Magpul suspending sales to LE in ban-states

[fireblade]

By your own remarks round amounts in a mag or a gun is not a constitutional issue so looks to me you would enforce it. And please don't try to put a spin on it with the felon with gun BS...I hope you would not arrest some one like the vet in NY who got arrested for empty mags who came back off cad signal 80... if a law like it was around here, by your past posts I have seen for awhile here you fit a profile of someone who would.......... I hope I am wrong...and no one should trust the police in any of your rights ......(you are responsible to know your rights not the police and you know that) police can lie to you...trick you on your ability of not knowing your rights.....so know your gun rights.....And the Patrol officer is the front line of constitutional issues, intent of the law etc. that's why there is Police Discretion on some issue's with enforcing a law..

 

[Denny347]

By your own remarks round amounts in a mag or a gun is not a constitutional issue so looks to me you would enforce it.

Officer discretion does not have to be based on the Constitutionality of the law in question. In fact, I cannot recall that EVER being the driving force of a "no enforcement" action.

And please don't try to put a spin on it with the felon with gun BS...I hope you would not arrest some one like the vet in NY who got arrest for empty mags who came back off cad signal 80... if a law like it was around here, by your past posts I have seen for awhile here you fit a profile of someone who would..........

Ha, you obviously need to read more of my posts. I doubt you will find anyone else on this or ANY board that would agree with your assessment. But hey, we are all entitled to our opinions...no matter how wrong they may be.

that's why there is Police Discretion on some issue's with enforcing a law..

Yes...SOME laws.

 

[fireblade]

Thanks for you opinion am not going to keep arguing it clear we 100% disagree ........on police and gun rights.... (go Magpul and others and stores in NY who have stopped discounts and donations for LEO who do not support gun rights)

 

[Hammerhead]

Wow...you really CAN see into my brain and in the brain of my brothers/sisters. Bravo...bravo. I never said how I would handle such a law, I was just making points in this academic argument. I guess ASSuming is rather easy. However, I caution officers about "making up" their own laws or enforcement of them. Sure, we have some leeway but when it comes down to it, we end up enforcing laws we don't always agree with. YOUR opinion of a law does not make that law so. I have never enforced an unconstitutional law and I doubt I ever will. However, some might say that the fact that I have locked up a "serious violent felon" for possession of a firearm is in fact unconstitutional. There are quite a few here that have said that ANY person, violent felon included, should have free access to firearms. Should I ignore that law based on their opinion or should I wait for a court ruling? I have arrested persons for carrying without a license. Again, some believe I am enforcing an unconstitutional law based on their opinion of it (NOT on any court ruling). So, WHO'S opinion should I base my enforcement actions on? Our legal system is not perfect but it is by far much better than every officer for himself.

I offer you Murdock v. Pennsylvania in which the SCOTUS has decided that a licensing and taxing of a right guaranteed by the Constitution is unconstitutional.

 

[uncle griz]

Way to go Magpul !

Law Enforcement Officer buying for duty use will have to promise to uphold their oath to the US Constitution - specifically the second and fourteenth amendments - as it applies to all citizens.

.....Don't they already swear to uphold the constitution when they are sworn in?
I guess a repromise to refreshen their minds is a good thing!!

 

[Jerry C]

I guess shall not be infringed is confusing for some people...

It seems that the more authority one has, the harder those words are to understand.

 

[Denny347]

I offer you Murdock v. Pennsylvania in which the SCOTUS has decided that a licensing and taxing of a right guaranteed by the Constitution is unconstitutional.

And yet they don't see it that way with the 2nd Amendment. I would like to see the status quo challenged. I look forward to supporting court decisions.

 

[Denny347]

I guess shall not be infringed is confusing for some people...

They are already infringed...er...regulated and have been for longer than any of us have been alive. It is a matter of HOW MUCH. Or are you of the opinion that ANY law regulating firearms is unconstitutional? If that is the case, I guess I have been enforcing unconstitutional laws since graduating the academy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Nice. This is the first company that I've seen that might actually matter.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So for all you guys who say "shall not infringe" is so simple, why do you think it only applies to guns? After all, the Constitution certainly doesn't say FIREARMS, it says ARMS. Where's my nuclear/chemical/biological arms rights?

If I want to carry a briefcase of weaponized Anthrax around, who are you to infringe on that right? Or if my Uncle Kim wants to send me a nuke?

If I want to set up an AA gun, I'm a responsible citizen, what right do you have to tell me I can't have one?

If I can afford a fighter jet and Russia will sell me a MIG, who are you to tell me I need a license to fly it?

...or we could be a bit more intellectual honest and say that pretty much everyone realizes that there is a middle ground and that while reasonable minds may differ on where the line is drawn, a line DOES have to be drawn if we want to maintain a modern society.

