Two arrested in Burlington: Illegal assault rifle

[namedpipes]

Prohibited person in possession. And that vice and keychain really put the shine on this case.

When the fuzz are bragging about the pack of firecrackers they seized, the entire pile of charges and evidence can safely be discarded. It's ALL garbage.

The dog and pony show aside, I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy?

The guy is an a*****e, but i see nothing illegal in the picture.

... Essentially, the sentence for a felon is "xxx years in jail and loss of 2A rights." The loss of rights is essentially part of the sentence, every bit as much as the jail time.

The loss of rights is an add on that never went through due process.

If you want to deprive an individual of his constitutionally guaranteed rights, then you have to explicitly prosecute him for that, prove your case and get a judge to agree.

THEN Johnny can be a PP for the rest of his life.

 

[ScottS]

When the fuzz are bragging about the pack of firecrackers they seized, the entire pile of charges and evidence can safely be discarded. It's ALL garbage.

The loss of rights is an add on that never went through due process.

If you want to deprive an individual of his constitutionally guaranteed rights, then you have to explicitly prosecute him for that, prove your case and get a judge to agree.

THEN Johnny can be a PP for the rest of his life.

The fuzz? Haha. Let me check my calendar and see what year it is...

The last part is written in a misleading way. You make it sound declarative. "This is the way the law works. You have to do this to deprive an individual of his rights..."

It should be labeled "This is the way I would like it to be," because it is demonstrably not the way it is.

 

[namedpipes]

The fuzz? Haha. Let me check my calendar and see what year it is...

The last part is written in a misleading way. You make it sound declarative. "This is the way the law works. You have to do this to deprive an individual of his rights..."

It should be labeled "This is the way I would like it to be," because it is demonstrably not the way it is.

No, i write it three way it IS. Not the way it is PRACTICED.

Our Constitution specifically bars any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Yet we have laws left and right doing exactly that. I think I read 60,000 gun laws on the books.

Without exception, every one of those laws is simple garbage. It is not POSSIBLE to be convicted on charges based on any of them. Simply cannot happen.

Yet people are convicted for firearm violations every day and some of them will never see the light of day again.

The law reads the way I said.

And stop being ageist.

 

[ScottS]

No, i write it three way it IS. Not the way it is PRACTICED.

Our Constitution specifically bars any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Yet we have laws left and right doing exactly that. I think I read 60,000 gun laws on the books.

Without exception, every one of those laws is simple garbage. It is not POSSIBLE to be convicted on charges based on any of them. Simply cannot happen.

Yet people are convicted for firearm violations every day and some of them will never see the light of day again.

The law reads the way I said.

And stop being ageist.

We cannot continue this discussion because you choose not to see the world as it is. You choose to see only your interpretation of how it should be.

Every court in the land has ruled that felons forfeit some rights. Courts. People whose job it is to interpret the Constitution. Not some Joe on an internet forum. You can't declare "this is what the Constitution says" when the actual arbiters of what the Constitution actually says tell you something different. You can disagree with a specific interpretation, but that just makes it your opinion, which should be weighed in context to everything else.

I'm appalled by Kelo myself, as I think it's a black-letter violation of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, but it turns out...I'm wrong. The Court--who I'm going to admit might have a better handle Constitutional issues than I do (hint, hint)--has ruled that it doesn't. So for me to prance around and say "By God, the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development" is clearly a violation of the 5th Amendment would make me sound...what? Uninformed? Hard-headed? Silly? Certainly, it would make me wrong. For me to declare that "No, the Constitution say (insert my pet rock here)" in contravention to existing rulings is just ridiculous. I can declare it should be this way, but then, I should be taller, better looking, and have more hair, too, so...

BTW, "ageist," is a ridiculous Social Justice Warrior word. You demean yourself by using it.

 

[namedpipes]

We cannot continue this discussion because you choose not to see the world as it is. You choose to see only your interpretation of how it should be.

Every court in the land has ruled that felons forfeit some rights. Courts. People whose job it is to interpret the Constitution. Not some Joe on an internet forum. You can't declare "this is what the Constitution says" when the actual arbiters of what the Constitution actually says tell you something different. You can disagree with a specific interpretation, but that just makes it your opinion, which should be weighed in context to everything else.

I'm appalled by Kelo myself, as I think it's a black-letter violation of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, but it turns out...I'm wrong. The Court--who I'm going to admit might have a better handle Constitutional issues than I do (hint, hint)--has ruled that it doesn't. So for me to prance around and say "By God, the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development" is clearly a violation of the 5th Amendment would make me sound...what? Uninformed? Hard-headed? Silly? Certainly, it would make me wrong. For me to declare that "No, the Constitution say (insert my pet rock here)" in contravention to existing rulings is just ridiculous. I can declare it should be this way, but then, I should be taller, better looking, and have more hair, too, so...

BTW, "ageist," is a ridiculous Social Justice Warrior word. You demean yourself by using it.

Let me get this straight. You make fun of me using "the fuzz" as being an old hippie word, but you get all stick-in-the-butthurt when I call you ageist? Guess what. You're a putz.

As far as the rest of the blather you wrote, TLDR, but I assume you didn't like my views. So don't like them.

Living in the real world does not mean ignoring what is wrong with it and "going along with how things are". It means acknowledging that things are flawed and either complying anyway or not complying while accepting the consequences. Clearly, you're in the "I surrender" camp.

 

[ridleyman]

A recidivist shoplifter? With an AR? He's hardcore, isis material! You can't own a gun if you pinch a couple of Mounds bars?

 

[ScottS]

A recidivist shoplifter? With an AR? He's hardcore, isis material! You can't own a gun if you pinch a couple of Mounds bars?

The chick was the shoplifter. She was arrested on outstanding shoplifting warrants. He has multiple violent/drug felonies.

 

[W.E.C]

This guy still has LCAFD w/o a licence, which is another EZ-bake felony. They can drop the large cap firearm and still have LCAFD and ammo w/o a license to hang him
on.

Course part of me wonders if the DA will try to brace him with the fed thing- even though I don't think they can immunize him from the feds. (unless theres some professional courtesy BS I don't see
here, etc. ) The feds usually don't touch these one offs.


-Mike

And he was one cigarette away from a LSMFT charge.

 

[ridleyman]

The chick was the shoplifter. She was arrested on outstanding shoplifting warrants. He has multiple violent/drug felonies.

Hang him high!