America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by jpotts. 87 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Unintended Consequences?
victor809 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Not sure if this is how New Orleans wanted this to turn out or not.

I suppose I don't personally care that much if felons can/cannot buy guns.
Some here believe in a strict adherence to the 2nd amendment, and I suppose by that logic you can't prohibit felons from having guns...

I think most people in this forum believe in some level of gun control, and abridgment of the 2nd Amendment (although they'll die before admitting it)...

Personally, I just find this kind of interesting.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/03/new_orleans_judge_rules_statut.html
Buckwheat Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Good for them. I hope that they "Reap what they Sow". Just not wise on their part. Hell they're all crazy down there anyway.
paulkeck Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
Not sure if this is how New Orleans wanted this to turn out or not.

I suppose I don't personally care that much if felons can/cannot buy guns.
Some here believe in a strict adherence to the 2nd amendment, and I suppose by that logic you can't prohibit felons from having guns...

I think most people in this forum believe in some level of gun control, and abridgment of the 2nd Amendment (although they'll die before admitting it)...

Personally, I just find this kind of interesting.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/03/new_orleans_judge_rules_statut.html



i believe strongly in gun control!!
first keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire
second always keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction
third never trust anyone that says the gun is unloaded check yourself
and fourth never trust a man that wants to change the 2nd ammendment to fit his beliefs

jpotts Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
victor809 wrote:
Not sure if this is how New Orleans wanted this to turn out or not.

I suppose I don't personally care that much if felons can/cannot buy guns.
Some here believe in a strict adherence to the 2nd amendment, and I suppose by that logic you can't prohibit felons from having guns...

I think most people in this forum believe in some level of gun control, and abridgment of the 2nd Amendment (although they'll die before admitting it)...

Personally, I just find this kind of interesting.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/03/new_orleans_judge_rules_statut.html


On the federal level, the fifth amendment has an allowance for felons to be prohibited from owing firearms:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

A trial in court is considered due process of law. However, this is on the federal level, and might possiblty only be applied if the person in question tries to cross state lines.

As for Louisiana, they can pass whatever gun laws they choose. They have that right. However, those laws lose their meaning once the state border is crossed.

It's quaint that because "some people" want restrictions on the second amendment, that therefore we should restrict it. Maybe one day "some people" will think it is perfectly OK to have sex with minors too, so therefore by using Victor's logic, we should allow it.

Or maybe, because Victor will immediately not agree with me on my points, this post will therefore become "gibberish."

It'd be nice, for once, Victor if you actually took an interest in things like civics and the foundations of your basic human rights. Who knows, maybe one day you'll join the rest of the post-Enlightment world...?
paulkeck Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
jpotts wrote:
On the federal level, the fifth amendment has an allowance for felons to be prohibited from owing firearms:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

A trial in court is considered due process of law. However, this is on the federal level, and might possiblty only be applied if the person in question tries to cross state lines.

As for Louisiana, they can pass whatever gun laws they choose. They have that right. However, those laws lose their meaning once the state border is crossed.

It's quaint that because "some people" want restrictions on the second amendment, that therefore we should restrict it. Maybe one day "some people" will think it is perfectly OK to have sex with minors too, so therefore by using Victor's logic, we should allow it.

Or maybe, because Victor will immediately not agree with me on my points, this post will therefore become "gibberish."

It'd be nice, for once, Victor if you actually took an interest in things like civics and the foundations of your basic human rights. Who knows, maybe one day you'll join the rest of the post-Enlightment world...?


now you know thats gonna happen lol
wheelrite Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
well.
as we all know the Katricians are all on the Gov't teat,,

so they should never have guns,,

That's why 7-11 Stores get robbed,,,
Abrignac Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,306
I'm thinking I voted for this when it came up, but I'm not sure. That being sad, I'm ok with the ruling. To me it's a civil liberty issue. Should someone be imprisioned for possessing something that it perfectly legal for their neighbor to possess? I think not. On the other hand, those convicted of offenses that prohibit them from owning guns prolly are not in jail because some district attorney or judge failed to do their job.
victor809 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
jpotts wrote:
On the federal level, the fifth amendment has an allowance for felons to be prohibited from owing firearms:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

A trial in court is considered due process of law. However, this is on the federal level, and might possiblty only be applied if the person in question tries to cross state lines.

As for Louisiana, they can pass whatever gun laws they choose. They have that right. However, those laws lose their meaning once the state border is crossed.

It's quaint that because "some people" want restrictions on the second amendment, that therefore we should restrict it. Maybe one day "some people" will think it is perfectly OK to have sex with minors too, so therefore by using Victor's logic, we should allow it.

Or maybe, because Victor will immediately not agree with me on my points, this post will therefore become "gibberish."

It'd be nice, for once, Victor if you actually took an interest in things like civics and the foundations of your basic human rights. Who knows, maybe one day you'll join the rest of the post-Enlightment world...?


Potts... there's this fundamental irony in that you've accused me of "immediately not agreeing" with you, in a post where you've tried to disagree with me... when I haven't even made a point myself. It's almost like you don't even read my posts, just scan for a hot-button and argue against it.

So, yes, I will call your post "gibberish" (at least the 2nd part of it, I have no problem with the first few sentences). Your ability to prognosticate that I would call your post gibberish is not a sign of any sort of capability on your part, it's more a symptom of 98.2% of your posts being gibberish...
cacman Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Huh... here I thought it was a Federal law that prohibited convicted Felons (not misdemeanor) from owning any firearms (rifles, shotguns, & handguns)? Statue of limitations used to be 7yrs but was changed to 10yrs. After 10yrs you could apply, but chances of concealed carry are slim. Didn't think it was different from State to State?
paulkeck Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
cacman wrote:
Huh... here I thought it was a Federal law that prohibited convicted Felons (not misdemeanor) from owning any firearms (rifles, shotguns, & handguns)? Statue of limitations used to be 7yrs but was changed to 10yrs. After 10yrs you could apply, but chances of concealed carry are slim. Didn't think it was different from State to State?

x2 i know in texas felons cant buy or have guns
Abrignac Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,306
cacman wrote:
Huh... here I thought it was a Federal law that prohibited convicted Felons (not misdemeanor) from owning any firearms (rifles, shotguns, & handguns)? Statue of limitations used to be 7yrs but was changed to 10yrs. After 10yrs you could apply, but chances of concealed carry are slim. Didn't think it was different from State to State?



How many times have we heard that thre are 10,000 gun laws on the books and that we don't need more, but to enforce the ones already on the books? It seems there is an abundant duplicity of laws spread across multiple jurisdictions.

In this case there is a federal statute that prohibits certain convicted felons from possessing a firearm:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1).

It shall be unlawful for any person-

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

***

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce
.



Then there is the Louisiana statute that somewhat resembles this law:



§95.1. Possession of firearm or carrying concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies

A. It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B) which is a felony or simple burglary, burglary of a pharmacy, burglary of an inhabited dwelling, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, felony illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities, manufacture or possession of a delayed action incendiary device, manufacture or possession of a bomb, or possession of a firearm while in the possession of or during the sale or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, or any violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is a felony, or any crime which is defined as a sex offense in R.S. 15:541, or any crime defined as an attempt to commit one of the above-enumerated offenses under the laws of this state, or who has been convicted under the laws of any other state or of the United States or of any foreign government or country of a crime which, if committed in this state, would be one of the above-enumerated crimes, to possess a firearm or carry a concealed weapon.

B. Whoever is found guilty of violating the provisions of this Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than twenty years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 14:27, whoever is found guilty of attempting to violate the provisions of this Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than seven and one-half years and fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars.

C. The provisions of this Section prohibiting the possession of firearms and carrying concealed weapons by persons who have been convicted of certain felonies shall not apply to any person who has not been convicted of any felony for a period of ten years from the date of completion of sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

D. For the purposes of this Section, "firearm" means any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, submachine gun, black powder weapon, or assault rifle which is designed to fire or is capable of firing fixed cartridge ammunition or from which a shot or projectile is discharged by an explosive.

Added by Acts 1975, No. 492, §2. Amended by Acts 1980, No. 279, §1; Acts 1985, No. 947, §1; Acts 1990, No. 328, §1; Acts 1992, No. 403, §1; Acts 1994, 3rd Ex. Sess., No. 28, §1; Acts 1995, No. 987, §1; Acts 2003, No. 674, §1; Acts 2009, No. 154, §1; Acts 2009, No. 160, §1; Acts 2010, No. 815, §1; Acts 2010, No. 942, §1.





Why not scrap the Louisiana law and let local law enforcement agencies charge people with he federal statute?

The devil is in the details.

