Hunting Forum

There are those on here who say the Liberals and Dems will never ban guns, it would be political sucide. But it sure does seem like they are tring. Deicemans post even violates the 4 th Amenment.
Missouri Dems take a stab at it, it may not pass but it does not stop them in anyway they can try. The more they try, the more I see many who are said many are over reacting are not. It is apearent if no one said nothing the anti guners would have all guns banned.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...lt-Weapons

To the article that D/m posted, I must say I don't believe this can be implemented without the feds persueing yet another constitutional violation. I bring up the "Castle Law" (Which is presently in effect her in Wisconsin) Simply put, "A man's home is his castle" and he has that right to protect it. In order for the feds to come in and look for guns (Or anything else) they first have to have some records that I actually own guns. Which is presently being disputed in the "National registry" controversy. OR The have to either be voluntarily INVITED in, BY ME (The owner) to come in. OR they have to show "Probable cause". To "say" that it has been reported that I have guns inside is just that "Hearsay" and not probable cause. I still have the constitutional right that allows me to do so. They would have to provide "Proof" that I have something to give them their "Probable Cause". If I have done nothing proven to be illegal, and do not voluntarilly invite them in, they plainly can't come in.

Posted By Shootin'J on 18 Feb 2013 05:14 PM
To the article that D/m posted, I must say I don't believe this can be implemented without the feds persueing yet another constitutional violation. I bring up the "Castle Law" (Which is presently in effect her in Wisconsin) Simply put, "A man's home is his castle" and he has that right to protect it. In order for the feds to come in and look for guns (Or anything else) they first have to have some records that I actually own guns. Which is presently being disputed in the "National registry" controversy. OR The have to either be voluntarily INVITED in, BY ME (The owner) to come in. OR they have to show "Probable cause". To "say" that it has been reported that I have guns inside is just that "Hearsay" and not probable cause. I still have the constitutional right that allows me to do so. They would have to provide "Proof" that I have something to give them their "Probable Cause". If I have done nothing proven to be illegal, and do not voluntarilly invite them in, they plainly can't come in.

Apparently you haven't heard of the Patriot Act and NDAA... the Constitution is voided!

Something tells me your about to get a bit pizzed off after doing your homework!

We've been set up by both parties!

Posted By swnoel on 18 Feb 2013 06:47 PM

Posted By Shootin'J on 18 Feb 2013 05:14 PM
To the article that D/m posted, I must say I don't believe this can be implemented without the feds persueing yet another constitutional violation. I bring up the "Castle Law" (Which is presently in effect her in Wisconsin) Simply put, "A man's home is his castle" and he has that right to protect it. In order for the feds to come in and look for guns (Or anything else) they first have to have some records that I actually own guns. Which is presently being disputed in the "National registry" controversy. OR The have to either be voluntarily INVITED in, BY ME (The owner) to come in. OR they have to show "Probable cause". To "say" that it has been reported that I have guns inside is just that "Hearsay" and not probable cause. I still have the constitutional right that allows me to do so. They would have to provide "Proof" that I have something to give them their "Probable Cause". If I have done nothing proven to be illegal, and do not voluntarilly invite them in, they plainly can't come in.

Apparently you haven't heard of the Patriot Act and NDAA... the Constitution is voided!

Something tells me your about to get a bit pizzed off after doing your homework!

We've been set up by both parties!

SW, you forgot to mention that Obama was opposed to the more controversial parts of the NDAA when Bush implemented them, yet chose to reinstate them himself  

LD... what does that tell ya?

Doesn't matter if you have a D or R after your name... they're all the same!

YUP, DIMWITS AND RETARDS

snoel; I may have missed something in your reply, but I did my homework on the NDAA and the patriot act before I posted. In the event of proof of terrorist ties/implications/activities, yes, both of these would come into effect. But what do I care. I'm not one of them, so the feds got nuthin on me to do these "home inspections". What I was referring to is the common simple joe (Legal citizen at that) that adheres to the rules and regs we already have had in place for years. That's all.

Shootin'J that is why we have many of the problems we have and are going to have. "You say "But what do I care. I'm not one of them, so the feds got nuthin on me to do these "home inspections". What I was referring to is the common simple joe (Legal citizen at that) that adheres to the rules and regs we already have had in place for years. That's all".
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, for it toll for the. Maybe they don't have anything on you now, but give them time they might. The 4th Amendment applies to all, or none you make the choice. Then live with it later when somone decides because they do not like what or how you do things and is wrong and you have no rights.

Posted By Shootin'J on 19 Feb 2013 05:08 PM
snoel; I may have missed something in your reply, but I did my homework on the NDAA and the patriot act before I posted. In the event of proof of terrorist ties/implications/activities, yes, both of these would come into effect. But what do I care. I'm not one of them, so the feds got nuthin on me to do these "home inspections". What I was referring to is the common simple joe (Legal citizen at that) that adheres to the rules and regs we already have had in place for years. That's all.

They don't need proof of anything!!

I'll let this go. It's getting too deep and too hard to explain in text. I understand your angles, but I'm sure we can all agree that each individuals outlook on things is just that. Their "Individual outlook" . We all DO still have our constitutional rights (At this point) And all I was trying to get across is that I am adhering to the rules and regs of responsible ownership, there is no legal justification for any agency to challenge thos rights on me AS AN INDIVIDUAL. It's not a matter of "Giving them time" it's a matter of giving them a "Reason". And that's what they nedd to make all this mumbo jumbo Justified by any of the angles that we all made mention of.

