Guns

[Imari]

As abstract as the philosphical concept of inalienable rights is, so is the abstract concept that those same people endowed with the inalienable right actually forfeit their own right through the act of inaction.

Three questions:

1. How exactly does one forfeit an inalienable right?

Inalienable rights (also called natural or universal rights) are those that do not come from the legal system, but are a fundamental part of the universe. As such, they cannot be forfeited, traded, sold, given away, or made into party animals.

2. How does inaction cause the forfeiture of a right? In this particular case, how does not owning and bearing arms cause one to forfeit one's right to own and bear arms?

There are legal precedents where some rights may be forfeited if action is not taken. Defense of copyright in the U.S. is one I believe, if a company is aware of an infringement on their copyright and does not pursue it they give up rights to pursue future violations. This isn't universal though, that particular form of copyright law is not present in all countries (in some places you CAN pick and choose who you go after for violations) and forfeiting rights if action is not taken is not common to all laws and rights. Some have that property and others don't.


What's more, if inaction causes one to forfeit one's rights, presumably there's a minimum age below which inaction does NOT cause forfeiture. Babies are barely able to exercise their right to keep breathing sometimes, let alone complex rights like bearing arms. Yet when they are older they still apparently have the right to own and bear arms.

You're an example, you have the right to own and bear arms, but I strongly doubt you popped from the womb holding a weapon.

3. Below what age does inaction NOT cause forfeiture of a right?


You're correct in a way that rights can be eroded if they're not used, but it's more of the slippery slope of rights infringement that Danoff described than your automatic "if you don't use it, you lose it" sort of erosion. You don't automatically lose any natural right simply because you don't use it, because natural rights cannot be lost, only infringed. Only legal rights can actually be lost, and even then it's not a given that you need to keep using it to not lose it.

If you consider the right to bear arms a natural right, you cannot lose that either. The government can try and legislate weapons out of your hands, but if it's a true natural right then it's about as useful as trying to legislate people to stop breathing.

 

[Danoff]

You implied that by way of the question posed.
Again - name the society that mainatined the right to bear arms by explicitly choosing to not excercise said right?

Still not reading. I did not claim that one maintains rights by choosing to not exercise said right.

I never claimed that scenario applicable - ever. Again - the right not excercised is the right forfeited.

You claim that scenario is applicable in the very next sentence. If I sell my guns, I am no longer exercising my right to keep and bear arms. Therefore I have forfeited that right according to you - so how many days does that take anyway?

The act of selling a weapon is not the act of failing to excercise the right to keep and bear arms - it is simply the act of selling property.

For someone that makes claim to be a theoretical philosopher some advanced concepts seem to escape you rather easily.

See above.

I read everything you post. If you are going for faux intellectual with an air of superiority - you nailed it.

That's just not possible. Otherwise you wouldn't start arguing against thin air instead of responding to what I actually wrote.

And the mass act of non-excercise thereof is how they willing forfeit that right.

According to???? You?? Why?

As abstract as the philosphical concept of inalienable rights is, so is the abstract concept that those same people endowed with the inalienable right actually forfeit their own right through the act of inaction.

Because you felt like that's the case? There is no reason for that to be the case. There is a reason for right to be inalienable.

This is where we philosphically divert - while the right is not lost by being taken away, it has been forfeit by the wanton act of voluntarly failing to excercise the right.

Failing to exercise the right is not the same as volunteering to not have it. Don't argue with that, it's fact. Those are two distinct things. Why have you correlated them?

So, where you born in the USA or did you move hell and high water to get here?
Your answer will tell all.

A couple of points on this one. It's a logical fallacy. It stereotypes. Aaaaaand, it's also irrelevant to the discussion.

