Security in Orlando

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,087
Let me think. We are going into NYC carrying loaded guns and drugs, so what sort of inconspicuous vehicle should we take. I know, let's take the wanna-be commando SUV with a broken windshield; they'll never notice us in that.
The old broken windshield trick. A great pretext stop reason.
https://jgoldmanlaw.wordpress.com/tag/probable-cause/

I'm not saying they were nice guys going to visit grandma or were the smartest people on the block but there is some possibility this case will get tossed on probable cause to stop even if the cops say the guns were in plain view after the stop. I would wonder how long these people were under surveillance before today's 'chance' discovery.

Everyone knows if you need to transport 'stuff' use a taxi, the taxi might be missing three doors with no windshield and packed full of crates but no cop anywhere in the world will give it a second look.
 
Last edited:

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
On the 2nd amendment and gun licensing, has anyone of the pro crowd ever read it? The first three words are very telling and never mentioned, "A well regulated". Wouldn't/doesn't that allow for licensing of ownership?
No. The term "well-regulated" was a common English phrase that meant, at the time the Constitution was written (and for a century or so both before and after) simply well-functioning. It did NOT mean government imposing a bunch of "regulations" on the militia. Quite the opposite -- it basically says that the founders believed that healthy, well-functioning militias are vital to the security of a FREE state. Notice that it does say that they are necessary for the security of any state, but rather a free state.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
Yes. Less the drugs.

BTW, the story seems to have been updated -- they added photos of the vehicle and weapons. I suspect they may not only be CCFL'd, but FFL'd as well. They are going to lose that, methinks. The drugs seem suspicious, though. I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but I've got a suspicion they were planted by the NYC po po.
What is indicating to you that they are either CCFL or FFL? I didn't see anything in the story that hinted one way or the other. Is it the fact that the vehicle seems to be commercially owned?

In the picture of all the things they recovered from the vehicle, there is a piece of paper that says, "Plain view", that has two magazines and something else I can't make out. Are these the items that the cops are saying were in plain sight and that prompted the search of the vehicle?

I can certainly see that vehicle garnering attention -- it's an abuse on the optic nerves and would be very hard NOT to notice. I don't see the crack in the windshield, but it's not a very good picture in that sense.

The story made a big deal about how many guns and how much ammo there was. I see seven guns. The last Blow Up The World Party & BBQ I attended saw me take over twenty guns and seven thousand rounds of ammo.

If it was illegal for them to bring those weapons into the city (as I suspect it was, given that we ARE talking about NYC) then I don't have much sympathy for them and if they do have permits that they will lose as a result then that is too bad. Even if they had permits that made it legal for them to bring the weapons into the city, the drugs change everything and, again, I have no sympathy for them. Of course, that's all based on what the news media is reporting, which you can count on having glaring errors in the facts.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
On the 2nd amendment and gun licensing, has anyone of the pro crowd ever read it? The first three words are very telling and never mentioned, "A well regulated". Wouldn't/doesn't that allow for licensing of ownership?
If you remember the comma usage ... you will find that there are a list of rights in the second amendment, much like there is a list of rights in the first amendment.

Yes I've read the whole Constitution of the United States. I swore to support and defend it four times so I figured I should at least read it a few times.

The Second Amendment, as ratified by the states and certified by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, read
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.
Notwithstanding the SCOTUS ruling, Comma rule number 1 applies. Otherwise, we will have problems with amendment 1 ...

Shortbus is correct about the ATF stating the M16/AR15 being a machine gun.

26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions
(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
27 CFR 479.11232: MEANING OF TERMS
The AR15 auto sear is a machine gun as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(b)
ATF Rul. 81-4
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has examined an auto sear known by the various trade names including “AR15 Auto Sear,” “Drop In Auto Sear,” and “Auto Sear II,” which consists of a sear mounting body, sear, return spring, and pivot pin. The Bureau finds that the single addition of this auto sear to certain AR15 type semiautomatic rifles, manufactured with M16 internal components already installed, will convert such rifles into machine guns.

The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) defines “machine gun” to include any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

From:ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
Asault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
Are you sure? The last one I shot was select fire: semi, 3s burst, and full. I have been away from class III for quite a while (since I sold my AC-556.) When did they change the M16?
From: Encyclopedia Britannica
The M16A2, adopted by the U.S. military in the early 1980s, replaced fully automatic fire with a three-round-burst capability that was intended to increase accuracy and reduce ammunition consumption.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
I don't read any of this as saying that an unmodified AR-15 is a machine gun. It says that "machine gun" applies to the sear assembly that can be used to convert some AR-15s into machine guns (and I think they should use a different term instead of machine gun for that, but they don't). If the AR-15 itself is already defined as a machine gun, then the phrase "will convert such rifles into machine guns" is nonsensical -- how can you convert something into something that it already is?

Also, if the AR-15 is classified as a machine gun, then you would have to have a machine gun permit to purchase and own one. You don't.
 

