TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:Irony, meet Karma

It seems Manny Encarnacion needs to change his name to "Manny Encarceration".

In a letter dated Friday, Rep. Peter King asked Secretary of State John Kerry to look into the situation. The New York Republican called the arrest "an excessive act by the Indian government" and suggested it was payback for last year's arrest and strip-search of an Indian consular official for alleged visa fraud in New York.

They do a strip search for visa fraud?

Pawpaw wrote:They do a strip search for visa fraud?

It's a little more complicated than that. viewtopic.php?f=108&t=69933&p=876869&hi ... at#p876869" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a letter dated Friday, Rep. Peter King asked Secretary of State John Kerry to look into the situation. The New York Republican called the arrest "an excessive act by the Indian government

Yet I'm sure that the Rep. King doesn't see the exact same type of arrest of American citizens by officers in some northeast jurisdictions as anything but enforcement of a "good, commonsense" law on the books.....

Priceless.

Good thing he wasn't in DC!

NY law isn't the fault of the officer.. Hate to see anyone arrested like this.

cb1000rider wrote:NY law isn't the fault of the officer.. Hate to see anyone arrested like this.

"Just following orders" is not much of an excuse when they take the job voluntarily.

cb1000rider wrote:NY law isn't the fault of the officer.. Hate to see anyone arrested like this.

I agree somewhat with the sentiment, but then, he signed on to enforce laws just like the one he ran afoul of in India. When I left the military I considered law enforcement. The reason I didn't go that route is because I realized I'd have to enforce somewhat draconian laws I don't agree with ---drug laws for example-- risk killing and dying to prevent someone from smoking or ingesting a plant, in a supposedly free country? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Also, I'd be forced into situations where the job required me to act in ways I believe are wrong. And that's just for regular policing. There is no way I could work for an agency like the ATF or the DEA. So, yeah, it is a blend of irony, Karma, and with the execrable Representative King in the mix, hypocrisy.

FML wrote:"Just following orders" is not much of an excuse when they take the job voluntarily.

I thought that having ammunition in India was illegal, like Mexico... Apparently based on a law from 1959: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arms_Act,_1959" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If I walk into mexico with bullets, it's not going to surprise me if I get arrested. It'd be an unfortunate oversight on my part, but I wouldn't blame the guy arresting me for his employment choice.
It's the fault of people that take the job?

I see commentary that it's political. I also see Indian case law where they acquitted an American in a similar circumstance. It's stupid.. Either way...

One thing's for sure, women need to be granted CHLs in India.

And believe me, entry and exit from India is not easy anyway you cut it. Extreme harassment across the board.

NYPD has been accused, (rightfully and truthfully in my opinion) of sending undercover city police officers out of state to try and somehow enforce NYC ordinances or some such nonsense under the Bloomberger regime. I expect the current regime is no different. I believe Pennsylvania sent them packing and warned of possible legal consequences. I wonder if this NYPD officer was part of a similar scheme? I would give the officer the benefit of the doubt. The city of New York and the foul politicians who run it? Not so much.

What goes around has a way of coming around. In my opinion, women in India don't need CHL's they need mini guns, very sharp knives, and training working a cattle round up. I won't get any more specific than that.

cb1000rider wrote:

FML wrote:"Just following orders" is not much of an excuse when they take the job voluntarily.

It'd be an unfortunate oversight on my part, but I wouldn't blame the guy arresting me for his employment choice.
It's the fault of people that take the job?

Well, that's what we decided at Nuremberg. Remember, everything the Nazis did was "legal." So is it the "fault" of people who take the job that there is such a law? No, but if the law is wrong and they sign on to enforce it then they're just as guilty as the people who wrote the law or gave the orders --maybe even more so since if everyone acted in accordance with the higher law, God's law if you will, then there would be no one to enforce it. If you believe these laws don't pass Constitutional muster and that you have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, then enforcing such laws violates not only the highest law of the land, but natural law and your God given rights as a human being.

Now I'd have more sympathy for your position if you intend it only to apply in places like Mexico and India, that don't recognize natural law, and where people often have to choose between doing something wrong and survival. It's not an excuse, but understandable. If you voluntarily choose to enforce unconstitutional laws in THIS country you deserve whatever consequences befall you.

VMI77 wrote: Now I'd have more sympathy for your position if you intend it only to apply in places like Mexico and India, that don't recognize natural law, and where people often have to choose between doing something wrong and survival. It's not an excuse, but understandable. If you voluntarily choose to enforce unconstitutional laws in THIS country you deserve whatever consequences befall you.

I'm speaking of India specifically in this case, although it would apply to Mexico too...
I'm not sure that comparing the illegalization of import on ammo/firearms compares to nazi atrocities, although certainly the precursor argument has been made many times. If you think along those lines, I suppose that Chicago PD can be similarly compared? Just a little too over the top for me, that's all..

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Now I'd have more sympathy for your position if you intend it only to apply in places like Mexico and India, that don't recognize natural law, and where people often have to choose between doing something wrong and survival. It's not an excuse, but understandable. If you voluntarily choose to enforce unconstitutional laws in THIS country you deserve whatever consequences befall you.

I'm speaking of India specifically in this case, although it would apply to Mexico too...
I'm not sure that comparing the illegalization of import on ammo/firearms compares to nazi atrocities, although certainly the precursor argument has been made many times. If you think along those lines, I suppose that Chicago PD can be similarly compared? Just a little too over the top for me, that's all..

No, it doesn't compare in magnitude, I'm just speaking to the principle of choosing to enforce laws that are wrong. In the case of the guy in DC who was prosecuted for having a spent shotgun shell, everyone involved in the arrest and prosecution not only violated a Constitutional right, they violated the whole spirit of the law itself, that punishment fit the "crime," and plain old common sense. The people who participated in that travesty are all voluntary tyrants and unfit to be part of a supposedly democratic government, much less law enforcement.

And while the particular acts or laws don't compare in magnitude, the attitude necessary to enforce them is the same. You're kidding yourself if think that people who will ruin a man's life over an empty shotgun shell will repudiate their concept of obedient enforcement of all laws if the law or their orders require them to murder someone. People who are willing to kill you or ruin a life over your consumption of a plant will also murder you if the law allows or requires it, or they are ordered to do so under circumstances where the law condones it.