Semantics aside an official is not supposed to engage in these types of activities, the fact that he is an authority in NYC means that anything he commissions iin this area is a police action.
And my point is that it is NOW INCORPORATED, so his argument is moot. WTF is wrong with you?
No, actually, it wasn't. You were arguing that it was automatic; you didn't start saying "now" incorporated until it was pointed out to you.
I guess WTF is "wrong" with me is that I recognize when someone is shifting from point to point, which is problematic for the person doing it.
You sure don't have to provide info. however you still cannot lie during the purchase of the weapon. The PIs were falsifying not only their identities but their intent, they also committed entrapment in doing so. All of those are illegal.True, if they were paid they had to be licensed. Do we know that he didn't hire in-state PIs?
You don't have to provide any information to a private seller. That's kind of the whole point of the exercise.
Studying the sewer system is not doing so to prove criminal activity. Apples and oranges.That's nonsense. If Bloomberg sends someone on his staff to study Chicago's sewage system, that's a police action?
Yes, I get it perfectly, and thanks for making my point. If it's unconstitutional for the federal government to take away your 2d A. rights, then it's unconstitutional for states to do the same.
ITs fun seeing freshly minted attorneys who really have no background in this topic pretending that they are learned on this subject so that they can play silly games of gotcha that everyone else sees as a pathetic attempt to cover up their lack of knowledge as they attempt to create a facade for their emotobabbling anti gun idiocyUh, no. He correctly pointed out that the 2A wasn't incorporated until McDonald.
Boy, you'd think, if you were going to attempt to speak on this stuff authoritatively, you'd at least have some notion that prior to McDonald, one of the chief arguments in favor of state gun control, as cited in opinion after opinion all over state and federal courts, was that the 2A was not incorporated.
But you plod forward not knowing that anyway.
Again, you can say it's illegal all night long, but AFAIK he hasn't violated ANY laws. One doesn't have to be a licensed investigator to buy a gun at a gun show.
No idea what was going through Bloomber's head, but the gun show loophole is idiotic and should be closed. Everyone knows that it is abused on a daily basis by individuals who can't pass a background check, and by sellers who damned well are dealers in all but name who cater to the criminal element.
You sure don't have to provide info. however you still cannot lie during the purchase of the weapon. The PIs were falsifying not only their identities but their intent, they also committed entrapment in doing so. All of those are illegal.
Studying the sewer system is not doing so to prove criminal activity. Apples and oranges.
Brewer should tell Bloomberg if he ever shows up in Arizona, he's going to go live with Sheriff Joe.
It would be like Brewer sending some guys to NYC to buy crack and after they bought it, she held a press conference whining that NY didn't enforce federal drug laws. Those buyers of the crack cannot claim that they are above the law just because they were there to embarass the mayor
I was talking about the current state of the law -- not the history of the 2d Amendment. :roll:
What the....? Look, if you want to change a constitutionally protected right, then amend the constitution. Short of that you have Judicial activism period.
I don't think anyone is saying that, however, I do think we need to evaluate and discard those regulations that are duplicates, and, or work against our rights as defined by the Constitution.
What? Ok, explain to me in the simplest terms what a law is then....
Yes, especially when ideology is involved. I am not saying that we need to do away with courts, just that they get back to their Constitutional restrictions, and not make law. Why is that a bad thing?
j-mac
ITs fun seeing freshly minted attorneys who really have no background in this topic pretending that they are learned on this subject so that they can play silly games of gotcha that everyone else sees as a pathetic attempt to cover up their lack of knowledge as they attempt to create a facade for their emotobabbling anti gun idiocy
You are confused again-one sovereign doesn't have the power to act in this area and that is not due to the second but the tenth
but you are unable to understand that if these people bought guns when they weren't residents of the state in question that is a violation of federal law
No, you weren't. You were talking abstract theory, which is why you said "if." :roll:
It would be like Brewer sending some guys to NYC to buy crack and after they bought it, she held a press conference whining that NY didn't enforce federal drug laws. Those buyers of the crack cannot claim that they are above the law just because they were there to embarass the mayor
No, I wasn't. Try to keep up with the conversation.
I'm able to understand that you are unable to cite to any law that supports your false assertion.
No, it wouldn't be like that at all, because buying guns is legal and buying crack is not.
It would be like AZ sending it's cops to brooklyn to operate a strawman sting... do you think king bloomberg would stand for that?
Well, it's not like there was ever a chance you'd admit it. :roll:
Are you that ignorant? In order to buy a gun out of state, one must transfer it to a licened dealer in your state. For example I can buy a gun and have in PA. however, I cannot take possession of it until its transfer to an FFL in my state and all applications in my state are satisfied.
I trailed off this topic as hoplophobia is such an ugly thing and not worth my time, but I see lawyers arguing with each other over laws I seem to know more about than half the "attorneys" in this discussion, I just hafta say..... :doh
True, I would never "admit" something that's demonstrably false.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?