Options

The right to bear arms

11617182022

Comments

  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,688
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,975
    mickeyrat said:
    It disregards the states law of him possessing the handgun but im sure those charges will be coming.

    So this guy fires his gun at moving cars and the judge dismisses gun charges citing he has a 2nd amendment right to carry it?

    He's allowed to shoot into public and not get charged though?

    How is a non citizen allowed a citizens unalienable rights?

    Sooooo many questions about this.  It almost seems like the judge is trying to make a precedent that shouldn't be one.
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,576
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,610
    mickeyrat said:
    It disregards the states law of him possessing the handgun but im sure those charges will be coming.

    So this guy fires his gun at moving cars and the judge dismisses gun charges citing he has a 2nd amendment right to carry it?

    He's allowed to shoot into public and not get charged though?

    How is a non citizen allowed a citizens unalienable rights?

    Sooooo many questions about this.  It almost seems like the judge is trying to make a precedent that shouldn't be one.
    The language in the 2A doesn’t make it exclusive to citizens. I like seeing the right wing heads explode at the outcome of mainstreaming extremist beliefs in the form of scotus’s Bruen and Heller rulings. 
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,975
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,576
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,576
    Nothing mentioned about “shooting into cars” in this article and was charged with “illegal immigrant in possession of a firearm.” 2A doesn’t mention “citizens.”

    Again, what crime was committed and where did you come up with, “firing into cars?”

    A liberal Illinois federal judge has ruled that an illegal immigrant was wrongly banned from possessing a firearm.

    US District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, an Obama appointee, ruled earlier this month that an illegal migrant residing in the US had his 2nd Amendment rights violated when he was charged for possession of a weapon.

    Heriberto Carbajal-Flores was charged by prosecutors under US Code 18 § 922, which prohibits illegal immigrants from carrying guns or ammunition.

    In her ruling, the judge with a liberal track record wrote: 'The noncitizen possession statute, 18 USC § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores.

    'Thus, the court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.'

    Carbajal-Flores' defense team posed the argument that the government could not show that 18 USC § 922(g)(5) was 'part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.'

    In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that government prosecutors must be able to show that regulations are 'consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.'

    The defense's argument was enough to persuade Coleman the charges should be dismissed.

    'Lifetime disarmament of an individual based on alienage or nationality alone does not have roots in the history and tradition of the United States,' said attorneys for Carbajal-Flores. 

    Coleman acknowledges, in her ruling, that Carbajal-Flores is a 'noncitizen,' though she shied away from any harsher language.

    'The court notes, however, that Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon,' she wrote.

    'Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,' she added, likely referring to the riots that swept the country in the wake of the killing of George Floyd.

    The ruling has inspired a plethora of responses across the legal community, including some Second Amendment absolutists who say 'the people' referred to by the Framers in the amendment include those in the country illegally.

    It could also be cited in other states as they try to make the same argument, allowing more illegal migrants the right to carry guns.  

    Continues 

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13214823/Obama-liberal-Illinois-judge-illegal-migrants-guns.html

    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,975
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    "Court documents show Carbajal-Flores fired his handgun at moving vehicles when he believed looters were approaching his neighborhood after police warned of potential threats. He had no prior criminal record."

    This was in one of the other articles.  I read three of them and this was the only one that included this.

    So local laws in Illinois require you to have an FOID card to purchase a gun.  I'll guess he didn't have one.  So there is a law he did break.

    I can't find a mention of if the gun was stolen or how it was purchased only he obtained it.  That should be a focal point.

    Besides being contrarian, are you ok with the courts ruling?  
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,688
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    "Court documents show Carbajal-Flores fired his handgun at moving vehicles when he believed looters were approaching his neighborhood after police warned of potential threats. He had no prior criminal record."

    This was in one of the other articles.  I read three of them and this was the only one that included this.

    So local laws in Illinois require you to have an FOID card to purchase a gun.  I'll guess he didn't have one.  So there is a law he did break.

    I can't find a mention of if the gun was stolen or how it was purchased only he obtained it.  That should be a focal point.

    Besides being contrarian, are you ok with the courts ruling?  

    hop skip and a jump down to Gary by train or on over to Iowa by car, the same motherfucking way guns are obtained by "citizens"
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,975
    mickeyrat said:
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    "Court documents show Carbajal-Flores fired his handgun at moving vehicles when he believed looters were approaching his neighborhood after police warned of potential threats. He had no prior criminal record."

    This was in one of the other articles.  I read three of them and this was the only one that included this.

    So local laws in Illinois require you to have an FOID card to purchase a gun.  I'll guess he didn't have one.  So there is a law he did break.

    I can't find a mention of if the gun was stolen or how it was purchased only he obtained it.  That should be a focal point.

