In Florida, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle has ruled that the federal law prohibiting people from possessing firearms inside post offices is unconstitutional. The ruling is based on the 2022 Supreme Court ruling New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen recognized a person’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
The case concerned Emmanuel Ayala, a U.S. Postal Service truck driver, who had a concealed weapons permit and held a Smith & Wesson 9mm handgun in a fanny pack for self-defense. When police tried to stop him, he ran and struggled with officers. While dismissing the possession count, Judge Mizelle left the charge on forcibly resisting arrest.
The provision at 18 U.S. Code § 930 states in part that “whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”
Judge Mizelle noted that the law stands in conflict with the Bruen decision. In the course of the litigation, the Justice Department conceded that “[t]here is no evidence of firearms being prohibited at post offices, specifically, or of postal workers being prohibited from carrying them, at the time of the founding.”
Indeed, the government acknowledged that relatively limited firearms prohibitions did not appear “until the mid-twentieth century—over 170 years after the founding.”
The court proceeded to lay out an extensive historical and policy review of the basis for such a ban. It also noted that the sweeping meaning of this provision:
[The] legal principle cannot be used to abridge the right to bear arms by regulating it into practical non-existence. See Baude & Leider, supra, at 35 (identifying this as “probably the most important [Second Amendment] principle”). For example, take the criminal statute here: It bans knowingly possessing a firearm in a Federal facility, which is defined as “a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 930(g)(1). The plain language captures everything from the White House to toll booths in national parks to Social Security Administration buildings. Under this criminal statute, with the proliferation of the federal government comes the diminution of the People’s right to bear arms. At some point, when twenty-eight percent of land in the United States is owned by the federal government and many ordinary activities require frequenting a “Federal facility,” the government’s theory would amount to a nullification of the Second Amendment right altogether.
Ultimately, despite allowing for supplemental briefing, Judge Mizelle expressed frustration with the Biden Administration’s use of generalities and unsupported claims to justify this rule: “I repeat the United States’ single line on this point: “Ayala certainly cannot show that the Second Amendment prevents the government from prohibiting its own employees from bringing guns to work.” Id. That is all. No citation, no authority, no reasoning.”
In the end, the court felt it had no alternative but to declare the law unconstitutional as inconsistent “with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Given the implications of this ruling (not just for postal facilities but all federal facilities), it could well make its way to the Supreme Court.
Gun bans in post offices is a single step in the march to destroy the 2nd Amendment. “Banning guns is NOT a cure for your Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. De facto, there is NO cure.” – John L. Armstrong
This is such a simple equation. The second amendment is absolute. It is absolute that all who served in our government are required to follow “This Constitution” (Article 6) The constitution our founders ratified.
Since there has not been a constitutional amendment to the second amendment, it is required that the Supreme Court follow the text of the constitution. Article 6 makes it clear that “this constitution” is the supreme law of the land, and that all who swear by oath or affirmation, or legally bound to this constitution.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jasonpowers/p/fednow-and-bis-a-means-of-total-social
Well, you might need those #2A available. Pay attention to the Totalitarian Control Grid being placed over your A S S.
I’m retired military. I shoot rather well. I know how to handle a firearm. I have a conceal carry license. Yet when I make a trip to a military base I have to leave my lawfully concealed firearm at home…I basically lose my 2nd amendment rights from when I leave the house whenever I need to visit the local military installation until I get back home since the base doesn’t have a lock box for fire arms like a court house does. I hope this decision changes that and I can continue to carry every where I go…
I always carried concealed at the Post Office anyway and never had a problem. No one knew. I have carried into my daughter’s schools as well. Bars, restaurants, hotels, sporting events, concerts. MANY places they say I can’t… I ALWAYS ignore unconstitutional laws. It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. I would rather shoot my way out of danger and deal with the consequences later. The odds are better than if you are dead.
I hate that too. I’m on and off the local military base almost every day.
Gee no kidding.
It’s nice to have a single soon to be decimated with endless lies ruling that says We The People’s rights cannot be whimsically taken away.
