Suspended Drivers license

[Gawernator]

Agreed. For the "shall not be infringed" crybabies (I know some will respond typing furiously due to derangement syndrome): this guy is literally the reason background checks exist.

Rights come with responsibilities. Behave like an adult and you get to keep them.

What did he do to warrant taking away his guns? Lots of dumb people still get to vote and have freedom of speech, which are more dangerous than carrying a Glock around.

 

[lactoast]

The only logical conclusion is this guy was up to no good and belongs in prison. This isn't being a red blooded American. Red blooded Americans respect and obey the law.

I dunno, I think there’s nothing more American than picking and choosing which laws to follow

 

[CAshooter]

What an idiot. People like that shouldn’t have guns.

People like that are the reason the rest of us have to wait 10 days to get a firearm.

 

[Gawernator]

People like that are the reason the rest of us have to wait 10 days to get a firearm.

Not really, there are dumb people in all the states without a 10 day wait

 

[Hit Factor]

Agreed. For the "shall not be infringed" crybabies (I know some will respond typing furiously due to derangement syndrome): this guy is literally the reason background checks exist.

Rights come with responsibilities. Behave like an adult and you get to keep them.

Being pro-2A doesn’t mean you own guns. It means you support, defend, and uphold the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Take a moment to reread it, and then tell us if you’re really pro-2A or if you just think you are because you happen to own a gun.



*click*

 

[Gawernator]

Being pro-2A doesn’t mean you own guns. It means you support, defend, and uphold the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Take a moment to reread it, and then tell us if you’re really pro-2A or if you just think you are because you happen to own a gun.

View attachment 220711

*click*

He votes for gun grabbers, he is definitely not a 2A supporter

 

[Unbend]

Well then, I hope they’re not intentionally using the terms “AR-15” and “assault weapon” interchangeably. They wouldn’t be that irresponsible . . . would they?

They only mentioned "AR-15" and not assault weapon in the facebook post and related news articles.
The fact is that the AR-15 was configured as an "assault weapon" according to current, albeit unconstitutional, California law.
So that's what he was charged with "possession of an assault weapon".

I don't think not mentioning "assault weapon" in the FB post implies they're using "AR-15" interchangeably.

 

[nakatomi]

Being pro-2A doesn’t mean you own guns. It means you support, defend, and uphold the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Take a moment to reread it, and then tell us if you’re really pro-2A or if you just think you are because you happen to own a gun.

View attachment 220711

*click*

@Hit Factor - Straight question. Yes or no:

Do you think the active warrant guy in the OP should have had that Glock and that AR?

If your answer is no then we actually agree. Background checks kept guns away from him.

But if your answer is yes then we have a disagreement.

So on the amendment itself I’d just point to the first words: well regulated. That was an intentional rule baked in from the start ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Unbend]

@Hit Factor - Straight question. Yes or no:

Do you think the active warrant guy in the OP should have had that Glock and that AR?

If your answer is no then we actually agree. Background checks kept guns away from him.

But if your answer is yes then we have a disagreement.

So on the amendment itself I’d just point to the first words: well regulated. That was an intentional rule baked in from the start ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Language changes over time, when reviewing historical documents you must actually use the accepted definition of a term when it was used.
Most definitely not "an intentional rule baked in from the start". That is flat out wrong.
Misunderstanding how to use the term "well regulated" correctly is what leads to thinking it's "restricted", "controlled", or otherwise limited in capacity or function.

"Militia" - An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
"well regulated" - Organized and trained.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary,and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789,and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2ndamendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

It's the same as today saying "literally" as in "I literally my pants.", when in fact, you didn't and it was figurative.

 

[Unbend]

@Hit Factor - Straight question. Yes or no:

Do you think the active warrant guy in the OP should have had that Glock and that AR?

If your answer is no then we actually agree. Background checks kept guns away from him.

But if your answer is yes then we have a disagreement.

So on the amendment itself I’d just point to the first words: well regulated. That was an intentional rule baked in from the start ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Warrant guy did acquire those firearms legally.

None of the charges are for an unregistered firearm in their possession.
A background check did not keep those guns away from him. Claiming otherwise is not true.
The evidence is he clearly had them in his possession during the time of his arrest.

---

As far as the configuration, location, etc. reviewing those charges:
- Carrying Loaded Firearm On Person Or In Vehicle While In Public Place
- Carry Concealed Weapon in Vehicle
- Possession of Assault Weapon
- Large Capacity Magazine

Are those are unconstitutional? Yes.
Should have have still done that? No.
Why? It's current state law, even if it goes against the constitution.
Are they an idiot for this? Yes.

You can support the 2nd Amendment while still being law abiding, both are logically independent and not conditional upon each other.
Conversely a person can still support gun control in general while not supporting specific laws for control.
The logical fallacies you're using, non sequitur & false dilemma, don't make for a valid argument or discussion.

The fact is they violated current state law.

 

[Gawernator]

@Hit Factor - Straight question. Yes or no:

Do you think the active warrant guy in the OP should have had that Glock and that AR?

If your answer is no then we actually agree. Background checks kept guns away from him.

But if your answer is yes then we have a disagreement.

