Whoa.

http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?cont....

Just think about it. If they can hang a felony on him, even a dubious one, Ted's guns are gone.

I also just found out that Ted was one of those here in Michigan that had to kill some of his pigs. (He still maintains property here.)

will he give up his guns? where is his line in the sand?

Remains to be seen.

It's very scarey what this government has become since Obama got elected. Very scarey indeed. I hope people are ready to be targeted for saying anything at all.

Uncle Ted is going to be exhibit ONE for how ****ed you are when you even JOKE about offing Obongo. Obongo strikes me as a real revengeful *******, cross him and you'll die and he'll never break his smile.

They'll release of video of him apologizing and grovelling and pandering to the left in about 6 months after he's been "re-edjukated", meaning threatened with a few felonies and reduced to a pauper with no guns.

What are you worried about, Standby? Those who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution will do something about this, I'm sure. The timing thereof is the only variable here.

His wife can still own guns.

G Gordon Liddy's wife owns all his guns.

"machine gun"

Good grief.

IKR?! WTF?

I know for a FACT that Ted has always been law-abiding when it comes to hunting and gun ownership. He has always had a very good relationship with LE in this state...I have to imagine more than one LE agency here is POed about the DNR's actions regarding the 'feral' pigs.

The idea that the Feds are going to try to get Ted on some obscure law is pretty frightening. In any given location, there are laws that are on the books that have dropped out of use due to age. With federal, state and local laws being written to the tune of thousands per year, it only stands to reason there are going to be ones everyone, including LE and the judicial system forgot about. All the feds have to do at this point is wait.

Here in Oakland County we still have a law on the books that will pay any citizen $0.5 for each dead crow turned into the County Clerk. Back when our county was all farm land, we had a huge problem with crows and they were trying to encourage people to help get rid of them. To this day, you could conceivably turn in a dead crow and collect your nickel. It's laws like these that could be used to trip up someone the feds would like to see put away...and it appears that strange law in Alaska is similarly antiquated.

+1 Jota. He's probably also got a trust that owns them already.

Oh and uncle Ted does own plenty of full auto including a ma deuce.

Quote:

What are you worried about, Standby? Those who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution will do something about this, I'm sure. The timing thereof is the only variable here.

I don't think we are going to have a military coup here, Wearedoomed. And since the President is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces "and of the Militia of the several States" I don't see privates, sergeants, lieutenants, colonels or generals disobeying direct orders, as a rule.

It's a bit like an endless loop. If, in attempting to defend the Constitution, they are given a direct order by the Commander in Chief and disobey that direct order they are automatically not defending the Constitution at that point.

Quote:

they are given a direct order by the Commander in Chief and disobey that direct order they are automatically not defending the Constitution at that point.

That's such utter BULL**** it's not even funny that someone would actually think that was true.

Fortunately, you are right about the 1st part...we will NOT, thankfully, have a military coup here...that's the only thing that could make our Communist system even worse than it is already.

Mpilar, please explain to me what is bull**** about that statement. If the President gives orders under, say the NDAA counter-terrorism act, how does the individual determine if it is a lawful order? The Law was passed by Congress and the order given by the Commander In Chief.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I do not think that statement is bull****. I'm not saying that it's right, but nothing about the state we are in now is right.

A law passed by Congress is irrelevant if it is repugnant to the Constitution and a military commander (down to the soldiers) that obeys an order that is repugnant to the Constitution is as much of a traitor as the president that makes the order. I see what you're saying regarding 'lawful orders', and perhaps my response was a bit harsh, and since all of the military is CURRENTLY following blatantly unconstitutional orders without question, it leads me to say, as I did, that we will not have a military coup in this country...again, thankfully.

Jack -

UCMJ makes it illegal to disobey a "lawful order". Back when I was in the military, they explicitly taught us in OCS that it was our duty to make sure that we obeyed only lawful orders. They also drummed into us over and over that the Nuremberg defense of "I was merely following orders" was morally and practically invalid if we did obey unlawful orders. I doubt that these basic principles have changed since then.

Of course, the onus is on the member to convince a court martial board that his interpretation that it was unlawful was the correct one and the penalty if the board is not convinced can be quite severe. IMO, that by itself is sufficient to cause most soldiers to obey all orders, period, without questioning their lawfulness (e.g., many of Calley's platoon at My Lai).