    Besides being contrarian, are you ok with the courts ruling?  

    hop skip and a jump down to Gary by train or on over to Iowa by car, the same motherfucking way guns are obtained by "citizens"
    Mothafucking Illinois has different laws though... 
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,688
    mickeyrat said:
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    "Court documents show Carbajal-Flores fired his handgun at moving vehicles when he believed looters were approaching his neighborhood after police warned of potential threats. He had no prior criminal record."

    This was in one of the other articles.  I read three of them and this was the only one that included this.

    So local laws in Illinois require you to have an FOID card to purchase a gun.  I'll guess he didn't have one.  So there is a law he did break.

    I can't find a mention of if the gun was stolen or how it was purchased only he obtained it.  That should be a focal point.

    Besides being contrarian, are you ok with the courts ruling?  

    hop skip and a jump down to Gary by train or on over to Iowa by car, the same motherfucking way guns are obtained by "citizens"
    Mothafucking Illinois has different laws though... 

    to PURCHASE. No law against crossing state lines to purchase a weapon. happens every fucking day in places with stricter gun laws. just where do you think the weapons in South Chicago come from?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,576
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    "Court documents show Carbajal-Flores fired his handgun at moving vehicles when he believed looters were approaching his neighborhood after police warned of potential threats. He had no prior criminal record."

    This was in one of the other articles.  I read three of them and this was the only one that included this.

    So local laws in Illinois require you to have an FOID card to purchase a gun.  I'll guess he didn't have one.  So there is a law he did break.

    I can't find a mention of if the gun was stolen or how it was purchased only he obtained it.  That should be a focal point.

    Besides being contrarian, are you ok with the courts ruling?  
    Yes, I’m fine with tossing of the charge as 2A doesn’t make mention of “citizen.” Sounds to me like he “stood his ground.” Isn’t that something that the organization you support, the NRA, believes in?

    If he violated Illinois law as it relates to FOID, wouldn’t that be up to the DA’s office to charge? Judges preside and rule over what is brought before them. Regardless, the judge is shoving it up SCOTUS’ ass by ruling how she did. At least this guy has standing, unlike previous cases SCOTUS has heard and used to implement a political agenda. That’s what some of us are pointing out, the hypocrisy and the “careful what you wish for.”

    Whats the source of your bolded?

    I love watching heads explode over “the other.” If he weren’t “the other” the NRA would have defended him and made him out to be a hero of the gun rights crowd. But you know, “the other.” I also don’t recall your being bothered by previous citations of discharges of firearms in public resulting in death. Why does this one appear to concern you? 
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,975
    mickeyrat said:
    mickeyrat said:
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    "Court documents show Carbajal-Flores fired his handgun at moving vehicles when he believed looters were approaching his neighborhood after police warned of potential threats. He had no prior criminal record."

    This was in one of the other articles.  I read three of them and this was the only one that included this.

    So local laws in Illinois require you to have an FOID card to purchase a gun.  I'll guess he didn't have one.  So there is a law he did break.

    I can't find a mention of if the gun was stolen or how it was purchased only he obtained it.  That should be a focal point.

    Besides being contrarian, are you ok with the courts ruling?  

    hop skip and a jump down to Gary by train or on over to Iowa by car, the same motherfucking way guns are obtained by "citizens"
    Mothafucking Illinois has different laws though... 

    to PURCHASE. No law against crossing state lines to purchase a weapon. happens every fucking day in places with stricter gun laws. just where do you think the weapons in South Chicago come from?
    Yes and it is illegal to bring them over state lines back into Illinois. You still need that FOID card to do that.  So the gun is brought into the state illegally.  Purchased in another state perhaps legally but reentering with it as a resident is illegal.  Class 4 felony.  It's on their website.
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,975
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    "Court documents show Carbajal-Flores fired his handgun at moving vehicles when he believed looters were approaching his neighborhood after police warned of potential threats. He had no prior criminal record."

    This was in one of the other articles.  I read three of them and this was the only one that included this.

    So local laws in Illinois require you to have an FOID card to purchase a gun.  I'll guess he didn't have one.  So there is a law he did break.

    I can't find a mention of if the gun was stolen or how it was purchased only he obtained it.  That should be a focal point.

    Besides being contrarian, are you ok with the courts ruling?  
    Yes, I’m fine with tossing of the charge as 2A doesn’t make mention of “citizen.” Sounds to me like he “stood his ground.” Isn’t that something that the organization you support, the NRA, believes in?

    If he violated Illinois law as it relates to FOID, wouldn’t that be up to the DA’s office to charge? Judges preside and rule over what is brought before them. Regardless, the judge is shoving it up SCOTUS’ ass by ruling how she did. At least this guy has standing, unlike previous cases SCOTUS has heard and used to implement a political agenda. That’s what some of us are pointing out, the hypocrisy and the “careful what you wish for.”

