Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New Gun Laws Allow Police To Seize YOUR Weapons Without Due Process
IWB ^ | Mark Angelides

Posted on 07/14/2017 11:43:21 AM PDT by davikkm

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: Still Thinking

Oregon is worse than California, both followed by Washington State. Odd thing is its only liberal insanity next to the ocean. The more east you get the more conservative you get.

Must be something in the water.


21 posted on 07/14/2017 3:02:11 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel

Must be something in the water.

Yepper, the latest inflow from U NO WHERE....F-—A Shema


22 posted on 07/14/2017 3:05:59 PM PDT by litehaus (A memory toooo long.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom

Have we already forgotten the Boston debacle, where search without due process was rampant? The almighty state ignores simple things like Constitutions. The peons must be controlled dontchaknow!


23 posted on 07/14/2017 3:06:01 PM PDT by MHGinTN (A dispensational perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

Seems this runs afoul the constitution and first time in court would be thrown out. Where is ACLU on this?


24 posted on 07/14/2017 3:15:58 PM PDT by Reno89519 (Drain the Swamp is not party specific. Lyn' Ted is still a liar, Good riddance to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Does anyone but me find it ironic that a state that allows doctor assisted suicide wants to take away the guns from people who might commit suicide.

Yes, you can only commit suicide via a licensed care provider. No self-service.

25 posted on 07/14/2017 3:18:44 PM PDT by Reno89519 (Drain the Swamp is not party specific. Lyn' Ted is still a liar, Good riddance to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

We need a State of Jefferson (conservative areas of Oregon and conservative areas of California), to stop these left wing brownshirts.

Meanwhile, most if not all Sheriff’s in the gun owning conservative counties in Oregon will not enforce this anti 2 amendment bs!


26 posted on 07/14/2017 3:35:21 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Voting for Trump to be our President, made 62+ million of us into Deplorable Colluders, MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm
What's next...take away rope, close bridges, take away your steak knives?

Morons....making law.

27 posted on 07/14/2017 3:41:22 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Be professional and be polite...but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Photo in need of no caption:



28 posted on 07/14/2017 5:03:08 PM PDT by Paal Gulli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

Whew. Dodged another bullet. Almost moved to Oregon. Glad I didn’t now.


29 posted on 07/14/2017 6:54:51 PM PDT by Boomer (Imagine a world without leftists. Now imagine a perfect world. Oops; repeating myself again...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Use an automatic for divorce proceedings?
Thought those were illegal.
Okay, I’ll give it a try


30 posted on 07/14/2017 7:31:50 PM PDT by Keyhopper (Indians had bad immigration laws)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom

https://youtu.be/B1Qx0cTze0M


31 posted on 07/14/2017 8:39:24 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: davikkm
Just for your edification.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html Marbury v. Madison 1803, vol 5, pg 137

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed

32 posted on 07/15/2017 5:35:45 AM PDT by SERE_DOC ( The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson