GOA News

GOA in philly

top 10 GOA lawsuits

Someone wanted to know what the GOA is up to. There you go. While the NRA reorganizes their business.

All this NRA stuff was gone over when LaPierre left PETA and went to the NRA. Heard alot of we need him to fight fire with fire (kinda like the left taking money from Soros).

Yall do what you want. I was taught differently than most, I guess. I don't consent and will not comply with illicit government mandates or laws no matter the penalty.

Let me offer this as an opinion. If you get a citation for a violation and "Shall" is written in your Laws e.g. traps "Shall" be checked within "X" number of hours / days, or whatever, IF you get an attorney he SHOULD know, or become aware of the SCOTUS RULING regarding Shall (optional as in "may") and Must (NOT an Option). Actually you could present your case to the Court and hopefully the Judge will know the updated difference. POSSIBLY case dismissed. Many laws "on the books" are arcaic and not updated due to laziness and costs on the various Depts. An old Law Professor once said " the best way to get rid of a bad law is to have it enforced" . . . some people actually read what "they" what they wrote". I know this to be true. . . . So food for thought guys. :-)

Here's the skinny. Lug is a good ole boy from PA that post these kind of post to rile. Everyone that's in the know knows that the NRA is a gun rights giveaway and has been since the 30's, they need to stick to everything that's not in the courtroom because they give away our gun rights and freedoms. They are great, other then in the courtroom. We all do need to stand together we just need to do it with some sense.

The Oxford dictionary defines the legal meaning of "shall" as "must" and that is the common understanding of the word.

The Oxford dictionary is NOT a Legal Dictionary! and yes, shall" and "must" are NOW common MISUNDERSTANDINGS of the two words. . . . I'm done.

The Oxford dictionary and our Constitution predate any modern rendering of the word "shall". I'm not sure I'm done.

Our constitution was not written for lawyers.

It was not written to be open to interpretation.

It was written to limit the power of our government.

Government by its very nature strives to increase its power. Whether by dressing lawyers up in black robes and giving them authority to "interpret" and return favor for being appointed or assuming power government has never been constitutionally given. For example "executive orders".

The responsibility for demanding adherence to the cornerstone of all U.S. law is on the governed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed? That almost begs the question of why not. They used the strongest possible language in crafting the 2nd Amendment. Shall not. No ambiguity there.

I wonder if there's every been a generation which didn't consider itself wiser and "better" than all who had lived before them?

Our founding fathers founded this nation using language from a Book they were well versed in (literally and figuratively)
which typically translates the Hebrew and Greek word meanings of "instruct, command, must do," >>>>> into our English language word "shall."

Blessings,
Mark

i think we are getting dumber. Its why we have lost so much liberty.