"So using the senierio; "...someone looking out the window, and saw the car/people,
of the drive by killing. Yet will not, 'Report', it, because the person was the nephew of his/her, half brothers, former girlfriend..."

If that person looked out the window, after they heard shots and saw a red car leaving.
They HAVE to 'report' that information, because it would be investigating a crime."

 No.  I am saying that people that claim they have the "right" to refuse to give information about a crime that is being investigated have learned that this "right" does not exist.  You do not have to report a crime except in the circumstances I already outlined, twice.  There is no responsibility to report your scenario.  Again, there is zero responsibility to report your scenario.


"However, if they happed to look out the window, and saw the red car, saw the person, saw the person shoot and kill someone,
they would NOT have to report the crime ?"

 No, see above, its the exact same thing.  You do not have the "right" to exempt yourself from mandatory reporting laws.  That "right" does not exist.  What I was indicating is if a crime is being investigated, and there is a mandatory reporting law, you can not claim you have the "right" to not report.  



"Can you provide the documentation, that there is a compulsory requirement/law, to, report a theft?"

 Not yet, but there may be.  That is the documentation I already provided.  Just because there is no law in place does not automatically mean an action is a protected "right".  If a law does not exist against tying shoes in public this does not mean you have a "right" to tie your shoes in public.


 As usual I answered your questions, as you continually refuse to answer mine, but I will ask again:

Would you kick someone out of a meeting for clarifying that there is no legislation that puts a citizen in jail for failing to report a gun theft when they were on vacation?

"If no law was created by the majority of Citizens prohibiting something, then one does have the ‘right’ to do that thing.
One has the, ‘right’ to fart in Church/restaurant/car/etc. It is most certainly rude, but it is a right that person has, simply because they have the Freedom to do that.
Farting in Church, is not a, ’Protected’, right, as you changed the meaning of what someone else said."


 I agree.  What I mean is using the argument that one has a "right" to do something, and there is law against it, you can not claim that right.  Since it is not protected.

 If a law is proposed against farting in church you can not use the argument that you have the "right" to fart in Church -  unless that "right" you are claiming as argument against law is protected.


"You have provided no proof, none whatsoever, that what you say, happened."

 Then let's say it is hypothetical.  Would you, as a gun rights activist, refuse access to a meeting you invited someone to, if they used actual legal documents in that meeting?  


Not even a FB/Twit/other comment, not a ’suspect’, web page or blog, not even CNN or MSNBC.
So I don’t know for a fact that happened, and don’t know for a fact what tone of voice, or inferences were used."


 This had nothing to do with CNN or MSNBC, it was a local gun activist group that is claiming you "will go to jail" if you go on vacation and do not report a gun theft - prior to having knowledge of the theft - but if you pay them money they will go fight against that law.   

 I'm not going to put their information out here since it's a scam and if legal action is necessary, nothing about additional slander would help the victims.  Although in my mind you deserve to lose your money if you think law can even be enforced in a capacity that one can be criminally incarcerated if they do not report a crime they do not have knowledge of.

If I knew the person constantly implied they were better than anyone they disagree with.
Eluded they have access to, information/staff/students/minions, that no-one else does.
They most likely would not have been, ‘invited’, in the first place.


 I was invited, so this doesn't apply in the case I am presenting.  Hypothetically you did invite them, the question is about someone you did invite, not would you invite people you would not invite.


"Eluded they have access to, information/staff/students/minions, that no-one else does."

 This makes no sense, other than the high-school students that there is a written agreement to not allow direct communication with, all other staff are accessible as well as their referenceable material that is provided in full.  I have stated this before multiple times.  I offer direct communication, without my inclusion, but in some situations it is conveniently refused after the contact numbers and emails are provided.

 How would you refusing to talk to my staff be a situation where you do not have access to them?

 I provide direct links, how do you not have access to that information?

 In this meeting I provided the actual documents by digital link to the CO State website, and held up the printed documentation.  How do people not have access to that information?


 This is a far cry from an "inside source" that offers no reference, unlike my situation where references are provided and the staff will talk to you directly about it.  



"That would depend entirely on, how, the information was presented.
Tone/Attitude/Direction."

 That makes sense.