So on the amendment itself I’d just point to the first words: well regulated. That was an intentional rule baked in from the start ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well regulated in 1776 didn’t mean “lots of rules and regulations” this isn’t even an argument it’s just ignorance

 

[nakatomi]

Language changes over time, when reviewing historical documents you must actually use the accepted definition of a term when it was used.
Most definitely not "an intentional rule baked in from the start". That is flat out wrong.
Misunderstanding how to use the term "well regulated" correctly is what leads to thinking it's "restricted", "controlled", or otherwise limited in capacity or function.

"Militia" - An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
"well regulated" - Organized and trained.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

It's the same as today saying "literally" as in "I literally my pants.", when in fact, you didn't and it was figurative.

You’re right that well regulated back then meant organized and trained. But that still requires verification somehow right? Rosters, musters and inspections?

We both agree the warrant guy shouldn’t have had those guns and he may have bought legally. But he became prohibited the second the warrant hit. CA already runs a system that flags legal owners who later get disqualified. That’s the layer past point of sale.

He’s in jail and the system worked. The real issue is enforcement not whether checks help. Do we get rid of checks?

 

[Unbend]

You’re right that well regulated back then meant organized and trained. But that still requires verification somehow right? Rosters, musters and inspections?

We both agree the warrant guy shouldn’t have had those guns and he may have bought legally. But he became prohibited the second the warrant hit. CA already runs a system that flags legal owners who later get disqualified. That’s the layer past point of sale.

He’s in jail and the system worked. The real issue is enforcement not whether checks help. Do we get rid of checks?

No, that does not require verification, rosters, musters, or inspections. You can be organized and trained without any of those.
Again, non sequitur argument proposal.

Not necessarily, I do not agree with the premise that he "shouldn't have had the guns."
Based on the charges those were all legally acquired, again, given the lack of being charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.

The first, and only, arrest warrant was for "Vandalism $5000 Or More". They were taken into custody during the traffic stop, so there's only a single warrant for arrest.
Even though that charge could be either a felony or misdemeanor; there was no conviction, that I'm aware of, which is the deciding factor there.
Warrant -> arrest -> court -> ruling (non/conviction)
A vandalism charge could very well be dropped to misdemeanor.

The new pending charges following his arrest, those will likely prevent them from possessing a firearm.

No, the system did not work given the premise of preventing those initial crimes from occurring.
Nothing prevented him from committing crimes with those legally acquired firearms.
It will only prevent him from legally acquiring more firearms in the future, if he's convicted with any of the potential felonies he's charged with.

Your statement that "But he became prohibited the second the warrant hit." is objectively false. A warrant is not a conviction.
Generally, there is no automatic firearm possession prohibition based solely on those facts.

This is in no way implying or arguing to remove checks either.

As for the state of the guns, I've already established previously that the configuration as an "assault weapon" and the "high capacity" magazines* violate current California law.

* standard capacity compared to our substandard 10 round CA mags.


Edit: The average citizen owning firearms does not depend on having a militia. But a militia does depend on average citizens owning firearms. It is a precursor to having a militia in the first place. The logical order of operations and conditions is critical to consider when approaching this topic.

 

[Gawernator]

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Unbend]

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

Technically speaking, they are still innocent.
What they had in the vehicle was seized as evidence.
Yes we, the audience, can obviously see that the from the photos that the configuration does violate current state law.

They have yet to be convicted of a crime (proven guilty).

 

[Gawernator]

Technically speaking, they are still innocent.
What they had in the vehicle was seized as evidence.
Yes we, the audience, can obviously see that the from the photos that the configuration does violate current state law.

They have yet to be convicted of a crime (proven guilty).

I was referring to Nakatomi Plaza guy saying that he deserved to lose his gun rights because of a vandalism warrant lol.

 

[Unbend]

I was referring to Nakatomi Plaza guy saying that he deserved to lose his gun rights because of a vandalism warrant lol.

Ah, yes. Agreed.
Post order makes it a bit difficult with intended replies.

 

[Hit Factor]

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe I shouldn’t have clicked ignore on this Nakatomi Plaza guy so soon. It looks like he’s going all Anti on you. I just can’t take all the Lefties and the gun-grabbers/gun controllers on this site, so I started ignoring them awhile ago, and it feels much more like a Constitution-supporting, freedom-based gun forum now.

 

[Gawernator]

Maybe I shouldn’t have clicked ignore on this Nakatomi Plaza guy so soon. It looks like he’s going all Anti on you. I just can’t take all the Lefties and the gun-grabbers/gun controllers on this site, so I started ignoring them awhile ago, and it feels much more like a Constitution-supporting, freedom-based gun forum now.

He is force ignored on my profile by a mod, I never ignore anyone lmaoooo. Yeah guys like him are anti 2A idk why they hang out on a gun forum. It's some weird cognitive dissonance for sure. They are the same people that claim to be pro-gun yet vote for Rob Bonta and Newsom and Kamala Harris. It's wild lol.

Ironically a bunch of liberals on this forum "ignored" me because they can't handle the cognitive dissonance when called out on the facts.

 

[Hit Factor]

He is force ignored on my profile by a mod, I never ignore anyone lmaoooo. Yeah guys like him are anti 2A idk why they hang out on a gun forum. It's some weird cognitive dissonance for sure. They are the same people that claim to be pro-gun yet vote for Rob Bonta and Newsom and Kamala Harris. It's wild lol

They have been fooled by the axe.