I've just noticed that my signature is no longer around. I wonder why. Here's what it used to say:

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

The whole concept of human rights, the concept that the US was founded on, is protection of individuals from the majority. The US is not a democracy, and there is a reason for that. It was created as a constitutionally limited republic because of the problems inherent in democracies - especially the tyranny of the majority. So what you say about voluntarily losing rights would mean that rights are lost to the majority when those rights are practiced by a minority, but the whole point of rights is to protect everyone equally (this is also enumerated under the equal protection clause) regardless of their actions unless those actions are to violate the rights of others.

If you voluntarily gave away your rights by not practicing them, then human rights don't exist - and the whole foundation of the united states would be meaningless. Luckily that's not the case. Human rights exist until you take a very specific action - the refusal to or the demonstration of the inability to recognize the rights of others. Until then, you can exercise or not exercise any of your rights. And no one can arbitrarily force you to exercise a right at threat of having the right removed, because doing so would inherently be a violation of your rights.

Under your strange worldview, there are millions of Americans who at this very moment do not have the right to own a gun because they've never bought one. They do have a right to own a gun, not because they have or haven't bought one, but because they're innocent human beings who have never harmed another. That's what human rights are all about.

 

[Exorcet]

You implied that by way of the question posed.
Again - name the society that mainatined the right to bear arms by explicitly choosing to not excercise said right?

You may as well ask what the most popular wall color is in German living rooms. Who is even making that argument?

You are totally wrong in saying that rights are lost through inaction, and there are people telling you that. That doesn't mean that you have any idea what those people's stances are, you just know what they aren't.

If X is not Y and I disagree with X, that does not mean I agree with Y.

I never claimed that scenario applicable - ever. Again - the right not excercised is the right forfeited.

You just claimed it again.

Blocking out and ignoring anything that you even suspect of disagreeing with you isn't helping anyone. This whole conversation should have ended with post 2745. The post before that one corrected your error, which appears to be one of wording (though confirmation is difficult when you don't even try to discuss or possibly read), and then presented the argument you were trying to make. You went on to disagree with it. You disagreed with your own position.

The act of selling a weapon is not the act of failing to excercise the right to keep and bear arms - it is simply the act of selling property.

For someone that makes claim to be a theoretical philosopher some advanced concepts seem to escape you rather easily.

1. Rights that can't be taken away, can't be taken away.

2. Given the context here, I think the important bit with selling items is that when sold, they are no longer in the possession of the original owner. This would seem to be very relevant to what you were saying and it would lead one to wonder how you don't see the connection.

I read everything you post.

Then the problem must be comprehension. Post 2744, specifically the latter half, what does it say?

If you are going for faux intellectual with an air of superiority - you nailed it.

Nailed perfectly.

And the mass act of non-excercise thereof is how they willing forfeit that right.

No, a mass act of not standing up for rights leads to the situation where it easy for those rights to be repressed. That is what you're trying to say. That is what is said in post 2744.

As abstract as the philosphical concept of inalienable rights is, so is the abstract concept that those same people endowed with the inalienable right actually forfeit their own right through the act of inaction.

Pretty heavy stuff I know - it is ok if you don't get it at first.

That doesn't even make sense as worded. Not being great in English is fine, I'm not that good myself, but repeatedly you've blocked out attempts to make you see the problem in front of you. You can't lose inalienable rights ever, but someone can unjustly suppress your ability to use them.

So, where you born in the USA or did you move hell and high water to get here?
Your answer will tell all.

This is as irrelevant as your opening question and potentially shines a light on the writer's character.

 

[Beeker1972]

Do humans have the right to exist on this plain of existence? If we do, do we have right to defend that right of existence on this plain of existence? Can't forfeit unalienable rights on this plain of existence, some people have tried, but in the end once you leave this plain of existence your unalienable rights goes with you to another plain of existence.

Texans! Moo Moo Buck-uh-ROO!

 

[R.S]

I have a hydrogen bomb in my shed, it appears I am the freest man of all.

muhahahahaahah

Mine is 8 tons How big is yours?

 

[GTsail]

I have a hydrogen bomb in my shed, it appears I am the freest man of all.

muhahahahaahah

Be sure not to sell it, no matter what the price might be.