As a LEO, I'm sworn to uphold the law, including federal laws. The problem is no federal judge would accept an affidavit of probable cause from me since I'm not a federal agent. Therefore, I would arrest someone for violating he state statute. Then my agency may or may not offer the case to the federal prosecutor. If it did, the federal prosecutor may or may not choose to prosecute. The state law gives the state the ability to prosecute when he feds choose not to. In reality, very few cases that can be prosecuted at the state level make it to the federal docket.

Hope this clarifies things.

HockeyDad Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
States rights versus Federal rights.

At this point we can almost just eliminate states completely.
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:


At this point we can almost just eliminate states completely.


Probably... starting with texas...
paulkeck Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
Probably... starting with texas...

That sure as chit ain't happening !!!!
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
paulkeck wrote:
That sure as chit ain't happening !!!!


psh... you've already disarmed your felons... That leaves you what, 1.8% of the population still able to buy firearms?

Two drones and the state will topple to whatever the feds decide.
victor809 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
That's what happens when you start trampling on felon's 2nd amendment rights.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
jpotts wrote:
Who knows, maybe one day you'll join the rest of the post-Enlightment world...?




Not talking Not talking Not talking Not talking Not talking








EAT







MOR











CHIKIN










Applause
DrMaddVibe Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
jpotts wrote:
It'd be nice, for once, Victor if you actually took an interest in things like civics and the foundations of your basic human rights. Who knows, maybe one day you'll join the rest of the post-Enlightment world...?




Not talking Not talking Not talking Not talking Not talking








EAT







MOR











CHIKIN










Applause
paulkeck Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
psh... you've already disarmed your felons... That leaves you what, 1.8% of the population still able to buy firearms?

Two drones and the state will topple to whatever the feds decide.

there are more guns in texas than most of the united states put together. MOLON LABE!!!
HockeyDad Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
paulkeck wrote:
there are more guns in texas than most of the united states put together. MOLON LABE!!!



Get serious. When the Feds want, they will come. You will lay down and submit.
paulkeck Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
HockeyDad wrote:
Get serious. When the Feds want, they will come. You will lay down and submit.

Then your just as dumb as Victor Frying pan we are Texans not those **** frenchies
HockeyDad Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
paulkeck wrote:
Then your just as dumb as Victor Frying pan we are Texans not those **** frenchies



You'll be laying down so low you will look like a Muslim at prayer!
paulkeck Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
HockeyDad wrote:
You'll be laying down so low you will look like a Muslim at prayer!


only if were getting blumpkins from frenchies Applause Liar
HockeyDad Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
You'll be bowing to M-1 Abrams tanks and willfully offering up your rifles and handguns in exchange for corn and water.

All hat, no cattle. The Texas state motto.
paulkeck Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
HockeyDad wrote:
You'll be bowing to M-1 Abrams tanks and willfully offering up your rifles and handguns in exchange for corn and water.

All hat, no cattle. The Texas state motto.

i will open that lid and take a big country chit on the driver and wipe my arse with a frenchie flag!!!!
paulkeck Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
HockeyDad wrote:
You'll be bowing to M-1 Abrams tanks and willfully offering up your rifles and handguns in exchange for corn and water.

All hat, no cattle. The Texas state motto.


frenchies sont gueers
victor809 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
You'll be bowing to M-1 Abrams tanks and willfully offering up your rifles and handguns in exchange for corn and water.

All hat, no cattle. The Texas state motto.


hehehe.... now now HD, it's not nice to bang on the monkey's cage....
victor809 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
paulkeck wrote:
there are more guns in texas than most of the united states put together. MOLON LABE!!!


now now... that seems unlikely.

You've already told me that ex-felons can't own guns...
We know that 98.2% of all Texans are felons... hell.. that's a conservative estimate with those miscreants.

That means that either 1.8% (that's 100%-98.2% for those of you from Texas) of Texans own all these guns, or a bunch of Texans own guns illegally... (wouldn't be surprised there, damn criminals)....
HockeyDad Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
paulkeck wrote:
frenchies sont gueers



Just remember, when you see French troops in UN blue helmets patrolling your streets in the aftermath, the proper way to say "thank you" is "merci" , not "gracias".
paulkeck Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
now now... that seems unlikely.

You've already told me that ex-felons can't own guns...
We know that 98.2% of all Texans are felons... hell.. that's a conservative estimate with those miscreants.

