Jump to content

guns


Recommended Posts

Finally bit the bullet... err... pulled the trigger... err... bought something beefier to carry...  😁

 

20220402_150009.jpg.38cfe22a82952ddae41d36d5fe714d58.jpg

 

 

Girsan MC1911-C, .45 ACP, 8+1 capacity.

 

The Hogue wraparound grip is always the day 1 mod for any 1911. Ramp polish is usually day 2, but will wait until after putting 100+ rounds through it at a range...

  • Like 5
Link to comment
  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On 3/26/2022 at 10:09 AM, jbirds510 said:

Has always blown me away, the tech im familiar with is now nearly 30 years old and by all comparable standards is Surgical compared to what LEO are equipt with. For example real time satellite tracking, and Identification. Why hasnt this tech, that is payed for by tax payers only used when its overseas where acquisition of resources is the goal..public safety seems to be such a low priority in comparison and because of it hero's and innocents suffer and die. If they do manage to get arrested, they get right out even tho the charges are often heinous. Theres NO reason cops should ever be put in that position to begin with.  


It is used here.  There’s a book that covers some of the things the security state is using it for called “First Platoon” by Annie Jacobsen if you’re interested.  We also got to see some of the drone footage the FBI took in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.  Again drone surveillance footage was used to identify the drug dealers who sold the actor Michael K. Williams fentanyl that he used to OD.

 

Initially the drones were found to violate the Fourth Amendment, but now with the “new an improved” Patriot Act, you no longer have a Right to Privacy.

 

 

On 3/26/2022 at 11:39 AM, datzenmike said:

If you killed all the bad guys and caught all the rest, funds would dry up. Law enforcement want a certain level of crime, a certain level of fear in the public, or they are out of a job.


There’s always more bad guys than good guys. For instance there was an estimated population of 90,000 in that city. The Department of Corrections released documentation on 2,000 known criminal gang members.  We had about 120 Sworn Officers total to deal with them. Our shift minimum was 4 on patrol with a Sgt, so you’re outnumbered 500:1.  Each officer have to kill more than one to even really make a dent.  This isn’t counting all of your unaffiliated criminals, your run of the mill rapists, murderers, abusers, thieves, and miscreants. 
 

I’m just thankful Treadeau has granted them sanctuary in Canada, as long as they’re not “white”.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Drones and the 4th amendment and the Patriot Act....your sources stink.

 

The Patriot Act didn't address the 4th Amendment....other than to make a warrant signed by a judge in LA valid in NYC, and vice-versa. any other US jurisdiction.

 

Drones....this was decided by the courts many moons ago (before drones came out).  A Peeping Tom can use a telescope from a mountain, ladder from the curb, lift truck, w/lift used parked on the street to watch, or just stand on the street to watch your wife change through an open window. 

 

Also, you can film your property from an airplane or helicopter flying at 10,000'...or 500', or 10'....the courts decided this a LONG, LONG time ago, and then use that info in an Affidavit for a SW, and then bust down your door.  This was decided by a police helicopter, using binoculars, hovering over a greenhouse growing MJ in a backyard commercial grow. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Stinky said:

Drones and the 4th amendment and the Patriot Act....your sources stink.

 

The Patriot Act didn't address the 4th Amendment....other than to make a warrant signed by a judge in LA valid in NYC, and vice-versa. any other US jurisdiction.

 

Drones....this was decided by the courts many moons ago (before drones came out).  A Peeping Tom can use a telescope from a mountain, ladder from the curb, lift truck, w/lift used parked on the street to watch, or just stand on the street to watch your wife change through an open window. 

 

Also, you can film your property from an airplane or helicopter flying at 10,000'...or 500', or 10'....the courts decided this a LONG, LONG time ago, and then use that info in an Affidavit for a SW, and then bust down your door.  This was decided by a police helicopter, using binoculars, hovering over a greenhouse growing MJ in a backyard commercial grow. 


 

We’re having a bit of a communication barrier because I didn’t fully explain my position.  I’ll do a better job of it in this post.
 