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
I think the Encyclopedia Britannica is a little out of date. The military has waffled back and forth on the full auto/burst capability of the M16. The A2 version did away with full auto, the A3 version brought it back, and the A4 version is available both ways. I was surprised to learn that most grunts get the burst version, and only recently have some been issued adjustable stocks.

And, no, the AR-15 semi-auto version is not considered a machine gun by the ATF. Certain versions of it were considered assault rifles and were banned until the ban expired in 2004 (and has never been reinstated.)
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,928
I wonder why the 2nd is the only one that states....shall not be infringed.

The Constitution wasn't an instruction book on how to govern and solve the countries problems.

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government and politicians. To assume an office, you must personally swear to uphold and protect that limitation.

9 and 10 are completely ignored......especially by judges.

This use the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the preamble, to ignore the 9th and 10th.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,087
I think the Encyclopedia Britannica is a little out of date. The military has waffled back and forth on the full auto/burst capability of the M16. The A2 version did away with full auto, the A3 version brought it back, and the A4 version is available both ways. I was surprised to learn that most grunts get the burst version, and only recently have some been issued adjustable stocks.

And, no, the AR-15 semi-auto version is not considered a machine gun by the ATF. Certain versions of it were considered assault rifles and were banned until the ban expired in 2004 (and has never been reinstated.)
Evil features were banned, I have an old Colt Sporter lightweight. The only real difference in the post-ban version was a missing Bayonet Lug. I've been thinking about paying the ATF $200 tax stamp to change the 16 inch to a short barrel rifle with a new upper.
 

Thread Starter

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,237
What is indicating to you that they are either CCFL or FFL? I didn't see anything in the story that hinted one way or the other. Is it the fact that the vehicle seems to be commercially owned?
Nothing more than a SWAG, likely wrong on one or both counts.

It is difficult to extrapolate anything useful from such a badly written article.
 

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
Yes. Less the drugs.

BTW, the story seems to have been updated -- they added photos of the vehicle and weapons. I suspect they may not only be CCFL'd, but FFL'd as well. They are going to lose that, methinks. The drugs seem suspicious, though. I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but I've got a suspicion they were planted by the NYC po po.
Yep, one of the guys owns a gun range, which indicates to me that he has an FFL and I would bet on a CC permit for all three. Of course all that is at risk now, although the question of illegal search is certainly real.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,087
From the nydailynews:
The 'drug' charge for the "three vigilantes (self styled idiots) in a pickup so bright it could be seen from space ?":D
"Police also found a marijuana pipe in the car and three prescription drug pills, sources said."

 
Last edited:

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
Makes one wonder if they read that document.
My guess, all kidding aside, is that well under 50% of sitting federal elected officials (president, vice-president, senators, and congressmen) could pass a basic test covering the Constitution. I would be similarly surprised if more than half have ever actually read the entire document in their entire life.

EDIT: Meant to add that this is a non-partisan comment. I think this is true of our politicians collectively regardless of party. I might believe that it applies more to one party than the other, but I think even the party that would likely score higher would do abysmally poorly.
 
Last edited:

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
I wonder why the 2nd is the only one that states....shall not be infringed.
Rather curious, isn't it.

Consider the First Amendment which states that "Congress shall make no law ...." A very clear limitation -- Congress is not allowed to make any law that does what the amendment prohibits it from doing and that is the entire restriction that is placed on the Federal Government in this regard -- a restriction on what laws Congress is allowed to pass. It does not say that courts can't have the Ten Commandments in front of the court house. It does not say that the Valedictorian at a public high school cannot mention God in their commencement speech. Yet these and many more things are considered equivalent to Congress passing a law establishing a religion.

Now consider the restriction placed on the Federal Government by the Second Amendment -- "... shall not be infringed." It doesn't just say that Congress can't pass a law that infringes that right -- it simply and clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph. Literally.

Contrary to what some claim (and what others claim that pro-Second Amendment people claim) this does NOT mean that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute for everyone. As is the case with all rights and liberties, they CAN be taken away -- but only through due process (that pesky Fifth Amendment that one senior congress critter openly declared this past week as "killing us" and needing to be gotten around).
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
SCOTUS has affirmed the reading of the 2nd amendment as a personal right to keep and bear arms.
Even justice Scalia didn't say that no regulation of guns was covered in the second amendment. He said that they would have to be decided in "future cases".

Direct Quote by Scalia,
"but the majority noted that, nonetheless, gun ownership was not an unlimited right, said Scalia, who wrote the opinion in that case."

“It will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible,” he added. “Some undoubtedly are.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ations-decided-future-cases-article-1.1124408
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
I've been a NRA member my whole adult life, but the way it has changed since Wayne LaPierre took control, I have decided to stop "drinking the kool-aid", and think for myself.
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
835
"Just to be clear I don't own a gun by choice nor inherit one" but, to add I do love guns and have no problem with someone legally possessing one and protecting their right bear arms.

Just out of curiosity? Does anyone know what happens to an individual who inherits a gun or guns from a family member? The instant that happens are they legally responsible to register the gun?


kv
 
Top