License need to exercise fundamental Right
- Thread starter Topgunner
- Start date
- Status
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Of course, it could be that we have seen this pattern several times already where somebody gets into trouble, presents their side of the story, their side doesn't fit what is otherwise available publicly, and in this case, they supposed want OUR help for our own benefit. The crux of the matter is that they are doing this for their own benefit, not ours, but marketing it as such.
Of course Ivy and Topgunner claim the public news record is wrong because it makes them look bad. Same for claiming the police did them wrong at every level. Nobody wants to donate to folks who look like they have broken a myriad of laws and then claiming the establishment is evil to account for the transgressions.
When you ask for handouts, but then don't provide a consistent and verifiable story, it affects credibility. If Jefferson wanted to secede because he was being slighted by the British and nobody really knew who he was, you are 100% correct in that people would have questioned his motives. That, however, was not Jefferson's situation, was it?
JUNGLEBILL
Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 10
im not buying it,,best of luck,,bill
RKBABob
Member
You owe me a new keyboard, Bushmaster!
I'd say the number of women who change both their first and last name is very small... I don't know of a single one who changed their entire identity at marriage. I'd bet that even fewer women would change their names, then be caught stashing something under a seat of an unregistered vehicle while their unlicensed husband drives, wearing a bullet proof vest and carrying two pistols which he also chose not to get licenses for, even though he knew full well the requirement for one.
Sincerely yours,
Bill Gates
Autolycus
Member
Good luck. I am highly suspicious of the situation for a myriad of reasons but I am not going to judge. It does seem that you are trying to cloud the issue with 2nd Amendment issues rather than owning up to the fact that there were a lot of other sketchy bits and pieces missing from the initial post.
Officers'Wife
Member
The only way a judge can decide constitutionality is if a case is in front om him to judge. This is why so many of the 'landmark' cases have such unsavory defendants. Miranda was a two bit punk who's one and only contribution to society was to help define the limits of the power granted to the police. Miller was far from a stellar upright individual. The list is endless. If you believe an act of the government is an abuse of power your duty is to defy that act. If you do not have the conviction of your belief you do not deserve to have it.
The Bushmaster
Member
RKBABob...You probably needed a new key board anyway...Always glad to make peoples day when something is haywire and ran into the gound...
oweno
Member
A good way to protest a law you believe to be unconstitutional or morally wrong is to take a page from Thoreau's or Ghandi's book... violate the law, get yourself arrested and thrown in jail, then work to get the law changed.
For example, tell the newspapers, TV stations, and the local police that you're going to do the following:
"I'm going to the front of the local police station, take an unloaded handgun out of my car, load it, and put it in my pocket. I don't have a permit and I expect the police to arrest me for violating New Hampshire's law regarding this.
Then, you can work your way through the courts...you can work to get the law changed...whatever.
Much easier than getting busted for driving with a suspended license, revoked plates, etc. and then the cops find concealed, loaded weapons without a license to carry during a search subsequent to an arrest.
An aside: I understand that police actually look for people in stopped cars bending over to stuff things under the front seat...the cops find it "interesting" when people do this.
For example, tell the newspapers, TV stations, and the local police that you're going to do the following:
"I'm going to the front of the local police station, take an unloaded handgun out of my car, load it, and put it in my pocket. I don't have a permit and I expect the police to arrest me for violating New Hampshire's law regarding this.
Then, you can work your way through the courts...you can work to get the law changed...whatever.
Much easier than getting busted for driving with a suspended license, revoked plates, etc. and then the cops find concealed, loaded weapons without a license to carry during a search subsequent to an arrest.
An aside: I understand that police actually look for people in stopped cars bending over to stuff things under the front seat...the cops find it "interesting" when people do this.
Yes, some pretty smarmy characters have given us some landmark Constitutional rulings. But if you are going to set out to mount a Constitutional challenge, you want a nice clean case, like Heller.
You first. Sounds like a good way to get shot. Sounds like a good way to make gun advocates look like idiots, and set back the cause. That won't do a thing to change the minds of the people who count, the lawmakers and the voters.
A frail, black lady being arrested for daring to sit in the white section of a public bus will be viewed by many as a sympathetic individual. A guy whipping out a gun in front of a police station (loaded or not) will be viewed as a dangerous loon and get no sympathy.
And, what new legal theory would that case present to the courts that would get your case any further than your conviction?
K
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Well, they were arraigned and trial dates set. See the bizarrish part 1 of 2 (of which there is no 2, not yet anyways) here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYYChkWPsFE&feature=related
He pled innocent. She apparently didn't enter a plea and proclaimed her charges as null and void. Both will be going to trial. Go figure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYYChkWPsFE&feature=related
He pled innocent. She apparently didn't enter a plea and proclaimed her charges as null and void. Both will be going to trial. Go figure.
