Tennessee republican sheriff refuses to obey the law

[kwikrnu]

This probably won't get much attention because most care little about the NFA and the regulation of certain weapons. First off I do not think that short barreled rifles, shotguns, suppressors (silencers), and machine guns ought to be regulated by the government. That being said I don't want to go to jail so I will try and comply with the law.

In 2003 the Tennessee legislature passed public chapter 275. The law passed with no opposition. It is TCA 39-17-1361.
“The sheriff or chief of police of the city of residence of a person purchasing any firearm, defined by the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845 et seq., shall execute within fifteen (15) business days of any request all documents required to be submitted by the purchaser if the purchaser is not prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to § 39-17-1316."

That seems fairly straight forward, the sheriff "shall execute...all documents."

On February 9, 2010 I purchased a suppressor. I filled out the paperwork, was fingerprinted and photographed. The sheriff, at the end of 15 days gave me the document. It was signed, but two lines of the form were crossed out rendering it useless. I sent the NFA application to the BATFE and they refused it, stating that they cannot approve if the lines are crossed out.

Tennessee law, TCA 8-47-101 and 8-47-103, state that a public official shall be investigated if on written complaint and that the official who failed to perform a statutory duty shall be ousted. I made a written complaint to both the District Attorney and the Attorney General. The District Attorney refered the matter to the Attorney General because she said she had a conflict of interest. The Attorney General basically said the sheriff had no statutory duty to execute the NFA document.

The only remedy available to me to force the sheriff to obey the law is to petition the Chancery Court for a writ of mandate. Also known as a writ of mandamus. This petition is to ask the court to force a respondent to perform a statutory duty. I filed the writ of mandamus on September 20, 2010. I amended the writ on October 1, 2010 to correct a couple of errors. The sheriff motioned to dismiss on September 29, 2010.

In my petition I ask the chancellor to mandate the sheriff execute my BATFE form 4.

The sheriff in his motion to dismiss states that:
1. There is no affidavit
2. Petitioner does not identify a duty
3. Petitioner has other available remedies

Anyway, it goes to show how anti-gun some Republicans really are. This one convinced the county commission to ban guns in parks a few months ago.

Petition 9-20-10 with documents (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcZmU3MTQ5ZDYtMTZlYS00MjUyL TlkZjUtYzM3MWU0NzVjMGQy&hl=en)

Motion to dismiss 9-29-10 (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcZjk5MTY0YzMtNTgyMS00Y2YyL Tg2YWItYWMwMmE3ZTk3OTcw&hl=en)

First amended complaint 10-1-10 (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcOTQwOWYzNzgtNGY2Mi00Nzk5L TgxNWItODczNzMzMzc1NWMx&hl=en)

Lomoy v O'neil (https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=13FWoLlm9_SbkwwQYJPrT9VOaRMrVY0oBRt1pZAx0e _A&hl=en)

Audio silencer denied and house and senate hearings (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcOTRmOGI5MGMtYzkyNC00M2E3LWI4N jMtNmJlMGI2NGJhZWE2&hl=en)

TCA 39-17-1316 (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcZWZjMDA2OTEtMjVlZS00YmYzL TkyMmEtODQ4NGU4ZTBhNTMz&hl=en)

[Matt Collins]

Leonard, welcome aboard here. I have heard a lot of good things about you from our mutual friend Rich Hamblen. I definitely want to meet you, learn more, and see if we can help ensure our right to keep and bear arms is protected. I'm a bit tied up until November though, so let's chat then.

[Matt Collins]

For those interested in the backstory without reading the legalese here is the leftest liberal media version of events:


Man Who Carried Gun In Park Has Permit Revoked - Gun Rights Supporter Attempts To Set Record Straight
http://www.wsmv.com/news/22834140/detail.html (http://www.wsmv.com/news/22834140/detail.html)



Gunman vows to continue carrying AK-47 to parks
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/gunman-vows-continue-carrying-ak-47-parks (http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/gunman-vows-continue-carrying-ak-47-parks)




Guns haven’t changed state parks:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/sep/12/guns-havent-changed-state-parks/?politics (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/sep/12/guns-havent-changed-state-parks/?politics)



Belle Meade Mayor Denies City Is Trying To Ban Permitholders From Carrying Firearms (http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/03/17/belle-meade-mayor-denies-city-is-trying-to-ban-permitholders-from-carrying-firearms/)



