Would you turn in a fellow gun owner for paperwork violations?

[EMNofSeattle]

Say you know your neighbor carries a gun without a license, or maybe was covicted of a disqualifying crime decades ago but has since been a productive member of society, or maybe decided not to register a sporting rifle like in Connecticutt,or an unregistered handgun in California? would you turn them in to authorities? Or would you testify against them in court?

I would not, if I believe the law to be wrong I would never help the government punish someone for violating it.

 

[CMPancake]

It really depends? It's hard to say you would honestly want to turn in a friend of yours who has a rifle he doesn't have a license for, but say a kooky neighbor who is so clearly mentally ill is stock piling an arsenal it might be in my best interest to call the authorities to investigate.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It really depends? It's hard to say you would honestly want to turn in a friend of yours who has a rifle he doesn't have a license for, but say a kooky neighbor who is so clearly mentally ill is stock piling an arsenal it might be in my best interest to call the authorities to investigate.

It depends though, someone worried about an economic crash with multiple guns to me isn't a problem, to some people it is. If I believed they were going to hurt someone thats a different story, but A paperwork violation like an illegal immigrant buying a gun second hand, or a felon who hasn't expunged their record but is off of probation and living a normal life or carrying illegally in a state like New Jersey or in NYC? Those are paperwork issues and I wouldn't help the police or prosecutor convict them

 

[CMPancake]

It depends though, someone worried about an economic crash with multiple guns to me isn't a problem, to some people it is. If I believed they were going to hurt someone thats a different story, but A paperwork violation like an illegal immigrant buying a gun second hand, or a felon who hasn't expunged their record but is off of probation and living a normal life or carrying illegally in a state like New Jersey or in NYC? Those are paperwork issues and I wouldn't help the police or prosecutor convict them

That's fair enough, like I said it all depends on how well you know the person. If they're harmless, I would turn a blind eye to it but if it is someone who is mentally off the deep end and it could be a harm to others I'll call someone. As citizens, it isn't our job to enforce the laws, just follow them.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

It certainly is a tricky one.

Ultimately, I think I'd have to and will turn them in in most, if not, all cases. I fight to change the law, not so much break it (perhaps some see that as a *****'s stance, who knows).

 

[Summerwind]

Say you know your neighbor carries a gun without a license, or maybe was covicted of a disqualifying crime decades ago but has since been a productive member of society, or maybe decided not to register a sporting rifle like in Connecticutt,or an unregistered handgun in California? would you turn them in to authorities? Or would you testify against them in court?

I would not, if I believe the law to be wrong I would never help the government punish someone for violating it.

It would depend on whether I thought it was actionable. You can turn people in over many things that the police won't actually do a darn thing about. So a guy with a hunting rifle safely tended and out only for hunting purposes, probably not an issue, assuming he has acquired the appropriate licenses for hunting. A guy walking around with a concealed weapon and no permit, yeah, I'd turn him in. First I'd suggest that he stop doing it. If he/she didn't I'd turn him in. If by any chance at all, he/she misbehaved with the gun and someone got hurt, I'd feel awful for not having turned him/her in. Generally I make decisions based on long term possibilities, such as a felon regardless of paid penance walking around armed.

 

[Thrilla]

nah, it would take more than an administrative violation for me to turn him/her in....

 

[KevinKohler]

I got cool neighbors.





So no.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It certainly is a tricky one.

Ultimately, I think I'd have to and will turn them in in most, if not, all cases. I fight to change the law, not so much break it (perhaps some see that as a *****'s stance, who knows).

So if you lived in Boston in the 1850s and knew an African amercan working on the docks was an escaped slave you'd go down and tell the marshals? Or if a fellow churchgoer was part of the Underground Railroad? How wrong does a law have to be before you will choose not to comply ?

 

[Summerwind]

So if you lived in Boston in the 1850s and knew an African amercan working on the docks was an escaped slave you'd go down and tell the marshals? Or if a fellow churchgoer was part of the Underground Railroad? How wrong does a law have to be before you will choose not to comply ?

OMFG, you're trying to conflate slavery as being equal to the non-hardships of gun owners? You are a piece of work.

 

[jamesrage]

Say you know your neighbor carries a gun without a license, or maybe was covicted of a disqualifying crime decades ago but has since been a productive member of society, or maybe decided not to register a sporting rifle like in Connecticutt,or an unregistered handgun in California? would you turn them in to authorities? Or would you testify against them in court?

I would not, if I believe the law to be wrong I would never help the government punish someone for violating it.

I would not.The 2nd amendment outranks any local anti-2nd amendment law on the books.I am not going to turn in someone for exercising something they have a constitutional right to. The idea that you need to register or have a permit or some other nonsense to own a gun is absurd and last I checked the 2nd amendment makes no exception for those who previously served time behind bars.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

OMFG, you're trying to conflate slavery as being equal to the non-hardships of gun owners? You are a piece of work.

No I am not, I am using hyperbole as a rhetorical divide to probe his logic, he said that if there is a law he doesn't like he wil oppose it while helping to enforce it, because the fugitive slave act is perhaps the best example of thousands of Americans refusing to recognize federal authority on that subject, it is a good gauge. The point is not to equate the topics, they are nt equal, but to show the logic of "the laws the law" is a false premise, because at some point, there can be a law so wrong people will refuse to follow it or follow it only out of fear and coercion.

So his premise is false, the law is not always to be respected, the question is merely where the line is drawn

Slavery righty hits a raw nerve because no one left in America truly believes it to be right, but if the logic is the law is the law and that alone makes it right then Luftwaffe should be willing to take that idea all the way. But he will not on this forum, because slavery is wrong and no amount of legislative process changes that. At that point you either cooperate or you don't. So I say, if I believe a law is wrong, do not cooperate with it's enforcement that's all she wrote

 

[Summerwind]

No I am not, I am using hyperbole as a rhetorical divide to probe his logic, he said that if there is a law he doesn't like he wil oppose it while helping to enforce it, because the fugitive slave act is perhaps the best example of thousands of Americans refusing to recognize federal authority on that subject, it is a good gauge. The point is not to equate the topics, they are nt equal, but to show the logic of "the laws the law" is a false premise, because at some point, there can be a law so wrong people will refuse to follow it or follow it only out of fear and coercion.

So his premise is false, the law is not always to be respected, the question is merely where the line is drawn

There's a huge difference in refusing to help enforce a law that makes a person a slave vs one that doesn't allow a person to carry/own a weapon that he/she is likely never going to use, in a legal manner anyway. There's no legitimate way to analogize the two.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

So if you lived in Boston in the 1850s and knew an African amercan working on the docks was an escaped slave you'd go down and tell the marshals? Or if a fellow churchgoer was part of the Underground Railroad? How wrong does a law have to be before you will choose not to comply ?

That's the tricky part. However, like summerwind pointed out, it's inappropriate to compare what's being asked in the OP to ANYTHING during the 1800s.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

OMFG, you're trying to conflate slavery as being equal to the non-hardships of gun owners? You are a piece of work.

And to conclude, there's a reason I didn't pose that question to you, becuase you believe gun laws are proper and constitutional, whereas LW said he doesn't but would turn people in for violation. To me that's a contradictory position. Either he is being hypocritical or fears what will happen to him if he doesn't, so this is to ferret out how sincere his belief in the system is

 

[Reformedfindlay]

No I am not, I am using hyperbole as a rhetorical divide to probe his logic, he said that if there is a law he doesn't like he wil oppose it while helping to enforce it, because the fugitive slave act is perhaps the best example of thousands of Americans refusing to recognize federal authority on that subject, it is a good gauge. The point is not to equate the topics, they are nt equal, but to show the logic of "the laws the law" is a false premise, because at some point, there can be a law so wrong people will refuse to follow it or follow it only out of fear and coercion.

So his premise is false, the law is not always to be respected, the question is merely where the line is drawn

Slavery righty hits a raw nerve because no one left in America truly believes it to be right, but if the logic is the law is the law and that alone makes it right then Luftwaffe should be willing to take that idea all the way. But he will not on this forum, because slavery is wrong and no amount of legislative process changes that. At that point you either cooperate or you don't. So I say, if I believe a law is wrong, do not cooperate with it's enforcement that's all she wrote

My premise is not false. If you REALLY want to change something, you'd work your way into a position to change it.

Intelligence is the best way to fight, nothing else works and if it does work it takes a lot more work and maybe even blood than if you tried to change something through intelligence.

But hey, you're always right, whatever. Progressives...

That's why I want to get into law school, I want to get into a position where I can influence laws so that they may better reflect the writing in the constitution. Don't you dare call me a half-asser.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

There's a huge difference in refusing to help enforce a law that makes a person a slave vs one that doesn't allow a person to carry/own a weapon that he/she is likely never going to use, in a legal manner anyway. There's no legitimate way to analogize the two.

