Carried illegally last night.

[public servant]

....and if this is how we will be censored just return my support money and i will find another forum.

Be sure to start a "Goodbye" thread in the breakroom. Those always go over well.

 

[abrewer15]

You are kidding right? Does it really take a black robe and 8 buddies to say if a law is legal or illegal?

No it doesn't. However, IT IS ILLEGAL TO CARRY IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE. It doesn't matter if it goes against our founding fathers principles. The facts are he broke the law. I agree with you that it is wrong and goes against our forefathers wishes, but it is written in black and white that what he did was wrong. He can go to jail for what he did. The LEO will not, however, go to jail for enforcing the law..even though it undermines Jefferson's and Madison's wishes.

 

[thebishopp]

No it doesn't. However, IT IS ILLEGAL TO CARRY IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE. It doesn't matter if it goes against our founding fathers principles. The facts are he broke the law. I agree with you that it is wrong and goes against our forefathers wishes, but it is written in black and white that what he did was wrong. He can go to jail for what he did. The LEO will not, however, go to jail for enforcing the law..even though it undermines Jefferson's and Madison's wishes.

Yes, I am not disputing this. He did "break the law". My whole argument is that we have many "laws" which are, by both the spirt as well as the wording of our founding documents that are "unlawful" (as such).

Let's put it a bit differently. If a law is passed saying all dog turds are now chicken pot pies are you going to eat it? They passed a law. It's now "law". What happens if a judge rules that the new dog turd law isn't unconstitutional? Please note I am using humor (not sure if I am supposed to use a different color or not). It is similar to my question regarding new slavery laws or laws which totally invalidate any of our rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect. On a side note, there is a japanese company that has figured out how to turn human waste into a steak-like substance :-)

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -Thomas Jefferson

So, what we have is a government which has become the "legalized version" of a criminal.

 

[thebishopp]

You sir write some good ****...you too SempirFi. One of the best conversations I have read on INGO to date. You guys rock

Lol, I would hope though that it isn't "****" :-)

 

[thebishopp]

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.

Not taken disrespectfully at all. I do approach it from the idealistic standpoint, which imo is essentially how Jefferson and several of our founding fathers took it as well.

Despite that, I've said this in several of my posts, at least I think I did lol (which may have been lost in my zealous support of the more idealistic thought process), my true belief is that the system of government and law has become so far removed from what our founding fathers originally intended that it is merely a matter of time before the rights we so hold dear will be no more.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.-Thomas Jefferson

I believe this is the true realistic on boots on the ground fact of our situation.

There is no stopping it. We can merely slow it's advance. The irony being that the slower it's advance, the more sure it's success. The reason we have gotten to this point is that our rights have been eroded away slowly.

We didn't just wake up one day and all of a sudden "poof" all these restrictions. We would probably (at least I hope) would react a lot more aggressively had things changed overnight, but it has taken years for us to get to this point.

Nope, slow and steady. In fact it is the very strategy I would use if I had the time and resources to do it.

In fact here is a pretty good article, can't remember if someone posted it on this forum or I got it from somewhere else:

Untitled Document


Even the author of the BoR, Madison, had the more practical outlook that, while supporting the Bill of Rights publicly, he did not think it would really mean anything in the long run and might actually be a "parchment barrier" He even called it "a nauseous project." in his private letters.

Other politicians of the time seemed to feel the same way, probably because they understood it was designed to thwart more important changes they sought in the new government's structure and powers (an increase).

It's one of the reason I put that little comment by George Washington who was agreeing with Jefferson regarding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights; it appears that despite how "clear" some of our founding fathers thought they were being, it was no match for a government that would simply just disregard them or their intentions.

I'm pretty sure Madison would be saying, "yup, it's turning out just like how I figured it would".

I suppose what I am saying, is that in the end it doesn't matter. If we are only going to obey the "law" regardless of it's "legality" (which I defined as it being or not being in conflict with the Constitution) then we really have no hope. We are entirely dependent on what the "judges" say and those "judges" are placed in their positions by the government. Surely people can see the losing battle in that.

It's like playing a football game with the refs being appointed by the other team (who also pays their paycheck). Some of the refs may try to make it look like a fair game so as not to **** off all of the fans, but you know who the "game winning" calls are going to be for, and in the end you know who's going to win. After it's all said and done, the "fans" will still come to watch the games.

History has already shown this to be true.


Now as far as the OP goes, granted I don't think he was taking a stand for everyone's 2nd Amendment rights. He was standing up for his own. I will not fault him for that. He was ensuring he was armed and protected. I will not fault him for that.

If he had been murdered by some thug for his wallet while in Ohio, I certainly wouldn't want to be the one who had faulted him for carrying.

If the sole issue is that he shouldn't come on a public board and say he was carrying, well I can agree that is not wise.

If it is your (not referring to anyone specifically) stance that he should either have not gone to Ohio (since he didn't have a permit/license/whatever you want to call it, it's all semantics anyway) or shouldn't tell anyone he did it, then that is the only reason for anyone to be giving the OP flak, otherwise we are saying that it would have been "OK" if he had become a victim while unarmed, tragic, but "ok" because he was obeying the law. At least his death could be used to try to get the Indiana license/permit/whatever recognized in Ohio.

 

[thebishopp]

I second both of these posts!!
Respectful, even if heated, discussions are always preferable to emotional rants.

Lol, thanks. I don't think we have gotten anywhere near "heated" yet lol. Yes, emotional rants never really work, at least I don't think so. In the end they usually are unproductive and degenerate into threats and "who can yell the loudest" competitions.

 

[Awful Waffle]

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.

