Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10th Circuit court rules on Open carry.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
    No, you have a right to avoid incriminating statements about whatever charge the warrant is for, but not the right to resist the process of the courts (ie the warrant itself).

    In other words somebody accusses me of robbing them. A detective puts together a case establishes probable cause for my arrest and presents that to a judge who signs a warrant for my arrest. When arrested I am required to properly identify myself for the court. If the detective wants to talk to me about the robbery I can tell him to pound sand.


    Does that make sense?


    How would this apply?:

    "Henes v. Morrisey, 194 Wis. 2d 338; 533 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. S. Ct. 1995). The court held that refusal to speak, including the refusal to give identity, is not obstruction, that obstruction would have to include some action, such as giving false information..."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post

      If the original authors of the 2nd Amendment were alive today, my opinion, they would be in total agreement with more restrictive measures. People were not killing each other along with officers of the state (police) left and right with firearms in their time.


      im surprised that this is your opinion. you are sorely mistaken. if thomas jeffferson,james madison,ben franklin beside john adam and others were alive today, they would ve fight you and your today "laws" tooth and nails. hell, the most craziest and common people president andrew jackson could call you on it and accuse you of treason and would ve try to string you up on white house front lawn. in many states with registration of guns just really will blatanely offended the orignial authors. they would probably tell us to build more schools instead of prisons. even they would oppose fiercely regarding felon gun possession laws. also , it's alot more dangerous living back then in 18th century than today. it aint like you can call the cops on cellphone and they will show up in minutes . dont forget the indians can just swoop on your cabin and burn your butt out and scalped ya hardhead. back then you, only you have to defend yourself. even alot of people back then got away with murder much easier than nowaday. oh please dont tell me. i have long line and history in my homeland called america. it's in my gene.yes, i am worried now for my future grandchildrens. as for you,sgt scott31,speaking of history, let's say you were alive and 16 years old living in germany at the time of hitler reign, ya probably join the nazi youth brownshirt. im sorry that is my perspective of you. im just a straight up person through and through. hell, even i am embarrassed for saying that. but that's it.
      Last edited by pfchell; 09-20-2009, 04:18 PM.
      break censorship chains

      Comment


      • Henes is a mere bump in the road....don't want to give a name or provide ID for a summonsable offense? No problem, keep your mouth shut, put your hands behind your back and await the application of the steel bracelets.

        Comment


        • agree with you. i would proudly state my name and nothing more and you decide. and the court will decide,basically.
          break censorship chains

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pfchell View Post
            im surprised that this is your opinion. you are sorely mistaken. if thomas jeffferson,james madison,ben franklin beside john adam and others were alive today, they would ve fight you and your today "laws" tooth and nails. hell, the most craziest and common people president andrew jackson could call you on it and accuse you of treason and would ve try to string you up on white house front lawn. in many states with registration of guns just really will blatanely offended the orignial authors. they would probably tell us to build more schools instead of prisons. even they would oppose fiercely regarding felon gun possession laws. also , it's alot more dangerous living back then in 18th century than today. it aint like you can call the cops on cellphone and they will show up in minutes . dont forget the indians can just swoop on your cabin and burn your butt out and scalped ya hardhead. back then you, only you have to defend yourself. even alot of people back then got away with murder much easier than nowaday. oh please dont tell me. i have long line and history in my homeland called america. it's in my gene.yes, i am worried now for my future grandchildrens. as for you,sgt scott31,speaking of history, let's say you were alive and 16 years old living in germany at the time of hitler reign, ya probably join the nazi youth brownshirt. im sorry that is my perspective of you. im just a straight up person through and through. hell, even i am embarrassed for saying that. but that's it.
            I actually got a chuckle out of this, thanks. I'm glad you knew the founders so well that you are so sure about your opinion of how they would react in today's society and the decisions made by those who make and enforce the laws. It's apparent to me that you live in a box and think that firearm regulation should be so black and white. It's quite amusing that you try to compare guns in today's society to Indians attacking your home. The Indians may have killed and scalped a few folks, but let's not forget, it was their land before ours. We were the immigrants back then and it was our armies that slaughtered them by the thousands. You say you are an American, but it seems to me you don't have a clue about American history.

