Today I learned from the internet that I am an anti-gun boot-licking cuck, because I said you shouldn’t lie on a 4473.
Apparently, there are a lot of people on the internet that think lying to the government is just fine.
Lying to the government about information they’re not entitled to is wrong in your opinion?
— TheBilofRights (@ThePhilof) June 12, 2024
Lying to the federal government is justifiably felonious?
Like, we must tell the government everything we’re doing, when, where, and how, if the government says we have to?
That isn’t just an attack on the 2nd, but the 5th too.
— Currermell (@currermell) June 12, 2024
People shouldn’t spend time in prison for lying on a form that shouldn’t exist in the first place
I have 0 obligation to be truthful to you or anyone much less government. But I get to choose who to be truthful with. Everything we say/do has consequences, whether we live in a civilized society or not. I choose wisely who I’m truthful with and you have a right to lie.
— Batboy Supreme (@Batboy_Supreme) June 12, 2024
It is possible to think both of these things simultaneously, you might try it sometime
— Taiko Miyazawa (@tortletech) June 12, 2024
It’s our moral obligation to lie to the government, actually, especially when representation no longer exists in the country.
— Bangstickk (@johnsonstickk) June 12, 2024
I don’t know how to say this enough, under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, you absolutely have the right to remain silent and not testify against yourself.
Once you decide to tall, if you lie on a sworn statement, you are guilty of perjury.
Your choices are stay silent or tell the truth.
Lying is not an option.
That is because the truth is a moral good.
A decent society does not encourage mendacity.
Our Founding Fathers were moral men. They wanted to protect people from tyrannical government, so they enshrined the right to remain silent.
They didn’t give us the right to bullshit the government.
These are two fundamentally different things.
Yet the internet is full of fucking retards who can’t differentiate that.
Then there is this retarded ass take.
Illegal laws should not be obeyed
— Matt King (@BubbleVapor2) June 12, 2024
you don’t have to obey an unconstitutional law, and enforcing an unconstitutional law is a crime
— Sinister Silverado (@SinisterSilver2) June 12, 2024
You missed the point completely. You’re literally saying that if a legal requirement isn’t met because it’s a gateway to exercising your 2A right, then you are the problem. Every law, form, regulation, or ordinance that hinders my right to a firearm is an infringement. Period.
— Batboy Supreme (@Batboy_Supreme) June 12, 2024
I don’t know who told these people, “If you think a law is illegal or unconstitutional, you don’t have to obey it.”
Because, that’s not how that works.
It’s the Supreme Court, not internet fuckoff randos, who decide Constitutionality.
The Supreme Court upheld the 4473 in Bruen. They struck down part of it, but upheld the rest.
So, as of right now, the 4473 has passed Constitutional muster.
I’m completely against licenses to possess guns, like the FOID and FID.
But because the Supreme Court hasn’t struck them down yet, yes, I got a FOID.
According to these chest thumpers, wanting to stay out of prison is loving the taste of fed boot polish.
Maybe I am a Fudd, but I come from a principle of, “Be a law abiding gun owner and work to change the law.”
Heller, DC, Moore v Madigan, Bruen, were all decided in my adult lifetime. I watched as more than half the states in the union went Constitutional Carry.
These are great advancements, and we should and will fight for more.
The “I’m not going to comply with anything I disagree with, and law abiding gun owners are boot-licking cucks,” doesn’t advance our case and just plain fucking retarded.
I only hope all these retards stand by their principles and refuse to comply with the laws they disagree with and lie to the government about it. Let them risk the virginity of their assholes in a federal penitentiary for their chest thumping.
Yada, yada, yada…
Just because you (the plural you) are convinced that such and such a law is wrong, does not mean ignoring it is OK. Publicly ignoring it, and bragging about it on the ‘net is worse.
Seriously, these morons are no different than the open carry idiots that carried ARs into Chipotle fast food joints. They might “think” they are helping, but they are actually doing the opposite.
People have forgotten a critical element of civil disobedience — you accept the arrest under the law you believe is unjust, in order to show that it’s unjust. You don’t get to break a law you don’t like with no penalty; that demonstrates you’re opposed to the rule of law in general, not a specific law.