Because once its gone, you won't have the "right" to aquire another.

Good luck with your future security costs!
GTsail

 

[Beeker1972]

8 tons is a pretty small nuke, but Australia has lots of useless cheap land so that would be the place to own a nuke.

I have a hydrogen bomb in my shed, it appears I am the freest man of all.

muhahahahaahah

Mine is 8 tons How big is yours?

Be sure not to sell it, no matter what the price might be.

Because once its gone, you won't have the "right" to aquire another.

Good luck with your future security costs!
GTsail

 

[RC45]

To all the people to effing thick to comprehend the reality put forth.

At the philosophical level inalienable rights are only practically manifested when governments OBEY the RULE of LAW.

At the practical level, peoples who do not excercise their inalienable rights end up over time forfeiting to regimes that FAIL to morally adhere to the rule of law their various rights.

All your bloody pontificating viz-a-viz the natural born rights never being forfeit is just that - pointless spoiled western pontificating if the government refuses to act morally and adhere to the rule of law.

WTF is so hard for you people to comprehend? Not a single one your people had to work for your freedom - you lucked into it and as such spend your time pontificating and squandering it.

Of course inalienable natural rights cannot be lost or forfeit at the philosophical level - thats effing obvious - inalienable is by definition not abled to be alienated. Jesus H Christ - how literal you fools are.

So Danoff, where you born here or did you immigrate?

Meh - why waste my time on forum wonders.

A lot more interesting real life out there.

 

[Northstar]

peoples who do not excercise their inalienable rights end up over time forfeiting to regimes that FAIL to morally adhere to the rule of law their various rights.

In order to have the right to do something, you must also have the right to not do it as well or else it's no longer a right but a mandate.

There are also many ways to defend rights without exercising them, for example I feel homosexual's should have the right to marry, yet I don't plan on exercising that right anytime soon.

Not a single one your people had to work for your freedom - you lucked into it and as such spend your time pontificating and squandering it.

I'm sure Caz would beg to differ.

There are also more ways to fight for your freedom than fighting wars, they also tend to be cheaper and less bloody.

 

[Imari]

WTF is so hard for you people to comprehend?

That you don't understand the difference between a right forfeited and a right violated.

Not a single one your people had to work for your freedom - you lucked into it and as such spend your time pontificating and squandering it.

I don't see what that's got to do with anything. Someone who had to work for their freedom will be naturally appreciative, but that doesn't stop people who were born into freedom from appreciating it as well.

Did you work for your freedom? How did that change your perception of that freedom?

Of course inalienable natural rights cannot be lost or forfeit at the philosophical level - thats effing obvious - inalienable is by definition not abled to be alienated. Jesus H Christ - how literal you fools are.

Oh hey, look, you do get it. So why were you arguing against this again?

It's not foolish to use words for what they actually mean, particularly in a debate where it's important to be clear about the point you're trying to convey. You can't just throw some random words out and expect people to somehow pick your meaning out of them.


What you seem to be trying to say is that some natural rights can be violated by government. Absolutely they can. They can't remove the right, but they CAN make it near impossible for you to exercise that right, by blocking ownership of weapons for example. That doesn't mean that you don't still have the right to bear arms, just that someone is violating that right by prohibiting it.

You have a right to life, even when someone is poking holes in you with a knife. You didn't lose the right, just somebody made it impossible to exercise.

As far as it being easier to violate rights that are rarely exercised, yep, that happens too. Mostly because people tend not to give a **** if it doesn't affect them personally. If someone doesn't vote, they're far less likely to care about voting reforms. If someone doesn't use guns, they're far less likely to care if guns are restricted, because it doesn't change their life any.

That's a gradual process though, and it happens over a wider community than the individual. One person not exercising their rights means little if the rest of the community still bears arms. But if the arms bearing portion of the community is very small, then it's much more likely to have it's rights violated. It's difficult to violate the rights of a majority without consequences. It's much easier to violate the rights of a minority.