The drones used by US military use a variety of detection methods, such as radar and LiDAR which give the observer an “image” of what is going on inside a building out of “plain view”.   These methods hadn’t been ruled on to create case law basis.  Just as wiretapping case law has changed over the development of the telephone, until the current state which allows NSA to monitor any call for terrorist activity using metadata and internet data collection.  This has been challenged in court as a violation of the fourth amendment as a possible violation of the “houses, papers, and effects”. As no “oath or affirmation” has been submitted.  This is allowed due to the case law on exigencies which permit the government to operate without a warrant in specific instances.  I’ve included the entire fourth amendment below in case someone else is following this.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.“


The Patriot Act enhancement I’m referring to is (H.B. 2048) commonly referred to as USA Freedom Act 2015 & 2020.  As I’m sure you’re all aware after the Snowden Disclosure of NSA’s interpretation of its authorized powers under the Patriot Act it was allowed to expire on 1 June 2015 and replaced by the Freedom Act on 2 June 2015.  The Freedom Act establishes the justification for “roving wire taps” and drone surveillance with intrusive scanning technologies.  It also permits the collection of metadata, drone surveillance with intrusive scanning technologies which give the state the ability to go beyond “plain view”.  
 

I’ve included a screenshot of the DOJ’s Plain View definition.  I believe this is what you’re referring to with your comments about law enforcement being able to raid grow operations with a warrant.

 

In my jurisdiction “Peeping Tom” does not have the right to look through your windows.  I’ve included the Revised Code of Washington for this. Technically speaking, if someone is in a portion of their home with “a reasonable expectation of privacy” no one should be allowed to view them through any “intrusive means”.  The lack of clearly defined values for what is/isn’t Plain View has been often taken advantage of by law enforcement for the benefit of the state.  
 

In my opinion, as a retired cop, the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy begins at your threshold.  Obviously I don’t make policy.  My personal interpretation of the 4th Amendment is that by being “…secure in their … houses..” the Law is clear, I can’t go in without a warrant or exigency.  
 

I hope this clears things up.  

 

 

C8622725-D4B7-4CDF-8A9C-0FD30323E370.png

C4103314-3102-4F9A-BB57-4AA9211B3797.png

Link to comment

In 2003 we found out that the county cannot use pictures taken from helicopter without getting a warrant first.. and any pictures taken from anywhere but a public roadway/public easement can also be thrown out . If they were on neighbors property even a foot you could ( and did) bring those neighbors in and tell the court the county didn’t have permission to take those. 

 

now  if you invite them on as seller of cars or parts ( or drugs,  in the statement above) and allow them to take pictures they can use those. Or proof of selling drugs from property 

 

 

“”It’s my understanding”” to get warrant they would have to have proof of cause and without that first cause ,, (for me it was fence hiding reason they couldn't easily get warrants) they couldn’t get one . Thus their case couldn’t use overhead pictures and a few taken off neighbors driveway .

 

 

 

But I wouldn’t take legal advise from me though,, because like Forest said ,,,, am not a smart man 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by bananahamuck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bananahamuck said:

In 2003 we found out that the county cannot use pictures taken from helicopter without getting a warrant first.. and any pictures taken from anywhere but a public roadway/public easement can also be thrown out . If they were on neighbors property even a foot you could ( and did) bring those neighbors in and tell the court the county didn’t have permission to take those. 

 

now  if you invite them on as seller of cars or parts ( or drugs,  in the statement above) and allow them to take pictures they can use those. Or proof of selling drugs from property 

 

 

“”It’s my understanding”” to get warrant they would have to have proof of cause and without that first cause ,, (for me it was fence hiding reason they couldn't easily get warrants) they couldn’t get one . Thus their case couldn’t use overhead pictures and a few taken off neighbors driveway .

 

 

 

But I wouldn’t take legal advise from me though,, because like Forest said ,,,, am not a smart man 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Waaaay back then, in the Dark Ages, we had such rules, as established by the Washington State Supreme Court. 
 

However, these rules have changed, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided the State deserved more power.  I’ve forgotten the case law ruling on this.

 

It’s utterly different now.  Since the unprecedented expansion of the Secuirty State, aerial units now just require “Probable Cause” to go into the air. Typically it’s a pursuit, search for a suspect, or a “training flight” and anything observed is now considered “in Plain View”.  The officer/aerial patrol is considered “legally obligated” under the BLEA training standards to report illegal activities. This is also the “duty” of airline and licensed pilots per the last copy of the Pilots Licensing Handbook I have a copy of, circa 2010 from the FAA.