Radnor Lake Rambo Strikes Again! He's the Belle Meade Macho Man Now:
http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2010/02/08/radnor-lake-rambo-strikes-again-hes-the-belle-meade-macho-man-now (http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2010/02/08/radnor-lake-rambo-strikes-again-hes-the-belle-meade-macho-man-now)



Tennessee gun in park incident reveals a scarier danger:
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/tennessee-gun-park-incident-reveals-a-scarier-danger (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/tennessee-gun-park-incident-reveals-a-scarier-danger)



Rex: Radnor Lake Rambo returns (http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/rex-radnor-lake-rambo-returns)



Gun rights activist sues state after carry permit revoked (http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/gun-rights-activist-sues-state-after-carry-permit-revoked)



Same As It Ever Was:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/09/12/same-as-it-ever-was-3/ (http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/09/12/same-as-it-ever-was-3/)

[pcosmar]

Anyway, it goes to show how anti-gun some Republicans really are. ]

Having an (R) doesn't impress me. There are many that Say they support the 2nd amendment but there actions have shown otherwise.

:(

[kwikrnu]

Leonard, welcome aboard here. I have heard a lot of good things about you from our mutual friend Rich Hamblen. I definitely want to meet you, learn more, and see if we can help ensure our right to keep and bear arms is protected. I'm a bit tied up until November though, so let's chat then.

Thanks. I'm not sure how much can be done. I've been getting discouraged the more I learn about the courts and politics.

[Dr.3D]

I am under the impression this may be a job for the county ombudsman's office.

[madengr]

You can always form a trust and bypass the sheriff, but thats not the point.

[Matt Collins]

Thanks. I'm not sure how much can be done. I've been getting discouraged the more I learn about the courts and politics.
Yes, it's very discouraging. But the good thing is that right now we have more people on our side than ever. You're biggest problem is that you have been made out to be an unsympathetic individual. But that can be changed. I'll do a bit more research after Nov 2nd.

[kwikrnu]

They answered my complaint, I was served in the mail on Oct. 2, 2010.

link (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcMzg3ZmE5NzEtZDRiYS00OTVhL WE1MDQtNzdiMWI5ZGQ0ZDZl&hl=en)

[Krugerrand]

It's too bad the ACLU is a waste. They should be fighting that fight for you.

[kwikrnu]

I lost the case.

law (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcYjc0M2NjYzktYzFmNi00OTY0LTk2N DEtNWQwMzExYTZjMTQ0&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

Judges order (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcMmIzZWVjZDMtOGE0Ni00M2M0LTg5Y TUtZWMxMjJhNmRhNDIx&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

Courtroom audio (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcYjc4YTY2MzgtYWFiZC00ZDllLThhN GQtMGJmN2EwNmUzMjZm&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

[Matt Collins]

I lost the case.

law (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcYjc0M2NjYzktYzFmNi00OTY0LTk2N DEtNWQwMzExYTZjMTQ0&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

Judges order (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcMmIzZWVjZDMtOGE0Ni00M2M0LTg5Y TUtZWMxMjJhNmRhNDIx&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

Courtroom audio (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcYjc4YTY2MzgtYWFiZC00ZDllLThhN GQtMGJmN2EwNmUzMjZm&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

:(:(:(:(

Can you give us a quick synopsis?

[AxisMundi]

This probably won't get much attention because most care little about the NFA and the regulation of certain weapons. First off I do not think that short barreled rifles, shotguns, suppressors (silencers), and machine guns ought to be regulated by the government. That being said I don't want to go to jail so I will try and comply with the law.

Considering the Second, of which I participate in, wasn't intended to be a free for all as far as firearm ownership is, may I ask WHY you don't think those items should not be "regulated"?

[GunnyFreedom]

Considering the Second, of which I participate in, wasn't intended to be a free for all as far as firearm ownership is, may I ask WHY you don't think those items should not be "regulated"?

"...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

I dunno, seems pretty clear to me.

[AxisMundi]

"...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

I dunno, seems pretty clear to me.

Indeed, it is quite clear.

Infringe doesn not mean encroach.

Like the term "establishment", many citizens are guilty of reading their own personal intirpritation into an otherwise clear and succinct term.

[Matt Collins]

Infringe doesn not mean encroach.When the government doesn't allow you to own a firearm that's an infringement of that right. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

Indeed, it is quite clear.

Infringe doesn not mean encroach.