So there is a slippery slope as more and more people stop bearing arms, but it is not a black and white thing as you posted originally, where if you do not bear arms you forfeit future rights to bear arms as a consequence. That may or may not happen, and is dependent on more factors than that simple decision not to bear arms.

 

[R.S]

8 tons is a pretty small nuke, but Australia has lots of useless cheap land so that would be the place to own a nuke.

8 tons is quite an achievement considering Australia does not have nuclear facilities beyond medical (and uranium mining).

Btw governments do not kill people, they just tell their army what to do. If you have an educated and open society and can maintain that - genocide/strong violent crackdowns/whatever is not likely to happen, even if the man at the microphone is a nut.

Soldiers would typically only kill their people if the society and culture they are brought up in strongly supports an us-and-them kind of mentality.

If that is the case (ie; North Korea, Tiananmen Square) don't think missiles, tanks and black hawks are going to care much about some guy with a handgun. (do US citizens have the right to own large-calibre automatic weapons and tanks?)

 

[FoolKiller]

Btw governments do not kill people, they just tell their army what to do. If you have an educated and open society and can maintain that - genocide/strong violent crackdowns/whatever is not likely to happen, even if the man at the microphone is a nut.

The army is part of government. As a government employee there are certain activities I am prevented from doing because I am a representative of the government and this cannot appear to support certain things, such as protest movements.

Soldiers would typically only kill their people if the society and culture they are brought up in strongly supports an us-and-them kind of mentality.

You mean like the US has had for 12 years now?

If that is the case (ie; North Korea, Tiananmen Square) don't think missiles, tanks and black hawks are going to care much about some guy with a handgun. (do US citizens have the right to own large-calibre automatic weapons and tanks?)

What state you live in determines what you can own, but yes, I know people with large calibre automatic weapons.
We even have special events for them at a local shooting range.
http://www.knobcreekrange.com/events/featured-events/machine-gun-shoot

 

[Danoff]

At the practical level, peoples who do not excercise their inalienable rights end up over time forfeiting to regimes that FAIL to morally adhere to the rule of law their various rights.
...
Of course inalienable natural rights cannot be lost or forfeit at the philosophical level - thats effing obvious - inalienable is by definition not abled to be alienated.

I feel like someone figured out that you were trying to say this quite a while ago. Who was that? Oh yea, me!

I think what you're trying to describe is vigilance against government oppression. And you're right that our government needs a reminder that we care about our rights - a reminder not to infringe them. Because if they don't think we care, they will trample our rights at the first convenience. But you're wrong to claim that everyone needs to exercise all of their rights to accomplish this. A minority of people, with the support of the majority, can accomplish this.

So in the end, you conceded my point, aaaand, finally figured out that I was right all along about what you were trying to say. I'll accept apologies as you're ready.

 

[Exorcet]

To all the people to effing thick to comprehend the reality put forth.

At the philosophical level inalienable rights are only practically manifested when governments OBEY the RULE of LAW.

At the practical level, peoples who do not excercise their inalienable rights end up over time forfeiting to regimes that FAIL to morally adhere to the rule of law their various rights.

All your bloody pontificating viz-a-viz the natural born rights never being forfeit is just that - pointless spoiled western pontificating if the government refuses to act morally and adhere to the rule of law.

Post 2744

And now, post 2773.

WTF is so hard for you people to comprehend?

You not making sense for one reason or another.

Not a single one your people had to work for your freedom

Nice assumption that has nothing to do with anything.

- you lucked into it and as such spend your time pontificating and squandering it.

Try reading the replies sent to you.

Of course inalienable natural rights cannot be lost or forfeit at the philosophical level - thats effing obvious - inalienable is by definition not abled to be alienated. Jesus H Christ - how literal you fools are.

And you spent over a page disagreeing with this.

Meh - why waste my time on forum wonders.

A lot more interesting real life out there.