That means that either 1.8% (that's 100%-98.2% for those of you from Texas) of Texans own all these guns, or a bunch of Texans own guns illegally... (wouldn't be surprised there, damn criminals)....

or the 1.8% of us arent a bunch of gun hating puss!es and own a chit load of guns a piece lol
HockeyDad Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
paulkeck wrote:
i will open that lid and take a big country chit on the driver and wipe my arse with a frenchie flag!!!!



Don't mess with Texas (because they'll surrender and then you'll own it and have to clean that ****hole up)

It is convenient how they leave out the rest of the slogan.
HockeyDad Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
paulkeck wrote:
or the 1.8% of us arent a bunch of gun hating puss!es and own a chit load of guns a piece lol



Speak English often?
victor809 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
Speak English often?


He already said he's from Texas.... don't ask stupid questions HD!
paulkeck Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
HockeyDad wrote:
Just remember, when you see French troops in UN blue helmets patrolling your streets in the aftermath, the proper way to say "thank you" is "merci" , not "gracias".

lol now i know your full of chit there aint know way a frenchy would go to war!!! french troops you would have a better chance at seeing a unicorn plus you could smell them stanky sons of french whores a mile away!!! lmao
HockeyDad Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
victor809 wrote:
He already said he's from Texas.... don't ask stupid questions HD!



It was rhetorical! I probably should define that for him. Maybe carve it on his rifle butt.
paulkeck Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
HockeyDad wrote:
Speak English often?


i would rather be an uneducated Texan than an educated liberal puss!e like Victor
victor809 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
It was rhetorical! I probably should define that for him. Maybe carve it on his rifle butt.


Where's that hooked on phonics program when you need it...
HockeyDad Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
paulkeck wrote:
lol now i know your full of chit there aint know way a frenchy would go to war!!! french troops you would have a better chance at seeing a unicorn plus you could smell them stanky sons of french whores a mile away!!! lmao



There are French troops currently in Mali fighting Islamic insurgents. French troops were in Afghanistan from 2001 -2012. The USA followed France into the Libyan Civil War.

All these you would know if you could read (a newspaper.)
victor809 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
paulkeck wrote:
i would rather be an uneducated Texan than an educated liberal puss!e like Victor


Huh... and what makes you think I'm liberal? Or decide to start using derogatory words?
HockeyDad Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
victor809 wrote:
Where's that hooked on phonics program when you need it...


I was thinking about getting him a Rosetta Stone course for English I. I wonder if they make it for Windows 3.1.


DrafterX Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Victor knows some of them gazintas and stuff.... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
I was thinking about getting him a Rosetta Stone course for English I. I wonder if they make it for Windows 3.1.




Hehehe.... I bet he's wondering who bought 1/10th of a window....
victor809 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
An interesting reference. As much as I like mocking the French's inability to stand their ground, history actually indicates otherwise...

http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp
HockeyDad Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
victor809 wrote:
Hehehe.... I bet he's wondering who bought 1/10th of a window....



One pane was broken!
paulkeck Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
Huh... and what makes you think I'm liberal? Or decide to start using derogatory words?

when did i start using derogatory words? if the shoe fits and all! but i will let you and frenchy get back to sucking each other off and maybe when yall are finished you can send me that copy of rosetta stone oh and by the way i have windows 3.2 i bought it from a french whore her name was hockymom
DrafterX Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
paulkeck wrote:
when did i start using derogatory words? if the shoe fits and all! but i will let you and frenchy get back to sucking each other off and maybe when yall are finished you can send me that copy of rosetta stone oh and by the way i have windows 3.2 i bought it from a french whore her name was hockymom



I love it when a Texan surrenders! Now here's your rice and beans.
paulkeck Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
HockeyDad wrote:
I love it when a Texan surrenders! Now here's your rice and beans.

We dont surrender were not french!!! lol
victor809 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
paulkeck wrote:
We dont surrender were not french!!! lol


You can keep telling yourself that. But the whole surrendering thing happened...

Looks to me like Texas actually gave France concessions in order to end the Pig War...
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mgp01

"Thus the "war" ended in a compromise. The Houston administration, which succeeded that of Lamar, made "satisfactory explanations" to the French government and requested the return of Dubois de Saligny. "

huh... the Republic of Texas said "we're sorry" and begged the French to return their ambassador.
victor809 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Hell ... the French colonized Texas. They were the first Europeans to establish a colony there. You're practically the French of the USA.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>