Now that is not the truth. Just because people want only those eligible to vote to vote does not mean they are saying it is a privilege.
1 Like
If that door didnât lock when she shut it, it probably wasnât locked when she propped it open either. It still would have been unlocked no matter what door she used. Youâre trying to blame a person for an equipment failure.
While Sen. Cornyn was on Fox and Friends, no one took the time to ask him, where in the Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to tax and spend to provide gun safety legislation within the various state borders? And particularly so when the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and people therein all powers which. â. . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State . . .â See Federalist No. 45.
The Bill is another bipartisan effort to erode and subjugate the defined and limited powers delegated to Congress by the States and people therein.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
1 Like
Exactly.
Talking about unlocked doorsâŚ
A door to a classroom where the Uvalde school shooter was holed up was unlocked while police searched for a key to get in, a top Texas official said Tuesday, describing law enforcementâs response to the rampage as an âabject failure.â
2 Likes
I may be a bit optimistic there. The opposition should never underestimate her ability to get votes. But the results of the mail-in primary to replace Don Young in the House has given me cause to reconsider. Sarah Palin garnered 27% of the vote in the 48 candidate race. She out polled Begich, who was the favorite, by 8 points. That she was endorsed by Trump and achieved that success leads me to believe that quite possibly, Kelly Tshibaka, who is also endorsed by Trump, could beat Murkowski.
when youâre arrested the state must charge you or let you go. once charged you appear before a judge where the state must show sufficient cause to hold you. and even then in most cases you can bond out.
where is it in this law that the state must claim you are nutjob to a court or give your property back? where is it that they must show sufficient cause to continue to hold your property or give it back?
2 Likes
I wonder if now the remaining gun laws that affect only 18-20 yr-olds will be challenged on the heels of this ruling. In my mind, I donât see the difference as far as their Constitutional rights go, and itâs consistent with the recent SCOTUS ruling against the state of New York. Regardless, it certainly a red flag of warning to Congress regarding the limiting of the rights of that age group in the gun bill they are currently working on.
Yes. Thatâs the process that is due, for criminal charges.
Section 12003(a)(2)(iv).
It depends on the door. Most industrial doors that are meant to be locked (from ingress) at all times cannot release the lock from the outside, or require a special key for emergency ingress. (My sports association shooting range has a backdoor lock like that. Push bar on the inside, but it doesnât even have a pull handle on the outside.) With that sort of system, all one has to do is push on the door from the inside to determine if it is locked. That said, I have not seen anything about this specific door that described the locking system.
All of that is speculation. We simply donât know if she was negligent or not.
section (iv) covers people who have protection orders against them. what about everybody else?
it also does not stipulate the state must give the property back if they fail showing in a hearing. you could win the hearing, and still have to sue to get your property back
1 Like
No, youâre reading that wrong. Extreme Risk Protection Orders (âERPOsâ) are how what you fear occurs (guns being confiscated).
It probably does, but I definitely donât care if it doesnât.
Thie is the world you guys brought.
Exactly what do you mean by that? How did âweâ have anything to do with politicians passing laws that violate Constitutional Rights?
3 Likes
that is one of 4 ways cited there is also (i), (ii) and (iii).
and once again, you need to get your money back, in the statute the protection orders are pre existing orders of the court. iowâs, protection orders filed in the court against one person by another. there is no requirement for the state to get a protection order to confiscate the weapon to begin with. it simply allows them to if one exists. further, none of subparagraph (I) under subparagraph (iv) applies to subparagraphs (i), (ii), or (iii)
Exactlty what it sounds like.
It isnât my tribe that deifies police and supports them unconditionally.
Gonna stop you right there. Of course there is.
That requirement comes from the Constitution.
no, but it is your tribe that demonizes police unless they happen to be shooting unarmed female trump supporters for tresspassing.
3 Likes
its not in the law.
Deflection Alert.
Is the current topic becoming too difficult?
