Dozens of felons hold gun permits in Mecklenburg County

May 11, 2013 Full story: The Charlotte Observer 30

Jill Alsip, 55, of Ohio holds a photo of her son, Andrew Guilfoyle, who died from a gunshot wound to the head after a fight with his friend, Christopher Pham.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1 May 11, 2013
Then why isn't the shooter in prison?

And as far as 'permits' go:

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."--Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#2 May 12, 2013
Murderers and felons (law-breakers) don't bother to obtain gun permits.

The author is a criminal.
Yes

Santa Fe, NM

#3 May 12, 2013
Tory II wrote:
Murderers and felons (law-breakers) don't bother to obtain gun permits.
The author is a criminal.
they don't obey the law. So you would have no laws. Moron.

I see, you don't believe in freedom of the press. Traitor

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4 May 12, 2013
Yes wrote:
<quoted text>
they don't obey the law. So you would have no laws. Moron.
I see, you don't believe in freedom of the press. Traitor
No troll, "TRAITOR" is the term most appropriately applied to >you< and your kind. In addition to HYPOCRITES:

The Democratic National Convention which gathered at Chicago on the 29th of August[1864], and presented the names of GEORGE B. McCLELLAN for President, and GEORGE H. PENDLETON for Vice-President, agreed on and adopted the following PLATFORM.

Resolved, That the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired; and they hereby declare that they consider the Administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution, the subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection, the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force, the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press, the denial of the right of asylum, the open and avowed disregard of State rights, the employment of unusual test-oaths, and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#7 May 12, 2013
Yes wrote:
<quoted text>
they don't obey the law. So you would have no laws. Moron.
I see, you don't believe in freedom of the press. Traitor
I would have no gun laws, communist. The Press is run by communists.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#8 May 12, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>I would have no gun laws, communist. The Press is run by communists.
Most, but thankfully not all of the press. There are a few,(very few), that actually do write/speak about TRUE Freedom and Liberty.
looney

Santa Fe, NM

#9 May 12, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>I would have no gun laws, communist. The Press is run by communists.
toon

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#10 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
Then why isn't the shooter in prison?

And as far as 'permits' go:

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."--Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).
Lol! Shut them down with the first post, why don't ya?

Despite the SCOTUS ruling, this is a perfect example of existing laws not being enforced. Just like the 44 of 15,000 criminals attempting to illegally purchase firearms being prosecuted in 2010. That is less than 0.03% of those breaking the law, being prosecuted for it.
The liberal solution? Make more gun laws to not enforce or prosecute.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#11 May 12, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol! Shut them down with the first post, why don't ya?
Despite the SCOTUS ruling, this is a perfect example of existing laws not being enforced. Just like the 44 of 15,000 criminals attempting to illegally purchase firearms being prosecuted in 2010. That is less than 0.03% of those breaking the law, being prosecuted for it.
The liberal solution? Make more gun laws to not enforce or prosecute.
But ALL of the current 'gun control laws' are UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

The U.S. Congress has Constitutionally delegated authority;

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The "militia" is confined to whatever rules that Congress makes on the subject.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" is a PREEXISTING Right that was EXPRESSLY RESERVED by We The People. And has NOTHING to do with militia service whatsoever. Our hired servants are Constitutionally BOUND from "infringing" upon that right in ANY way, shape, or form. Hence the use of the prohibition; "shall NOT be infringed".

In regards to the militia, Congress does have clear delegated authority.

In regards to the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. They are expressly DENIED the authority to enact ANY law which contravenes that specific Right.

And this is borne out by not only the express terms of the U.S. Constitution. But by ALL commentary by recognized legal authorities of the period regarding the subject. Thus, ALL 'gun control laws' are Constitutionally REPUGNANT, and therefore NULL and VOID.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#12 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>But ALL of the current 'gun control laws' are UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

The U.S. Congress has Constitutionally delegated authority;

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The "militia" is confined to whatever rules that Congress makes on the subject.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" is a PREEXISTING Right that was EXPRESSLY RESERVED by We The People. And has NOTHING to do with militia service whatsoever. Our hired servants are Constitutionally BOUND from "infringing" upon that right in ANY way, shape, or form. Hence the use of the prohibition; "shall NOT be infringed".

In regards to the militia, Congress does have clear delegated authority.

In regards to the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. They are expressly DENIED the authority to enact ANY law which contravenes that specific Right.

And this is borne out by not only the express terms of the U.S. Constitution. But by ALL commentary by recognized legal authorities of the period regarding the subject. Thus, ALL 'gun control laws' are Constitutionally REPUGNANT, and therefore NULL and VOID.
I agree 100%.

