Innocent Gun Owners Behind Bars

Oct 28, 2013 Full story: AmmoLand 48

A man was arrested in New York for having 3 too many rounds in his legally registered 9mm.

Full Story

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#27 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Already refuted.
Already gave you the link.
I'd bet you but of course- as we all know- your word isn't worth what we scrape off the shoe when stepping into the porch.
Wipe your chin, Vince.
Hardly, troll.

Those quotes are provided from Constitution.org . And that site has far more valid information than ANYTHING EVER provided by you.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#28 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is really a Topix issue- that someone can keep posting something that has already been refuted (including the link to the actual quote).
Since we can't depend on someone who changes his alias every time he is humiliated... a couple times a month...
Perhaps you'd be able to see actual REALITY if you were to stop smoking crack.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#30 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State.
(QUOTE)
The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

http://tinyurl.com/mm862og

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#31 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly, troll.
Those quotes are provided from Constitution.org .
I guess me showing you the ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT FROM THE COURT doesn't count, eh, dipsh!t!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#32 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you'd be able to see actual REALITY if you were to stop smoking crack.
Perhaps you'd see better if your mustache was buried in your boyfriend pubic hairs.

PS: Still waiting for that slander proof of two hundred years dead homo Hamilton.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#33 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
(QUOTE)
The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.
http://tinyurl.com/mm862og
" tinyurl.com "? And you're trying to pass yourself off as serious? Get a grip on REALITY, troll:

The Constitution Society

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.ht...

Take a hike, you pathetic lying troll.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#34 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you'd see better if your mustache was buried in your boyfriend pubic hairs.
PS: Still waiting for that slander proof of two hundred years dead homo Hamilton.
The last recourse of a defeated troll; back into the gutter.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#35 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess me showing you the ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT FROM THE COURT doesn't count, eh, dipsh!t!
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Let's let the readers decide, SHALL WE TROLL?

Let's see if anyone is mindless enough to click your lame link.

And then we'll wait to hear back from those that click on the reputable link that I provided [to the TRUTH].

Take a hike, you pathetic lying troll.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#36 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly, troll.
Those quotes are provided from Constitution.org .
" AUSTIN, Texas, Sep 20, 2013 (BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Texas Municipal Police Association (TMPA) responds to groups who misuse quotes from court opinions on their websites. TMPA fully supports the Constitution and believes that the 2nd Amendment is critical to keeping our nation free. TMPA also wholly supports the 1st Amendment and believes it is the duty of law enforcement officers to preserve these, and all, rights and freedoms of Americans. However, TMPA does not agree with the tactics of groups who post excerpts of court decisions without context to influence the thoughts and actions of others.

For example, TMPA does not condone the actions of a group who supports open carry in Texas not because of their mission, but because of the inappropriate use of excerpts from court opinions on their website. In one instance, the group quotes Plummer v. State, "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary" (Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306).

This particular court opinion was rendered in 1893 and the group does not offer any explanation of the unusual circumstances involved in the case. They also do not quote Evans v. State (App. 6 Dist. 1994) 876 S.W. 2d 459 which states, "Legality of arrest is not relevant to offense of aggravated assault of peace officer or defensive issue of self-defense." In fact, "if you resist what you believe is an illegal arrest, you have just made that arrest legal," explained Kevin Lawrence, TMPA Executive Director.

The quote on the group's website in regards to Plummer v. State is one that is commonly misquoted by fringe groups, however the quote is fabricated. The full quote used on the group's website does not actually appear in the court opinion (Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306).

Using quotes such as this, in this manner, is only going to incite violence. If a person is arrested and they believe their arrest was illegal, we urge them to seek recourse through the courts, not through violence. "The message these groups are sending is irresponsible and dangerous. This type of rhetoric puts law enforcement officers and Texas citizens in danger and TMPA will not remain silent when our members are threatened," stated Lawrence. "

++

Barefoot again... thrusts his foot up the up the azz of Topix's resident spammer... DavyQ/GumShow/2Amend'and a host of his other addresses.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#37 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
Let's see if anyone is mindless enough to click your lame link.
Gosh, Spoogesponge, no one would think that you would click on the link you know would prove you wrong.

Why would you insist that libel is slander even when he is hit over the head with absolute proof?

Why would you insist that someone can slander someone who has died over 200 years ago?

Why would you insist a man who writes to another man- someone with whom he has sleep in the same bed- that he loves him and he adores him... would not be a homosexual?

You are a f*king idiot... that's why.