            Anyone that believes felons should be able to carry firearms suffers from a severe lack of reality. It is the US Supreme Court justices who sit in the highest court of the land who just happen to decide how the 2nd Amendment (among many others) should be interpreted from month to month. It is hundreds of other judges and justices on the local and federal level that also find no problem with gun regulation for the safety of the greater good. It's funny you seem to think that your opinion should trump theirs and anyone/everyone should be able to tote a gun around. In case you didn't notice, you have to be pretty dam* smart to become an attorney and eventually earn a spot on the bench. I guess they are all just nimrods huh? Now politics obviously comes into play when becoming a judge, but that doesn't discredit the type of education they still have to go through to get to that point. I know, I've taken the LSAT before.

            p.s. As far as Hitler and Nazi Germany, I would assume your only choice as a 16 year old German during that era was to join the cause or end up in the camps with the Jews.

            p.s.s. Don't be sorry for your attempted insults. I deal with people with your attitude every day, and by the way, the gun laws are not going anywhere.
            I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PavePusher View Post
              How would this apply?:

              "Henes v. Morrisey, 194 Wis. 2d 338; 533 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. S. Ct. 1995). The court held that refusal to speak, including the refusal to give identity, is not obstruction, that obstruction would have to include some action, such as giving false information..."
              This case wouldn't apply in most states, because it's a judicial decision that is only applicable to Wisconsin. The way Wisconsin law was written, it does not make it obstruction for one to refuse to give a name to a law enforcement officer. If the legislators in Wisconsin decided to change the law to make it illegal to refuse to give a name, it would be upheld if challenged, because the US Supreme Court case of Hiibel has already said a state law requiring identification under Terry is not a violation of one's 4th (or 5th) Amendment rights. All WI has to do is change the context of the law to reflect such. Whether they do or not is up to them. I could care less.
              ouch in that case looks like the officers were in the wrong after all....
              Actually SCOTUS says it's ok for states to make it illegal (as in obstructing) for failure to give demographic info to a LEO conducting a Terry stop, so in a large majority of the other states, we're right.
              I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
                This case wouldn't apply in most states, because it's a judicial decision that is only applicable to Wisconsin. The way Wisconsin law was written, it does not make it obstruction for one to refuse to give a name to a law enforcement officer. If the legislators in Wisconsin decided to change the law to make it illegal to refuse to give a name, it would be upheld if challenged, because the US Supreme Court case of Hiibel has already said a state law requiring identification under Terry is not a violation of one's 4th (or 5th) Amendment rights. All WI has to do is change the context of the law to reflect such. Whether they do or not is up to them. I could care less.


                Actually SCOTUS says it's ok for states to make it illegal (as in obstructing) for failure to give demographic info to a LEO conducting a Terry stop, so in a large majority of the other states, we're right.

                Just to make sure I understand, it's a legislatural issue, not a Constitutional one.

                I haven't been able to finish reading it yet, been a long, busy week. Thanks for your time.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PavePusher View Post
                  Just to make sure I understand, it's a legislatural issue, not a Constitutional one.

                  I haven't been able to finish reading it yet, been a long, busy week. Thanks for your time.
                  You are correct.
                  In Memory of A Fallen Hero

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PavePusher View Post
                    Just to make sure I understand, it's a legislatural issue, not a Constitutional one.

                    I haven't been able to finish reading it yet, been a long, busy week. Thanks for your time.
                    Depends on the basis of the Wisconsin decision. If it is based on the non-existence of a statute in point, then this is a legislative issue. If it is based on the state constitution, then the only way to change it is if the Wisconsin constitution is amended. If it is based on Eisconisn's interpretation of federal constitutional law, then it was overruled by Hiibel.
                    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • and no need to be an attorney on the supreme court fwiw
                      You are correct, but I doubt one can make it there without being an attorney.

                      Just to make sure I understand, it's a legislatural issue, not a Constitutional one.
                      Yes, a legislative issue. They could easily amend the law to make it a violation to refuse to give name and other pertinent info during an investigation. SCOTUS (via Hiibel) has said such a law is not "unconstitutional."

                      do you remember what federal district court the judge said there was no historical basis to disarm felons???
                      Actually no, but my post was not to imply that all judges have the same viewpoint on firearm laws, but I believe a majority of them agree with restrictive meaures, hence why most LEOs have leeway on dealing with those who carry (with or without permits).
                      I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
                        I actually got a chuckle out of this, thanks. I'm glad you knew the founders so well that you are so sure about your opinion of how they would react in today's society and the decisions made by those who make and enforce the laws. It's apparent to me that you live in a box and think that firearm regulation should be so black and white. It's quite amusing that you try to compare guns in today's society to Indians attacking your home. The Indians may have killed and scalped a few folks, but let's not forget, it was their land before ours. We were the immigrants back then and it was our armies that slaughtered them by the thousands. You say you are an American, but it seems to me you don't have a clue about American history.

                        Anyone that believes felons should be able to carry firearms suffers from a severe lack of reality. It is the US Supreme Court justices who sit in the highest court of the land who just happen to decide how the 2nd Amendment (among many others) should be interpreted from month to month. It is hundreds of other judges and justices on the local and federal level that also find no problem with gun regulation for the safety of the greater good. It's funny you seem to think that your opinion should trump theirs and anyone/everyone should be able to tote a gun around. In case you didn't notice, you have to be pretty dam* smart to become an attorney and eventually earn a spot on the bench. I guess they are all just nimrods huh? Now politics obviously comes into play when becoming a judge, but that doesn't discredit the type of education they still have to go through to get to that point. I know, I've taken the LSAT before.

