You missed the point. My point in saying that was to state that my rights as a citizen of the USA are not erased because I am overseas. True, of course, I must obey the local laws- but in the case of voting, I am permitted to do so because my legal residence is not in Iraq.
pkbites, yes I’ve been on the boards for a while. What does that have to do with whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Bush, the private citizens filing their 1040 return forms, live in Illinois or not? Bricker stated unequivocably that the Bush’s reside in Washington, D.C. I was attempting to refute that. They may indeed spend a lot of time residing in the White House ( though not as much time as one might suspect), but they are not residents of the District of Columbia. True, they have to obey the local laws. That is not what I was addressing. I was addressing an erroneous statement made regarding legal residence. They are not, in fact, residents of the District.
And, I do believe that it’s a Trust that they use, and that their real residence is in Crawford, Texas. ( Well. They say it’s Crawford. Who knows, it might legally be the next post office over, but the newsies say, " Live from Crawford, Texas", so it sounds that way to me. ). They’re Texans. Not DC’ers.
And your point is wrong. Your rights as granted under American law are irrelevant when you are in Iraq. The U.S. Constitution gives you all kinds of rights. U.S. state laws grant you all kinds of rights and privileges. When you are in Iraq, the government of Iraq has no obligation to grant you those rights and privileges.
If George W. Bush is a citizen of Illinois (however that is defined), the government of the District of Columbia has no obligation to consider his right to carry a firearm under Illinois law when Bush is within the borders of the District of Columbia. When you are in a jurisdiction, the law of that jurisdiction applies.
The fact that an address appears on their tax return bears no relation on whether District of Columbia law applies when Bush is actually in the District of Columbia.
They are, in fact, residentsof the District of Columbia. A person can have more than one residence. Issues of domicile, residence, legal residence, etc., are relevant only when you make the legal context clear. When you’re talking about taxes, you refer to tax law to say what is legal residence, for example. When you’re talking about a general penal code like the District of Columbia’s handgun restriction, your residence for tax purposes is irrelevant. The Bushes do in fact live in the District of Columbia and when they are there (which is a lot of the time), the local handgun law applies (well, maybe).
That will come as something of a shock to the IRS, which examines what people say and claim rather closely. He can insist all he wants that they are residents of D.C.
Their IRS 1040 says differently, and sorry to say, I go with what they file with the IRS over what Bricker says. Call me crazy.
This is not strictly true. We have agreements with many countries, particularly UN members which is the large majority of the world, and in particular we have Status of Forces Agreements with pretty much every country our forces go to. In Iraq, as Cartooniverse mentioned, our forces (and many other personnel who fall under the branch of being a multi-national force, contractors etc…) are fully immune to Iraqi law under CPA Order #17.
The key here is that the Iraqi government is recognizing these rights and privileges. They apply because they apply under Iraqi law (because the Iraqi government agreed to do so under treaty), not because they apply under American law.
And I wasn’t under the impression that we were talking about someone in active military service. Still, the same principle applies. If you break the law and are charged, you have to argue that the Iraqi government’s accession to such-and-such agreement gives you certain rights. Just arguing that “I’m an American citizen, so American law applies” will get you nowhere.
Great. So if the IRS tells you it’s possible to have a primary AND a secondary residence, you’ll believe them?
But not me, and not pravnik, and not ascenray, eh?
OK:
From here, one of many, many references to multiple residences in IRS publications.
Of course, the IRS is interested in your DOMICILE, but that’s a different question - one that’s been explained to you repeatedly now by multiple posters.
You cited an IRS link that discusses in great depth ownership, use and home/property taxation. Did you read the entire page before posting up the link, or just the bold fonted title at the top ???
The link would have us all believe that Mr. and Mrs. Bush are residents of Washington, D.C. because they own their domicile, and pay taxes based on the amount of use of that domicile they have made in the past tax year.
They own The White House? Cite please.
:rolleyes:
Mk VII, that may well be one of the reasons that more modern-day Presidents to not carry. Even if they were so inclined, or were residents of a state that was fairly permissive in terms of carrying unconcealed weapons ( ahem ), it might make it look as though the Secret Service wasn’t really on their game. Which they are. Always. Spent a bit of time around them, including ON the grounds of The White House ( which, by the way, isn’t owned by it’s current residents… ). They don’t miss much, those Secret Service folks.
The range of cruise missiles goes from less than 105 km for the cheap Chinese Silkworm to up to 3,000 km for the U.S. Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM). That’s a good deal shorter than “half a world away”.