Last edited:
NavyLCDR
member
No Victim = No Crime?!? Did anybody else pick up on that? Isn't that one of the reasons that we have laws, is to establish some sort of order to minimize the numbers of victims? Granted, some bad laws, and we all know which ones I am talking about.. do tend to increase the number of victims rather than prevent, but come on...
I guess if I run a stop sign, the police should not do anything about it unless I hit a carload of senior citizens coming the other way.
I guess if I run a stop sign, the police should not do anything about it unless I hit a carload of senior citizens coming the other way.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Patriot Henry
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 5
Essential Rights
If you wish to win in court, get the best (read "best connected") lawyer you can afford.
Legally speaking however, I can find no violation of NH law. I'm very big on relying primarily upon textual interpretations based upon my radical belief that the law says what it means and that the law means what it says.
Article 2a of the state Constitution recognizes your right to bear arms. I can't find any section saying that the legislature can require you to get permission from your local police chief which they shall give to put your sidearm in your pocket instead of on your belt. It seems rather absurd that one needs permission to carry such a useful tool out and about in public - and even more absurd that one only needs permission if one is going to tuck it out of sight of Nervous Nellies, and outright ridiculous that this permission is to be rubber stamped by the authorities. The only applications with any purpose would seem to be a back door gun registration method to alert the authorities of which citizens are exercising their rights - and to provide an additional charge to heap upon those the government takes a disliking to. There is no protection of the public served by these statutes and they would seem to restrict an essential right for no legitimate purpose.
The car is property and your right to it is recognized by the second article.
Driving is a right. It is one form of the exercise of the right of locomotion, also known as the freedom to travel. As with walking, riding a bicycle, reading a Bible, or carrying a firearm this right is not subject to being given out as the government sees fit. I don't know of a means to do a statistical analysis but as someone else once pointed out today's automobiles with modern safety equipment (and brakes and steering) with todays roads even with the higher speeds are likely much safer than the shoddy roads of more than a century ago when no license insurance or other government mandated paperwork was needed to drive a horse powered carriage - with little or absolutely no safety equipment. The restrictions upon the right of locomotion are one of the worst violations of human liberty yet so firmly is this practice entrenched into our culture they are one of the least complained about of the great many usurpations and abuses of power by the governments of our world.
"Driver's licenses" are an abominable step towards a totalitarian government. One of the criminal statutes that is arguably even worse is the government forced contract with a private company based upon a possible future event. We call it auto insurance and consider it to be a necessity of modern life and even most libertarian leaning folk do not question the legality, morality, necessity, precedent, or actual effects and consequences of government compelled contracts with private companies about something that might or might not happen.
To those who are shaking their heads at me - well, I once thought as just about everyone else does until I saw some crackpot spouting such nonsense and I took the time to research what he was talking about until it made sense. I don't have the time to serve as anyone's research assistant but I quickly found this document which cites most of the essential relevant legal information: http://www.welcome.freeenterprisesociety.com/right_to_travel.htm
Best of luck to BIll and Ivy.
If you wish to win in court, get the best (read "best connected") lawyer you can afford.
Legally speaking however, I can find no violation of NH law. I'm very big on relying primarily upon textual interpretations based upon my radical belief that the law says what it means and that the law means what it says.
Article 2a of the state Constitution recognizes your right to bear arms. I can't find any section saying that the legislature can require you to get permission from your local police chief which they shall give to put your sidearm in your pocket instead of on your belt. It seems rather absurd that one needs permission to carry such a useful tool out and about in public - and even more absurd that one only needs permission if one is going to tuck it out of sight of Nervous Nellies, and outright ridiculous that this permission is to be rubber stamped by the authorities. The only applications with any purpose would seem to be a back door gun registration method to alert the authorities of which citizens are exercising their rights - and to provide an additional charge to heap upon those the government takes a disliking to. There is no protection of the public served by these statutes and they would seem to restrict an essential right for no legitimate purpose.
The car is property and your right to it is recognized by the second article.
Driving is a right. It is one form of the exercise of the right of locomotion, also known as the freedom to travel. As with walking, riding a bicycle, reading a Bible, or carrying a firearm this right is not subject to being given out as the government sees fit. I don't know of a means to do a statistical analysis but as someone else once pointed out today's automobiles with modern safety equipment (and brakes and steering) with todays roads even with the higher speeds are likely much safer than the shoddy roads of more than a century ago when no license insurance or other government mandated paperwork was needed to drive a horse powered carriage - with little or absolutely no safety equipment. The restrictions upon the right of locomotion are one of the worst violations of human liberty yet so firmly is this practice entrenched into our culture they are one of the least complained about of the great many usurpations and abuses of power by the governments of our world.