 

[windellmc]

WMD were not around in 1789 so maybe there is some negotiation to be had there. However field and naval artillery did exist in 1789 so clearly those are protected. That would apply to the modern descendents like modern artillery. Rifled muskets were very new in 1775 so the founders certainly knew that technology would improve over time which is why they protected arms instead of muskets and cannons. Laser guns or whatever replaces rifles would also be protected by the 2nd amendment.

The Constitution also states that laws must apply to all citizens equally. Allowing police officers to carry guns that are otherwise forbidden to non LEOs is clearly a violation of that part of the Constitution.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

So for all you guys who say "shall not infringe" is so simple, why do you think it only applies to guns? After all, the Constitution certainly doesn't say FIREARMS, it says ARMS. Where's my nuclear/chemical/biological arms rights?

If I want to carry a briefcase of weaponized Anthrax around, who are you to infringe on that right? Or if my Uncle Kim wants to send me a nuke?

If I want to set up an AA gun, I'm a responsible citizen, what right do you have to tell me I can't have one?

If I can afford a fighter jet and Russia will sell me a MIG, who are you to tell me I need a license to fly it?

...or we could be a bit more intellectual honest and say that pretty much everyone realizes that there is a middle ground and that while reasonable minds may differ on where the line is drawn, a line DOES have to be drawn if we want to maintain a modern society.

I'm not sure that I agree. For the sake of discussion:
1) Anthrax. I can see no purpose for it except to use it on someone or to threaten to. Both are OFFENSIVE weapons with no DEFENSIVE use. It clearly exists and is studied by professors etc. So there IS a legit reason for having it - just not as a weapon

2) I have no right to tell you that you can't have an AA gun. I suggest you buy a LOT of land out west or something to play with it on - because you don't own the airspace - and shooting up there with it constitutes a crime. And it should. But you can own artillery. I see no logical nor legal reason for you to be prohibited.

3) MiG... Ask Larry Ellison (of Oracle fame) HE OWNS ONE!

Think about it this way. I can own a Kahr pistol. I have that right. I can carry it around. No problem. BUT - if I threaten someone with it. Or harm someone with it (except in self defense) - then I have committed a crime. Until then - leave me the hell alone.

AA Gun. If I can afford one - tell me why I shouldn't have it? CAVEAT - I can't SHOOT it or threaten others with it. If I do - then I get a roommate named Bubba. If I don't threaten anyone or harm their property - what the heck is it to you?

MiG - Larry flies one around. If he threatens someone with it - loads up missiles or guns on it - then that is a THREAT. And a crime. If he doesn't - why the heck do you care? he's been flying it around the country for years now - and you didn't even realize it.

The principle of not infringing is not as hard as you're making it out to be.

And no - NO ONE ELSE gets to make the call on what I can own. They CAN make the call if I _THREATEN_ or _USE_ it. And I guess with nukes, you could make the case that since I don't own an entire state or two, that I don't have enough private land. And it's mere existence constitutes a THREAT. I might even agree with you there. But so long as I don't threaten you or use it on you - what business is it of yours?

Same principle holds for tanks, or anything else. If I want to play with them on my land, and I don't encroach on yours or threaten you, what's it to you?

That's why it's called the Bill of Rights - because your opinion of what I NEED is irrelevant.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

1) Anthrax. I can see no purpose for it except to use it on someone or to threaten to. Both are OFFENSIVE weapons with no DEFENSIVE use. It clearly exists and is studied by professors etc. So there IS a legit reason for having it - just not as a weapon

.....

That's why it's called the Bill of Rights - because your opinion of what I NEED is irrelevant.

So why do I need to prove my NEED to have weaponized Anthrax to you? Where does the 2nd amendment delineate between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons? Simply put, it doesn't. Its beauty is in its simplicity, what part of "shall not be infringed" or "arms" do you not understand? Why are you adding qualifiers that appear no where in the Constitution? Why do you want to infringe on my right to biological arms when you so rightfully point out that your opinion of what I NEED is irrelevant.

Think about it this way. I can own a Kahr pistol. I have that right. I can carry it around. No problem. BUT - if I threaten someone with it. Or harm someone with it (except in self defense) - then I have committed a crime. Until then - leave me the hell alone.

Absolutely. But why can't I carry my Anthrax around if I don't threaten anyone with it, etc?

MiG - Larry flies one around. If he threatens someone with it - loads up missiles or guns on it - then that is a THREAT. And a crime. If he doesn't - why the heck do you care? he's been flying it around the country for years now - and you didn't even realize it.

Yes, I know you can buy decommissioned fighter jets, but that's not the same. Now its just an airplane and not an "arm", and not relevant to the discussion. Why would loading missiles on a plane be a threat? That's like saying putting bullets in your gun is a threat. Why is putting guns on it a threat? That's just open carrying with a plane instead of a holster. How is that a crime? Plus Ellison gets to fly it because he has a license. I don't have a pilot's license, so if I get a MiG its still illegal for me to fly it. Pilots are a special class of citizen, though. More equal than the rest of us just because they have some government issued "license".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

WMD were not around in 1789 so maybe there is some negotiation to be had there.

