Off topic talk of..How'd my man do?
Jason M. Sullivan
jason at krazykat.nc.rr.com
Sat Oct 9 12:15:03 EDT 2004
In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0410072313320.4666 at godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>, rcu at duke.edu wrote:
>> There's still much open debate on if across the board roadblocks are legal
>> or not
> "General warrants, whereby an officer or other person may be commanded
> to search suspected places WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF THE ACT COMMITTED, or to
> seize any person or persons NOT NAMED, whose offense is not
> PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED and SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, are DANGEROUS TO LIBERTY
> and SHALL NOT BE GRANTED." (N.C. Const. I.20)
Yes, that's what the constitution says. Good job! Unconstitutional laws
get created with shocking regularity (I know "Schoolhouse Rock" never
mentioned this part, but it's true). Then, you need a "test case" to go
before the court in order to get it repealed (unless you can convince the
executive and legislative branches to repeal it, but since they passed it
in the first place that might be a harder job).
>> [M]aybe next time you shouldn't carry a concealed fiream when you don't
>> have a CCW.
> Maybe next time I should try to kill my kidnappers instead of trusting them
> to give me an impartial hearing.
Now you'e just being silly. Are you deliberatly not "Getting it" or are
all dyed in the wool Lib's like this?
>> That's a law that they're perfectly correct in chucking you in the
>> back of a cop car for violating
> They were perfectly incorrect to be stopping or searching me in the
> first place. If I'd done the same to them they'd've correctly charged me
> with multiple felonies. Where did equality of rights go?
Let's go over this one more time. They're cops. They're there to protect
you. I know it doesn't seem like it, and it certainly doesn't always work
out that way (Rossi has a bad cop story that actually a _bad_cop_story_),
but I understand the need for them. I'm tempted to go on a "where do cops
come from?" research project, but it's getting less and less worth it.
PS: Private cops (remember the whole private cop thing, that's where this
started) still don't solve any of your particular problems. In fact, they
would have made them much worse. You wouldn't be having this coversation
now, for instance.
>> and it's also a law that the majority of
>> the population feels is perfectly reasonable.
> Care to prove that by getting all the votes counted? Whole unrepealed
> clauses of our state and federal Constitutions explicitly support my right
> to possess my own property. The property category of weaponry is
> made particular mention of. The Libertarian Party didn't ordain that. We
> the People did.
Yes yes yes. And _nobody_ is taking your guns away. Certain types of
property require registration with the government. By law. These laws
haven't been stuck down (they could be, it's a democracy, after all), and
so simply defying them _isn't_legal_. By "not recognizing their
authority" you're breaking the law. Expect to get arrested and go to
Now, I'm certain that you're deliberately not getting it. So I'm going to
finish up here.
It seems like your whole thing started when you decided that you weren't
going to recognize anything the local govnerment did becuase they
wouldn't/didn't count your write in votes for a particular office.
While this wholesale rejecting of authority is cute, you're making an
implicit argument, and let me spell it out here.
"I didn't register the gun and get a CCW because I don't recognize their
authority to grant them, and they wouldn't have found it if they hadn't
searched my car. And they wouldn't have searched my car if I had simply
showed them my license (and even when I didn't, I don't recogize their
authority to search my car). Well, maybe they would have because the
registration is out of date and it's not inspected because they didn't
count my votes a few elections ago and I no longer recognize their
authority to tax me, but they shouldn't have stopped me anyway because I
was acting completely within my rights, and I saw no need to show the
Police my license because they had no cause to ask for it.
It obviously doesn't look this way to you, but to me, that's firmly in the
realm of "asking for trouble".
> In simplest terms I would like to understand why you think I should have
> been harmed (15-20 court calls of time-wasting spread out over two
> years before a jury was empaneled; $1500 fine; permanent loss of two
> guns; loss of right to possess weapons for a year) when I had caused no
> harm myself.
You broke the law?
Seriously, though. I don't think random roadblocks for no reason are
correct (in fact, I'd rather have the gutters of Durham choked with... oh,
never mind), but I belive your methods (if intentional) are all wrong. You
had things to find that would make them mark this as a successful stop.
Maybe they don't believe that now, but in the meantime you've only given
them more incentive to keep it up. I do think people need licenses for
guns, just like cars (which are tracked through every public and private
sale), so in that part, I think you broke a law I happen to agree with.
The funny part (to me), is that that would have never come up, had you
complied with one or two things at the start. Yelling "I shouldn't have
to." is about as useful as a small child compaining that "It isn't fair."
Which leads me to this: an appropriate public represenative knows when it's
prudent to compromise for the benefit of everyone.
//// Jason M. SULLIVAN jsullivan at nc.rr.com
\_- "That's not music, that's just sound!" - J. David Fries
More information about the Ch-scene