Like the term "establishment", many citizens are guilty of reading their own personal intirpritation into an otherwise clear and succinct term.

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what it means.

in·fringe 
 
[in-frinj]
verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe

[Anti Federalist]

I lost the case.

law (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcYjc0M2NjYzktYzFmNi00OTY0LTk2N DEtNWQwMzExYTZjMTQ0&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

Judges order (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcMmIzZWVjZDMtOGE0Ni00M2M0LTg5Y TUtZWMxMjJhNmRhNDIx&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

Courtroom audio (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcYjc4YTY2MzgtYWFiZC00ZDllLThhN GQtMGJmN2EwNmUzMjZm&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

You lost the case to throw the sheriff out?

Or lost the case to purchase Class two weapons?

[Anti Federalist]

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what it means.

in·fringe 
 
[in-frinj]
verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe

Thanks for posting that, beat me to it. ;)

[GunnyFreedom]

Indeed, it is quite clear.

Infringe doesn not mean encroach.

Like the term "establishment", many citizens are guilty of reading their own personal intirpritation into an otherwise clear and succinct term.

Sorry, I am an English-language hobbyist and tend to be pretty tied into word meanings without having to look them up. For the benefit of others I will actually post the definitions here:


in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
[Latin nfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
in·fringer n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.



infringe [ɪnˈfrɪndʒ]
vb
1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc.)
2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass
[from Latin infringere to break off, from frangere to break]
infringement n
infringer n

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
So it would seem that "encroach" is listed as a direct synonym. That's really not new to me, to be honest, but I will say that the fact that the words are direct synonyms would seem to mean that your hair splitting here is a mite off-base, no?

[Anti Federalist]

Considering the Second, of which I participate in, wasn't intended to be a free for all as far as firearm ownership is, may I ask WHY you don't think those items should not be "regulated"?

LoL, just begging for more -rep around here.

Justify that statement, please.

[GunnyFreedom]

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what it means.

in·fringe 
 
[in-frinj]
verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe)

You're pretty quick on the trigger. ;) thanks!

[Captain America]

They are playing a game.

Please Appeal.


I lost the case.

law (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcYjc0M2NjYzktYzFmNi00OTY0LTk2N DEtNWQwMzExYTZjMTQ0&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

Judges order (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcMmIzZWVjZDMtOGE0Ni00M2M0LTg5Y TUtZWMxMjJhNmRhNDIx&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

Courtroom audio (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcYjc4YTY2MzgtYWFiZC00ZDllLThhN GQtMGJmN2EwNmUzMjZm&sort=name&layout=list&num=50)

[AxisMundi]

When the government doesn't allow you to own a firearm that's an infringement of that right. :rolleyes:

Yes.

But that's not the current argument, now is it.

The argument is whether certain laws, suc as licensing and registration, eliminate the Second Amendment.

[AxisMundi]

LoL, just begging for more -rep around here.

Justify that statement, please.

I don't expect people to agree with me.

I'm not a media created sheeple.

Like you, I am here merely to state my opinion.

And NO right was meant to be "perfect". One cannot call for treasonious acts, papers may not transmit slander, etc.

The Second was not intended to bestow a Free For All weapon ownership on We the People.

[AxisMundi]

Sorry, I am an English-language hobbyist and tend to be pretty tied into word meanings without having to look them up. For the benefit of others I will actually post the definitions here:

So it would seem that "encroach" is listed as a direct synonym. That's really not new to me, to be honest, but I will say that the fact that the words are direct synonyms would seem to mean that your hair splitting here is a mite off-base, no?

As a language "hobbyist" then you should know that the meaing of a word needs to be taken in context.

[GunnyFreedom]

As a language "hobbyist" then you should know that the meaing of a word needs to be taken in context.

Synonyms in context yield the same meaning. Otherwise they would not be synonyms. There are occasions where certain constructs can yield different results when swapping synonyms out, but they are rare aberrations -- usually in the form of whole phrases that have become public memes.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't expect people to agree with me.

I'm not a media created sheeple.

Like you, I am here merely to state my opinion.

And NO right was meant to be "perfect". One cannot call for treasonious acts, papers may not transmit slander, etc.

The Second was not intended to bestow a Free For All weapon ownership on We the People.

Be my guest.

But you are incorrect.

The Anti Federalists were responsible for the Bill of Rights.

