Let's say that they pass a law tomorrow that you have to have all your guns balistic "fingerprinted". Regardless of the fact that this would be an insane law, it became the "law of the land" and it passed the tests of the courts. Would you take your gun(s) in to be fingerprinted? I am not sure that a 2nd amendment defense would help us here.
Would it be okay to tell our kids that it is ok to break this law? That there are some laws that should be ignored?
What would I do? Guns, what guns?
__________________
Venor ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
My criminal evidence instructor (also a criminal trial lawyer) once said that according to the Supreme Court "an unconstitutional law is no law at all, just don't be the first case to try it." Meaning that if a "law" is passed that is unconstitutional, and is later thrown out by an appeals court or a Supreme Court (U.S. or state) that even though someone may have broken it while it was on the books, they never really broke the law. The problem lies in the way the judicial branch checks the legislative and executive branches. When congress passes a new law that's constitutionally questionable it should never be signed into law by the executive (the prez). The problem is, when the president is a crusading gun-grabber with no respect for the law or the Constitution, and signs a law which obviously infringes on our individual right to bear arms, it becomes law until a case involving it is appealed (and heard) by usually the Supreme Court and overturned.
I would support an amendment to the Constitution that would place all newly signed law before the U.S. Supreme Court BEFORE it takes effect so that noone has to have their rights violated in the first place. Call it the Preemptive Constitutional challenge Amendment.
As for whether you'd see me in line to check my guns, no way. I've always said that if the government wants my guns, they can have them...bullets first.
Remember, "ballistic fingerprinting" is just a backdoor approach to mandatory gun registration, because you have to have a name and address to go along with the "fingerprint," which means the government knows exactly where the LEGAL guns are.
Mike
Gun control means putting the second bullet through the same hole as the first- Ted Nugent
NRA Member
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
No I would not comply with the law, whether the Supreme Court said it was Constitutional or not. I might have one gun "fingerprinted" just for show but I would never voluntarily take my guns in......legal or illegal. I know alot of guys will say that is "unethical" blah, blah, but defending myself and my family against harm is a God given right whether our gov. thinks so or not.
Yes I can exlpain to my kids that some laws can be ingnored or "bent". If they pass a law saying it is illegal to be a Christian and worship God, will I adhere to that? Nope, just like the Jews didn't in Nazi Germany. Just because it is law doesn't make it right. Yes, I believe we should follow every law that we morally can but I believe there are exceptions to the rule. Just my opinion.
--------------------------------------------
Hunting the Piney Woods of Deep East Texas.
__________________
Hunting the Piney Woods of Deep East Texas.
If such asinine legislation was passed, I'd be first in line with my Crossman BB gun.
Seriously, I would not supply them with anything needed. If that made me an outlaw, so be it. I guess the old saying would be true, "When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Just call me Frank or Jesse James.....<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
Those who wish to appear wise among fools, among the wise seem foolish.
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (35 AD - 100 AD)
__________________
" Not all who wander are lost." J.R.R. Tolkien, 1892-1973
I beleive in and want the right to bear arms always. although if this would help law enforcement in solving crimes of murder i say "YES" ---my reasoning is #1 this helps solve crimes that may or may not otherwise go unsolved when there is`nt enough evidence to hold and convict a suspect. If the cops can go to a computer and run a check on a certain gun registered to a certain perp. then the criminal can be caught much sooner--perhaps saving many more lives in the process. #2 if you are`nt contemplating a crime of murder by gun then it should`nt be an issue.
Location: The guardian of your right to post your words.
Posts: 845
RE: Bal. fingerprinting/ situation ethics
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
...run a check on a certain gun registered to a certain perp.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Annie, tell me you see the flaw in that logic...
BUCKGOBBLER WANNABE
__________________
Is truth absolute or is it relative?
Are mathematics objective or subjective?
Legant prius et postea despiciant.
' let them read first and despise afterward'
well lets see if bf would help. ----the places its in efect its never helped solve a crime....----the bf of each gun changes over time.----- the bf can easly be changed on a new gun with coman guncleaning equmet with out having to let time do it.------there are allready millions of guns in circulation with out bf's----- hunting guns going to a gunsmith for some custom work would change the bf-------the vast mojorty of gun crime is comited by a gun obataid illeagly to being with..------ how good could the bf actaly be on a shot gun anyway-----yea so i can realy see it helping a bunch---------BF = back door regaration BS and that's all------- L. O. D. Charter member and L.O.S.
__________________
come and see us at American Hunter
Please refer back to my post about how "ballistic fingerprinting"=gun registration.
Would you want your name to pop up on a police/FBI/ATF computer screen everytime some idiot shoots somebody with a gun similar to one you might own. Or how about when they realize that you not only have a gun that might match a bullet or casing found in at a crime scene, but many guns. What about when they falsely reason that a person who owns a lot of guns must be the type of person who would shoot somebody and you get a knock at your door? Or worse when they convince a liberal judge to issue a search warrant solely on those grounds and, because they know you certainly are armed, and possibly dangerous, the SWAT team Janet Reno's you and your kids out of bed at 4am to execute a high risk search warrant?
I want to see this so-called "sniper" caught as much as anybody else, but not at the cost of our liberty as a whole. Are these 13 victims worth the start of a police state?
The antis have been looking for a good excuse to get gun registration passed for a long time, but they can't do it because the nation knows registration is the first step to confiscation. Ballistic fingerprinting is just a way for them to camoflague gun registration as just another one of their "common sense" gun safety laws.
New York (and one other state that I can't remember...Maryland?)has been requiring ballistic fingerprinting for awhile and has yet to convict one person using it as evidence. Why? Because criminals who carry and plan to commit violence with a gun, don't do it with registered and printed guns. And those who commit spontaineous acts of violence either destroy such evidence or their weapons are easily found.
Millions have died fighting to keep us free, why should 10 deaths justify throwing it all away?
Mike
Gun control means putting the second bullet through the same hole as the first- Ted Nugent
NRA Member
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
Wow Annie, I think you need to look into this issue a little bit further. The "fingerprinting" of guns is not the answer to solving crime, neither is gun registration etc. Actually ballistic fingerprinting is gun registration. Although I don't think it would help solve crime in any way, I guess in the general sense this would not a bad thing.......IF you full trust the government. Which I don't think we should. Our lawmakers have shown us that they don't mind infringing on our rights and whose to say where they will stop?
--------------------------------------------
Hunting the Piney Woods of Deep East Texas.
__________________
Hunting the Piney Woods of Deep East Texas.
Bal. fingerprinting/ situation ethics
L. O. D. Charter member and L.O.S.
