You have anything to back up your assertion that this scum was under FBI control and they told him to target this place/go on a mass shooting?
Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
DocSolarisReich
Esoteric Spaceman
It’s SOP for the fibbies. Remember those guys that tried to Aloha Snackbar the let’s draw Muhammad display in Garland Texas?
They had a fibbie handler.
“As Greg engaged Simpson and Soofi, an undercover FBI agent was traveling with the terrorists in a separate vehicle, approaching the rear entrance where the gunfight happened. The agent and two terrorists had traveled all the way from Arizona, in two vehicles. It was claimed the FBI agent took pictures of the attack, just as it started. It was claimed he participated in intelligence gathering, and in planning the attack, advising the terrorists to wait until the event was ending.”
How a Texas Gunfighter Cop Stopped the ISIS Attack in Garland, Texas
On 3 May, 2015, a gunfighter traffic cop fought two Isis terrorists who had semi-automatic rifles, pistols, 1500 rounds of ammo, body armor, and the element of surprise. He survived. They died.
www.ammoland.com
And that was in a state where there is a lot of guns, and the cops are some of the better trained.It’s SOP for the fibbies. Remember those guys that tried to Aloha Snackbar the let’s draw Muhammad display in Garland Texas?
They had a fibbie handler.
“As Greg engaged Simpson and Soofi, an undercover FBI agent was traveling with the terrorists in a separate vehicle, approaching the rear entrance where the gunfight happened. The agent and two terrorists had traveled all the way from Arizona, in two vehicles. It was claimed the FBI agent took pictures of the attack, just as it started. It was claimed he participated in intelligence gathering, and in planning the attack, advising the terrorists to wait until the event was ending.”
How a Texas Gunfighter Cop Stopped the ISIS Attack in Garland, Texas
On 3 May, 2015, a gunfighter traffic cop fought two Isis terrorists who had semi-automatic rifles, pistols, 1500 rounds of ammo, body armor, and the element of surprise. He survived. They died.
Of course. Did the FBI arm them? Did anything come of it?
Did they interview the FBI agents? Are we sure they were FBI and not lying? Did the FVI make a comment?
DocSolarisReich
Esoteric Spaceman
“The FBI agent, only identified in the following lawsuit as UCE-1, stopped, then attempted to flee the scene.
He had encouraged the terrorists. He had taken a picture of the terrorists and had informed Simpson and Soofi he was armed.
He was stopped by Garland Police in a felony stop, at gunpoint. UCE-1 shouted he was FBI. After confirming his FBI status, he was released by the Garland Police. His involvement in the attack would not be determined until discovery was done in the lawsuit. FBI Director Comey had denied there was any FBI complicity in the attack.
An informational bulletin containing a list of suspected extremists, with a photograph of Simpson, and a possible vehicle license plate, had been sent to Garland Police by the FBI, at about 4 p.m. on 3 May. It had not reached Officer Stevens before the attack had started.
It was not a direct warning of the attack. The court ruled the FBI was acting within its allowed discretion. The lawsuit was dismissed.”
So...
An FBI agent who we have no clue if he was actually told to do that or not, and the FBI being themselves in that they give a vague ass statement about a terrorist.
I see nothing intentional.
And unless you have evidence of more then a single case, your argument falls flat as this could be an outlier that involved a Rouge agent
PeaceMaker 03
Well-known member
I agree with you and the SCOTUS has provide cause to make both laws go away.
"The militia is comprised of all able bodied males ... ordinarily when called these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common (military) use at the time."
U.S. v. Miller, 1939 307 US 174
— Common military weapons are burst or full automatic capable . The above court case was used to set precedent on saw-off shotguns , because not a common military arm.
While ignoring the automatic weapons that are common military arms....... Funny that happened.
“In a first amendment case involving freedom of the press and religion, the Supreme Court ruled "The power to impose a license fee on a constitutional right amounts to prior restraint and the power to restrict or deny the right ... a tax laid specifically on the exercise of these freedoms would be unconstitutional."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 1943 319 US 105
Any tax on an enumerated liberty is unconstitutional so the NFA is void.