Thank you for your response. I originally thought you were questioning the veracity of my statement, but now I see where you are coming from. I absolutely agree with you. (In fact I agree with a huge majority of your posts.) The state in which we now find ourselves is BULL****. Many of the "laws" we live under now are certainly repugnant to the Constitution.

Might want to check Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin's experience after attempting to follow only lawful orders.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/298545/

Peterm. It is the rare individual who would do this nowadays:

Quote:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Just as it is the rare individual who will stand up for what is right at the cost of his personal freedom. I certainly understand the UCMJ and "lawful orders", but as I stated above so many of the "laws" we live under now are repugnant to the Constitution. Lots of shades of grey there for the average/ordinary soldier, sailor, airman or marine.

Again, I am not being argumentative. I think most of us on TF agree with the premise of this thread and we shouldn't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

It's a bull**** law, yes. But, like it or not, Ted should be very familiar with the laws in whatever state he decides to hunt. Period. He should know that being very vocal about gun ownership is going to make him a target, therefore, cover your ass with a clean hunt, especially if you're going to broadcast it. It isn't that hard to read the book, just a few minutes out of your life.

LS, the way I understood it, the island he was hunting on is federal land and even the local judge wasn't aware of that particular law. Is it possible that the hunting regulations for AK could be readable, but finding a specific law in the fed regulations could be a nightmare taking much more than a 'few minutes out of your life'? Just thinking out loud here...but it may be the fed regs that got him instead of anything that would have been found in AK regulations.

Landshark.

You're a shill. This is a ****ing witch hunt.

Wait until he gets the former car Czar speech beginning with , "Do you know who you are ****ing with ....? "

Ted will straighten out.

( Just like the GM bond holders did. )

Never EVER use threatening words about the Prez even in jest.

A fisherman told me 3-4 years ago that he is hesitant about fishing in a particular nearby river. He had been told that yet another endangered specie of fish lives in those waters. If you are fishing and happen to hook an endangered one, you can be in trouble with the feds before you can get the fish off your line and back into the water. He personally knew someone who was nailed by the friendly US Fish & Wildlife folks even though the guy was surprised when he saw the fish and was trying to release it and go home.

He implied that it is better to cut your line and make the fish swim away with the hook still in it than to take the time and risk of taking the barb out. Apparently, bringing the fish over your boat and handling it is the same as intentionally landing an endangered fish.

Don't know, but that is what he said.

Lemon, you're responding emotionally. Engage some critical thinking, please.

Of COURSE it's a witch hunt. That's not my point.

I'm a lifelong hunter, and the fish and game laws here in Texas are changing constantly. For example, a few years back, several counties around which I hunt enacted antler restrictions, whereby you have to properly field judge a buck prior to taking it, instantly making what used to be a legal buck illegal. It's a stupid, stupid law, intended to enforce herd management, but it puts ridiculous pressure on the hunter to precisely field judge every buck.

So what happens? A hunter passes on what might be a perfectly legal buck for fear of not knowing, because he can't get out of his stand, walk up to the buck and precisely measure it before he shoots it. He shoots a doe instead, as it's safer. Eventually, the herd is going to become unbalanced and unhealthy.

All that to say, despite the ridiculous laws, if you choose to hunt, you'd better darn sure know the regulations for whatever area you're hunting in. I've always liked Nugent's show, NeoCon that he is, but, he is without excuse. He knows he's a target, and he has a whole staff of people to research this crap for him.

Landshark, you're missing the point. Nobody outside of the feds knew about this law. Ted did everything reasonably within his powers to comply with the laws.

Did you know in Westminster Co, it's illegal to get lost in your car between the hours of 9pm and 4am? It's also illegal to allow someone to get lost while using your vehicle.

And in Washington St, when two trains come to a crossing, neither shall proceed till the other one has passed...

While the saying "ignorance is no excuse" gets a lot of play it's incorrect. It's a commonly held legal principal that a belief that conduct doesn't break the law is a defense to a criminal charge when the law defining the offense isn't known to the defendant and hasn't been published or made reasonably known to the defendant prior to the conduct in question.

I would accept your argument if he had just went out and started shooting. He did everything he could to be legal and the people he dealt with, including the local judge had no idea of the federal law.