Never mind!
Your posts will end up being cited along with his, while those opposing his reckless behavior will be ignored.
That's how the game played by the Anti's.
I've seen it, and fought it, since the GCA 68 crap was passed.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Carried illegally last night.
- Thread starter Awful Waffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ingo stories
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Your posts will end up being cited along with his, while those opposing his reckless behavior will be ignored.
That's how the game played by the Anti's.
I've seen it, and fought it, since the GCA 68 crap was passed.
I haven't read this thread entirely from beginning to end so I can't say that there is no one judging him for his decision. I'm not judging him; I'm expressing an opinion. It's not his decision (to carry illegally into Ohio) that I'm addressing. It's his action of posting it on an internet site that might get the attention of others looking for fuel to add to the fire that's trying to eradicate our 2A rights.
This is a forum; a place where people can, among other things, express their opinions about specific topics. We don't all have to agree with each other's opinions but we should respect the rights of each individual to express their's. I don't agree with yours, but that doesn't mean it should be repressed.
Hmmm...........
Maybe to stir up
??Naahhhhh.........
Why would a brand new member want to get a big stinky controversy going on a Firearms site?
(I wonder if DU is missing an [STRIKE]inmate[/STRIKE] member??)
indytechnerd
Master
Posts like his have been, and will be, cited in Court, and before various Legislative body's, as examples of the "lawless" mentality of gun owners.
NEVER forget that people are watching this, and every other site with the words GUN, Shooter, Firearms, or any other reference to shooting sports, in it's URL, with the avowed purpose of gathering "evidence" that we cannot be trusted to obey the laws.
Posts like the OP's are exactly what those people are looking for and he conveniently gave them more ammunition to use against us.
After reading his additional responses I'm beginning to believe that doing exactly that was his goal from the beginning.
For this reason, I propose that Fenway pick up a new domain name...
http://www.indianabaconlovers.com/
gunman41mag
Shooter
Just maybe the OP just wanted to talk about guns & since he had gone to cincy, he decided to take his gun with him, not what I've would have done, but if he would have been caught he & N O T the INGO members would have paid the price, so why should the members of this site be crapping on him
Last edited:
This is true. Which is why I say in the end the outcome will be the same.
The fact is that it will always be just one man "carrying illegally" (as defined by the illegal law).
There will not be "masses" of people to defend our rights, in particular the rights guaranteed by our 2nd Amendment, which has already been whittled down to a nub.
Does anyone really believe otherwise? What possibly could make someone believe that one day, after the final law is passed which makes carrying a firearm such a problem that no one does so any more (other than "Illegally") that the "masses" are going to rise up and fight, finally, after all that time?
Not going to happen.
As far as being sheep because you obey the "law" no matter how illegal that "law" may be. Sheep bleating because their fenced in enclosure is getting smaller and smaller doesn't really concern the sheep herder does it? Even if it's all the sheep bleating, if that is all they are doing. It does nothing but make noise. "Talk is cheap" after all.
Hey, don't feel bad. I'm a "sheep" too. I obey laws that I don't believe are "legal" and violate the rights that our Constitution is supposed to protect. The only difference is I'm honest about it.
Last edited:
Posts like his have been, and will be, cited in Court, and before various Legislative body's, as examples of the "lawless" mentality of gun owners.
NEVER forget that people are watching this, and every other site with the words GUN, Shooter, Firearms, or any other reference to shooting sports, in it's URL, with the avowed purpose of gathering "evidence" that we cannot be trusted to obey the laws.
Posts like the OP's are exactly what those people are looking for and he conveniently gave them more ammunition to use against us.
After reading his additional responses I'm beginning to believe that doing exactly that was his goal from the beginning.
Can't agree with you on this one UM.
The fact is the law is "illegal" in that in violates the 2nd Amendment and I truly hope you are not one that is of the belief that the 2nd Amendment only applies to state controlled militias. There are numerous written statements by Jefferson and Madison which state this is not the case. Some of those statements were used by the Supreme Court in overturning DC's ban on handguns.
To pass an unlawful law, and then use the fact that people then refuse to obey this illegal law, as an example of how "lawless" they are is simply ridiculous.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
Who has decided it's illegal? You? Do you wear a black robe and hang out at a bar with 8 of your buddies? If not than your personal opinion is that - personal.
There's a process. It's slow moving. Slower than a slug. That process must be followed else we are a nation of men, not of laws. Moreso than any other ideal, this is the legacy of our founders, especially Jefferson and Madison.
Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying I like the law or think it's right. I don't live in Ohio. I don't have a say in how they do things. If I want to carry over there there are avenues that I can a permit. Breaking the law is not how I would go about it though.
The OP is getting smacked because he's openly bragging about breaking the law, which turns you from a law abiding citizen into a criminal. If he gets caught and arrested he'll be convicted, and for what? So that he can lose his ability to own and carry a gun in Indiana too? Not smart in my book, but that's just my personal opinion.
You are kidding right? Does it really take a black robe and 8 buddies to say if a law is legal or illegal?
If they instituted a law tomorrow saying that slavery was legal would you seriously be saying that it would take a judge and 8 of his buddies to decide that? How is that any different? Is it only different because it would offend more people's sensibilities? It's a lot more "PC" to be against slavery then it would be to be for another one of one of our "god given rights"?
Do you need a judge to tell you that someone stealing from you is illegal? Someone who is trying to kill you? Someone trying to enslave you? Do you need a judge to tell you any of these things? How are these any different? Someone is trying to deprive you of a god given right. The right to be secure in your persons, places, and things. Why does a judge need to tell you a law which deprives you of another god given right (the right to keep and bear arms) is illegal?
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear cut:
Note that Madison also commented on the right to keep and bear arms and his statements where not contrary to Jefferson's (I posted a few from Madison in a previous post - also Madison, although the author, was worried that such an inclusion in the Constitution would be a "parchment barrier".) but since it was Jefferson who approached Madison about a need for a BoRs:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria,
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
Something a bit funny.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "There has just been opposition enough" to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential "energy." George Washington agreed: "They have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression."
Seems like old George may have been wrong.
Last edited:
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
Yeah, it really takes a robe and 8 buddies to decide whether a law is legal or not. That's the system we have. It was set up by the very same guys you quote. If you're pissed about it be pissed at them.
There is a difference between lawful and moral. Immoral laws can cost you your freedom just as quickly as moral ones.
Whether a law is just or unjust, moral or immoral, or right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it is enforcible or not. This law is enforcible. Bad things will happen if you break it. If you don't like it your options are pretty limited unless you move to Ohio.
I don't like it. Hell, I make suppressors. The government should want everyone that owns a gun to have one. Instead they are regulated and restricted in a way that makes few want one. Again, I'm not arguing the correctness of the law. But until it's ruled unConstitutional it is Constitutional. Sabe?
I added a bit to my last while you were replying.
I think that at the core we are not in disagreement.
However I do not agree with the philosophy that it takes a judge to tell me if a law is lawful, as if by his mere "opinion" he could tell me it was "legal" for me to be a slave and that would make it so.
Did you know that Jefferson was against the court having to much power to decide if a law was "constitutional":
In a letter to Spencer Roane (1762–1822), a judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals, Thomas Jefferson cautions that the Supreme Court’s power to determine constitutionality must be curbed or it will continue to consolidate the power of the federal government. Jefferson argued that the judiciary’s independence from the will of the people upsets the checks and balances established by the Constitution.
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819. Manuscript. Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (116.00.01)
I have to assume that you meant to say "he and not the INGO members would have paid the price" but what you actually said was the truth. He and the INGO members, and all other responsible gun owners, would have paid some price: having just one more little bit of hard-earned credibility whittled away.
People need to think of the consequence to themselves and others before they open their mouthes in public.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
It's not a philosophy, it's a fact. It's an intrinsic function of our system reserved to the Courts. Every day judges determine the constitutionality of laws.
No, at the core we are 100% in agreement. I'm simply countering your position that the law is illegal with a philosophic proposition that a law cannot be illegal. It can only be the law. If it is determined to be unenforcable for some reason it is no longer the law.
The area of our disagreement seems to be that we both have two different definitions of what a law is (and/or should be) and what makes it "legal".
My stance is that a law is not automatically "legal" just because the legislation says it is a "law" Nor that a judge is the sole decider of a "law's" Constitutionality. Now, I will say my opinion would be different on the matter of Judges if they were truly incorruptible however that is not the case.
Just because I have the power to enforce a decision that I made, regardless of it's legality, does not make it lawful. It is the "might makes right" argument.
Say the legislation passes a "law" tomorrow saying gun ownership is only legal if you are a member of the National Guard or Army (and have permission from your commanding officer) or have a special permit only for "hunting purposes".
It is contested through the courts and the U.S. Supreme Court decides that they are going to apply a "modern interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment (very similar wording to the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling on the 4th Amendment) and agree with the new law.