Tench Coxe, a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789, and a key anti-Federalist, writing under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian", said the following:


Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans

That means to me that the weapons "allowed" are all those that any soldier would be liable to have access to, including full auto rifles, grenades, rockets of various types and crew served weapons, to name just few.

I'd really only draw the line at NBC weapons, because, to my mind, they serve no truly defensive purpose, they are offensive, mass kill weapons.

[Matt Collins]

One cannot call for treasonious actsWhere is that prohibited? :confused:

And it also depends on how you define "treason".

[Matt Collins]

The argument is whether certain laws, suc as licensing and registration, eliminate the Second Amendment.Yes, because if you can be denied that right without due process, then it isn't a right at all. Put another way, rights don't require permission!

[pcosmar]

Yes.

But that's not the current argument, now is it.

The argument is whether certain laws, suc as licensing and registration, eliminate the Second Amendment.

I am disarmed by law.
I was arrested and convicted for a gun I did not own and had not committed any crime with, other that being in it's vicinity.
This was after a restoration of rights..

I AM INFRINGED.
:mad:

this is the issue that got me "involved" in this movement.

[AxisMundi]

Synonyms in context yield the same meaning. Otherwise they would not be synonyms. There are occasions where certain constructs can yield different results when swapping synonyms out, but they are rare aberrations -- usually in the form of whole phrases that have become public memes.

The trouble is that people are attempting to apply modern language usage and concepts to a document centuries in age.

This leads to many basic misunderstandings, especially coupled with propaganda from modern agenda.

One must apply the language usage and concepts Of The Day to the document, and then apply those concepts to modern times.

The word "establishment" is a perfect example. Many believe this means only that our g'ment may not create a "state religion", yet definitional sources of the time show a quite different concept. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a definitional source much closer to the period of our Founding, lists "establish" as "To found, prove, confirm, or admit, as in Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

So, as you can see, attempting to apply modern language usage simply fails.

[GunnyFreedom]

The trouble is that people are attempting to apply modern language usage and concepts to a document centuries in age.

This leads to many basic misunderstandings, especially coupled with propaganda from modern agenda.

One must apply the language usage and concepts Of The Day to the document, and then apply those concepts to modern times.

The word "establishment" is a perfect example. Many believe this means only that our g'ment may not create a "state religion", yet definitional sources of the time show a quite different concept. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a definitional source much closer to the period of our Founding, lists "establish" as "To found, prove, confirm, or admit, as in Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

So, as you can see, attempting to apply modern language usage simply fails.

Which is why it is de rigueur for people of my political stripe (Strict Constitutional Originalists) to lean on 1780's and 1790's dictionaries in order to capture the word meanings at the time they were actually authored. It is all a part of original intent - a key component of Constitutional Originalism. Fortunately, the definition of "infringe" has been substantively unchanged since the 1530's. :)

[AxisMundi]

I am disarmed by law.
I was arrested and convicted for a gun I did not own and had not committed any crime with, other that being in it's vicinity.
This was after a restoration of rights..

I AM INFRINGED.
:mad:

this is the issue that got me "involved" in this movement.

If the firearm had been registered and you were licensed, you would not have been arrested, correct?

Attempting to operate outside the law, unjust and/or unconstitutional laws or otherwise, is not the way to do things, at least if you expect not to be arrested.

[GunnyFreedom]

Which is why it is de rigueur for people of my political stripe (Strict Constitutional Originalists) to lean on 1780's and 1790's dictionaries in order to capture the word meanings at the time they were actually authored. It is all a part of original intent - a key component of Constitutional Originalism. Fortunately, the definition of "infringe" has been substantively unchanged since the 1530's. :)

In fact, a closer look reveals that infringe was first related to the synonym "encroach" circa 1760, which places it well within the temporal context of the Constitutional convention. :)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=infringe&searchmode=none


infringement (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=infringement) http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infringement)1590s, from infringe (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=infringe) + -ment (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-ment).infringe (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=infringe) http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infringe)mid-15c., from L. infringere "to damage, break off," from in- "in" + frangere "to break" (see fraction (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraction)). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760.impinge (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=impinge) http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impinge)1530s, from L. impingere "drive into, strike against," from in- "in" + pangere "to fix, fasten" (see pact (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pact)). Sense of "encroach, infringe" first recorded 1758.infraction (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=infraction) http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infraction)mid-15c., from L. infractionem (nom. infractio) "a breaking," noun of action from pp. stem of infringere (see infringe (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=infringe)).