Get ready for the whimsical circus reversal.
Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1We believe that the conclu sion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.
The DOJ position goes on to explain that the intricacies and uniqueness of the decisions, as well as the monumental ramifications, make it impossible to leave that eventuality in the hands of unelected prosecutors, grand juries, and ordinary citizens. They posit that only the Congress is equipped and indeed tasked by the Constitution to prosecute a criminal case against a “sitting President”, in other words “for actions while President”. (As a later indictment has the same ramifications as while sitting).
That is what Trumps lawyers were arguing. This isnt about “can the President commit murder?” Its about the successor’s henchmen dusting off old, unrelated statutes (the klan act, the enron statutes, fed contractor law) to go after a political rival. This is precisely why the DOJ has held the above position for a couple hundred years.
If Jack Smith wasnt a sycophant and a hired thug, he would have brought proper charges of Seditious Conspiracy and Insurrection.
Obamas drone strikes killed 324 civilians. Thats 324 innocent lives taken. How about we have 324 separate trials of Obama for murder. What does “judge” Pan think of that? Or better yet, since we cant prove murder, we’ll come up with some bullsh*t charges in lieu.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
“Legal experts are said to be planning to push back against Donald Trump’s potential efforts at a broad military takeover …”
HEADLINE MSNBC, NBC ETC I had to put this here, it is so repulsive. I live in two countries. One is the “Left Wing Soviets Pretending To Be The USA” and the other is the U.S.A. Watching the left wing present distortions today, I realized they don’t cover the same stories as Americans. It is utterly phenomenal. I’ve known about their hatred for freedom for quite a while. It wasn’t clear until today how despicable and traitorous they are. The vast left wing conspirators interfere with our national security by accusing a leading presidential candidate of preparing a military overthrow of my government.
They are desperate.
Stage the next shoot-em-up in a post office.
“Stage the next shoot-em-up in a post office.”
Given the Court’s ruling, if you’re a criminal, then that’s a bad idea.
But if there is one, then given the Court’s ruling, that “shoot-em-up” will be gloriously brief.
All of the individuals who performed “shoot-em ups” at the Post office did so when the prohibition against firearms on Postal property was in effect. They didn’t obey the rule. Shocking, right? The people who did obey the rule didn’t have a means to protect themselves. They are now dead.
“It’s the [judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court], stupid!’
– James Carville
__________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Concerned Citizen the bedwetter,
What does the word “Every” mean to you?
2 USC 192
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
Wanna tell us again what you think makes sense? Maybe a congressman isnt a person, is that it?
At a moment in time when we are discussing executive immunity and its extents is it so hard for you to grasp that congress can not subpeona congressmen ? The roots of this are in the constitution.
I would further note that while we all support Congress subpeonaing the executive when our political opponents control the executive and we all oppose congress subpeonaing the executive when we control the executive.
The FACT still is that executive priviledge – as well as several other priviledge do really exist. We can debate how broad they are – preferably blind to the political structure of government at the moment so that we make rational decisions.
Personally I favor only the narrowest version of executive priviledge or national security.
But regardless of what we decide (blind to political partties). Executive priviledge is real and tere are instances in which someone can refuse a congressional subpeona.
Or put differently – Every does NOT mean always for each and every person under all circumstances.
1). Congress can not subpeona other members of congress PERIOD.
2). Congress can not subpeona the president.
Neither of these are new. They have been that way for centuries.
On occasions congressmen and presidents have chose to testify in congress, but they can not be compelled to.
I would further note that even if you beleive that a congressmen can be subpeonad – you can not prosecute them for lying under oath before congress. See the constitutions speech and debate clause.
Next the Narrowest version of executive priviledge means that you can not subpeona presidential advisors regarding their direct communications with the president. Again this is not new.
Next, there is some national security related information that can not be disclosed – except in closed hearings and some so sensitive IT can only be disclosed to a handful or people in congress.
I would separately note that the proper bright line on subpeona’s is that sanctioning the failure to comply with a subpeona MUST require the court to hear, and reject your justification for failure to comply, and AFTER having your day in court you must STILL refuse the subpeona.
Or put differently – neither congress nor DOJ can accomplish by subpeona what they could not accomplish via Warrant.
Bannon and Navaro were entitled to the due process of a court REJECTING their claim of executive priviledge BEFORE they could be held in contempt.
And Commer should go to court to rquire Hunter to testify BEFORE holding Hunter in contempt.
This due process should exist for all aubpeonas – and mostly it does.
Our courts – though often biased are constitutionally the neutral aribiter of political disputes.
They are also required to signoff on all searches and seuzures. You should not eb able to get arround that with a subpeona.
“What if Trump ordered a nuclear bomb dropped on Luh Teesh Uh’s residence and then sent Godzilla to stomp out the homeless problem in San Francisco? Would that be immune?”
———brain dead DC appeals judge and Dennis McInlyre
Jonathan: Killing your political opponents? Maybe you were thinking of a Roman emperor, Stalin or Hitler, Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein–even the Crown Prince of Saudi who had the WP journalist Khashoggi assassinated? No, I was thinking about the wannabe dictator who famously said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not lose supporters. Yeah, that guy who claimed this week before the DC Court of Appeals that he is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution–even if he ordered Seal Team 6 to kill one of his political opponents.
Pinch me if I am having a nightmare!
We’re all having a nightmare for having to read your jibberish, Dennis.
Donald Trump didnt argue anything in court.
Are you an idiot or just uninformed?
No one is forcing you to read anything, and Dennis’s comments aren’t jibberish.
As for “Donald Trump didnt argue anything in court,” he had his lawyers argue absolute immunity on his behalf, and then when questioned about it in public, he underscored the argument himself.
Lmao typical little kunt, who takes the literal version of “having to” but denies the literal version of “trump argued”
The strategy is his attorneys, and what he said was “a president cant do his job” if he has to worry about his successors henchmen and 12 eighth grade dropouts determining which presidential actions are crimes.
First you all, “denies the literal version of ‘trump argued [i.e., Donald Trump didnt argue anything in court]'” is false, which is why I noted that his lawyer (not Trump) argued it in court, while Trump argued it in public (not the court).
Secondly, it’s Trump’s strategy, which is why Sauer was arguing such garbage before the DCCA panel. Trump also has his lawyers arguing absolute immunity in multiple civil cases and has lost so far in all of those too. Any law-abiding President can do his job without having to worry about facing criminal suits after leaving office. The problem is: Trump is not law-abiding, which is why he’s facing so many criminal and civil suits. His next civil trial starts on Tuesday (damages only, as he’s already been found liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll).
For anyone who’d like help keeping track of a portion of the many cases and court dates, though it’s missing some of the civil cases:
https://www.justsecurity.org/88039/trumps-legal-and-political-calendar-all-the-dates-you-need-to-know/
His next civil trial starts on Tuesday (damages only, as he’s already been found liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll).
Again, you’re a fvcking moron who apparently doesnt keep up with his own little website calendar.
The trial about to start is for defamation, you imbecile. The damages for the alleged sexual assault have already been awarded. I believe it was $5M.
Of course you would bring up a new subject and demonstrate abject ignorance about it at the same time.
“Consequently, the fact that Mr Trump sexually abused – indeed, raped – Ms Carroll has been conclusively established and is binding in this case,” Kaplan also said.”
Of course, Mr Trump can expect more reasonable treatment from sycophants like this judge, who specifically calls it rape, when “INDEED” the jury did NOT find that.
But its Trumps so fvcking bedwetters like you think its ok.
The judge calls it rape because it meets the definition of rape in standard English. It didn’t meet the narrower definition in NY law. The judge has addressed your complaint (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf), “bedwetter.”
Except the jury was asked specifically to find him liable for RAPE, and
THEY DID NOT
So no, the only definition that matters is what was found by a goddam jury of his peers, you bedwetter.
The judge outed himself as a sycophant and so did you.
His opinion matters legally. Yours does not.
That wasn’t a legal opinion jack ass. It was a lie. An illegal opinion. Indeed not rape. And his opinion means exactly the same here as mine. But good one, when u lose the argument.
Go look at the jury verdict card yourself, bedwetter. I provided it below.
On the question of rape…..NO
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/09/jury-verdict-form-e-jean-carroll-defamation-trial-00096059
My argument was never about what legal power that pos judge has. It was about his ethics. The JURY was the only legal authority who could say it was rape, and they did NOT. So he pulls an Engmoron tactic, and makes it up on his own.
The judge is in a court of law dealing with issues of law.
We do not use words in law in the way you claim.
A judge that does is LAWLESS.
Further – no this does NOT meet the standard English definition. There is no standard English definition.
The meaning of a word in ordinary use is what was successfully communicated between two people in an exchange.
Change the people and what is communicated changes. Change the moment – and what is communicated is different.
Worse still the left is constantly gaming the meaning of words – this being an example. You use words as weapons. Exaggerating or distorting to damn those you hare and then narrowing and minimizing to exonerate those you like.
Anonymous the Stupid is once again revealing how he earned his name. A lot of confused look-alikes follow that, as do some errant justices who should be removed from the bench.
No, “imbecile,” this trial is ONLY for damages for defamation. He was already found liable for defamation in this second defamation suit: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23940028-carroll-litigation-opinion
The previous suit was for both defamation and sexual assault, and the $5M was awarded when he was found liable for both defamation and sexual assault. But Trump can’t keep his lying mouth shut, so there was a second defamation suit.
Ok, you fvcking jack ass, show us the finding of liability from the second trial.
I’m not going to sit here and argue your made up reality.
Jury selection begins on the first lawsuit, the defamation lawsuit filed in 2019.
I already did show you the finding of liability from the second defamation trial. For better or worse, Carroll II was the case tried in the spring (see pp. 2-3 of the document I already linked to), and Carroll I is the current case (see pp. 3-4 of the document I already linked to, including “Ms. Carroll’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted. The trial in this case shall be limited to the issue of damages only.”).
“Jury selection begins on the first lawsuit, the defamation lawsuit filed in 2019.”
Yup. And it’s only to determine the damages.
No, i dont want some bullsh*t link to your little “all you need to know about the trump trials” website. What a joke.
I want to see the verdict card. I linked you to the one for the first trial.
Show it or stfu
You already showed u dont know which suit is which
he was found liable for both defamation and sexual assault. But Trump can’t keep his lying mouth shut, so there was a second defamation suit.
His next civil trial starts on Tuesday (damages only, as he’s already been found liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll).
Its for damages, because she was awarded a partial summary judgement in this case, based on the finding of defamation in the first case. More new york state courtnagling
Again, “imbecile,” the judge granted partial summary judgment. No jury trial for proving defamation (and in my 9:15 PM comment, I linked to the judge’s ruling, not a “trump trials” website”), only a jury trial for determining damages. Read the f’g ruling for yourself. You’re not going to get a “verdict card” because it was summary judgment.
“I already did show you the finding of liability from the second defamation trial.”
Second defamation trial bwahahahahaha
Summary judgement ass hole. There was not trial. There was a motion.
Keep pedaling bro.
I asked for a jury card because i knew it was a summary judgement. You called it a trial and you referred to it more than once as the second defamation case.
Read more, run that big mouth less is my advice, lawn boy
But Trump can’t keep his lying mouth shut, so there was a second defamation suit.
And just to go one further and show what an idiot you are.
The trial about to start was the first defamation suit filed.
Maybe you should keep your lying mouth shut.
Now that i know this is Lawn Boy, the banned turdrunner sock puppet, i can move on to someone who isnt typing drunk off his ass.
Presidents are by definition NOT law abiding. As has been noted repeatedly Obama ordered the Murder of a US Citizen in Yemen.
This is simple – either that is a prosecutable crime and DOJ and or whatever state Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki came from.
Further Yemen could extradite Obama and try him in Yemeni courts,
Either you are fine with that, you you have accepted that executive immunity exists. That presidents do NOT have to abide by the law.
Once you accept – as you must that presidents can act outside the law, then you have to work out what are the constraints on that.
The last thing you want is to politicize the process of targeting presidents and ex-presidents for crimes committed as part of their job. And yet, that is EXACTLY what those of you on the left have done.
I would note that in Faux impeachment one those of you on the left CORRECTLY argued that great care must be taken when those with government power use that power to target political opponents. Even if you botched the standards and tried to make absolute something that is not, and that you now have flipped entirely.
Dennis responds again as anonymous, because there is no way anyone else would defend his jobbersish
Anonymous: What is it with some people on this blog? People like Waters and, particularly John Say, who pontificate endlessly about facts and the law they know nothing about? Waters should listen to the audio of the DC Court of Appeals oral arguments. That makes it plain that DJT’s lawyer was arguing that a president cannot be criminally prosecuted unless he is first impeached and convicted by the Senate. That argument is going down in flames and I doubt the SC will hear the appeal.
Dennis,
Yup. On Fox that same day, even Turley said “I think what was clear to me from the argument was that probably Trump’s– this argument of impeachment first, prosecution later, is a dead letter with the panel. I don’t believe that the judges agree that you needed a [impeachment] conviction to ever prosecute a president [criminally]. … I did not come away thinking the panel was likely to rule with the former President.”
It’s ludicrous to think that a former President cannot be indicted for crimes unless he was first impeached and convicted. And during Trump’s second impeachment trial, his lawyers made the opposite argument, telling the Senate that they didn’t need to convict because Trump could be held accountable in the courts (and he convinced enough Senators of that, that they didn’t convict him — people like Mitch McConnell saying that he thought it was an issue for the courts). Trump and his lawyers will say whatever they find convenient in the moment.
Dennis – Please if I am incorrect about ANY facts or law – correct me.
I can not think of an instance in which I have actually been incorrect about a fact or about the law.
But if I am – demonstrate my error and I will correct myself.
Yes DT’s lawyer is arguing that to be crimminally prosecutred a president must first be impeached and convicted by the senate.
That already IS the standard for federal judges, and it is a reasonable standard.
Will the SC agree ? Probably. Will they refuse to even hear this ? Wishful thinking on your part.
Either Trump’s lawyer is correct and the state of the current law and constitution requires the impeachment and removeall of a president prior to a criminal conviction for actions taken as president, OR this is an area that the courts have not addressed and answered before. Either way they are near certain to hear the case.
I would also suggest to you that SCOTUS will near certainly take the appeal.
But it is not at all certain that they will expedite it or even hear it before the election.
Personally I think it is important for SCOTUS to hear and decide this issue.
But if I were to bet, they will kick the issue until after the election and then drop it as moot.
That avoids making a decision that they need to make, but do not want to.
So Dennis, Why hasn’t Pres. Obama been indicted and convicted for murdering Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki ?
Why wasn’t FDR indicted and convicted for his executive order putting American Citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps ? Why wasn’t Grant indicted and convicted for sending federal Troops into the south to run elections there ?
I can go on and on with a long list of official acts by past presidents that are unarguably crimes – especially as the left likes to stretch the definition of crime.
The point I am trying to make is that neither you nor DOJ not anyone on the left, nor these DC Judges have given the slightest consideration to the FACT that a President is OBVIOUSLY immune for presidential acts – atleast in some instance.
Presidents have in the past ordered people killed
They have meddled in elections.
They have kidnapped people.
They have committed all kinds of illegal acts.
Yet no president or ex-president has ever been indicted before. Why not ?
You are claiming that somehow Trump is different.
Fine, HOW ?
The rule of law requires that you have some legally defined bright line – and not one you just made up,
That provides a clear reason why Trump is prosecutable, and Grant, Obama, FDR are not.
If you can not explain clearly why some presidents acts are unindictable and unprosecutable, while Trump’s are.
Then you are lawless.
I am happy to consider any criteria you have to offer.
But I will tell you why SCOTUS is near certain to hear this case.
Because absent the standard Trump’s lawyer argued – there is no standard.
And law is about standards, not feelings.
I would further note – if you can provide a “bright line” that distinguishes Trump’s allegedly indictable conduct from FDR, GRant, Obama’s also criminal conduct, you ALSO have to demonstrate that standard IS the one currently the state of our law and constitution.
It is not sufficient to have what you beleive is a good criteria – though you have not offered that,
It is also required to demonstrate that your proposed criteria, has BEEN the state of the law and constitution in the past.
“No, I was thinking about the wannabe dictator who famously said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not lose supporters.”
Dennis, it must be a challenge for you to get up in the morning and tie your shoes correctly. Trump was talking about what the people and polls say. I realize how difficult it is for you to get a quote straight. Look up the video. Then smile and look in a mirror. You will see an idiot.
Trump: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”
You are a dummy like your friend or pretend friend below. Look at the video in context and learn what and how it was said. If you spent more time learning and reading, you might be worth more than minimum wage.
Are you on Fifth Avenue?
Asking for a friend.
So ? He did NOT say “I am am going to stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot someone”.
So? I didn’t say he did.
What he did say does not tell us anything about him – beyond what he beleives regarding the loyalty of his supporters.
You’re having a wonderful dream, giving yourself unlimited license to be as sanctimonious as you want to be.
Dennis, You totally misunderstand what Immunity means. It does NOT means that presidents can do whatever they want without consequences.
It does not means presidents can kill people with impunity and get away with it.
It means that Special Counsels, DOJ, state and local prosecutors can not indict or prosecute a president (or former president), for their actions within the powers of the president, until after they have been impeached by the house and removed by the senate.
If Biden ordered DoD to Drone Trump – how quickly do you think he would be impeached ?
Further do you honestly think that DoD would obey such an order ?
The “danger to democracy” of a totalitarian president does NOT come from a president that attempts to act in ways that nearly everyone in govenrment would refuse to obey. It comes from a president that attempts to act in deangerous and unconstittuional ways that those in government would choose to obey.
You claim that J6 was in insurrection. How was that supposed to work ? Let accept for the sake of argument the aburd claim that unarmed protestors, hung mike pence and a couple of house and senate members, that the national guard and the capitol police were powerless to stop them, and facing the “this is art” protestors Gallows, a majority of congress was intimidated into certifying the election for Trump.
Do you beleive the military and most of the executive would accept as lawful orders from “president Trump” ?
Do you beleive the Cheif justice would administer the oath of office if the process was corrupt ?
Do you beleive that if everything you fear magically and impossibly came true that there would not be riots in the street that would make the 2020 BLM riots look like childs play ?
You seem to think that being vested with government power is the consequence of magic incantations,
If President Biden orders DoD to murder Trump, AND DoD actualy follows that order – starting from the Sec Def right down to the soldier who pulls the trigger, then Biden can be criminally prosecuted AFTER he is impeached and removed by the Senate.
You try to construct absurd hypotheticals and PRETEND that when the hypothetical is short on context, that the answer is absolute and obvious.
President Obama ordered the execution of a US Citizen in Yemen because that person was a terrorist.
President Obama shockingly but CORRECTLY said he could do so in the US.
I(t is a crime for a US president to order ANYONE killed.
Are we going to allow Pakistant to extradite Obama for the murder of Osama Bin Laden ?
The fact that a presidential action is a crime is NOT the issue – many presidential actions are crimes.
Those that the members of the executive and military are unwilling to execute, that congress decides decides are impeachable and warrant removeable – those can be prosecuted.
If Trump was headed to Moscow to provide Putin was the US nuclear codes. Biden could order DoD to execute him and never be prosecuted.
Immunity means we do not allow the power to idict and prosecute a president for actions in office, withougt congress concluding those acts were illegitimate.
“Pinch me if I am having a nightmare!”
Dennis is always dreaming or making things up when he is not intentionally lying.
“No, I was thinking about the wannabe dictator who famously said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not lose supporters. ”
No, that is a lie where content disappears from the words. This fool keeps repeating the same lie despite the fact that the video clearly provides the words and context.
How can anyone believe anything Dennis says when he willingly lies, even after being referred to the audio video?
Laws may prohibit the discharge of arms on public property.
Owners may prohibit or permit the discharge of arms on private property.
Laws may prohibit the egress of projectiles from private and public property.
___________________________________________________________________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In my past I was a GS-1811 Special Agent (armed law enforcement investigator) and was duly vetted, trained, and certified to carry firearms.
My outfit management decided that all HQ Special Agents would upon entering their workspaces inside the HQ BLDG would secure their firearms within the provided Filing Cabinet Safes assigned to them as part of their workspace.
Signs on the Building Entrance clearly stated no firearms were allowed.
That worked fine right unto the day some disaffected former subject of an investigation arrived to air a grievance and kidnapped two now un-armed Special Agents.
The affair ended after a lot quickly opened safes took place and more than a bit of scurrying about trying to find ammunition for them as many of the folks had ceased wearing them to/from work or while on duty doing administrative work.
The next day the policy was amended to require the renewed practice of wearing the issued firearm.
Guns are exactly like insurance and condoms…..far better to have them and not need them than not have them and need them.
As usual government seeks to target the innocent, ignore the guilty, and ignore commonsense the whole time.
Ralph,
Well said.
While in Afghanistan, everyone carried everywhere. Never felt safer.
Now, the government guys they sent over in so-called support with a whole three days of training, one day on the firing line to qualify, they were probably more dangerous than the insurgents.
Bruen Decision Is Ignorant Nonsense
The gun in question was the notorious Thompson machine gun, and the time was the 1920s. Developed for trench warfare in World War I, the Tommy gun—a fully automatic weapon, though it could also fire semi-automatically—was made available for civilian purchase by inventor John Thompson’s Auto Ordnance company. With the end of the war the American military was no longer interested in the gun, and Thompson was desperate for new sales, so he began to aggressively market the gun to police forces and civilians.
Yet as William Helmer concluded in his book The Gun That Made the Twenties Roar: “As a criminal’s weapon, the Tommygun was an unqualified success.” By the middle of the decade, sensational news stories of gangland violence involving the gun sparked calls for government action that led at least 32 states to enact restrictions on the gun and similar gangster weapons. This culminated in the first important national gun law, the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed significant and effective restrictions on the guns’ acquisition.
Edited From:
https://time.com/6284928/gun-control-u-s-history/
………………………………………
The National Firearms Act became law in 1934, 90 years ago. But that’s not ‘far enough back in history’ to qualify as historical??
One should note that by the end of the 1920’s, the United States had become dramatically more urbanized than it had been in the 1890’s.
The 10 biggest U. S. cities combined saw their total populations increase from 9.5 million in 1900 to 19 million in 1930. In other words, their combined populations more than doubled in just 30 years.
The Bruen decision pretends that America is essentially the same country today as it was in the 1780’s when the Constitution was drawn. Only a blithering idiot would accept that premise. And the Bruen decision was seemingly crafted by idiots.
No the Breun decision does NOT pretend the country is unchanged.
It merely notes that the Constitution is unchanged.
You are free to change the constitution.
As to your digression on automatic weapons that law has not come before Scotus recently.
They could find it unconstitutional.
Or they could narrow Breun, or someone could find a historical antecedent.
To be clear – it is not merely the period arround 1787 that is relevant – the 14th amendment applies the 2nd to the states.
And the 14th amendment was passed Explicitly to allow freed slaves to have guns.
The point being that the period after the civil war is relevant too.
Gatling guns existed during the Civil WAr. Were there laws barring private ownership of gattling guns ?
You seem to have decided Breun is wrong based on your assumptions on an issue that you have no idea how would be decided under Bruen.
Jonathan: You know you have touched a raw nerve–judging by some of the reactions to my comment about Judge Mizelle. No legal analysis of her decision, just ranting and raving. “Old Airborne Dog” thinks I am an “evil disgusting little police state fascist for the Soviet Democrats and the Big Guy, Bribery Biden, goes by the name of Dennis McIntyre”…”You are a disgusting, evil little imitation of an American, or even of a human being,” [1/14@12:45 pm]. When you are called “evil” you know you have struck a nerve.
“Old Airborne Dog” has definitely gone “airborne”. He is like the junk yard dog that jumps, barks and snarls at anything that moves. Good thing he on a chain. That’s where “Old Airborne Dog” belongs!
Denise,
I generally make it a point of not reading your comments but I do read those who respond to yours, like John Say or Lin’s epic take downs of your comments, pointing out how wrong you are. It is fun!
But in this case, Old Airborne Dog’s assessment of you is quite accurate and spot on.
To Old Airborne Dog, good on ya! Keep up the good fight against evil as Airborne!
UpState Farmer, compare paragraph by paragraph, line by line, word by word, comments by DM and Svelaz / Wally / Gigi / elvis bug / Bob / Concerned Citizen / troll of a thousand sock puppets: same verbiage, same whine, same sophomoric sentence structure, same troll.
David Brock was once said to be batshlt crazy by Clinton operative, Leon Panetta, rightly so. Democrats ran away from Brock because his online assaults on Republicans was nucken futs even if he was trolling Republicans to help Democrats. David Brock passed his organization “Media Matters” to an equally nucken futs young gay leftist by the name of Angelo Carusone. Under the leadership of Carusone, Elon Musk sue Media Matters for posting on Twitter fake accusations regarding associations with Nazis, pretending to represent a large chorus of critics of Musk by scores of sock puppet Twitter accounts, and spending money from Leftwing organizations so as to bring down Elon Musk and his ad base. If any of this looks familiar as to what takes place on this blog daily by scores of sock puppets, that is not an accident. Professor Turley was recently swatted, he has received countless threats by the Left, and the organization of Media Matters likely clogs his blog with fake accusations, pretending to represent a large chorus of critics, and so forth.
It’s PSYOP
Psychological operations (PSYOP) are operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their motives and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and large foreign powers.
-Wiki
NB: David Brock has been accused of many foul things but never was he accused of being intelligent. Angelo Carusone is deciles of IQ points below Brock, which is say a lot.
Elon Musk’s X follows through with ‘thermonuclear lawsuit’ against Media Matters
https://nypost.com/2023/11/20/business/elon-musks-x-sues-media-matters-after-report-about-ads-next-to-antisemitic-content/
“This is a frivolous lawsuit meant to bully X’s critics into silence,” the non-profit’s president, Angelo Carusone, said in a prepared statement.
Also on Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced his office was launching an investigation into “radical left-wing” Media Matters for potential fraudulent activity tied to the same report.
“We are examining the issue closely to ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square,” he said in a statement.
NB: the comment above by Angelo employs verbiage similar to that used by Peter Shill / Svelaz / Dennis / Gigi, et al …..
I agree with everything you said except that DM is not one of those sock puppets. He is an entirely other league of troll.
And he is a real person. He lives in Rusk, TX. He has been the target of a child pornography investigation in Cherokee County for years. The DA there has strong evidence that Dennis has been cornholing his 11 year old nephew since he was 8, but refuses to prosecute.
He may also be employed by media matters but his narcissistic, egotistical, self righteous, self aggrandizing, TDS infested rants are far and away more than the simple minded Svelaz, Gigi, turdrunner, wally, fishy breath, sammy and lawn boy trolls are capable of. And Bob, he’s just an honest moron. Lawn boy might be too, but his drunk rants make it hard to tell.
Hit a little nerve, did he?