Show me in the 2nd amendment where it mentions that only technology available at the time is protected. What even hints at it?

The Constitution also states that laws must apply to all citizens equally. Allowing police officers to carry guns that are otherwise forbidden to non LEOs is clearly a violation of that part of the Constitution.

Where is that in the Constitution, exactly? I'm thinking you mean the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. It certainly doesn't prohibit states from writing exemptions into a law. If it did, the effects would be extremely far reaching in modern society. Let's take a look at this IC code:

IC 35-45-11
Chapter 11. Abuse of a Corpse

IC 35-45-11-1
Applicability of chapter
Sec. 1. (a) This chapter does not apply to the use of a corpse for:
(1) scientific;
(2) medical;
(3) organ transplantation;
(4) historical;
(5) forensic; or
(6) investigative;
purposes.
(b) This chapter does not apply to:
(1) a funeral director;
(2) an embalmer; or
(3) an employee of an individual described in subdivision (1) or (2);
engaged in the individual's normal scope of practice and employment.
As added by P.L.249-1993, SEC.1.
IC 35-45-11-2
Abuse of corpse
Sec. 2. A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) mutilates a corpse;
(2) has sexual intercourse or sexual deviate conduct with the corpse; or
(3) opens a casket with the intent to commit an act described in subdivision (1) or (2);
commits abuse of a corpse, a Class D felony.

If every law had to apply to every citizen equally, as you suggest, we'd either have to let anyone cut up a corpse or no one.

 

[TSL]

We should all support the companies that are standing up as much as possible. Is there a list of all of them doing similar things any where?

 

[Expat]

So for all you guys who say "shall not infringe" is so simple, why do you think it only applies to guns? After all, the Constitution certainly doesn't say FIREARMS, it says ARMS. Where's my nuclear/chemical/biological arms rights?

If I want to carry a briefcase of weaponized Anthrax around, who are you to infringe on that right? Or if my Uncle Kim wants to send me a nuke?

If I want to set up an AA gun, I'm a responsible citizen, what right do you have to tell me I can't have one?

If I can afford a fighter jet and Russia will sell me a MIG, who are you to tell me I need a license to fly it?

...or we could be a bit more intellectual honest and say that pretty much everyone realizes that there is a middle ground and that while reasonable minds may differ on where the line is drawn, a line DOES have to be drawn if we want to maintain a modern society.

I think the following is a reasonable definition of Arms:

(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think the following is a reasonable definition of Arms:

However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare."....but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction.

The 2nd amendment doesn't restrict arms to those that can be carried by an individual person or to land warfare, and where did he get that common law definition? How do you get that out of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where does it even hint that the arms must be man portable? Why are people trying to "interpret" the 2nd amendment and add stuff that isn't there when its all so simple?


Alright, I think I've made my point as expressed in my first post about this. Its not simple. Just because you believe that a particular weapon is "protected" and another isn't, DOESN'T MEAN SOMEONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU IS A TYRANNICAL CONSTITUTION SHREDDER. Reasonable minds can differ on where the line is drawn, but we ALL draw the line somewhere. Maybe we can realize that the simplistic chant of "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" isn't rooted in reality and is unhelpful to the overall debate.

 

[Hammerhead]

Shall not be infringed. When someone says that a line should be drawn, the problem is that they always want to draw the line to their standards. The line has already been drawn, and it's not anywhere near where people attempt to put it.

The limit isn't on what should or shouldn't be possessed, the limit is on how you use what you do possess. If you use your anthrax or ricin or mustard gas on someone (other than yourself) then it's a problem. Same with your suitcase nuke, your anti-aircraft gun, your Abrams tank, your 30 round standard capacity AR-15 rifle or your two shot Derringer pistol.

The phrase that comes to mind about your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. My right to own and use whatever I can purchase (fighter jet or Glock 23) ends when I use it in a manner that is detrimental to someone else.

I should not be demonized because I carry a gun in a safe, responsible, and legal way. It is only when I use my firearm in an illegal manner that I should be punished. This goes for any "arm" and not just what some people want to define as acceptable.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Hammerhead is making the point that I was trying to. So long as I do not threaten anyone with it - or worse actually use it on someone, what it is to anyone what kind of "arms" I own?

I can certainly make the case that I'm not threatening ANYONE if I own enough land to safely use a given weapon without the projectile or mushroom cloud or whatever leaving my land.

You can make the case if it's a THREAT. If I own a 50 BMG and live in an apartment in downtown Indy - no problemo. I may well have a place to shoot it. But if I go waving it around in a threatening manner - THAT is a crime.

Larry Ellison can fly a MiG - no problem. Arm one and fly it over BFE Nevada? Who Cares! Fly it over downtown Las Vegas? Then you are THREATENING people - and that's a crime.


I still fail to see what's so complicated about this. Shall not be infringed is pretty straight up. Show me one case where it's not.

 

[corronade]

Big props to magpul.
It makes me even prouder to have all my guns decked out in magpul.