It's so interesting you came in here and argued with yourself instead of being out there.

You're far to eager to go in guns blazing on anything that doesn't straight up agree with 100% of what you say. Calm down a bit, you'll be a lot more effective at getting your point across.

 

[LeMansAid]

@RC45 There are Americans that frequent this very forum that do not own any guns, but would fight tooth and nail to protect their gun freedoms. Some may have even been born in the US..... I know, shocking isn't it?

You appear to have ended up with a very small world view. That might mean that you can get plenty of "hell yeah!!"s from people just like you, but chances are it will leave you ineffective against people that aren't. As in.... the people you'd be fighting against. It's your choice, but with your current approach, you seem to be undermining your own goals.

 

[Mustangmiha]

when the shooter's AR rifle jammed

Ha!

 

[a6m5]

Ha!

He was a low life. Much of these mass shootings in the States' been committed by people with severe mental and/or psychiactric medication issues? I got the impression that this particular loser did it, because: a) He was afraid to kill himself alone. b) Committed the crime for effect. Attention whoring.

Also, the AR that jammed, it wasn't even his. He stole it from his friend.

 

[Beeker1972]

An uncleaned AR can jam, so before going postal make sure your weapons are sited in, cleaned, and oiled properly ...

He was a low life. Much of these mass shootings in the States' been committed by people with severe mental and/or psychiactric medication issues? I got the impression that this particular loser did it, because: a) He was afraid to kill himself alone. b) Committed the crime for effect. Attention whoring.

Also, the AR that jammed, it wasn't even his. He stole it from his friend.

 

[Agent_47]

I voted for "I support loose control."

I think people should be allowed to own weapons that can be reasonably used for self defense or in a militia (in line with the Second Amendment). I think having background checks is a reasonable regulation, though I would like to see the mental health aspect of this strengthened.

I don't agree with silly 'assault weapon' laws and I don't think politicians can make the world safer by hindering good, honest people from defending themselves.

 

[Agent_47]

An uncleaned AR can jam, so before going postal make sure your weapons are sited in, cleaned, and oiled properly ...

Any gun can jam if it is dirty. Usually ammo makes the biggest difference if a gun jams or not.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Any gun can jam if it is dirty. Usually ammo makes the biggest difference if a gun jams or not.

That and proper operation. I have seen tons of folks double and even triple feed when I had range duty.

 

[a6m5]

Solid Lifters brought this up in the Real Guns thread:

-----------------------------------------------------------------​

From venturebeat.com

Facebook mulling policy changes on gun-themed pages
​

Facebook may announce company policy changes for gun-related pages in the coming weeks, VentureBeat has learned.

The social network has been under pressure from the powerful Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Moms Demand Action civic group to ban gun-themed fan pages on the site.

“Talks are progressing. The discussions are ongoing; there have been positive developments,” sources close to the conversations told VentureBeat.

An extensive VentureBeat investigation last week revealed that adults and children were making arrangements to buy, sell, and trade guns through the many Facebook fan pages devoted to guns and the people who use them, sometimes in violation of federal and state gun laws.

Last October, a 15-year-old high school student in Kentucky bought a 9mm handgun from a man he met through a Facebook fan page. The teen was arrested when he was caught with the loaded pistol on the campus of Greenup County High School. The seller drove from Ohio to Kentucky to make the sale and was also arrested. The suspect told sheriff’s investigators he sold other guns to people he met on Facebook fan pages.

The two advocacy groups recently joined forces to pressure “Facebook [to] get out of the gun business.” Mayors Against Illegal Guns was cofounded by former NYC three-term mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg along with Boston’s then-mayor, Thomas Menino, in 2006. Mayors of more than 1,100 U.S. cities belong to the organization.

A Moms Demand Action petition on Change.org to prohibit gun sales on Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram has over 94,000 signatures. Comedian Sarah Silverman recently tweeted about the campaign, which is getting massive exposure through U.S. media outlets.

