Posted on 06/03/2019 5:25:40 AM PDT by JamesP81
I explicitly stated "no", you would NOT be arrested for carrying a concealed silencer. At least not in Virginia. Virginia statute, as you can see if you follow the link I kindly provided, does not prohibit such.
Again, as I explicitly stated, you might very well be arrested for violating the NFA, unless you had gone through the BATFE registration process and had your tax stamp with you.
Now run along. The silencer question is settled: they're "arms". That other guy might want to continue your discussion of ricin and nuclear weapons. Whatever. Before either of you go down that road, you should familiarize yourselves with the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, both of which are treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate under their Constitutional authority.
Where did you answer the 2 tiny, simple questions below:
Can I ask you these two questions? I think it will help clarify things.
The framers wrote and the public ratified the us cons.
Did the framers themselves and the public at large who ratified the document believe that individual liberties were protected by the document? Indeed, protecting said liberties WAS the point, was it not?
What in the name of god does the emoluments clause have to do with this discussion?
Please answer the 2 TINY little questions.
Did the framers and/or the ratifiers of the cons believe that they had protected individual liberty (and no, I’m not asking to say that that definition MUST include silencers). But as a general rule, did they believe they had protected individual liberty?
Question 2: that was certainly an important part of the constitution, yes?
Why the fear of these 2 queries?
If you wouldn’t be arrested for having one on you related to having a concealed weapon on you, local police agencies across the nation disagree with you and the federal government classification you provided.
A silencer is clearly not an armament.
Case closed. We agree.
If you don’t know my opinion on these matters by now, it’s by choice.
You’re afraid to answer. You should be.
I’ll wait.
Can I ask you these two questions? I think it will help clarify things.
The framers wrote and the public ratified the us cons.
Did the framers themselves and the public at large who ratified the document believe that individual liberties were protected by the document? Indeed, protecting said liberties WAS the point, was it not?
I have made my position on this matter crystal clear.
If you wish to expound on those issues, go ahead.
In which post did you make your position clear?
Write an essay on the topic if you like.
I have addressed the issue at hand.
In which post did you address the questions?
The topic you chose to raise was the Emolument’s Clause as it relates to silencers.
I have addressed that repeatedly.
Your ignorance is breathtaking and stunning. I have not once referenced the emoluments clause. I have spoken of the doctrine of enumerated powers, the enumeration. The idea that you don’t know the difference doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Now, that we’ve cleared that up, tell me in which post you answered the following questions:
Can I ask you these two questions? I think it will help clarify things.
The framers wrote and the public ratified the us cons.
Did the framers themselves and the public at large who ratified the document believe that individual liberties were protected by the document? Indeed, protecting said liberties WAS the point, was it not?
Police agencies do not make law. The Virginia statute I cited does not presume to define "arms". It merely prohibits concealed carriage of certain objects.
I have proven my point.
You may have the last word. I predict that you'll double down on being wrong.
This from a guy who can’t Admit on the form that outlawing ricin on a public safety basis is not in strict compliance with the enumerated powers clause either, and yet you haven’t objected to that once.
The it come to another item that might be banned on the same basis and you get host.
Yeah, I’ve been up all night. Rant on buttercup.
Okay, buttercup:
Can I ask you these two questions? I think it will help clarify things.
The framers wrote and the public ratified the us cons.
Did the framers themselves and the public at large who ratified the document believe that individual liberties were protected by the document? Indeed, protecting said liberties WAS the point, was it not?
Oh the horrors of you thinking I might be wrong and doubling down on it.
This from a guy that can’t admit to himself that a silencer cannot be loaded with ammunition and thus cannot be fired.
Having a home made one in your pocket would not get you arrested for carrying a concealed weapon.
Officers across the nation would not see it as a weapon.
But YOU KNOW it is one. Smile...
It really makes no difference what they thought related to this matter.
The important issue is what is covered and what isn’t.
The public cannot poses Rick on a public safety basis.
If Congress deemed silencers to be a threat to public safety, they could pass a law to prevent the public from owning them.
If one isn’t wrong, the ban of the other wouldn’t be wrong.
The intent of our Founders and early Americans would be the same for ricin as silencers, with issue to public safety.
If it’s okay to ban anything for public safety, it’s not wrong to ban another item if it is deemed a public safety threat.
I did NOT ask you their thoughts on this specific issue. As a matter of fact, in 283, I believe, I specifically used the words “as a general rule.”
Now again: AS A GENERAL RULE, allowing even for an exception for silencers, did the framers and the people believe that the ratified cons protected individual liberties and was that not part of the entire point?
LOL
Ask it fifty more times, a hundred, a thousand, I think the intent was clear on the face of it, and the question is therefor juvenile.
You can twist that any way you like. I’m not playing that game.
If you have something you wish to say on the topic, go ahead and say it.
You are TERRIFIED of answering, and we all know why.
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.