The supreme court in general has been very disapointing.
Clanner Moment
Gone
Court-ordered reddit moment.
I'd love it if the SCOTUS reply was just a copy of the bill of rights, with the phrase "keep and bear arms" circled.
I imagine that Thomas would do the legal equivalent if 4 of the others were onboard.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
This ruling appears to be razor-thin and based on the 9th circuit pulling a "Gotcha" on a technicality.
We need not determine whether Hawai‘i County properly applied § 134-9, because Young did not bring an as-applied challenge. Our review of the record demonstrates that, although Young peppered his pleadings with the words “application” and “enforcement,” he never pleaded facts to support an as-applied challenge
This lets them treat the case as a Facial Challenge instead of an As-Applied challenge. The previous case of Young vs. Hawaii in 2018 was one of the more brutal smackdowns I've seen in court, and when the 9th circuit is telling you your gun laws are ridiculous you know you dun goofed. The primary issue was that Hawaii's "May issue" laws amounted to "But we won't," when pressed the defense couldn't list a single instance, ever, of anybody who wasn't a security guard being issued the license. Because the law was evidently a ban in practice, it was overturned. I recall seeing it back then but can't find it now, but this news report carries the general thrust pretty well:
What the appeals court has done is change it from "As-Applied," that is a challenge because of how the law is enforced, to "Facial" which is to say what the text of the law says. The previous case won because their "may issue" was meaningles, because they never issued, ever. The appeals has changed the kind of case so that facts in evidence are no longer considered, only what the law says o nteh face, which is that they "may issue" so the fact that they never do doesn't count against it anymore.
We need not determine whether Hawai‘i County properly applied § 134-9, because Young did not bring an as-applied challenge. Our review of the record demonstrates that, although Young peppered his pleadings with the words “application” and “enforcement,” he never pleaded facts to support an as-applied challenge
This lets them treat the case as a Facial Challenge instead of an As-Applied challenge. The previous case of Young vs. Hawaii in 2018 was one of the more brutal smackdowns I've seen in court, and when the 9th circuit is telling you your gun laws are ridiculous you know you dun goofed. The primary issue was that Hawaii's "May issue" laws amounted to "But we won't," when pressed the defense couldn't list a single instance, ever, of anybody who wasn't a security guard being issued the license. Because the law was evidently a ban in practice, it was overturned. I recall seeing it back then but can't find it now, but this news report carries the general thrust pretty well:
What the appeals court has done is change it from "As-Applied," that is a challenge because of how the law is enforced, to "Facial" which is to say what the text of the law says. The previous case won because their "may issue" was meaningles, because they never issued, ever. The appeals has changed the kind of case so that facts in evidence are no longer considered, only what the law says o nteh face, which is that they "may issue" so the fact that they never do doesn't count against it anymore.
Abhishekm
Well-known member
This is why English is a popular predegree before going into law isn't it? See just how much you can pull with the language as opposed to spirit and context?
Last edited:
Wargamer08
Well-known member
This kind of thing is why I’m against all forms of gun control, giving the government authority to decide what types of guns you’re allowed always returns with the answer being none.
f1onagher
Well-known member
The next time someone makes a constitution there needs to be a provision about having pedantic weasels hung by their reproductive organs from a live electric wire. Next to the one banning omnibus bullshit.
No. Most lawyers in college go to Pre-Law as their BA. I took some pre-law level Constitutional Law classes back in college and was the only one who was on the English track, everyone else was pre-law, some history, and some business.
That said, English does make sense before going into a Law Degree if the college doesn't offer pre-law. You have to do a lot of writing as a lawyer after all...
Supreme Court Weighs Allowing Police To Enter Homes Without A Warrant For ‘Caretaking’
Even the ACLU is going, "hey, wait just a minute here!"
Even the ACLU is going, "hey, wait just a minute here!"
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
If this is confirmed, then law enforcement can enter anyone's home, as long as they get someone to say the words they need as excuse. It also would make SWATing much easier.