am spotted by the USFS law enforcement I WILL BE STOPPED AND REQUIRED TO VERIFY WHERE THE FIREWOOD CAME FROM.

To think that the EO couldn't be used in the same manner is naive in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same with a fishing licence or a game tag. Completely different ball game. But then I think you realize that.

The issue is PROBABLE CAUSE and not ch checking a firewood permit. Don asserted that simply carrying a permitted weapon or now a Garand was probable cause and it is not. Neither is a load of wood.

And you asserted the E O could be used to require gun owners to.prove where they got a reimported weapon. And it does not.

Just keeping it real. I don't care for the E O either but it is not that big a deal and it definitely does not have the implications that have been represented here.

The forest circus can not enter private property and demand anything. They can stop and ask you about it. And you can discuss it if you want to. But unless there is PROBABLE CAUSE it is just an informal discussion. Been there and done that. The same with fish and game. They can check your licence if you are FISHING but they can't check your freezer or even your ice chest unless there is PROBABLE CAUSE.

With or without the EO an officer can ask about your Garand in the window. But you can't be forced to discuss it. And if you don't want to show the forest circus a permit they cant cite you unless you are on public land or roads. If they do you can go to court and make them PROVE the wood came from NF land. Even if you are on a road in NF and you don't have a permit for the wood all you need to say is it came from private land. Unless they can evidence it came from NF land they are going to have problems making it stick. I have dealt with that for years. The forest circus LEO's are not the law. They are playing a game and the judge is the referee. If you get a citation it is the JUDGE that interprets the law. The LEO's are just throwing one out there and hoping it floats.

So good luck today too Klunker! I hope you find a whopper!

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets look at Boston after the marathon bombing.......law enforcement not only kicked people out of their own homes but confiscated legal weapons at the same time. Not just one house mind you but block by block. There was no probable cause for any of that and those people had so many of their rights trampled to death. THEY will do anything they please, laws or no laws. Don't think for a minute probable cause protects anything whatsoever. Just another example of abuse of probable cause are DUI checkpoints......weather or not anyone wants to admit it or not, we are on the verge of living in a police state and if the imposter in the White House has his way there will be no question at all of us living in a police state by the end of his tenure. Also don't for one minute believe judges are impartial and interpret the law with no bias....... There are just too many politically appointed judges that owe for their positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that there are many law enforcement organizations that will walk on your rights. Many are politically oriented. Some do what they do and get by with it. Sometimes justice prevails.

The system isn't perfect. We can all think of instsnces that it did not work. But it is still the best system in the world and it is also the system we must work with and perfect. That has been a constant for 200 years.

We still have rights and they still prevail in most cases. And we must expect our laws to work even though we realize that reality is one thing and the law is another matter.

When a disaster or terrorist strike happens some people perform poorly. Some organizations performpoorly because of bad leadership decisions. That is nothing new. And neither is blatantly violating the human rights of american citizens. We have been fighting for our rights since the constitution was first signed!

I don't see any huge issue with the EO. More of the constant pecking that will inevitably come from the left. No big deal. Not much to whine about. Much to do over nothing.

The big issue is going to be the definition of the specific mental reasons they can deny sales or posession. That my friends is the new fronteir for the anti gunners.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"NO BIG DEAL" get your little brain out of the sand Mr. Bobby. It is a giant deal each and every time they do it with impunity. A beaver takes one small Chip out of a tree at a time and each chip is no big deal till the tree falls

Edited by El Dorado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to get wrapped around tha axle about it Steve. I am not asking you to share my opinion. I am just asking to share my opinion with you.

I try not to sweat the small stuff. If you want to worry about the EO I don't mind one bit. I hope you can somehow find peace with knowing I don't share that feeling.

Edited by Bedrock Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT, ME WORRY?

Armed EPA raid in Alaska sheds light on 70 fed agencies with armed divisions

The recent uproar over armed EPA agents descending on a tiny Alaska mining town is shedding light on the fact that 40 federal agencies – including nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement -- have armed divisions.

The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.

Though most Americans know agents within the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of Prisons carry guns, agencies such as the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board employing armed officers might come as a surprise.

The incident that sparked the renewed interest and concern occurred in late August when a team of armed federal and state officials descended on the tiny Alaska gold mining town of Chicken, Alaska.

The Environmental Protection Agency, whose armed agents in full body armor participated, acknowledged taking part in the Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force investigation, which it said was conducted to look for possible violations of the Clean Water Act.

However, EPA officials denied the operation was a “raid” and didn't address speculation about whether it was connected to possible human and drug trafficking.

“Imagine coming up to your diggings, only to see agents swarming over it like ants, wearing full body armor, with jackets that say "POLICE" emblazoned on them, and all packing side arms,” gold miner C.R. Hammond told the Alaska Dispatch.

The other federal agencies participating in the operation were the FBI, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and the Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Park Service.

The FBI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Park Service are among 24 federal agencies employing more than 250 full-time armed officers with arrest authority, according the federal report, which is based on the 2008 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers.

The other 16 agencies have less than 250 officers and include NOAA as well as the Library of Congress, the Federal Reserve Board and the National Institutes of Health.

The number of federal department with armed personnel climbs to 73 when adding in the 33 offices of inspector general, the government watchdogs for agencies as large as the Postal Service to the Government Printing Office, whose IG has only five full-time officers.

The EPA defended its use of armed officers, after the Alaska incident.

"Environmental law enforcement, like other forms of law enforcement, always involves the potential for physical, even armed, confrontation," the agency said.

But Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell has already ordered an investigation, saying "This level of intrusion and intimidation of Alaskans is absolutely unacceptable."

In addition, Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Republican, and Mark Begich, Democrat, have inquired about the incident.

Murkowski said purported concerns about rampant drug and human trafficking in the area sounded “wholly concocted” to her.

“This seems to have been a heavy-handed and heavy-armor approach. Why was it so confrontational? The EPA really didn’t have any good answers for this,” she told the newspaper.

This is not the first time armed EPA guards have been accused of intimidating behavior.

In May 2012, North Carolina resident Larry Keller was visited by armed EPA agents after sending an email to Al Armendariz, the regional administrator who was video-taped saying his enforcement strategy was to "crucify" executives from big oil and gas companies.

"The charter of the EPA is to protect the environment and public, not to act as a quasi federal police department," Keller said after the brief but tense exchange with agents about whether the missive might seem suspicious.

The Department of Homeland Security employs nearly half of all federal officers, through Customs and Border Protection and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the most recent statistics show. The statistics also show the number of CBP officers increased by 33 percent from 2004 to 2008. The number for ICE was 20 percent over the same period.

Meanwhile, the four largest Interior Department agencies employed fewer officers during that time, including the Park Police, which employed 547 officers in 2008, 11 percent less than four years earlier, according to the 2012 report.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/14/armed-epa-agents-in-alaska-shed-light-on-70-fed-agencies-with-armed-divisions/#ixzz2eufT9h90

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...