If it’s ok for gov’t thugs to lie under oath to send innocent Americans to prison, then it’s absolutely morally ok for innocent Americans to lie to gov’t thugs. The fact that they’ll throw you into the gulag for it just means that anyone still willing to work as a flea is subhuman gestapo filth, not that lying to them is a moral evil.
if you have an issue filling out a government mandated form to purchase firearms, then buy them thru private sale… if you lie on a 4473 and the FFLdealer knows it, the FFL dealer will not sell you a firearm. If you lie and get caught and aren’t already a felon you will become one. law “enforcement “ like everyone else lately will go after the easy jobs and not the dangerous jobs. knowing you are lieing on a government form doesn’t change the law.Knowingly breaking a law you don’t like makes you as bad as democrats.. Liberty and Freedom aren’t easy to keep. if YOU dont fight for it as hard as liberals fight to take it, whose fault is it when you lose. These keyboard Kommandos are a YUGE problem…
Yes lying is morally wrong; be truthful in all things. However, at what point does one stop complying with unconstitutional laws? When the legal system has been politicized and corrupted to the degree it already has…”shall not be infringed” is plain language but not honored, is it morally wrong to beak those laws and to what extent: “maskirovka”, tactical deception; “Taqiyyah”, lies to an (immoral) opponent? How far do you step beyond the line?
At some point continuing to fight a rigged game on your opponents’ terms is a losing proposition and a fools errand.
To test your idea, change the circumstances of the lie. If the government required you to to fill out a form certifying that there were no Jews hidden in your attic, would you be morally justified in lying on that form?
I am not going morally but practical.
If any restriction of the 2A is illegal/unconstitutional and then morally mandated to be ignored, then strap on an unregistered M4 and go wandering into any school in session.
After you are arrested, present your case in court and see what the jury decides.
Don’t be what Jon Gutmacher calls Defendant Zero. Fight the law, but do not be stupid.
This is the same as “gun experts” complaining that .380 is an ineffective round, but the cower away at the idea to being shot by one to confirm their claims.
Ignoring a law through deception isn’t the same as being ostentatious about it.
Doing as you suggest in my example would be akin to announcing that there are Jews in your attic and then daring the powers that be to do something about it.
I wouldn’t be in the position to answer the question. The 4473 is a VOLUNTARY form; it is required only to purchase a firearm from a FFL. Don’t want to answer the form? Don’t buy from an FFFL. If you’re going to fill out the form, don’t lie on it.
Now, if the .gov required me to fill out the form, without my choice, I would just decline to do so. In fact, I have twice declined to do so, in the American Community Survey. Twice I’ve had the survey sent, and trice I declined to return it at all. Supposedly, it is a federal felony to refuse to answer the survey; it is my understanding that no one has ever been prosecuted. Of course, I’m a conservative, refusing to answer with an administration that uses its police and enforcement powers to punish its political enemies. . . . . there might be some risk involved. Nonetheless, my answer is no, I won’t answer.
It’s voluntary today, yes. But Biden is working hard to change that. “Universal background check” means that the government will have a record of every (legal) gun sale.
What might they want to do with that database?
I think there’s a deeper underlying issue here: trust in government.
We’re lied to and decieved everyday by our government about nearly everything under the sun. Is it *really* any surprise that some people suddenly no longer feel the need to be truthful in return?
If you can solve that issue, most of this wouldn’t even be a question.
It has been mentioned a couple of times in the last couple of days that Bruen upheld part of the 4473 and struck down part. I had not been aware of this and don’t remember hearing any discussion about it, at least in those terms. Would you consider making a post on the specific subject of Bruen and the 4473? Thanks.
The problem here is there are two arguments being mixed that are not completely compatible and just causes both sides to talk past each other. There is the argument about what is objectively legal or not based on the facts and the current legal standard. Then there is the argument of what should be legal but isn’t. For one side, what should be is not really germane to what actually is and for the other, what should informs what should be happening with what is.
.
I would also add as a point of order, you often can’t challenge a law until you get pinched for breaking it to begin with so there is that.
.
I’m inclined to the should be side, as in the government is full of a bunch of liars, murders, thieves, and probably rapists too that break every imaginable law every single day and get away with it so nothing they say or do is valid to begin with. I also however, can separate the should from arguing the points at hand….
.
I would also add that should is most definitely a valid argument sometimes and lying to government and breaking a law is a valid strategy sometimes, I would look back 80-100 years in history for supporting evidence of that….
Actually form 4473….along with virtually all laws related to firearms and weapons….does NOT pass Constitutional muster. Just because courts, judges and politicians say it does doesn’t make it so. It’s just further proof that the government and it’s court system are illegitimate usurpers exercising power illegally. How you deal with that reality is a different matter but claiming these laws are legitimate and we should obey them because they are is grossly incorrect. Most laws in this country are illegitimate violations of the Constitution. Enforcement does not automatically grant legitimacy.
Agreed. There is the plain meaning of the Constitution, and there is the interpretation of the Constitution as promulgated by courts, and then there is the Constitution as practiced by lawmakers and bureaucrats. They are three significantly different things.
Consider Dred Scott for example, or Korematsu.
“In nothing did the founders of this country so demonstrate their essential naivete than in attempting to constrain government from all its favorite abuses, and entrusting the enforcement of those protections to judges; that is to say, men who had been lawyers; that is to say, men professionally trained in finding plausible excuses for dishonest and dishonorable acts.” — H. L. Mencken