Secondly, about that “strike up your rear”. Cruse missiles are inexpensive to build and can, therefore, overwhelm current defenses by sheer numbers. They are an inaccurate missile, but so small & cheap to build that you can launch masses of them. The earliest cruise missiles were accurate to within 8 miles of the target (80% of them hit that). But recent improvements in computer processors used to guide them has greatly improved that; the best current ones are said to be able to come within 100 yards of a target. But those are the million dollars apiece type, not the cheap ones. And even 100 yards is quite a bit less accurate than “a strike up your rear”.
uhh, you realize the prez doesn’t have to be standing next to the cruise missile to order it fired, right? I would venture to say that over 90% of the earth’s surface could be target by a US cruise missile at any time.
The same question came up, and they seem to know quite a bit of inside information….no official cites to backup the claims, but I wouldn’t want to argue with any of them.
I guess, according to what they say, both Bush Sr. and Teddy Roosevelt packed heat and weren’t afraid to advertise it.
Eight U.S. Presidents have been NRA members. They are Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George
There are some other pretty interesting facts on that site as well. It is surely reassuring to find out that criminals who illegaly own firearms do not need to register them. I am glad the u.s. tax dollars paid for the time to put that down in writing.
Since you’re the one who brought the IRS into this, why don’t you cite where the IRS is responsible for enforcing gun control laws on people within the boundaries of Washington, DC?
Your post seemed to infer that they were only bound by ILL. law, and not D.C. law. I know you know better than that. The wording just kind of infered it. As you read, I’m not the only one to have comprehended it that way. Of course, when it comes to gun rights. The peoples Republik of Illonoize is only slightly better than D.C…
It all depends. For instance, my department forbids carrying their weapon off duty (except to and from work). It’s their gun, they can tell you what you can/can’t do with it. But as far as carrying you’re own gun off duty, the deputy chief himself told us they didn’t have the legal authority to forbid it. This was before HR218. The result was/is, about 80% of us carry our own gun on duty as well, even though the department issued one is quite nice.
HR218 is somewhat of a monkey wrench for some jurisdictions. If a dept. forbids off duty carry, is their policy null & void because of the federal law? This will eventually go to court, and I feel those departments are going to lose.
They may well lose in Federal Court- but in the meantime, how are officers going to respond to the law?
Will they shake their heads and call bullshit and continue to carry their own weapon anyway? And if so, and if they use that weapon to bring lethal force to a crime in progress, therefore stopping the crime, do you think they’ll be prosecuted for carrying their personal firearm?
No, the link isn’t about whether they own the White House. The link is an example of the IRS using the word “residence” in a way different from the way you have been insisting they use it. It was offered to show that there are many possible uses of the word “residence,” and that such use depends on the context.
In other words, it was offered to disabuse you of the notion that it was wrong to say the Bushes are residents of Washington, DC. They are. They are ALSO residents of Texas, and are presumably domiciled in Texas. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are resident in Washington.
I’m suprised that the mods haven’t moved this to Great Debates. All this back and forth over what jurisdiction and under whose authority and all misses several points and the spirt of the OP. One, the POTUS is not a private citizen at any point in time while he is in office. He travels with a heavily armed security detail everywhere he goes: churchs, federal buildings, the UN, schools, military bases and even foriegn countries. He is the reason all the guns are there in the first place. He does enjoy certain privilages that most private and public figures couldn’t even imagine having (it’s one of the great perks). If he wanted to pack a gun he probably could.
I still remember what one of my grade school teachers told the class back in the sixites when Castro came to power. That our leaders did not have to go around in military uniforms with a gun strapped to thier side to show that they were tough. That civilized, intelligent people did not need to behave like that. The POTUS is first and foremost a politician and the authority that prevents him from walking around with a sidearm is his own common sense.
Actaully one of the reasons for HR218 was self defense, not to take action as a peace officer, though that was inferred. An officer outside his jurisdiction doesn’t have any arrest powers. HR218 simply created a status to allow CCW.
The problem an officer faces carrying his weapon off duty when forbiden to do so is administrative not criminal. For instance, here in Wisconsin a peace officer cannot be prosecuted for CCW. The law says nothing like “but only if his department lets him” and it doesn’t mention anything about on/off duty. Getting caught carrying off duty when the departments policy forbids it could result in internal discipline but not criminal charges.
I believe most states have similar laws, but for most states it’s a moot point as most have CCW permits. If the officers department forbids off duty carry he/she could just get a permit and carrying under the staus of having the permit, not their peace officer status.
Hr218 did dump a big rock on the laps of departments that forbid off duty carry. They are still trying to interpret it a yeat & a half after it has been inacted.
If an officer was fired because he was caight carrying contrary to policy, and the courts rule 218 allowed him to, will he get his job back?
But this is a hijack of the OP.
If POTUS woke up one day and said "today I’m packing a loaded 1911 under my coat, by what law/authority could say, the Secret service, tell him he couldn’t?
I think the President could easily prevail upon the Attorney General, FBI Director or Secretary of the Treasury to designate him as a Federal officer specifically authorized to pack heat (assuming he didn’t already have inherent authority, of which I have my doubts)… but why would he want to?
