DC steals weapons from wounded vet

Discussion in 'Second Amendment & Legal' started by BLCKWLF, May 18, 2012.

  1. Yes and No. Look you cannot expect to stop in DC with assault rifle(s) for anything other than gas and expect another outcome. I thank him for his service and feel for his injury and situation but you have to follow the laws for transporting these kinds of weapons. I don't agree with the laws but those are the ones in effect.

    The police officers did their job. The reasons for the license are irrelevant as is his intention with the firearms. When you are in the USA you are a civilian and while you deserve a great deal of respect our laws are your laws. I know well enough to avoid DC with these kinds of weapons because it is not worth the risk to me.

    And I'm sorry but it clearly says the guns were not registered so you should expect some issue and delay getting them back.


    BLCKWLF GrassHopper

    It shouldn't be this way... Yes, it is VERY wise to avoid DC while packing any heat. Yes, he should not of consented to the search. It still shouldn't be this way.
  3. cvitter

    cvitter New Member

    This is a classic example of why I have begun to feel that states rights are over rated.
  4. We arent getting the whole story here, as usual...

    Why was he pulled over in the first place?

    Why did he spend a night in the drunk tank?

    Yes it seems like he is getting screwed but he did break the law and as I already stated... the whole story would be nice. I hate the media... I need a new job.

    BLCKWLF GrassHopper

    You read up on the trevon case? New info is out has the media taking back what they have previously said...
  6. yes sir... unfortunatly its not really new info. Aside form the THC in his system everrything else I have read was already stated to the cops when they interviewed the "witness".

    IMO... A couple slow news week resulted in a wrongful arrest of Zimmerman.

    BLCKWLF GrassHopper

    Yeah... I can't stand the media, in most cases it's their bad reporting that pisses me off more than anything...
  8. jimmyalbrecht

    jimmyalbrecht Glockn Rollin

    The problem is that the news stations compete to see who can get the story out first not who can get the story out the most accurately. They will often fill in blanks with false info just to get the story out...
  9. Should not be what way? He violated the law, doesnt matter if you agree with that or not.

    BLCKWLF GrassHopper

    The law should not be that way. Yes he violated the law. That's not the point. The point is that the laws should not be that way, and for sone reason these laws only seem to hurt those who don't mean to break them.
  11. On the face of it, they didn't need to search the car, and he shouldn't have let them. It is also probable that we don't know the whole story.

    The better part of valour is discretion. Most cops I have encountered use discretion and treat people decently and reciprocate respect.
  12. Your logic is flawed. Just because you feel it should not be that way does not mean you can disregard the fact that it IS that way. Frankly I can understand not wanting guns in DC. I may not agree with it, but I will still obey it.

    The topic is irrelevant, if you accept your logic than I can go into your home and take your things because that should not be illegal.

    Bottom line is the law is the law, you can fight to change it but in the mean time obey it or go to jail.


    Driving on suspended there requires a trip to jail. A trip to jail means a car left on the street, to another party, or to police impound. That said, it is standard policy to request a search in order to secure the vehicle. In some states just having a license is a consent to search and sobriety testing.

    So they were doing the right thing. He could have said no. The fact that he didn't means one of the following:

    He assumed what the laws were instead of checking or

    he assumed they would ignore it because he is military.

    Either way, learn and follow the law.

    BLCKWLF GrassHopper

    I do not disregard that it is the law, I am studying law right now! What I am trying to say, without writing a whole paper on the subject, is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In any case where this happens, I am ticked off. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, any laws stricter than it are unconstitutional. That is my belief.

    I do, however, have to advise that all local laws be followed, because after all they are the law.

    In the case of this man in DC.

    He did violate the law, I do not believe that the law is constitutional, nor does its enforcement, in this case, stand up to it's "purpose". Laws like these don't prevent criminals from having guns, they make criminals out of those who have them. The flawed logic is in the laws itself.
  14. How does it not stand up to it's purpose? It's purpose is to prevent firearms in DC and punish those who violate the parameters of that law. It's design and purpose are clearly demonstrated in this case. In fact the case is literally the upholding of it's very intent and purpose.

    No. These laws disarm law abiding citizens. In no way does the law create a criminal out of this man, he created a criminal out of himself in his decision to violate the law be it intentional or not. He should have researched the law and followed it, he is a criminal by only his own actions.

    You cannot justify this case in any way other than he broke the law and is being punished for it. This is not a case to parade as a reason for change, in fact it hurts our cause. The groups that fight for our rights take a ding every time someone fails to follow the law. The rules are very clear, and this man is either ignorant to them or feels he is above them. He is not. He is in fact held to a higher standard.
  15. dutchs

    dutchs Well-Known Member

    Nicely said Nuk. I think that is the nuts and bolts of the whole thing in the world we live in. Laws are not made to be broken, regardless of an opinion, they are to be abided by until change comes about. That is why we are not a lawless nation living in Anarchy or something of its sort.

    BLCKWLF GrassHopper

    Nuk, we get along pretty well. I keep reading everything you type back thinking I am never gunna win. Why won't I win? Cause you are absolutely right! I agree with everything you have said so far. While I will say that is what I was trying to say, but being my young inexperienced self I just can't say it so well... Next time I post an article, I will have a very well thought out explanation prepared for you to pick apart. And I invite you to do so!
  17. nyycanseco33

    nyycanseco33 Well-Known Member Supporter

    Guys please lets calm down here, you both make fantastic points and arguments but let's not get carried away, firearms laws will be an issue for many years. To the OP, I understand your frustration being a young avid shooter and firearms enthusiast you want the freedom to use your firearm and transport it in a safe and practical manner... However people view safety and practicality very differently, this person went through the capital of our country, there had to be other motives as to why this individual was stopped by LEO as they commonly need Probable Cause to stop a subject... Negligence for the laws are no excuse and the power to regulate is given to the states for a reason, the federal government cannot have too much power/authority per the constitution... To top it all off they were unregistered, so that automatically makes him a criminal in possession of illegal firearms, no matter how you try to justify it.

    Making a universal firearms standard takes that power away from the states and puts it into the federal governments hands which is unconstitutional... This individual put himself in this situation and really has nobody to blame but himself, in today's society I don't necessarily agree with the laws but I can see the concern with a subject driving through our nations capital with an assault rifle... we live in a world of unknown now. We were once a fairly laid back country until domestic terrorism started to become an apparent threat, then 9/11 hit, they regulate not to hurt us who do follow the rules and are responsible but to protect the citizens as a whole, you can't make laws that segregate between certain groups of individuals, even ones that separate safe from unsafe gun owners, it's discriminatory and against the law...

    With that said I suggest that since you are of voting age that you start to do your homework and become a proper firearms activist and lobby to change laws locally and then maybe start to branch out to other states. Whatever you decide to do please do it respectfully, it will be a lot of work and a long road but that's the correct way to go about this and make a difference because we can always use more support for our rights :)
    Last edited: May 19, 2012

    BLCKWLF GrassHopper

    Never once lost my cool man! I know nuk means well, I know I am still young. And I don't like typing much on this phone....
  19. nyycanseco33

    nyycanseco33 Well-Known Member Supporter

    I know I just didn't want things getting heated, we are all friends and will always remain friends but I do suggest you work to become an advocate for the 2nd amendment rights because you are young and could bring in a following from the younger generation, I'm getting older at 29 so I can't do that lol