Locked Mag Box; should it become necessary

[PORSCHE928S4]

Have you resorted to conversing with yourself now?

I guess the upside is nobody can accuse you of being an idiot, without having to kick your own bubblegum now!

I do it on the regular and you are not the ignored one my friend !

 

[Hooyah DeepSea]

With all due respect; I think we're done here.

Thank you all.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

0/0/0 and ignored !

 

[Koda]

Im ignoring myself from here on out...

 

[titsonritz]

Speeding. Taillight. some minor traffic stop, anti gun cop sees them thru the window.
good point though unless you leave them out in the open then its not likely to happen....

I'm going to toss mags all over my seats like those little sprinkles on donuts.

 

[WeaponizedMRE]

I'm going to toss mags all over my seats like those little sprinkles on donuts.

Load them with black tips to assert dominance.

 

[Yarome]

Entertaining read and I guess only one thought comes to my mind on the whole, "we either believe in the rule of law or we don't" thing is... BS!

I seem to remember... and correct if I'm wrong... but some guy once said, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Again, if I'm not mistaken, it was some dude named Thomas Jacks... no... Jefferson(?)... and the rumor mill was that he might have been a founding father of our nation, signed and was the key author of the declaration of independence and a key player in the construction of our constitution.

I might have misheard(?)

Following law for the sake of following law, no matter how unjust and to our own detriment is what is eroding the fabric of our nation and threating our freedoms. It is nothing more than a fear based response and justification, IMO. That also does not mean that we do not believe in or abandon all rule of law. The ideaologies are not mutually exclusive.

"I will not comply" is in fact a valuable tool to raise awareness, increase public education and spark reform. Make no mistake.

Trusting and relying on those that infringe upon us to right the wrongs they themselves have imposed is a flawed concept, IMHO.

Take it for what it's worth, but that's all I gotta say....

 

[slyfox]

I assume all the people angry at this dont have CHl, and make their own full auto guns with no tag stamps? all of us are complying to unconditional laws. if you go and every had a bGC done you complied. I'm going do best I can to comply in good faith. I dont have a laser on call. I can't afford one. id be stuck with some anti gun public defendant who works for same gov trying to put me away.

 

[mhayd93]

Entertaining read and I guess only one thought comes to my mind on the whole, "we either believe in the rule of law or we don't" thing is... BS!

I seem to remember... and correct if I'm wrong... but some guy once said, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Again, if I'm not mistaken, it was some dude named Thomas Jacks... no... Jefferson(?)... and the rumor mill was that he might have been a founding father of our nation, signed and was the key author of the decleration of independence and a key player in the construction of our constitution.

I might have misheard(?)

Following law for the sake of following law, no matter how unjust and to our own detriment is what is eroding the fabric of our nation and threating our freedoms. It is nothing more than a fear based response and justification, IMO. That also does not mean that we do not believe in or abandon all rule of law. The ideaologies are not mutually exclusive.

"I will not comply" is in fact a valuable tool to raise awareness, increase public education and spark reform. Make no mistake.

Trusting and relying on those that infringe upon us to right the wrongs they themselves have imposed is a flawed concept, IMHO.

Take it for what it's worth, but that's all I gotta say....

This was all perfectly stated!

 

[WeaponizedMRE]

I assume all the people angry at this dont have CHl, and make their own full auto guns with no tag stamps? all of us are complying to unconditional laws. if you go and every had a bGC done you complied. I'm going do best I can to comply in good faith. I dont have a laser on call. I can't afford one. id be stuck with some anti gun public defendant who works for same gov trying to put me away.

Shhh, 3d printers go brrrrrrr

 

[Camelfilter]

Shhh, 3d printers go brrrrrrr



View attachment 1324681
View attachment 1324682

I know what one is, however not the poker.

Holly cows is that hokey pokey poker neato! Just simply neat-O!

 

[Yarome]

I know what one is, however not the poker.

Holly cows is that hokey pokey poker neato! Just simply neat-O!

I was more impressed with the wall hook.....

 

[Yarome]

I was more impressed with the wall hook.....

The back obviously broke off the one in the photo above, but yeah.... it's a wall hook... didn'cha know?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Entertaining read and I guess only one thought comes to my mind on the whole, "we either believe in the rule of law or we don't" thing is... BS!