The petition is addressed to Instagram chief executive Kevin Systrom and Facebook cofounder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg:

To:
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO
Kevin Systrom, Instagram CEO
Your platforms unfortunately allow users to buy, sell, and trade firearms without requiring criminal background checks.Other online platforms including Craigslist, eBay, and Google+ have already prohibited these sales.I ask that you put an end to this completely unregulated social media gun show and prohibit gun sales from your platforms immediately.
Sincerely,
[Your name]

“Anybody can go to Facebook and Instagram and buy a gun online. We’re asking them to review their policies,” a spokeswoman for Mayors Against Illegal Guns told VentureBeat last week.

Facebook, of course, is not an e-commerce site and doesn’t sell anything. Last week, a Facebook spokesperson told VentureBeat, “You can’t buy things on Instagram and Facebook, nor can you promote the sale or use of weapons in advertising. We encourage people who come across any illegal activity to report it to us.”

Users are still getting around the company’s stated user policies.

Google+, with about 450 millions users, also prohibits the sale of guns and many other items through the site.

A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment Monday.

Federal law enforcement sources told VentureBeat they view Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms “as emerging threats for unlawful gun transactions in the United States.”

LINK

--------------------------------------------------------------​

I'll give the same take I gave in the Real Guns thread. I'd be fully against Facebook banning any posts, or firearm related contents, but if they are banning firearm sales, according to this article, that was already against their policy & I don't really have any problem with that.

 

[Beeker1972]

To me it looks like those individuals broke some federal laws selling guns online anyway ... Stupid people

 

[Zenith]

To me it looks like those individuals broke some federal laws selling guns online anyway ... Stupid people

You can sell guns online, you can't sell guns without going through a federally licensed firearms dealer and performing a background check.

 

[Grayfox]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/03/05/09/50/church-under-fire-for-gun-giveaway

Converting people by giving them a gun.
I am 'sure' Checks were done.

 

[FoolKiller]

I ran across this a few days ago, a perfect example of why gun registration is bad, and likely why 350,000 people in Connecticut refused to do it: They will use it against you.

As a child, I remember watching the movie Red Dawn starring Patrick Swayze and C. Thomas Howell.

The thing about that movie that really hit a chord with me was a scene when the Soviets had just landed and the commander told one of his lieutenants to go to the gun shops for they would have a list of all the guns owned by the people, thus making it easier for the Soviets to round them up.

Now, while a work of fiction, the concept is sound. If you make a list of everyone who has a gun, it’s easier for an oppressive authority to confiscate them when they don’t want you to have them.

Unfortunately in America, this is not limited to the realm of fiction.

I have spoken about he jackbooted thuggery of New Orleans Police when they went out and forcibly confiscated guns from citizens in the city during the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but those were “innocent” people.

Today I’m going to highlight a story about a “guilty” person. The reason guilty is in quotation marks will become clear.

On October 12th, 2013 Paul Wojdan of Lockport City, NY was arrested and the police looked on his pistol permit and saw it had six guns on it so they went to his house and confiscated all of his firearms.

Gun controllers would say this was a victory for the system, a dangerous criminal had his firearms seized etc etc.

But in order to get the full story one needs to look at Mr. Wojdan’s “crime”.

Wojdan was a passenger in his wife’s car. She was speeding, doing 44 in a 30 mph zone. The car was pulled over and a pair of officers started asking questions. They asked Paul if there was any weapons in the car. He answered that his legally owned and licensed 9mm Ruger handgun was in the glove compartment and his pistol permit was in the center console.

The officers then pulled both Wojdan and his wife from the car and rummaged through it, retrieving the permit and confiscating the pistol.

At that point they unloaded the pistol (for police safety) and went to cross reference the serial numbers on the permit with those on the pistol.

(Remember, as of yet, NO crime has been committed save for Mrs. Wojdan being a little heavy with the gas pedal)

With the magazine out of the pistol the officers decided that they would empty that as well in order to count the number of bullets.