[Anti Federalist]

If the firearm had been registered and you were licensed, you would not have been arrested, correct?

Attempting to operate outside the law, unjust and/or unconstitutional laws or otherwise, is not the way to do things, at least if you expect not to be arrested.

"Licenses" and "registrations" for firearms are only required in a few, freedom infringed states, like NY, NJ and MA.

The vast majority of states, including Pete's, have no such requirement.

[pcosmar]

If the firearm had been registered and you were licensed, you would not have been arrested, correct?

Attempting to operate outside the law, unjust and/or unconstitutional laws or otherwise, is not the way to do things, at least if you expect not to be arrested.

First there is no registration on a Double Barrel 12 ga Field Gun. (Stoeger Uplander)
And how would I expect to be registered for something that has NO Registration.

Secondly, It was not my Gun. It was a Housewarming gift to my wife from a family member (a retired LEO).
It was hanging on a wall, and unloaded.

Why would I have reason to be concerned with being arrested.
I didn't. And was doing nothing to expect it.

This is what sent me on a search for my LOST RIGHTS.
:mad:

[Anti Federalist]

Which is why it is de rigueur for people of my political stripe (Strict Constitutional Originalists) to lean on 1780's and 1790's dictionaries in order to capture the word meanings at the time they were actually authored. It is all a part of original intent - a key component of Constitutional Originalism. Fortunately, the definition of "infringe" has been substantively unchanged since the 1530's. :)


In fact, a closer look reveals that infringe was first related to the synonym "encroach" circa 1760, which places it well within the temporal context of the Constitutional convention. :)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=infringe&searchmode=none

Pwnd.

LOL

So it's safe to say "infringed" means "infringed" and "shall not be" means "shall not be"?

[Bern]

This probably won't get much attention because most care little about the NFA and the regulation of certain weapons. ...

Have you tried contacting the Second Amendment Foundation for legal help?

http://www.saf.org/

[osan]

Yes.

But that's not the current argument, now is it.

The argument is whether certain laws, suc as licensing and registration, eliminate the Second Amendment.

Eliminate? Where does that word come into the discussion? We're talking of infringement, which is not necessarily elimination, though it could be in the extreme case.

[AxisMundi]

First there is no registration on a Double Barrel 12 ga Field Gun. (Stoeger Uplander)
And how would I expect to be registered for something that has NO Registration.

Secondly, It was not my Gun. It was a Housewarming gift to my wife from a family member (a retired LEO).
It was hanging on a wall, and unloaded.

Why would I have reason to be concerned with being arrested.
I didn't. And was doing nothing to expect it.

This is what sent me on a search for my LOST RIGHTS.
:mad:

Firstly, you did not clarify what type of weapon it was.

Secondly, if the LEO's are at fault, you are well within your rights to sue.

I do have a feeling, however, that there is still information lacking.

[AxisMundi]

Eliminate? Where does that word come into the discussion? We're talking of infringement, which is not necessarily elimination, though it could be in the extreme case.

If you are a law abiding citizen, and you register your handgun and meet the criteria for, and obtain, a C&C license, is your right "infringed"?

[pcosmar]

If you are a law abiding citizen, and you register your handgun and meet the criteria for, and obtain, a C&C license, is your right "infringed"?
In this case the Sheriff is holding up the paperwork. It is his responsibility to fill out and expedite the proper forms. He refuses to do so. In fact had deliberately altered the forms to hold up the silencer.

It seems that there is a similarity to my case in that he is personally or politically opposed to someone owning something that he disagrees with.
In my case the Prosecutor and the Judge and my Lawyer are all anti-gun. The fact that I had a Restoration of Rights, had committed no crime in this state and did not own the gun were irrelevant.

Perhaps if I had a couple Hundred thousand to fight it I may be able to beat it. But as it was I spent my entire savings and plead to a lessor charge to save my farm.

And now am blacklisted for employment.

:mad:

[pcosmar]

Firstly, you did not clarify what type of weapon it was.


Firstly and Foremost, It does not fuckin' matter what "kind" of weapon it is.

Period.

As far a "training" I learned to shoot at 4 years old. I was on a high school Rifle team. I qualified with
every infantry weapon from the .45 to TOW.
I would bet I could pick up any of your firearms and out shoot you with them.