NOTHING will take away my ability to carry a gun anywhere. Legally or illegally, I will be carrying.

 

[UncleMike]

Lol, thanks. I don't think we have gotten anywhere near "heated" yet lol. Yes, emotional rants never really work, at least I don't think so. In the end they usually are unproductive and degenerate into threats and "who can yell the loudest" competitions.

I didn't mean to imply that your discussion was heated.
Merely that, in general, discussions are more fruitful when the parties involved remain civil.

 

[Awful Waffle]

No it doesn't. However, IT IS ILLEGAL TO CARRY IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE. It doesn't matter if it goes against our founding fathers principles. The facts are he broke the law. I agree with you that it is wrong and goes against our forefathers wishes, but it is written in black and white that what he did was wrong. He can go to jail for what he did. The LEO will not, however, go to jail for enforcing the law..even though it undermines Jefferson's and Madison's wishes.

So you think that just because something is "written in black and white" and is "law" automatically decides what is right or wrong?

In my opinion, the law I broke is an unjust one. So maybe it was technically illegal, but I sure as hell dont think it was "wrong".

I like the point one of these guys made...What if I had gone to Cincinnati, obeyed the law and not brought a gun, and was robbed, shot and killed? People on Ingo would be up in arms over all these unjust laws as they always are.

 

[thebishopp]

So you think that just because something is "written in black and white" and is "law" automatically decides what is right or wrong?

In my opinion, the law I broke is an unjust one. So maybe it was technically illegal, but I sure as hell dont think it was "wrong".

I like the point one of these guys made...What if I had gone to Cincinnati, obeyed the law and not brought a gun, and was robbed, shot and killed? People on Ingo would be up in arms over all these unjust laws as they always are.

I believe that is the essence of our debate right now.

What makes a "law" a "law" and can a "law" actually be a "law" if that "law" goes against the "law" of the land and who then actually decides if that "law" goes against the "law" of the land as well as exactly what that "law" of the land is and how it is to be interpreted.

 

[abrewer15]

NOTHING will take away my ability to carry a gun anywhere. Legally or illegally, I will be carrying.

If you are arrested for violating a gun law...and those who possess guns in a crime (especially if their possession is a direct violation of a law) are usually thrown to the wolves you will have something that will take away your ability to carry. It is called jail.

 

[abrewer15]

So you think that just because something is "written in black and white" and is "law" automatically decides what is right or wrong?

In my opinion, the law I broke is an unjust one. So maybe it was technically illegal, but I sure as hell dont think it was "wrong".

I like the point one of these guys made...What if I had gone to Cincinnati, obeyed the law and not brought a gun, and was robbed, shot and killed? People on Ingo would be up in arms over all these unjust laws as they always are.

Once again you are STILL missing the point. Our outrage isn't what you did so much as how you came on INGO to boast about it in a poorly thought out manner. Many tried to give you sincere advice on the matter and you continually chose to disregard it in an arrogant manner. Do as you wish....


just do yourself a favor and think before you post

 

[Awful Waffle]

If you are arrested for violating a gun law...and those who possess guns in a crime (especially if their possession is a direct violation of a law) are usually thrown to the wolves you will have something that will take away your ability to carry. It is called jail.

With the justice system in this country Id be out of jail in a few days at most, if at all. And then Id be carrying again, legally or illegally.

 

[abrewer15]

And then Id be carrying again, legally or illegally.

It is your comments like this that is causing the uproar.

 

[Awful Waffle]

It is your comments like this that is causing the uproar.

So youre telling me if a federal law on owning firearms was passed tomorrow you would hand them all in like a good little serf?

No, you would break the law too hopefully.

 

[abrewer15]

So youre telling me if a federal law on owning firearms was passed tomorrow you would hand them all in like a good little serf?

No, you would break the law too hopefully.

I did not say that....I do know that I wouldn't announce publicly what my intentions would be if I chose to break the law. That is my main beef with you, not that you did it...but that you brought way to much attention to it. I hope you don't view this as a personal attack.

 

[Sylvain]

With the justice system in this country Id be out of jail in a few days at most, if at all. And then Id be carrying again, legally or illegally.

OMG You still dont get it, how can you still be posting things like that?!

1) Stop posting that you did illegal things or that you are willing to do illegal things on a PUBLIC forum or on any forum for that matter.

Would you send a letter to a judge telling what you did?
Would you call the police and tell them you broke the law?

If you answer "no" to both those questions then do not post stupid things like that on the internet where everybody on the planet can see it.
If you answer "yes" then ... wow.


2) Stop making all of us gun owners look bad.

You still cant see and understand how what you do, that is reporting your illegal actions on a public gun forum, is making all of us look bad?
If you cant understand that I would advice you not to post anymore on that site until you grow up.
If you understand and keep doing it then you are being selfish.
Sure you are free to lose your rights to own guns (that could happen sooner than you think if you keep posting that you broke the law like you did) but you are also putting at risk everybody's rights by fuelling the anti-gun media.

 

[Sylvain]

With the justice system in this country Id be out of jail in a few days at most, if at all. And then Id be carrying again, legally or illegally.

Hmm do you know that anything you post online will stay forever?

Do you think that the judge will let you go out of jail after a few days when there are messages from you all over the internet saying that you are willing to carry illegally again?

For your own sake do not post again until you understand basic things like not bragging about crimes on the internet.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I didn't mean to imply that your discussion was heated.
Merely that, in general, discussions are more fruitful when the parties involved remain civil.

Mike thats why when ever I have anything to say negatively about LEO, I always bring smiles, vaseline, and donuts.

One can express there dislike or disagreement with someone in a civil manner if they want too.

 

[23mar03]