I seem to remember... and correct if I'm wrong... but some guy once said, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Again, if I'm not mistaken, it was some dude named Thomas Jacks... no... Jefferson(?)... and the rumor mill was that he might have been a founding father of our nation, signed and was the key author of the declaration of independence and a key player in the construction of our constitution.

I might have misheard(?)

Following law for the sake of following law, no matter how unjust and to our own detriment is what is eroding the fabric of our nation and threating our freedoms. It is nothing more than a fear based response and justification, IMO. That also does not mean that we do not believe in or abandon all rule of law. The ideaologies are not mutually exclusive.

"I will not comply" is in fact a valuable tool to raise awareness, increase public education and spark reform. Make no mistake.

Trusting and relying on those that infringe upon us to right the wrongs they themselves have imposed is a flawed concept, IMHO.

Take it for what it's worth, but that's all I gotta say....

Thank you for making my point. By your argument, all one need do is declare a law unjust... and where does that get us? For starters, a wide open border that has allowed conservatively 2 million over the last two years to just walk across and get a free goddamn phone and a bus ticket to anywhere from Poughkeepsie to Portland. The immigration laws are "unjust" you see... Then of course the sanctuary cities to protect the beneficiaries of ignoring the immigration laws because they are unjust. Shoplifting is now called "reappropriation of wealth" because, well, having to pay for stuff is unjust. How about refusing to prosecute people caught committing arson in places like Portland, Minneapolis, Manhattan... Prosecuting people for peacefully protesting is unjust, you see? Especially when the protest is protesting things that are unjust like cops doing their freaking jobs.

Do those circumstances above constitute a belief in the rule of law? Well, you go right ahead and ignore the law because you don't like it... because you think it is unjust. Just keep two things in mind: That is exactly what they want you to do so they can charge you with multiple felonies that they WILL prosecute -- gleefully -- then you lose your guns and your right to buy any more; You also lose the right to complain about everything above when you take the position that it's OK to ignore the law as long as you say it's unjust.

That said -- let me correct your summation of my position because you've got it 100% wrong:

Following law for the sake of following law, no matter how unjust and to our own detriment is what is eroding the fabric of our nation and threating our freedoms. It is nothing more than a fear based response and justification, IMO. That also does not mean that we do not believe in or abandon all rule of law. The ideaologies are not mutually exclusive.

Nowhere does my argument suggest "following law for the sake of following law" as your fallaciously assert. My argument suggests that your position above -- and the position of many on this thread as well -- is exactly what the anti-gunners are counting on. They WANT you to break their pile of crap law -- not only so they can throw your bubblegum in prison, but so they can advance their ultimate agenda which is the confiscation of all private firearms. They need to use your "will not comply" mentality against you (and me) ultimately convincing enough useful idiots that we simply can't be trusted with guns and they need to be voluntarily surrendered or we come with a no-knock warrant at 3AM. You are handing it to them, giftwrapped on a silver platter. Your rights are only as well-defended as your fellow citizens' willingness to defend them. Look at how many of them in Oregon voted against defending your rights. We don't beat them by "will not comply." We beat them by using their system against them.

Trusting and relying on those that infringe upon us to right the wrongs they themselves have imposed is a flawed concept, IMHO.

My argument doesn't even remotely suggest that. Careful with open flames around that straw man...

 

[rscanady]

GripItAndRipIt understands . . .

Like the protestors that tore up things in Portland and went to jail; they think they made a difference. But they didn't accomplish a single thing except getting 'booked' and possibly a criminal record.

If you indescriminately disobey the law, and make a show of it; though you may feel like you are making a point, you are actually accomplishing nothing.

I will protest in my own 'legal' way, but in the end, I will still have a clear record, AND be able to buy and own firearms.

It's not who wins the battle; it's who wins the war.

I get ya too, and I also understand all the folk's saying do NOT comply.....to each their own, everyone will have their own risk tolerance level on something like this.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I assume all the people angry at this dont have CHl, and make their own full auto guns with no tag stamps? all of us are complying to unconditional laws. if you go and every had a bGC done you complied. I'm going do best I can to comply in good faith. I dont have a laser on call. I can't afford one. id be stuck with some anti gun public defendant who works for same gov trying to put me away.