 

I also maintain a maximum height fence on all reasonable portions of my property. 
 

Again, in my opinion, it’s none of The State’s business what legal activities I decide to ration my time to. Out of public view, I maintain my reasonable expectation of privacy against voyeurs. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 3/24/2022 at 12:02 PM, Soundline said:


Sure, the problem we have is that we equipped these groups and in some cases trained them.  There are members of the Templars/Zetas who are ex-Mexican Special Forces who received training from or SF guys.  These cartel guys would be 2 or more to a rig.  Two guys with AK or semi-auto PDW is too much for one guy with a revolver.  When our guys were faced with this they responded by basically blind firing in return.  I can bore you with horror stories about it if you like but they’re all anecdotal evidence.

 

At my department we had one training day a month.  This meant we typically had one single firearms qualification a year.  This is insufficient to develop and maintain the skills needed in a firefight.  The rest of the trainings were legal updates, mandatory HR stuff, investigation techniques, first/aid, dealing with psych patients, and defensive training.
 

This lack of proper training leads people to resort to their fear instincts instead of falling back on their training.  The do shit they saw in movies.  It becomes more Bad Boyz and less John Wick in a hurry.  When you’re out there, alone, no backup for 4+ minutes in a firefight against a determined attacker that picked time, location, and method of attack it’s a bad day.  You’re lucky to survive with a mild limp and a pension. 

 

 

 

Fuuuuuuuck that.  I’ve hunted those things, and I used a Remington Model 700 .30-06.  I’d take this to check the mail at your place.  

DDC64723-9C9D-40AE-8C72-7AFBDF855E12.jpeg

 

Is that the Black aces or whatever?

 

Those fail like clockwork at 500 shells

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

Ignore the muddled headline.

 

State Attorney General Suggests Considering Applicants' Ideological Viewpoints in Denying Carry Licenses

 

Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General wrote a letter to California law enforcement and government lawyers, expressing "the Attorney General's view that the Court's decision renders California's 'good cause' standard to secure a permit to carry a concealed weapon in most public places unconstitutional." California thus seems ready to promptly shift to a fundamentally shall-issue regime, in which pretty much all law-abiding adults can get licenses to carry concealed weapons. Nor will this require legislative action, I think; California already has a may-issue regime in place for licensing, so—as the AG's office notes—licensing authorities ("sheriffs and chiefs of police") can just use that regime but essentially without applying a good-cause requirement.

 

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/state-attorney-general-suggests-considering-applicants-ideological-viewpoints-in-denying-carry-licenses/

Link to comment
On 4/8/2022 at 10:22 PM, Fat510 said:

 

Is that the Black aces or whatever?

 

Those fail like clockwork at 500 shells

Nope, that’s a Beretta 1301.  Works like clockwork.

Link to comment
On 6/26/2022 at 8:59 PM, a.d._510_n_ok said:

Ignore the muddled headline.

 

State Attorney General Suggests Considering Applicants' Ideological Viewpoints in Denying Carry Licenses

 

Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General wrote a letter to California law enforcement and government lawyers, expressing "the Attorney General's view that the Court's decision renders California's 'good cause' standard to secure a permit to carry a concealed weapon in most public places unconstitutional." California thus seems ready to promptly shift to a fundamentally shall-issue regime, in which pretty much all law-abiding adults can get licenses to carry concealed weapons. Nor will this require legislative action, I think; California already has a may-issue regime in place for licensing, so—as the AG's office notes—licensing authorities ("sheriffs and chiefs of police") can just use that regime but essentially without applying a good-cause requirement.

 

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/state-attorney-general-suggests-considering-applicants-ideological-viewpoints-in-denying-carry-licenses/

I am sure Cali will find most of its constituents of weak moral character, questionable integrity and lacking fundamental understanding, thereby ineligible for a carry permit. Individuals who embody the aforementioned are the overwhelming majority who remain. It was rough, but all family/friends in that commie state have been successfully transplanted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

If you care about your property or possessions you lock them up. If you care about your personal doings and goings on, you do it indoors, so if you allow a warrantless entry into your home you are an idiot and deserve what you get. It's getting harder and harder to mind your own business (privacy) these days with changing laws, drones, cell phones and other devices everywhere, that listen in on your private conversations. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.