Keep in mind this is New York and at the time of the arrest with the asinine SAFE Act, a 10 round magazine was legal yet the SAFE Act dictated that only 7 rounds were permissible to be in it.

The cops unloaded the magazine, counted to ten and then arrested Paul Wojdan.

After the arrest, the officers just simply looked down at the Wojdan’s permit, knew exactly how many more firearms he had and went to his house and confiscated them too.

Now, was Wojdan guilty by the letter of the law? Yep. Of course the actions of the police officers were clear violations of Wojdan’s 4th Amendment rights and thus dictate that he should never have been arrested in the first place. A viewpoint shared by Lockport City Judge William J Watson who threw out the arrest this passed Wednesday.

Watson ruled that the officers had no right to unload the bullets from the gun and count them and that in doing so Wojdan’s freedom from illegal searches was violated. That ruling was necessary because even after Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny ruled that the 7 round limit was unconstitutional on Dec. 31st 2013, Niagara county Prosecutors still pursued the case against Wojdan. Note that, they were still charging him with a crime that NO LONGER EXISTED.

But let’s get back to that confiscation. This case proves that the State can make nonsensical laws that make innocent people criminals and on the basis of that can use the registration list to know what needs to be confiscated.

Think about it, they (the controllers) can supe up jaywalking into a First Degree misdemeanor based on the “rationale” that it is an anarchistic attack on society’s decorum. That speeding is a terroristic threat to other drivers. That playing music too loudly is an act of war against your neighbors…I mean, it’s what the US Army did to Noreiga in Panama to force his surrender and controllers are all against military type things in the hands of civilians.

Hence, non crimes can be used to abuse the innocent, the governement will then seize all your weapons for the “good of the state.” And it won’t be hard for them, I mean…THEY HAVE A LIST.

As for Mr. Wojdan; after having all the charges for a crime that doesn’t exist anymore dismissed, did he get his firearms back? Nope.

They are STILL in police custody.

Wojdan’s attorney, James Tresmond, has to file a motion with the Niagara County Judge Niagara County Judge Matthew J. Murphy III to have them returned. The same Niagara County whose District Attorney maliciously prosecuted him in the first place.

There is no valid reason for Wojdan’s property not to be returned to him immediately upon the charges against him being dismissed. The current theft of his property, because until the firearms are returned that is exactly what this is, by Niagara County is a clear violation of Wojdan’s 5th Amendment Rights, for he is being denied his property for no legal reason.

Wojdan is having his civil rights violated because the court can take it’s sweet time in returning his firearms. It is no different than being found innocent in a trial yet having to remain in jail while they “sort it all out.”

Once again, registration has led directly to an innocent man losing ALL his firearms because the government had a list, used it to confiscate them, and now won’t easily give them back.

 

[Zenith]

I ran across this a few days ago, a perfect example of why gun registration is bad, and likely why 350,000 people in Connecticut refused to do it: They will use it against you.

A friend of mine works as a gun/gear reviewer. He had ATF Agents come to his house to inform him that the number of guns registered to him did not match his income. They knew how many guns he had based on how many transfers had been done in his name. De facto gun registration already exists in the US.

 

[a6m5]

You can sell guns online, you can't sell guns without going through a federally licensed firearms dealer and performing a background check.

Unless it's a private transaction, both party reside in same state, and the law in said state allow it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I ran across this a few days ago, a perfect example of why gun registration is bad, and likely why 350,000 people in Connecticut refused to do it: They will use it against you.

That's a fairly self-contradictory article although the facts of the case are interesting on further research.

 

[Badasp5.0]

A friend of mine works as a gun/gear reviewer. He had ATF Agents come to his house to inform him that the number of guns registered to him did not match his income. They knew how many guns he had based on how many transfers had been done in his name. De facto gun registration already exists in the US.

Wow that is crazy. I was worried that something similar would happen when I had a C&R FFL.