Correct. Let's start with the premise that all gun laws are unconstitutional. We have sadly allowed the tyrants to systematically and incrementally infringe on our right to keep and bear arms since the introduction of the so-called "black code" of the antebellum South. Precedent established, clearing the way for the ATF, the NFA, the FFA, the GCA, Brady, Clinton's 'Assault Weapon' ban, the CSLA, NICS, the BCSA, and hundreds of blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun local and state laws as we have unfortunately finally experienced firsthand here in Oregon just this month. It should send a chill down the spine of every lawful gun owner that ATF Director and anti-2A extremist Steve Dettelbach was not only appointed by President Sniffy Xiden, but endorsed by Everytown, Giffords, Moms Demand Action, and surely Lift Every Voice Oregon... he hates lawful gun owners, hates scary black rifles, hates big magazines, and hates the NRA most of all. We do not defeat this man by becoming criminals ourselves. The way we defeat him -- and his cadre -- is by using the system against him, tactically, strategically, and permanently.

The interesting thing about the 2A is it is the most plainly-stated and least equivocal of all the BOR. Yet it has been more equivocated than any of them. "Shall not be infringed" is as plain and direct as it gets.

The problem with the "will not comply" mentality is it is not how we win. And it is exactly how we lose. It is literally the ammunition the gun grabbers are counting on from us to further their ultimate agenda which is total disarmament and confiscation of all private firearms. They hate us. They hate our guns. They hate the fact the law-abiding responsible citizens destroy every last shred of their argument by virtue of our non criminality. UNTIL... we become the criminals they say we are. Careful what you wish for as the saying goes...

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

This was all perfectly stated!

It is if your objective is disarmament and confiscation, certainly.

 

[nwslopoke]

GripItAndRipIt understands . . .

Like the protestors that tore up things in Portland and went to jail; they think they made a difference. But they didn't accomplish a single thing except getting 'booked' and possibly a criminal record.

If you indescriminately disobey the law, and make a show of it; though you may feel like you are making a point, you are actually accomplishing nothing.

I will protest in my own 'legal' way, but in the end, I will still have a clear record, AND be able to buy and own firearms.

It's not who wins the battle; it's who wins the war.

I'm not quite sure that's^ how things went down.

I get where you are trying to help, but probably too soon. Things haven't played out yet. Capitulation just makes future fights against their unconstitutional legislation harder. Making their arguments stand up in courts hurts them because, like a 6yo they don't care about what they have, they always want more.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Everyone has different tolerances for risk so it's hard to say what another person should do, other than figure out what is right for you (to my way of thinking anyway).

I'm hoping that most people will be on their way to a range, outdoor recreation site, or their personal property, 100% of the time.

Im hoping that for those who worry about locked container will have mags in some sort of separate locked container (currently this is undefined) such as glove box?, trunk?, bag with little bs luggage lock on it? ammo can with lock on it?, etc. isn't it funny how some "locks" are so crappy that they can be opened so easily? People that have made some attempt on the locked container thing will have ammunition (arguments and evidence) for defense if they ever need it.

I doubt anyone will need it unless they are a crim committing another crime already, but who knows. Things that should be common sense in Multnomah County are frequently the opposite when it comes to city government.

I do think that whatever a person's risk tolerance is that it pays to keep a low profile though and not have things in plain sight. It also pays to be aware of your rights and don't consent to a search without a warrant.

Seems to me all these things woudl have to happen to get charged for mags:

1) LEO would have to see it
2) LEO would have to want to charge you with it
3) LEO would have to show you weren't actually on your way to your personal property (such as going home) or other allowable place
4) LEO would have to show it wasn't in a separate locked container (remember his is undefined so you could argue many things were a separate locked container)

So the obvious problem is on-body carry of a firearm with the mag in it. IMO each person has to weigh the benefits of that being there to save your life vs the potential risk. Sort of similar to carrying in a place where it's not allowed (I don't mean where it is not allowed such as airports, courthouses, more like so called fun free zones, etc). I know where I am on that benefit vs risk scale personally but I wouldn't push it on anyone else. I would just say that whatever you do be smart about it. I'll bet the one being a jerk and trying to piss off a LEO or whatever (or committing a crime) would be the one that is going to be charged for it. But just a guess.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I'm not quite sure that's^ how things went down.

I get where you are trying to help, but probably too soon. Things haven't played out yet. Capitulation just makes future fights against their unconstitutional legislation harder. Making their arguments stand up in courts hurts them because, like a 6yo they don't care about what they have, they always want more.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but since you were responding to a post referencing mine, capitulation is found nowhere in my argument.