"In the event of proof of terrorist ties/implications/activities, yes, both of these would come into effect".

J, the key word in your above statement is "implications". Don't be pizzing off the neighbors/co-workers/in-laws/your ex... Or implications can be made, then all bets are off.

J, are you saying we should all just shut up? If we do not complain they will ignore us because we follow the rules. They are tring to change the rules, we do not need guns so we must give them up. To prove we have none no matter the reason they will find one to go into your home and search for them. You do not have a problem with that? If no one said anything about what they are tring to right now, how far do you think they will go? Are saying you will give up your guns and allow them to come into your home and search just to make sure you are not holding out on them?

One last thing. We are all in control of our own destiny. What we do in life, and how we apply it is what decides that destiny. All being said and done is the result as to wether we "Rest IN Peace", or face eternal damnation. I am only doing and trying to express what I believe in to do, to RIP, and take into account what my rights under any law or government allow me at the present time to do so. I have probably complicated this topic much more by furthering my opinions, but all others, that is just what is. My opinion. Right or wrong, justified or not, in the eyes of others it is still just my opinion or outlook on the course of life and actions that I take. Thanks for your input guys.

Yup, doesn't make it right or even Constitutional, but under the provisions in the Patriot Act and NDAA, they can do pretty much anything to us. No trial, no nothin'.

You guys are beating me up here. (No offense taken here.) I say no, don't shut up. I mentioned in different posts that I will not give up my guns, AND I also mentioned that I will not give them a reason to come and look for them. To say they will FIND a reason is just an unjustified geuss. And to COMPLAIN is just another unsupported outburst that would not go anywhere near as far as rationa,l educated addressing of the issue at hand. And I indirectly and politely tried to make that point in earlier posts, but have obviousely failed. My apologies on that. (I guess I won't see that pulitzer prize again this year.) How about this; We all know that meth fab is illegal. And we don't make it. Yet we may have some of the common ingredients in our homes (Without even knowing it. I have no clue as to what is needed, and have no interest in finding out!!!) With our present (Constitutional) rights and NDAA, and Patriot Act, you guys are still telling me that they can come in and look around. Even if, as I addressed, I have given them no probale cause. Or not invited them. I cannot fully purseve that, nor see any legal justification in such action. I refer back to my posts about THE CASTLE LAW. And probable cause vs "Voluntary invite by the home owner". As I said, I give them no reason for "Inspection", yet they knock on my door asking for such. If I refuse, (Which I understand can be reasonable cause) and they break the door down, that is "Forced entry" which protects my rights under the Castle Law to protect my home by whatever means neccesary. Speculation of situations can go out to other galaxies and I don't think we need to go there. I would like to know these "REASONS THAT THEY WILL FIND" could amount to. As one put it. And as I posted, the individual has to put out a big red flag that justifies your statement. I also posted (I'm not sure about what forum it was.) mention of us responsible owners getting the word out to the general citizens to educate themselves in the whole matter. (Read my post of a letter I sent to my local congressman in the Wisconsin forum under the topis "letter to Sensenbrenner) We've addressed this topic, and I have further "Educated" myself simply by the responses that you members post in response. That is the bottom line, and that is what will help better us as a group and help sort out the "complaints" from the rational persuance of getting our common point across to each other and most importantly, congress. Am I really making any sense tou you now?

SJ... I understand... your trying to use rational intelligence , but they don't , they will use baseless emotional tirades blaming all gun owners for the actions of a few. Banning their list of firearms is merely a way to get their foot into the door for total confiscation. You can probably guess I don't trust any of them! History has proven that those that don't stand up for their rights usually pay with their lives.
Once you lose your freedoms you never get them back!
The only thing we have to stand in their way is our Constitution... something they most desire to dissolve.

He made his desire clear ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMbxICNEDao


 

Don't let the smoke screens get in your way to reason. This lady has it right!!


http://www.newswithviews.com/Bradle...ean106.htm

SJ I misunderstood you, at first, sorry. But with all the anti-gun legislation be proposed, and proposed gun bans. Now proposeing home inspections for guns and gun safty or to make sure your guns are stored safly. They now have due to the war on drug have a no knock warrant. Drug dealers and such do have guns and when they see the police will many time flush the drugs before the Police can gain entery. So they came up with the no knock for safty reasons and preserve the evidents. They come at night, they yell police and bust down your door, and enter with over welming force, ready to shoot anyone one they deem poses a treat.
Now they get the information to get a warrant from people who have been in your house, or family. All they need is for someone to say they saw what ever they maybe looking for in your house. They have their Probable cause. Just as in drug bust you are deemed a treat, they will not ask you if they can come in, they just will with force. They do it with drugs, and everyone believes it is ok, it would not be a far strech for them to do it with guns. They already have A foot in the door on the 4 Amendment due to the drug wars, why give them another inch?

The same principle that can be used to prohibit firearms ownership under the proposed Universal Background Checks, can be used to give grounds for a warrantless search and seizure. If you've ever had a dispute with a neighbor, coworker, or store clerk, they can make any statement, whether it's truthful or not that can be used by the cops as an excuse to deny a firearm purchase, cwp, or break into your home, search and confiscate your guns.