Except what I did is not comparison of the two topics, it's a test of principal. That's how you test someone's principals by the way is making them answer a tough question. Your discomfort with authentic US history does not equated to an analogy

 

[Reformedfindlay]

I would not.The 2nd amendment outranks any local anti-2nd amendment law on the books.I am not going to turn in someone for exercising something they have a constitutional right to. The idea that you need to register or have a permit or some other nonsense to own a gun is absurd and last I checked the 2nd amendment makes no exception for those who previously served time behind bars.

2nd is not absolute. You can't have artillery and you can't be a felon looking for a firearm.

 

[Summerwind]

And to conclude, there's a reason I didn't pose that question to you, becuase you believe gun laws are proper and constitutional, whereas LW said he doesn't but would turn people in for violation. To me that's a contradictory position. Either he is being hypocritical or fears what will happen to him if he doesn't, so this is to ferret out how sincere his belief in the system is

Oh my gosh, I didn't know that you knew it all. There are many reasons to not like a law but to obey it nonetheless. Your judgement on someone else's reasoning is arrogant at best. Likelihood is that he's being neither hypocritical nor fearful. I can understand why you'd feel better about yourself though if you could paint him with either of those brushes.

 

[MickeyW]

Say you know your neighbor carries a gun without a license, or maybe was covicted of a disqualifying crime decades ago but has since been a productive member of society, or maybe decided not to register a sporting rifle like in Connecticutt,or an unregistered handgun in California? would you turn them in to authorities? Or would you testify against them in court?

I would not, if I believe the law to be wrong I would never help the government punish someone for violating it.

Ditto!!!

That would be like aiding and abetting the enemy...the Left! Never gonna happen.

 

[jamesrage]

2nd is not absolute. You can't have artillery and you can't be a felon looking for a firearm.

Does the 2nd amendment exclude those who at some time in their life served time behind bars? No it doesn't.Last I checked former felons are people and the 2nd amendment says they have the right to keep and bear arms. Until the 2nd amendment is amended such exclusions are a violation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Summerwind]

Except what I did is not comparison of the two topics, it's a test of principal. That's how you test someone's principals by the way is making them answer a tough question. Your discomfort with authentic US history does not equated to an analogy

Principals are rarely tested these days, usually it's the students and even some of the teachers.

In order to test someone's principles, you have to have similar analogies. Yours are not similar. One is about the treatment of a human being, the other is about ownership of a non-living item. You can imagine that you're somehow offering a valid consideration, but that's a reflection of your ignorance.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That's the tricky part. However, like summerwind pointed out, it's inappropriate to compare what's being asked in the OP to ANYTHING during the 1800s.

It's tricky to say wether or not you'd cooperate turning in conductors and fugitive slaves to the marshals? That's a disgrace to many thousands of patriots who risked their lives and livelihoods doing just that

Which is my point, lawyers have accomplished nothing in courts, freedom has to be fought for, and sometimes bled for

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen."

-- Samuel Adams


Read more: If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you and may posterity forg

 

[MickeyW]

It really depends? It's hard to say you would honestly want to turn in a friend of yours who has a rifle he doesn't have a license for, but say a kooky neighbor who is so clearly mentally ill is stock piling an arsenal it might be in my best interest to call the authorities to investigate.

If the person is obviously a whack job....I'd just stay clear of him.
But, just so we are clear, stock piling weapons and ammo.....and lots of it...is not a bad thing.
Some anti-gun nuts would construe it as paranoia, or some other silly thing. I view it as being wise, intelligent and above all...prepared.

That's fair enough, like I said it all depends on how well you know the person. If they're harmless, I would turn a blind eye to it but if it is someone who is mentally off the deep end and it could be a harm to others I'll call someone. As citizens, it isn't our job to enforce the laws, just follow them.

We agree.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Does the 2nd amendment exclude those who at some time in their life served time behind bars? No it doesn't.Last I checked former felons are people and the 2nd amendment says they have the right to keep and bear arms. Until the 2nd amendment is amended such exclusions are a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Felons are people who went through due process and had certain rights stripped of them for having committed a crime.

The right to bear arms being suppressed is part of their punishment.

Besides, last thing I need is some whacky jackass who served for aggravated assault 3 times toting a gun.