Tension Arises as City Deals With Out-of-State Gun Store

[Netpackrat]

what do you do when your local sheriff shows up with an arrest warrant for you that was issued by a NYC court?

generally when you tell a court to piss up a rope, they arrest you and have you come say it in person.

Since it is a civil suit, you won't go to jail, but if you fail to show up to defend yourself, they will get a judgment against you by default. Once they have that, they can really make your life a living hell.

[Jered]

Is the ruling in a court that has jurisdiction over the area?

If it isn't, then the guy can just tell them to pound sand.

what do you do when your local sheriff shows up with an arrest warrant for you that was issued by a NYC court?

generally when you tell a court to piss up a rope, they arrest you and have you come say it in person.

If it's an NYC court how do they have jurisdiction in NC?

[308Mike]

If it's an NYC court how do they have jurisdiction in NC?

Cause they fished for a judge (who they KNEW would support them) in FEDERAL court.

[Spells]

Those people are most definitely part of the gun crime problem.

There's no such thing as "gun crime". Guns don't cause crime, they can't. They just exist. That part of the MSM brainwashing being pounded into your thinking and you're using it without realizing it.

Mike, I realize exactly the difference between crimes involving firearms and crimes not involving them. I've been exposed to various sorts of crime, and the ones involving firearms pointed at me or used on friends of mine tend to be in a different category, because people don't like any sort of crime, but they really, really don't want to get shot. Yes, it's just a tool, but the idiot using it wields a lot more power because he has it and is capable of killing a lot of people.

If the term "gun crime" offends, we can pick up some sort of different name, but I didn't pick up my aversion to illegally acquired and implemented firearms from the media.

[mekender]

what do you do when your local sheriff shows up with an arrest warrant for you that was issued by a NYC court?

generally when you tell a court to piss up a rope, they arrest you and have you come say it in person.

Since it is a civil suit, you won't go to jail, but if you fail to show up to defend yourself, they will get a judgment against you by default. Once they have that, they can really make your life a living hell.

or the judge can issue a contempt of court against you and make it a criminal act...

again, right or wrong, what are you going to do when your local sheriff shows up with a warrant issued by a NYC judge?

even if he has acted outside his authority and jurisdiction, you are still going to get to go to NYC in handcuffs to try to fight it.

[Netpackrat]

If the term "gun crime" offends, we can pick up some sort of different name, but I didn't pick up my aversion to illegally acquired and implemented firearms from the media.

A better idea would be for you to find some other forum on which to spout anti-gun terminology. Unless, of course, you are advocating that we start referring to stabbings as knife crimes, hit and run as "car crime" etc. Assault is assault, and attempted murder is attempted murder. The only firearm that should rightly be considered illegally acquired, is one that has been stolen. You can take your demonization of inanimate objects crap and hit the road, as far as I am concerned.

[mekender]

If the term "gun crime" offends, we can pick up some sort of different name, but I didn't pick up my aversion to illegally acquired and implemented firearms from the media.

A better idea would be for you to find some other forum on which to spout anti-gun terminology. Unless, of course, you are advocating that we start referring to stabbings as knife crimes, hit and run as "car crime" etc. Assault is assault, and attempted murder is attempted murder. The only firearm that should rightly be considered illegally acquired, is one that has been stolen. You can take your demonization of inanimate objects crap and hit the road, as far as I am concerned.

especially when you consider that most of the "illegal" guns that are so often talked about are only involved in a crime because of unconstitutional laws that have made acts illegal that shouldnt be.

[Spells]

Okey Dokey.

A better idea would be for you to find some other forum on which to spout anti-gun terminology.

I am under the impression that people can discuss whatever they like as long as they're logical about it. I'm hardly anti-gun but I understand there's a range of opinions even among those of us (including me) who are pro-2nd Ammendment.

Unless, of course, you are advocating that we start referring to stabbings as knife crimes, hit and run as "car crime" etc.

The implement is already defined in a stabbing (knife) or a hit and run (automobile). It's crimes with firearms where you seem to be asking for vagueness.

The only firearm that should rightly be considered illegally acquired, is one that has been stolen.

I assume this means you believe the mentally ill and violent felons should have unrestricted access to firearms. I respect your right to your opinion, but I think it's ridiculous.

You can take your demonization of inanimate objects crap and hit the road, as far as I am concerned.

I like guns. I have specifically said it's criminals illegally acquiring and using them that I have a problem with. I am very clearly not demonizing any object.

[mekender]

I assume this means you believe the mentally ill and violent felons should have unrestricted access to firearms. I respect your right to your opinion, but I think it's ridiculous.

I think it is rediculous that when we deem someone so dangerous that they are not legally allowed to have a firearm, we then allow that same person to drive, possess knives, handle chemicals, own lighters etc etc...

If someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they are too dangerous to walk the streets and should be locked up.

Likewise, if someone has served their punishment and they are deemed to be a respectable member of society again, then there should be no restrictions on what they can and cannot own.

[Spells]

Well, that may be a bit harsh NPR; perhaps our friend here is in fact on the same side, he is just misguided.

FWIW, when it comes to legislation I'd be surprised if I wasn't in 95% agreement with most people here.

There is no such thing as "gun crime" or "gun violence". There is no "gun problem". There is no such thing as an "illegal gun" unless it was manufactured int or modified to an illegal configuration.

The last two quotes I don't disagree your opinion with at all. For crimes involving firearms and violence involving firearms, the first two quotes seem self-explanatory. I understand that you have people who try to use misleading language, but I think it's just being plain-spoken. That said, I appreciate that I'm new here and the language is considered inflammatory, even thought the reason seems politically motivated.

Crime is the responsibility of the people who commit it. Wholly and completely. In order to commit a crime one must have requisite culpable intent, exhibit depraved indifference, or be negligent.

Completely agree.

Steel has no intent, it is not indifferent, and it is not negligent. Steel does not make someone commit a crime, it is not responsible for, nor does it contribute to, their act. Steel is simply steel.

No disagreement. Just as a firearm can help a woman prevent a rape from a stronger attacker, or aid a police officer arresting a violent criminal, it can also let a punk 14-year-old kill innocent bystanders or that fruitcake shoot up VA Tech.

I personally think the last couple scenarios are problematic and that one can see those situations and say "Those guys should not have access to firearms" without thinking that law-abiding people need to be disarmed. One thing has nothing to do with the other.