Oh yeah, I personally dislike Concealed Carry. and prefer Open Carry. It seems more honest to me.
;)

[rmodel65]

If the firearm had been registered and you were licensed, you would not have been arrested, correct?

Attempting to operate outside the law, unjust and/or unconstitutional laws or otherwise, is not the way to do things, at least if you expect not to be arrested.


what is this registration and license you speak of?:confused:

[youngbuck]

what is this registration and license you speak of?:confused:

Exactly. In the event you're in a state that requires these, they cost money. If you don't have the money to jump through the necessary hoops (finger prints, FBI background check, etc.) and acquire a license, then this right is rendered a mere privilege. A privilege is something that can be regulated and taken away; A right is not.

[Anti Federalist]

Pete is living the police state/control grid nightmare.

And the deniers will continue to blow it off and claim it's his fault.


In this case the Sheriff is holding up the paperwork. It is his responsibility to fill out and expedite the proper forms. He refuses to do so. In fact had deliberately altered the forms to hold up the silencer.

It seems that there is a similarity to my case in that he is personally or politically opposed to someone owning something that he disagrees with.
In my case the Prosecutor and the Judge and my Lawyer are all anti-gun. The fact that I had a Restoration of Rights, had committed no crime in this state and did not own the gun were irrelevant.

Perhaps if I had a couple Hundred thousand to fight it I may be able to beat it. But as it was I spent my entire savings and plead to a lessor charge to save my farm.

And now am blacklisted for employment.

:mad:

[ZanZibar]

"...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

I dunno, seems pretty clear to me.Awww... come on... Don't let things like the law get in the way of stopping your acquisition of power. :p ;)

[southernsontn]

To the OP:

I may not have read everything, but did you contact the State Attorney general? and as another person asked, have you tried contacting the ombudsman? If you aren't prohibited under the law, then this sheriff has a clearly defined obligation to return this document to you, surely there is something that can be done. personally, I'd even try contacting your State representatives. If you really wanted to push it, and were able to, you could make this sheriffs life a legal nightmare.

[Barrex]

Yes.

But that's not the current argument, now is it.

The argument is whether certain laws, suc as licensing and registration, eliminate the Second Amendment.


Yes, because if you can be denied that right without due process, then it isn't a right at all. Put another way, rights don't require permission!

Sorry Matt but I dont agree.

Basic law principle:CONSTITUTION trumps all other laws! That would make law in question unconstitutional. In front Constitutional Court (I belive in U.S.A. that does Supreme Court) you can make your case. Also in legal theory if right is named in constitution then you shouldnt even pay to "activate" or "have" that right. This is general about rights and remedies....I cant give you any specific advice because your links to your case dont work anymore.
Sorry I know this is not helping you.





To the OP:

I may not have read everything, but did you contact the State Attorney general? and as another person asked, have you tried contacting the ombudsman? If you aren't prohibited under the law, then this sheriff has a clearly defined obligation to return this document to you, surely there is something that can be done. personally, I'd even try contacting your State representatives. If you really wanted to push it, and were able to, you could make this sheriffs life a legal nightmare.
This. Contact anyone who got anything to do with this... also NRA ... well you get the point....


P.s.
LoL that is 2 minutes of my time wasted....Why revive so old thread?

[kwikrnu]

Here are the documents

http://www.kwikrnu.com/embody_v_long.htm

[Barrex]

Sent you PM...Not much there could be done (in court) after so much time passed...

[southernsontn]

This. Contact anyone who got anything to do with this... also NRA ... well you get the point....


P.s.
LoL that is 2 minutes of my time wasted....Why revive so old thread?


I would seriously doubt that the NRA would help, and sorry about the old thread. I saw it on the front page, and didn't pay attention to the date...

[Athan]

Leonard, welcome aboard here. I have heard a lot of good things about you from our mutual friend Rich Hamblen. I definitely want to meet you, learn more, and see if we can help ensure our right to keep and bear arms is protected. I'm a bit tied up until November though, so let's chat then.
Are you saying this is an offical Matt Collins member?
Thats faaaantastic.

[Toureg89]

obviously not your fault, but sounds like you would have had less hassle the Trust route.

[kwikrnu]

obviously not your fault, but sounds like you would have had less hassle the Trust route.

True, but I shouldn't have had to go the trust route. I now have a 01 FFL and will pay the SOT for the 2013 tax year. then I will be able to buy and sell silencers and machine guns interstate with only form 3 approval.