Man Arrested For Carrying Gun into South Lansing Meijer

[PDinDetroit]

What you fail to realize is that I am not comparing the acts. What I am pointing out is that US courts have repeatedly stated there is no duty to obey an unlawful order; in fact, there is a duty to refuse an unlawful order. One can, and people have, been punished for not doing so.

That is fine. I still disagree with you on the comparison. I agree to disagree!

How about that Personal Attack you claimed I did towards you?

 

[stainless1911]

I see. I dont feel that I was advocating, that is to encourage any person to break any laws. I do feel that the laws are unconstitutional. I dont thing the rule should be interpreted in such a way as to not point out the err in the existence of the law, or possibly using the constitution for a justification, or a possible defense, should the man take it to the higher courts.

 

[ManInBlack]

That is fine. I still disagree with you on the comparison. I agree to disagree!

How about that Personal Attack you claimed I did towards you?

Don't play dumb; it doesn't look good on you.

Every time I post in the Michigan forum disagreeing with you, save today (although you came close with the Godwin's Law crap) you call me a troll and say something to the effect of "nice to see you again." Everyone can see what is going on. Not everyone shares your difficulties with reading comprehension.

ETA: Like I said, no comparison was being made. Legal principles are legal principles, and they apply to everything from petty vandalism to murder.

 

[ManInBlack]

P.S.: If no one ever broke unconstitutional laws, very few people would have standing to challenge them and have them properly struck down by the courts.

Just something to think about.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Don't play dumb; it doesn't look good on you.

Every time I post in the Michigan forum disagreeing with you, save today (although you came close with the Godwin's Law crap) you call me a troll and say something to the effect of "nice to see you again." Everyone can see what is going on. Not everyone shares your difficulties with reading comprehension.

ETA: Like I said, no comparison was being made. Legal principles are legal principles, and they apply to everything from petty vandalism to murder.

Thank you for admitting that I made no ad hominem attack, despite your earlier claim.

Again, if you do not like others making ad hominem attacks, the Golden Rule applies.

 

[PDinDetroit]

P.S.: If no one ever broke unconstitutional laws, very few people would have standing to challenge them and have them properly struck down by the courts.

Just something to think about.

Then I encourage you to take issue with the Founders of OCDO on Forum Rule #15 as it appears you feel strongly about this.

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

 

[stainless1911]

I think you're a little off today PD. We are advocating the supreme law, not the unconstitutional ones.

The whole point of OCDO is to normalize the OC of handguns. Speaking out against, and trying to change laws that infringe upon that right is at the very core of what we do, and why we are here.

 

[PDinDetroit]

I think you're a little off today PD. We are advocating the supreme law, not the unconstitutional ones.

The whole point of OCDO is to normalize the OC of handguns. Speaking out against, and trying to change laws that infringe upon that right is at the very core of what we do, and why we are here.

The Founders of OCDO are quite clear in Forum Rule #15. You sir are advocating breaking laws, not just speaking out against such.

 

[stainless1911]

How am I advocating it?

 

[ManInBlack]

The Founders of OCDO are quite clear in Forum Rule #15. You sir are advocating breaking laws, not just speaking out against such.

1. Remove stick from rear end.
2. Throw stick away.
3. ???
4. Profit.

Or, apply for a moderator job.

 

[PDinDetroit]

1. Remove stick from rear end.
2. Throw stick away.
3. ???
4. Profit.

Or, apply for a moderator job.

Such a nice guy! Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[stainless1911]

 

[TheQ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRfFl_IAeuc

Start at 0:40

 

[stainless1911]

Jerry Jerry Jerry

 

[PDinDetroit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRfFl_IAeuc

Start at 0:40

Neil can have her! He needs more DRAMA in his life.

[video=youtube;cXvU_cIjkrg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXvU_cIjkrg[/video]

 

[stainless1911]

lol I want that button.:dude:

 

[OneForAll]

Great video, priceless!

 

[MKEgal]

The argument that property open to the public isn't really "private" property is bogus because the name on the deed is NOT "the public".

"Places of public accomodation" have different rules than private property (as in a home).

They're both private property as in not owned by taxpayers, but people who own property & open it to public use (as a store does) have lower private property rights than people who don't open their property to public use.

As an example...
In some places, the gov't has imposed smoking bans in buildings which are places of public accomodation.
They can't do that to your home.

 

[TheQ]

"Places of public accomodation" have different rules than private property (as in a home).

They're both private property as in not owned by taxpayers, but people who own property & open it to public use (as a store does) have lower private property rights than people who don't open their property to public use.

As an example...
In some places, the gov't has imposed smoking bans in buildings which are places of public accomodation.
They can't do that to your home.

So in this thread we have people both opposing and supporting the government interfering with individual rights. Interesting.

 

[ManInBlack]

"Places of public accomodation" have different rules than private property (as in a home).

They're both private property as in not owned by taxpayers, but people who own property & open it to public use (as a store does) have lower private property rights than people who don't open their property to public use.

They are not opening their property to public use. The public can't go in and use it as they please. The store owner opens his business to certain customers for the specific purpose of exchanging currency for goods. Those customers may be refused service for any reason (as pointed out, no shirt, no shoes, no service).

As an example...
In some places, the gov't has imposed smoking bans in buildings which are places of public accomodation.

You should know better than anyone else that an action is not automatically constitutional or right just because government does it.

They can't do that to your home.

They are trying. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/elk-ridge-california-smoking-ban_n_1380877.html

Some residents of one California town may soon be banned from smoking in their own homes.
The City Council of Elk Grove, California is considering an initiative that would outlaw smoking in apartment complexes throughout the city, The Daily Mail reports.

Again, it doesn't make it right.