GayDavy: it isn't about making you admit (or your dozen plus aliases) that you are wrong, just holding you up for the idiot that you are.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#38 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
" AUSTIN, Texas, Sep 20, 2013 (BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Texas Municipal Police Association (TMPA) responds to groups who misuse quotes from court opinions on their websites. TMPA fully supports the Constitution and believes that the 2nd Amendment is critical to keeping our nation free. TMPA also wholly supports the 1st Amendment and believes it is the duty of law enforcement officers to preserve these, and all, rights and freedoms of Americans. However, TMPA does not agree with the tactics of groups who post excerpts of court decisions without context to influence the thoughts and actions of others.
For example, TMPA does not condone the actions of a group who supports open carry in Texas not because of their mission, but because of the inappropriate use of excerpts from court opinions on their website. In one instance, the group quotes Plummer v. State, "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary" (Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306).
This particular court opinion was rendered in 1893 and the group does not offer any explanation of the unusual circumstances involved in the case. They also do not quote Evans v. State (App. 6 Dist. 1994) 876 S.W. 2d 459 which states, "Legality of arrest is not relevant to offense of aggravated assault of peace officer or defensive issue of self-defense." In fact, "if you resist what you believe is an illegal arrest, you have just made that arrest legal," explained Kevin Lawrence, TMPA Executive Director.
The quote on the group's website in regards to Plummer v. State is one that is commonly misquoted by fringe groups, however the quote is fabricated. The full quote used on the group's website does not actually appear in the court opinion (Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306).
Using quotes such as this, in this manner, is only going to incite violence. If a person is arrested and they believe their arrest was illegal, we urge them to seek recourse through the courts, not through violence. "The message these groups are sending is irresponsible and dangerous. This type of rhetoric puts law enforcement officers and Texas citizens in danger and TMPA will not remain silent when our members are threatened," stated Lawrence. "
++
Barefoot again... thrusts his foot up the up the azz of Topix's resident spammer... DavyQ/GumShow/2Amend'and a host of his other addresses.
Not quite, troll:

At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra....

[Continued...]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#39 Nov 14, 2013
"....We do not find any statute of the United States or of the state of South Dakota giving any right to these men to arrest an individual without a warrant, on a charge of misdemeanor not committed in their presence. Marshals and their deputies have in each state, by virtue of 788, Revised Statutes of the United States, the same powers in executing the laws of the United States as sheriffs and their deputies in such state may have by law in executing the laws thereof. This certainly does not give any power to an officer at the Pine Ridge agency to arrest a person without warrant, even though charged with the commission of a misdemeanor. These policemen were not marshals nor deputies of marshals, and the statutes have no application to them.

"By 1014 of the Revised Statutes, the officers of the United States named therein and certain state officers may, agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state, order the arrest of an offender for any crime or offense committed against the United States. This section has no application.

"Referring to the laws of South Dakota, we find no authority for making such an arrest without warrant. The law upon the subject of arrests in that state is contained in the Compiled Laws of South Dakota 1887, 7139, and the following sections, and it will be seen that the common law is therein substantially enacted. The sections referred to are set out in the margin.

"No rule or regulation for the government of Indians upon a reservation has been cited, nor have we found any, which prohibits the firing of a gun there,'for fun,' nor do we find any law, rule, or regulation which authorizes an arrest, without war-[Page 177 U.S. 529, 537] rant, of an Indian not charged even with the commission of a misdemeanor, nor does it anywhere appear that Gleason had authority to issue a warrant for an alleged violation of the rules or regulations...."

[Continued...]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#40 Nov 14, 2013
"..."It is plain from this review of the subject that the charge of the court below, that the policemen had the right to arrest this plaintiff in error, without warrant, and that, in order to accomplish such arrest, they had the right to show and use their pistols so far as was necessary for that purpose, and that the plaintiff in error had no right to resist such arrest, was erroneous. That it was a material error, it seems to us, is equally plain. It placed the transaction if a false light before the jury, and denied to the plaintiff in error those rights which he clearly had. The occasion of the trouble originated in Gleason's orders to arrest him, and in the announced intention on the part of the policemen, which they endeavored to accomplish, to arrest the plaintiff in error that night and take him to the agency, and all that followed that announcement ought to be viewed in the light of such proclaimed intention. And yet the charge presented the plaintiff in error to the jury as one having no right to make any resistance to an arrest by these officers, although he had been guilty of no offense, and it gave the jury to understand that the officers, in making the attempt, had the right to use all necessary force to overcome any and all opposition that might be made to the arrest, even to the extent of killing the individual whom they desired to take into their custody. Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist. He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first [Page 177 U.S. 529, 538] case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.

The plaintiff in error was undoubtedly prejudiced by this error in the charge, and the judgment of the court below must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to grant a new trial.