I'm simply pointing out that they don't enforce or prosecute those unconstitutional laws. Yet they want to add more unconstitutional laws for the criminals and prosecutors to ignore. Thereby only crippling those who obey the law.
coo

Santa Fe, NM

#13 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But ALL of the current 'gun control laws' are UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
koo - even that whack job Scalia doesn't believe that

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#14 May 12, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree 100%.
I'm simply pointing out that they don't enforce or prosecute those unconstitutional laws. Yet they want to add more unconstitutional laws for the criminals and prosecutors to ignore. Thereby only crippling those who obey the law.
That's all part of their scheme. It all revolves around MONEY and POWER.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#15 May 12, 2013
coo wrote:
<quoted text>
koo - even that whack job Scalia doesn't believe that
ALL of the current 'gun control laws' are UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

For direct evidence:

Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?

WHY would it take the government that long to pass a 'gun control law', if it actually had the 'power' to?

Even after a CIVIL WAR?

After which the 14th amendment was passed in order, among other rights, to give the freed slave the Right to Keep and Bear arms?

EXPLAIN THAT, traitor-troll.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#17 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But ALL of the current 'gun control laws' are UNCONSTITUTIONAL:.
JusticeScalia wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

++

Let's see... on the one hand we have Judge Scalia, a SCOTUS judge, who isn't ashamed to use his real name and who has studied law for fifty years, and on the other, we have you: a high school drop out parasite who doesn't even know all the words to the shortest amendment of the Constitution of the USA, and who has to change his alias because he can't go two week without being proved a m/f c/s liar.

Who to believe?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#18 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>That's all part of their scheme. It all revolves around MONEY and POWER.
Bingo.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#19 May 12, 2013
Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan;

“September 8, 1951 (1)

“Japan has this day signed a Treaty of Peace with the Allied Powers.(2) On the coming into force of that Treaty, Japan will not have the effective means to exercise its inherent right of self-defense because it has been disarmed.

“There is danger to Japan in this situation because irresponsible militarism has not yet been driven from the world. Therefore Japan desires a Security Treaty with the United States of America to come into force simultaneously with the Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and Japan.

“The Treaty of Peace recognizes that Japan as a sovereign nation has the right to enter into collective security arrangements, and further, the Charter of the United Nations recognizes that all nations possess an inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.*

“In exercise of these rights, Japan desires, as a provisional arrangement for its defense, that the United States of America should maintain armed forces of its own in and about Japan so as to deter armed attack upon Japan.

“The United States of America, in the interest of peace and security, is presently willing to maintain certain of its armed forces in and about Japan, in the expectation, however, that Japan will itself increasingly assume responsibility for its own defense against direct and indirect aggression, always avoiding any armament which could be an offensive threat or serve other than to promote peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.”

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Our government signed a treaty with the Japan. Which had been guilty of GENOCIDE, and various other gross violations of civilized warfare. And then they acknowledge that our ENEMY had an inherent right to self-defense? And yet have actively worked to undermine our Second Amendment Right, enumerated in our OWN Constitution? Explain, please.....

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#20 May 12, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo.
Sickening, isn't it? They would rather serve 'mammon', and betray their fellow citizens.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#21 May 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia

Who to believe?
The United States Constitution, which is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

The USURPreme Kourt obviously doesn't understand the meaning of "shall NOT be infringed". Hell, it took them over 200 years before they even understood what a "RIGHT" is. And that it DID NOT belong to the 'militia'. But any two year old snot-gobbler understands what "shall NOT" means. So you'd think the feces-flinging monkeys adorned in black robes should.

Why are you joined in the conspiracy to overthrow We The People's Constitution? And this by defending the tyrannical usurpations perpetrated by our perverse public servants in governments? In order to betray your fellow citizens into slavery? What was the price paid to you for your treachory? Was it more than the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas?

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#22 May 13, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most, but thankfully not all of the press. There are a few,(very few), that actually do write/speak about TRUE Freedom and Liberty.
I read the Washington Times, America's greatest newspaper.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#23 May 13, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan;
I see you skipped over this, GayDavy:

GunShow1 wrote:
Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?
Kentucky enacted the first carrying concealed weapon statute in the United States in 1813.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mecklenburg County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mecklenburg prepares for flood of gay marriage ... Oct 13 Rainbow Kid 10
Brittney Kerr Sep '14 Kayleigh 1
Gay leader arrested after Moral Monday rally Sep '14 Abrahammock Relig... 50
American Airlines worried sales tax hike could ... Jun '14 Uncle Si 1
9 Investigates: Online dating dangers for women May '14 dizzyprincess 1
Lincolnton police captain ending storied career (Apr '14) Apr '14 remembering 1
Three same-sex couples request, are denied marr... (Oct '13) Oct '13 ApePeeD 4

Mecklenburg County People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE