Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2013, 07:14 PM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,963,815 times
Reputation: 7365

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
I had a talk with our county sheriff on this topic not long ago.. He pretty much said he wouldn't ask his deputies to go door to door searching for weapons he wants all of them to go home to their familes at the end of the day... I think you would find that to be a pretty typical response nation wide among most LE. As far as the military, even if it was constitutional for them to do so, I think you would be hard pressed to find enough willing to do it. In case you hadn't noticed we also have a considerable smaller military than we once had. Hardly large enough to take on such an undertaking. Who is going to pay for the prisons if you start arresting formerly law abiding citizens across the country and locking them up? The people you are locking up are the ones paying their taxes. I won't say it will never happen. Perhaps one day it will, but I don't think any of us will still be alive when and if it does.
That's about how i see it. Any LEO drives into this place to get any guns, they will get them bullets first.

Be best to call ahead i'ld say...... See what mood I might be in.

Other wise the best they can expect to 'TAKE' is this.

THE PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE
http://www.incnf.org/publicservantquest.htm

In part from the link above:
Public Law 93-579 states in part: "The purpose of this Act is to provide certain safeguards for an individual against invasion of personal privacy requiring Federal agencies... to permit an individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected, maintained, used or disseminated by such agencies...."
The following questions are based upon that act and are necessary for this individual to make a reasonable determination concerning divulgence of information to this agency.
Name of public servant: __________________________________________________ _______________
Residence address: __________________________________________________ __________________
City ___________________________________ State _________ Zip __________
Name of department of government, bureau, or agency by which public servant is employed: __________________________________________________ __ Supervisor's name: _____________________
Office mailing address:__________________________________________ __
City ____________________________________ State _________ Zip __________
Will public servant uphold the Constitution of the United States of America? Yes ______ No ______
Did public servant furnish proof of identity? Yes ______ No ______
What was the nature of proof?
ID No. _____________________ Badge No. _____________________ Driver's License No. _____________________
Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which authorizes this investigation? Yes ______ No ______
Will the public servant read aloud that portion of the law authorizing the questions he will ask? Yes ______ No ______
Are the citizen's answers voluntary? ______ Or Mandatory? ______
Are the questions to be asked based upon a specific law or regulation? ______
or are they being used as a discovery process? ______
What other uses may be made of this information?
__________________________________________________ _____________________
__________________________________________________ _____________________
What other agencies may have access to this information? __________________________________________________ _____________________
__________________________________________________ _____________________
What will be the effect upon me if I should choose to not answer any part of these questions? __________________________________________________ _____________________
__________________________________________________ _____________________
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Name of person in government requesting that this investigation be made? __________________________________________
Is this investigation "general?" ______ or is it "special?" ______
Note: By "general" is meant any kind of blanket investigation in which a number of persons are involved because of geography, type of business, sex, religion, race, schooling, income, etc. By "special" is meant any investigation of an individual nature in which others are not involved.
Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received information from any third party relative to this investigation?
Yes ______ No ______
If yes, the identity of all such third parties?
__________________________________________________ ___________________
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be initiated or pursued based upon any of the information which you seek? Yes ______ No ______
Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to me being maintained by this agency? Yes ______ No ______
Is this agency using any information pertaining to me which was supplied by another agency or government source? Yes______ No ______ If yes, which agencies and/or sources? __________________________________________________ _______________
Will the public servant guarantee that the information in these files will not be used by any other department other than the one by whom he is employed? Yes ______ No ______
AFFIRMATION BY PUBLIC SERVANT
I, __________________________________________________ , swear (or affirm) that the answers I have given to the foregoing questions are complete and correct in every particular.

__________________________________________________ ____ Date: ____/____/____
(Must be signed & dated in ink. This signature should be witnessed by two people, if possible. Citizen may administer an oath if he or she so desires.)