Footnotes

Sec. 7139. An arrest may be either--

Footnote 1 By a peace officer, under a warrant;

Footnote 2 By a peace officer, without a warrant; or,

Footnote 3 By a private person.

Sec. 7141. If the offense charged is a felony, the arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be made at night, unless upon the direction of the magistrate indorsed upon the warrant.

Sec. 7144. The officer must inform the defendant that he acts under the authority of the warrant, and must also show the warrant if required...."

- U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).

Take a hike, you deliberately lying troll.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#41 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
" AUSTIN, Texas, Sep 20, 2013 (BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Texas Municipal Police Association (TMPA) responds to groups who misuse quotes from court opinions on their websites. TMPA fully supports the Constitution and believes that the 2nd Amendment is critical to keeping our nation free. TMPA also wholly supports the 1st Amendment and believes it is the duty of law enforcement officers to preserve these, and all, rights and freedoms of Americans. However, TMPA does not agree with the tactics of groups who post excerpts of court decisions without context to influence the thoughts and actions of others.
For example, TMPA does not condone the actions of a group who supports open carry in Texas not because of their mission, but because of the inappropriate use of excerpts from court opinions on their website. In one instance, the group quotes Plummer v. State, "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary" (Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306).
This particular court opinion was rendered in 1893 and the group does not offer any explanation of the unusual circumstances involved in the case. They also do not quote Evans v. State (App. 6 Dist. 1994) 876 S.W. 2d 459 which states, "Legality of arrest is not relevant to offense of aggravated assault of peace officer or defensive issue of self-defense." In fact, "if you resist what you believe is an illegal arrest, you have just made that arrest legal," explained Kevin Lawrence, TMPA Executive Director.
The quote on the group's website in regards to Plummer v. State is one that is commonly misquoted by fringe groups, however the quote is fabricated. The full quote used on the group's website does not actually appear in the court opinion (Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306).
Using quotes such as this, in this manner, is only going to incite violence. If a person is arrested and they believe their arrest was illegal, we urge them to seek recourse through the courts, not through violence. "The message these groups are sending is irresponsible and dangerous. This type of rhetoric puts law enforcement officers and Texas citizens in danger and TMPA will not remain silent when our members are threatened," stated Lawrence. "
++
Barefoot again... thrusts his foot up the up the azz of Topix's resident spammer... DavyQ/GumShow/2Amend'and a host of his other addresses.
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306
https://www.google.com/search...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#42 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, troll:
At common law,]
Gosh, ya stupid c*.

They pointed out what I have already pointed out: you have it wrong.

Do you think someone went back in time over a hundred years ago and planted this just to make you look bad?

Remember: you don't know the difference between SLANDER and libel.

Wipe your chin, dear.

No one is going to make you say you were wrong.

Again.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#43 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
"..
Take a hike, you deliberately lying troll.
Where is your quote, knob job?

HAHAHAHAAH!

See how QUICKLY you move away from Plummer?

Here you go, Shug:

http://books.google.com/books...

Back to Plummer.

Where's the quote, darling?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306
https://www.google.com/search...
uh huh.

There is no one here that isn't saying that you are not stupid, Vince.

Let's give everyone the SOURCE you gave us:

http://tinyurl.com/keatonskrap

This was your proof dear.

Let me give you an example of a "Vince" style quote...

"Play it again, Sam".

This is how many remember is, SpoogeSponge but it isn't the actual quote.

Guess what happens when you google it...

About 1,680,000 results (0.21 seconds)
https://www.google.com/search...

Well, Sod0mite?

Does 1.6 million hits make it real?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
Not quite, troll:
Quite, troll.

Did you forget you said it came from Plummer?

“Seeking reality & civilization”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#46 Nov 15, 2013
Armchair lawyers ARE funny for sure.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#47 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, ya stupid c*.
They pointed out what I have already pointed out: you have it wrong.
Do you think someone went back in time over a hundred years ago and planted this just to make you look bad?
Remember: you don't know the difference between SLANDER and libel.
Wipe your chin, dear.
No one is going to make you say you were wrong.
Again.
Not quite vile troll. Sit and spin:

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."--Mr. Justice Peckham, U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 5 hr ritedownthemiddle 10,861
Opinion Line 6 hr woodtick57 63
Moms Demand Action Calls On Kroger Family Of St... 15 hr Squach 10
Fact or Fiction: Push-Feed Rifles Won't Cycle R... Sep 16 Tory II 1
3 year old shoots AR and survives Sep 15 Tory II 4
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Sep 15 Tory II 96
Chicago Liberals Outlaw the Firearm Industry Sep 15 Tory II 1
•••

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••