"Driver's licenses" are an abominable step towards a totalitarian government. One of the criminal statutes that is arguably even worse is the government forced contract with a private company based upon a possible future event. We call it auto insurance and consider it to be a necessity of modern life and even most libertarian leaning folk do not question the legality, morality, necessity, precedent, or actual effects and consequences of government compelled contracts with private companies about something that might or might not happen.
To those who are shaking their heads at me - well, I once thought as just about everyone else does until I saw some crackpot spouting such nonsense and I took the time to research what he was talking about until it made sense. I don't have the time to serve as anyone's research assistant but I quickly found this document which cites most of the essential relevant legal information: http://www.welcome.freeenterprisesociety.com/right_to_travel.htm
Best of luck to BIll and Ivy.
Patriot Henry
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 5
Government licenses, insurance contracts, and auto registrations do not protect the public from the irresponsible. Some people with the paperwork still endanger and or harm other people with their cars, as do people without the paperwork. All the paperwork does is add to the burden of living for the citizens while diminishing their liberty and adding to the powers of the government.
As for running a stop sign: our traffic control systems are primitive and arbitrary and the government's enforcement is harmful. Many stop signs should be yield signs. A one mile per hour "rolling stop" which in non-double speak is "yielding" is treated the same as plowing through the intersection at a dangerous speed. The government has a tremendous financial interest and power motive in this racket of ever more complex and sophisticated revenue collecting means. The government's usurpation (and delegation to the private insurance companies) of the individual's responsibility for their own actions also contributes to the carelessness that pervades our nation. The abuse of the power to regulate driving also contributes to the disregard of the law and alienation from the government by an ever larger part of the populace. As with every government control on individuals that is designed to directly prevent a harm many negative consequences are introduced and the original problem isn't resolved in the least and often is made far worse. One typical and sadly all too often example in the news the other day was a drunk driving fatality in which the perpetrator was an illegal alien. The issuing of licenses to illegal aliens as favored by some states and groups of people would not have stopped that incident from happening. The only difference would be that the illegal alien would have a license but I don't think that would matter much to the victim's family. Government programs and paper work do not prevent people from getting harmed. Having a rational system that holds people accountable for their actions when they fail to do so just might work a bit better than the various forms of the madness of having bureaucrats and politicians determine who can do what and how they can it.
Patriot Henry
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 5
I surely hope to never be in that position. So far as I can figure the judge and prosecutor would be unwittingly conspiring using the color of authority to violate the rights of the defendant. That is a felony under federal law. I can't imagine most judges taking very kindly to being told that.
He's not a resident of NH and has a valid CCW from another state?
To my knowledge there is no license, fee or tax on open carry. 2A talks about the right to bear arms but does not specify open or concealed. By allowing gun ownership and open carry without taxes, fees or licensing you are fulfilling the 2A.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Uh, nope. You have figured wrong.
RKBABob
Member
Other than driving without a license, having an invalid registration, and concealing a weapon without a permit to do so. You might not like these laws, but I'm sure that they're written in such a way as to allow you to "textually interpret" them.
Regardless of article 2a, or even the 2nd Ammendment, there always have been laws addressing what you can and cannot do with the firearms you legally bear. I'm sure there were laws in Jefferson's day prohibiting colonists from shooting a blunderbuss at a town hall meeting while screaming "King George is a wank!"
Then write to your state legislators and encourage them to change this.
A house is property, too, and it is subject to many laws and regulations... maybe you think its unConstitutional that your neighbor is forced by law to have a proper septic system, rather than a simple pit full of you-know-what next to the property line?
Flying is another form of locomotion. Are you against any form of licensing or testing for private aviators? Would it be my right to fly without identifying myself to air traffic control (call numbers are a form of government registration, after all), fly through whichever restricted airspace I feel like (such as over airports), , and land where ever I please? That doesn't sound like a very safe idea, does it?
I'm not sure what reading a Bible has to do with driving a car, other than its peobably illegal to do both at the same time.
Violations of human liberty? Oh, please! I'm free to travel at a moment's notice to anywhere between the two great oceans, so just how has my travel been restricted? Yes, my vehicle is registered, and insured... and if I was ever in an accident, I'd hope the other vehicle is registered (so the driver can be identified) and insured (so the dirver can be held financially accountable for my damages).
The consequence is that the driver is out $500, but his liability is covered in the event he causes property damage, injury, or death.
Last edited:
Gentlemen, Patrick Henry is making up the "law" as he goes along. I'm not sure that we need to encourage him.
RKBABob
Member
Bologna! Mandatory insurance protects me from the financial consequences of your negligence.
Do you have an idea to replace the lowly and primitive stop sign with something more advanced? Do tell. As for me, I'll obey these supposedly unjust stop signs, so that I might survive my drive home from work today.
I take it that you don't believe that immigration laws are unConstitutional, and if I'm correct in this assumption, I will say that enforcing the law would have prevented this tragedy. As for the licensing procedure, it may have compelled him to get insurance which would have helped if the victims of the accident were merely injured, and in need of expensive medical care... insurance might still have helped the surviving family members, although it would do little to console them.
Then don't drive through New Hampshire without a license and with an expired or false vehicle registration while concealing 2 pistols without a permit to do so.
The judge is holding legal procedings, as is his job to do so. The proecutor is pursuing charges against persons who violated the laws of his state which, again, is his job.
Oh, boy! Only one law is valid, and it conveniently bars judges and prosecutors from enforcing all others! Wow!
I couldn't stand to read everything and just jumped to the end....
You were pulled over for MV violations and got pinched for more violations? OK, sounds like a good arrest. Your ONLY defense is to attack the MV stop as being "without probable cause"...that's it, that's all there is to it.
By the sound of it your reg was suspended, yes that shows up when the plates are run & yes, that's why you got towed and your plates were seized. You have no right to drive an unregistered MV in any state, on any public highway, regardless of what state your car is registered in. The most common reasons reg's are suspended (in my state) are failure to pay taxes, insurance, not going to emissions, etc.
You can be ordered to step from the vehicle, blame the supreme court if you don't like it. Whether they asked you to step out because something was suspicious or just to chat, they can do that.
Finally, mistakes are ocassionally made, but the police don't like to do paperwork for the heck of it..every arrest is reviewed by a supervisor. There likely were obvious violations, whether you agree with the law is another matter. It pays to be informed, read the statutes.
You were pulled over for MV violations and got pinched for more violations? OK, sounds like a good arrest. Your ONLY defense is to attack the MV stop as being "without probable cause"...that's it, that's all there is to it.
By the sound of it your reg was suspended, yes that shows up when the plates are run & yes, that's why you got towed and your plates were seized. You have no right to drive an unregistered MV in any state, on any public highway, regardless of what state your car is registered in. The most common reasons reg's are suspended (in my state) are failure to pay taxes, insurance, not going to emissions, etc.
You can be ordered to step from the vehicle, blame the supreme court if you don't like it. Whether they asked you to step out because something was suspicious or just to chat, they can do that.
Finally, mistakes are ocassionally made, but the police don't like to do paperwork for the heck of it..every arrest is reviewed by a supervisor. There likely were obvious violations, whether you agree with the law is another matter. It pays to be informed, read the statutes.
NavyLCDR
member
RKBABob,
I really wanted to reply, just as you did, but I just couldn't bring myself to waste perfectly good time and keystrokes on such a flaming anarchist as PH.
Thanks for your efforts, I applaud you, but I am sure PH won't hear it. Very good point about flying - I am going out right now and buy me an airplane, that will be so much more convenient than fighting traffic. How dare the government restrict us in that way.
I'll bet I can get PH to go with me. We'll just march right through airport security with our concealed guns, they have no authority to restrict our rights anyway, and get in an airplane and have a grand time. All those sheep that call themselves pilots, going where ATC tells them to go, they can just get out of our way, because the government has no right to govern when and where we can fly our airplane. Now, let's see, do you pull the throttle out to make it go faster? And pull back is up and push forward is down, right? I think that's enough training... let's go PH, I'll meet you at the airport!
I really wanted to reply, just as you did, but I just couldn't bring myself to waste perfectly good time and keystrokes on such a flaming anarchist as PH.
Thanks for your efforts, I applaud you, but I am sure PH won't hear it. Very good point about flying - I am going out right now and buy me an airplane, that will be so much more convenient than fighting traffic. How dare the government restrict us in that way.
I'll bet I can get PH to go with me. We'll just march right through airport security with our concealed guns, they have no authority to restrict our rights anyway, and get in an airplane and have a grand time. All those sheep that call themselves pilots, going where ATC tells them to go, they can just get out of our way, because the government has no right to govern when and where we can fly our airplane. Now, let's see, do you pull the throttle out to make it go faster? And pull back is up and push forward is down, right? I think that's enough training... let's go PH, I'll meet you at the airport!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked