So again, why can’t that same logic be used as an excuse to own artillery pieces, kill people that you don’t like, or use LSD while driving down the highway, if that is what makes you happy?
It is my opinion that judges walk into the court room with a preconceived idea as to how they want to decide the case, and then twist the law and the constitution to fit that view.
Parks, athletic facilities and similar areas. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Playgrounds and youth centers. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Places of amusement, including casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, museums and libraries. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Parking areas connected to certain sensitive places. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
The private-property default rule. Hawaii’s rule banning guns on private property unless the owner gives consent orally, in writing or on a sign is likely constitutional.
Places of worship. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
Gatherings that require a permit. Gun bans there are likely unconstitutional.
Financial institutions. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
Hospitals and other medical facilities. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
Public transit. A broad ban on carrying guns on public transit is likely unconstitutional, but a narrower law allowing the carrying of unloaded and secured firearms would likely be constitutional.
It’s a Mish mash. It isn’t even consistent. Where in the Constitution is this even found? Where in the history and tradition of the country was there a ban on weapons in bard? Casinos? But not hospitals, churches, or banks?
If you argue that schools are sensitive places and rights can be suspended to protect children, then why not suspend the First Amendment there and disallow faggotry?
Our courts are just as partisan and divided as the citizens. It’s long past time to admit that this nation is too large and varied for one set of rules to work for everyone.
This President is simply ignoring the Supreme Court while his supporters are calling those supporting his opponents “fascists.” So what is fascism? The communists on the left have redefined it to mean a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen.
Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.”
Consider some of the components of fascist economics: central planning, heavy state subsidies, protectionism (high tariffs), steep levels of nationalization, rampant cronyism, large deficits, high government spending, bank and industry bailouts, overlapping bureaucracy, massive social welfare programs, crushing national debt, bouts of inflation and “a highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure.”
Tell me if this doesn’t describe the Democrat platform…
But instead, the left claims that they are a liberal democracy that supports individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent, even while they cheat at elections, suppress dissent by deplatforming anyone who disagrees with them, and tosses their political opponents in prison.
The left claims that Trump and his supporters are fascists because they advocate for the overthrow of the existing system of government and the persecution of political enemies, even as they openly advocate for the same.
The central tenet of the solution that we recommend—Popular Constitutionalism—is that courts do not exercise exclusive authority over constitutional meaning. In practice, a President who disagrees with a court’s interpretation of the Constitution should offer and then follow an alternative interpretation. If voters disagree with the President’s interpretation, they can express their views at the ballot box.
How can they express their feelings at the ballot box, when the ballot box is no longer a representation of the will of the people?
Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism 1914-1945, Madison: Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1995, p. 7.
Natalee Holloway disappeared in 2005 while on a trip to Aruba. Her body was never found, and she was finally declared dead in 2012. She was seen leaving the bar with a 17 year old who was politically connected to his father, a judge. Largely because of those connections, he walked. Shades of Hunter Biden and Chelsea Clinton, there.
The douche even admitted on video to disposing of her body and posted it on social media. He contacted the Holloway family and offered to give them the location of her body in exchange for money. Enter the incompetents at the FBI. The paid him the ransom in exchange for what they knew was false information, and then let him leave the country with the $25,000 in payoff money.
What finally tripped him up is when he murdered another girl who found information about the Holloway murder on his laptop in 2014, and he murdered her. He was caught and sentenced to 28 years in Peruvian prison.
Now it turns out that he has pled guilty to extortion and the murder of Holloway in exchange for a lighter sentence. He got another 20 years added to the 28 he is already going to serve for the murder in Peru, and another 18 he got for smuggling cocaine into the Peruvian prison. However, Peruvian law prohibits any jail term of over 35 years, so he will be released in 2045. His plea deal says that the time he serves in Peru will also count as time served in the US.
Mr. Lott tried vacate his conviction in 2018 based on exonerating DNA results, but former District Attorney Paul Smith opposed the motion. Instead, on the eve of Mr. Lott’s evidentiary hearing, the DA offered only to modify Mr. Lott’s sentence, which would have released him from prison but kept the conviction on his record. Mr. Lott accepted the agreement on July 9, 2018. In doing so, Mr. Lott was freed after spending 35 years in prison for a crime that he didn’t commit- with 10 of those years being served AFTER the legal system knew that he didn’t commit the crime. That’s a legal system, not a justice system.
“Former District Attorney Smith’s opposition to the irrefutable evidence of Mr. Lott’s innocence was a blatant miscarriage of justice,” said Barry Scheck, Innocence Project’s co-founder and special counsel. “This unwillingness to acknowledge the truth in addition to the systemic factors at play in Mr. Lott’s wrongful conviction cost him 35 precious years — and have plagued other wrongful conviction cases in Ada for decades.”
It’s cases like this that force me to oppose the death penalty. The cops, the prosecutor, the judges, they all work for the same employer. It is virtually certain that some people have been executed for crimes that they didn’t commit. If we as a society execute one innocent person, we are all collectively guilty of murder. That is why I remain opposed to the death penalty- the system is flawed, designed to reward those employees of the government for convicting people of crimes, whether or not the convicted person actually committed them.
In this case, they took his life from him, or at least the part that counts, nearly as certainly as if they had killed him.
When you were a kid and played games with other kids, there was always one who decided to cheat. Ever tried to play monopoly when the cheater was the banker? The only thing that can be done is either cheat better, or refuse to play.
There is no longer any such thing as fair government. Everything that the government does is weaponized lawfare. Gun stores being sued into bankruptcy. Or having their ability to accept credit cards taken from them. Fined and shut down because someone misspelled a word on a 4473. Unlike childhood games, you can’t refuse to play.
The reason why tranny insanity is taking hold is because of the Supreme Court. On June 15, 2020, SCOTUS ruled in 3separatecasesthat Title VII of the Civil rights act applies to LGBT people, thus making men who believe themselves to be women as official super citizens who are entitled to more rights than the rest of us. This effectively places delusional people in charge.
The cases were Bostock v. Clayton County, Zarda v. Altitude Express, and Stephens v. Harris Funeral Homes. Writing for the six-3 majority, Justice Gorsuch held that Title VII’s protections against discrimination or harassment “because of sex” extend to members of the LGBT community. Specifically, Title VII prohibited firing the Plaintiffs because they were gay or transgender, because sex necessarily plays a role in the decision.
This means that the Federal government has, through SCOTUS, officially granted transgenders the full protections of the law.
Over at Gunfreezone, Miguel posts about people abusing claims of domestic abuse in order to gain leverage in divorce cases. I have twice been accused of this by angry ex-girlfriends who were trying to get revenge on me for daring to be their ex:
In the second case, the woman learned about it from me after I had foolishly told her about the first time. She made all sorts of claims about things that she claimed I did. The big thing that saved me was that I had proof that I wasn’t even in the country when some of the events supposedly took place.
25% of all divorces include accusations of domestic violence. 50% of all domestic violence restraining orders are issued without allegations of violence. 70% of domestic violence restraining orders are trivial or false. (PDF warning) 85% of restraining orders are against men
In fact, a New Mexico woman filed a restraining order against David Letterman in 2005, alleging that she was a victim of his domestic abuse. He had never met the woman. She said that he was using secret code words during his television show to threaten her. The judge in the case found her claims to have merit and granted the order, even though it was later overturned.
The law says that women can make an accusation of domestic violence and the court will punish the man by issuing a restraining order without him being allowed to defend himself. He gets a hearing two weeks later, but by that time his guns have been taken and his concealed weapons permit revoked. There is no fee for the woman to do this.
She gets a free lawyer. He does not. When it is discovered that she lied, nothing happens to her. She will not be prosecuted, and cannot be sued or punished in any way.
Unfortunately, the current version of section 784.046 does not seem to permit the trial court to simply dismiss a sworn petition that does not allege facts that fall within the statutory language. Instead, section 784.046(5) requires that “[u]pon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time.” The result is the use of scant judicial resources to conduct unnecessary hearings based on pleadings that could never support the issuance of an injunction. These same hearings often serve only to inflame the parties’ emotions and foster further uncivil behavior. I would encourage the legislature to consider amending the domestic violence and repeat violence statutes to allow judges to dismiss petitions that, on their face, do not contain allegations sufficient to meet the statutory requirements without prejudice to the petitioner refiling a legally sufficient petition if he or she can do so.
Women who lie to use the law as a weapon cannot be punished. From the same decision:
Further, nowhere in section 784.046 is there any provision for an award of sanctions against a petitioner who uses the statutory provisions concerning injunctions as a sword rather than a shield.