Witness __________________________________________________ ____ Date: ____/____/____


Witness __________________________________________________ ____ Date: ____/____/____
Daniel J. Schultz. Daniel is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York and a practicing attorney in Los Angeles, California. He is the President, and a co-founding member of The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society (LSAS), a nationwide network of pro-right to keep and bear arms attorneys. Inquiries to the LSAS may be made to 818-734-3066 or by writing to the LSAS, 18034 Ventura Blvd, No. 329, Encino, CA 91316. The email address for the LSAS is: LSAS3@aol.com



THIS IS the LAW........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2013, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,358,834 times
Reputation: 7990
Trend continues to snowball--Wilson arms, longtime 1911 and AR maker joins in,


UPDATE: Number Of U.S. Gun Makers Refusing Sales To Gov't In 'Firearms Equality Movement' Triples In Two Weeks | CNS News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,869 posts, read 26,503,175 times
Reputation: 25770
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
It's good to see that many companies standing up and doing the right thing. It's some big, well respected manufacturers as well. Magpul, Vltor, Rock River, BCM. All companies worth supporting. Now, if only some of the "deep pockets" would get on board. Glock, Smith and Wesson, Sig and Colt would be good to see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 07:22 AM
 
24,404 posts, read 23,061,247 times
Reputation: 15013
The police can just bypass background checks or obtain the firearms they want illegally. I'm sure Eric Holder can run some guns to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 07:31 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,270 posts, read 26,199,434 times
Reputation: 15639
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post

More nonsense from the companies that benefit most from the paranoia. They can restrict their sales all they want there will always be a company willing to sell, not that they need them. No one cares.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 09:37 AM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 10,033,991 times
Reputation: 7693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
More nonsense from the companies that benefit most from the paranoia. They can restrict their sales all they want there will always be a company willing to sell, not that they need them. No one cares.
It's amazing how easily some of you anti-gun folks miss the irony of your posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Billings, MT
9,884 posts, read 10,974,080 times
Reputation: 14180
Well, you must remember; "One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results!"
"The assault weapons ban didn't really accomplish anything the last time, so let's do it again, maybe the results will be different this time!"
That pretty much says it all!

This morning, the number of companies refusing to sell to law enforcement where their products are illegal is 118.
That seems pretty significant, IMO!

Last edited by Redraven; 03-10-2013 at 12:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:24 PM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,594,254 times
Reputation: 15336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
I'll explain something else: In California, where there is an assault weapons ban and, I might add, alot of the federal laws being drawn up resemble, the Dept of Justice routinely visits shooting ranges all across the state. ANY peace officer in California can detain you, if you have an assault weapon, and run its serial number, JUST based upon the fact you have the assault weapon. No other reason.

And, if the assault weapon is not registered, they can and most likely will arrest you. You will never see that firearm again. It will be confiscated and destroyed. You are now facing felony charges. How is this going to effect your life, the life of your family, etc???
This is ridiculous! the people of CA need to stand up to this!! People are so dumb today, they dont realize we are living in a police state and they obey literally anything anyone in LE tells them to, what would our founding fathers think of our actions today? I would bet they would suggest a public hanging of all these pathetic so called US citizens LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:32 PM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,594,254 times
Reputation: 15336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
Well, you must remember; "One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results!"
"The assault weapons ban didn't really accomplish anything the last time, so let's do it again, maybe the results will be different this time!"
That pretty much says it all!

This morning, the number of companies refusing to sell to law enforcement where their products are illegal is 118.
That seems pretty significant, IMO!
The only way we can get all the big gun companies to refuse sales to LE is to contact those companies and demand they partake in this boycott, if they get bombarded with requests from consumers, then they most surely will stop any sales to LE. and this is what needs to happen, no cops need to have machine guns, I mean CMON, they say no citizens need them, so why would cops need them then? IMO the citizens and general population should have access to better firepower than anyone in LE, this only makes sense, as in the constitution it clearly says private citizens must be able to defend themselves against the military, so that means people should have the same types of weapons as the military/LE, anything less would be the upper hand to military and LE, which is not right, especially here in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Summerville, SC
3,382 posts, read 8,649,357 times
Reputation: 1457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
LaRue Tactical is doing the same.

Colorado is considering one of these childish magazine bans too; Magpul has stated that they will leave the state if it passes.

It's good to see that some of these conscience and will not sell to LEO in states where citizens are treated as 2nd class citizens.

I'd really like to see Smith & Wesson and Glock get on board with this.
Sounds good, lets keep a good list of companies doing this so I know who to purchase from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:59 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top