                        p.s. As far as Hitler and Nazi Germany, I would assume your only choice as a 16 year old German during that era was to join the cause or end up in the camps with the Jews.

                        p.s.s. Don't be sorry for your attempted insults. I deal with people with your attitude every day, and by the way, the gun laws are not going anywhere.
                        regarding the original authors...( i threw in a trick emphatisic concerning authors) acutally thomas jefferson and ben franklin didnt wrote or even involved legislating the bill of rights. james madison and john adams did.james madison was the main author of this bill.. of course under the guidiance from mr jefferson.jefferson was in france at the time of the bill of rights passage.
                        comparing "indians attacking your home" to today is still a reality nowaday. you should know better as a cop. gorey home invasion do exist today.
                        fyi, i have a gene strain of american indian in me and im also a part jewish. please be respectful as i would to you, dont look down your nose upon good people who want to hold thier rights and freedom close to chest.. i ve also deal with tons of people's attitudes myself. all are good and bad. okay?
                        oh btw, sir..i think this one will please you and other..check this site out..

                        http://www.americaremembers.com/prod...ATP/FF2ATP.asp
                        Last edited by pfchell; 09-27-2009, 06:23 AM.
                        break censorship chains

                        Comment


                        • please be respectful as i would to you, dont look down your nose upon good people who want to hold thier rights and freedom close to chest
                          I don't look down on anyone that fights for their rights and opinions. I only ask that before you begin to make accusations and question LEOs actions when they are simply trying not to get killed, you do some research on the matter.

                          comparing "indians attacking your home" to today is still a reality nowaday. you should know better as a cop. gorey home invasion do exist today.
                          No officer here (or any public forum for that matter) believes that people do not have a right to protect themselves, their families, and their homes.
                          I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
                            I don't look down on anyone that fights for their rights and opinions. I only ask that before you begin to make accusations and question LEOs actions when they are simply trying not to get killed, you do some research on the matter.



                            No officer here (or any public forum for that matter) believes that people do not have a right to protect themselves, their families, and their homes.
                            thanks for understanding. i re-edited the url's link.. hope you checked it out. sorry for the mistake. also i will do a better research next time and read other's post carefully.
                            break censorship chains

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
                              I actually got a chuckle out of this, thanks. I'm glad you knew the founders so well that you are so sure about your opinion of how they would react in today's society and the decisions made by those who make and enforce the laws. It's apparent to me that you live in a box and think that firearm regulation should be so black and white. It's quite amusing that you try to compare guns in today's society to Indians attacking your home. The Indians may have killed and scalped a few folks, but let's not forget, it was their land before ours. We were the immigrants back then and it was our armies that slaughtered them by the thousands. You say you are an American, but it seems to me you don't have a clue about American history.

                              Anyone that believes felons should be able to carry firearms suffers from a severe lack of reality. It is the US Supreme Court justices who sit in the highest court of the land who just happen to decide how the 2nd Amendment (among many others) should be interpreted from month to month. It is hundreds of other judges and justices on the local and federal level that also find no problem with gun regulation for the safety of the greater good. It's funny you seem to think that your opinion should trump theirs and anyone/everyone should be able to tote a gun around. In case you didn't notice, you have to be pretty dam* smart to become an attorney and eventually earn a spot on the bench. I guess they are all just nimrods huh? Now politics obviously comes into play when becoming a judge, but that doesn't discredit the type of education they still have to go through to get to that point. I know, I've taken the LSAT before.

                              p.s. As far as Hitler and Nazi Germany, I would assume your only choice as a 16 year old German during that era was to join the cause or end up in the camps with the Jews.

                              p.s.s. Don't be sorry for your attempted insults. I deal with people with your attitude every day, and by the way, the gun laws are not going anywhere.
                              So you go with the living Constitution concept?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by dadyswat View Post
                                So you go with the living Constitution concept?
                                I go with the idea that the Constitution is continually intepreted to the best of our nation's ability as our society evolves for the greater good of everyone involved. I like to think that we have some pretty smart people in the right positions to make that possible. It's obvious that the larger majority of the US does not feel comfortable with people toting guns to their kids soccer games or to establishments that serve alcohol. To call these folks "sheep," like they're a bunch of scared drones is ridiculous; and it gets under my skin whenever the big gun advocates imply such. I guess a "living" Constitution is one way to look at it. I don't think that "the right to bear arms" means that anyone should be able to carry a gun at anytime, any way they want. SCOTUS agrees, hence the restrictions federally and the fact that they also allow states to place their own restrictions on firearm possession/carry. Obviously the states shouldn't go overboard, as DC attempted to do (which was shot down), but overall state restrictions are very similar with a few exceptions. Those states that prohibit concealed carry but allow open carry should have their heads examined, but that's my opinion.
                                I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4326 users online. 247 members and 4079 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X