Now, a judge and his panel of buddies has just ruled. Is that ruling "Constitutional"?
Keep in mind that our Constitution was specifically meant to "chain" the government and protect our "god given rights". Would not any act which further "unchains" the government and "chains" the people be "unConstitutional" and against the very spirit as well as wording of our founding documents? Several founding fathers made this very statement regarding the purpose of the Constitution.
Let's go a bit further. What if the government (and I use federal level so I don't have to go through the whole steps of contesting a law from the state to the federal level), makes a law tomorrow saying that it is against the law to contest any laws that are made?
The very act of trying to appeal it to the Supreme Court would be against the law. What if the Supreme Court rules that this is fine under "interstate trade" (not so far fetched - they ruled that federal marijuana laws were enforceable under this, which I think is ridiculous, I would think it would have been more credible if they used some other reason).
Would this be "Constitutional"? I would say clearly no, but if something as clear as the wording of the 2nd Amendment can be invalidated, then how is this any different?
This is why I included Jefferson's opinion on needing to curb the power of the Supreme Court in deciding that very thing. The fact that the judges are immune from the will of the people allows the federal government to use that to consolidate it's own power (this principle would also apply to State Supreme Court's as well).
Surely you see how we have no longer have a real "checks and balances" system which was what the founding fathers were trying to create.
Again, Jefferson even states this "judiciary’s independence from the will of the people upsets the checks and balances established by the Constitution."
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
You sir write some good ****...you too SempirFi. One of the best conversations I have read on INGO to date. You guys rock
littletommy
Grandmaster
I was just thinking the same thing. Very well done, respectful, and educational. This is what INGO should always strive to be.You sir write some good ****...you too SempirFi. One of the best conversations I have read on INGO to date. You guys rock
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
The difference between our pespectives are that I approach the issue from a realistic (what is real and true on the ground) standpoint and you from a more emotional (what I want the perfect world to be) perspective. I don't mean this disrespectfully at all. In fact I agree with the world as you describe, where there is limited government bound and based upon constitutional restrictions. That is however sadly not the world we live in today.
The fact remains. There is a law. Any law. Until a judge rules the law conflicts with a superior law (including the Constitution), it is the law. Whether right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral, it is what it is. You can't choose to disregard laws for any reason without an expectation you put your personal liberty at peril.
There are certainly laws that are immoral. Segregation laws of the Deep South are examples. Blacks rightfully opposed those laws, and their disobedience (coupled with well-executed boycotts) led to changes in the laws. Many were jailed for breaking the law. They were willing to sacrifice to effect change. Their aid came not from the state governments, but from the Federal government. Were they justified in breaking the law? Hell yes. Were they willing to put their liberty at risk for their cause? Yes. Were they successful? Yes. Did many pay the price for that success? Absolutely.
I don't know that philosophically illegally carrying a handgun in a state you don't reside in rises to the level of the civil diobedience displayed in the 50s and 60 by blacks seeking equality in the South. As has been mentioned, the OP did not make any attempt to initiate activity that would lead to his peaceful arrest and subsequent attack on this "unconstitutional" law. Instead, by his own account he illegally carried a weapon into a situation where he may have used it to protect himself. This was a foolhardy action, IMHO.
You sir write some good ****...you too SempirFi. One of the best conversations I have read on INGO to date. You guys rock
I second both of these posts!!I was just thinking the same thing. Very well done, respectful, and educational. This is what INGO should always strive to be.
Respectful, even if heated, discussions are always preferable to emotional rants.
- Status
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- ogtruckin
- 04FXSTS
- DoggyDaddy
- tcecil88
- indyblue
- Brad69
- opus1776
- INPatriot
- Malware
- MarineOne
- Larry!!!
- bigretic
- Cavman
- BeDome
- A. Ramon
- Mongo59
- Benjamin
- indianagenius
- cmstuard
- Longhair
- red_zr24x4
- CombatShooter
- mmpsteve
- autogun
- zeebandit
- KittySlayer
- Jvernon
- citizenkane
- NyleRN
- slims2002
- knutty
- OneBadV8
- Tradesylver
- INP8riot
- Joniki
- fireball168
- Cameramonkey
- Magyars
- fullauto 45
- pewpew2232
- Nazgul
- Maverick
- Trapper Jim
- rmw250
- wtburnette
- Zjhagens
- crookcountygo
- 66chevelle
- Mikey1911
- SheepDog4Life