    Whats the source of your bolded?

    I love watching heads explode over “the other.” If he weren’t “the other” the NRA would have defended him and made him out to be a hero of the gun rights crowd. But you know, “the other.” I also don’t recall your being bothered by previous citations of discharges of firearms in public resulting in death. Why does this one appear to concern you? 
    No one is exploding on here.  I can't believe that he wasn't charged with something else.  They went for federal charges is all I can guess they were doing?  All the articles I'm reading have half ass information.  There has to be more to the story.  I can't find where the guy was picked up for in the first place.

    The bolded is from NewsNation.  I don't think it's credible considering it's the only one that had that so that can be thrown out of the convo.

    So I don't have a problem with the 2A rights being brought into this at all.  What it will set a precedent for is anyone that comes in illegally and doesn't chose asylum will be open for all benefits the country gives.  

    Why can't they apply for government assistance?  Vote? This case could set a precedent that can avalanche.  Using it can create loopholes in a whole bunch of other areas. That concerns me, should concern everybody.

    So something that always bothers me is when someone doesn't follow the law with firearms.  

    Please site where I wasn't bothered about whatever incident you think it was?
  • Options
    Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,610
    I tend to not go for slippery slope arguments. 
  • Options
    mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,993
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    "Court documents show Carbajal-Flores fired his handgun at moving vehicles when he believed looters were approaching his neighborhood after police warned of potential threats. He had no prior criminal record."

    This was in one of the other articles.  I read three of them and this was the only one that included this.

    So local laws in Illinois require you to have an FOID card to purchase a gun.  I'll guess he didn't have one.  So there is a law he did break.

    I can't find a mention of if the gun was stolen or how it was purchased only he obtained it.  That should be a focal point.

    Besides being contrarian, are you ok with the courts ruling?  
    Playing Devil's advocate, but living in California until I was 30, I was shocked at some of the gun laws other states had (or lack of) when I moved. While IL might require something like that, many states don't require anything for a private party sale. I really had no idea until I moved out of California.  I'm willing to bet that most likely it was probably an illegal deal, but my understanding now is many states don't require any paperwork for private sales, so he could just claim he went somewhere out of state to purchase it. Maybe IL has a law where you can't bring in an unregistered firearm? I don't know. 

    But back to the original point where this was a slap in the face to gun owners because now we're faced with either tightening up gun laws which supposedly we don't want or allowing illegal immigrants to carry but we're all supposedly racist too so now we don't know what to do.
    That misses the mark. Most gun owners are for reasonable measures and checks. California had a lot of redundancy and needless fees and expenses that were really just a joke, and some states have gone in the other direction. With today's technology, you could easily have a universal check or card that is required for all sales and is an instant background check. You want to buy a gun? Go to any FFL dealer, get your firearms card, pay the one time fee, and any time you buy a gun the seller can run your card into the system or website and confirm that you are still eligible to own a gun. That seems pretty easy to me and I don't know why that isn't a thing yet. Some states have requirements that an illegal immigrant can not fulfill, but citizenship or immigration status itself is not a direct requirement. Said firearms card would probably fall under that.


  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,975
    mace1229 said:
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    "Court documents show Carbajal-Flores fired his handgun at moving vehicles when he believed looters were approaching his neighborhood after police warned of potential threats. He had no prior criminal record."

    This was in one of the other articles.  I read three of them and this was the only one that included this.

    So local laws in Illinois require you to have an FOID card to purchase a gun.  I'll guess he didn't have one.  So there is a law he did break.

    I can't find a mention of if the gun was stolen or how it was purchased only he obtained it.  That should be a focal point.

    Besides being contrarian, are you ok with the courts ruling?  
    Playing Devil's advocate, but living in California until I was 30, I was shocked at some of the gun laws other states had (or lack of) when I moved. While IL might require something like that, many states don't require anything for a private party sale. I really had no idea until I moved out of California.  I'm willing to bet that most likely it was probably an illegal deal, but my understanding now is many states don't require any paperwork for private sales, so he could just claim he went somewhere out of state to purchase it. Maybe IL has a law where you can't bring in an unregistered firearm? I don't know. 

    But back to the original point where this was a slap in the face to gun owners because now we're faced with either tightening up gun laws which supposedly we don't want or allowing illegal immigrants to carry but we're all supposedly racist too so now we don't know what to do.
    That misses the mark. Most gun owners are for reasonable measures and checks. California had a lot of redundancy and needless fees and expenses that were really just a joke, and some states have gone in the other direction. With today's technology, you could easily have a universal check or card that is required for all sales and is an instant background check. You want to buy a gun? Go to any FFL dealer, get your firearms card, pay the one time fee, and any time you buy a gun the seller can run your card into the system or website and confirm that you are still eligible to own a gun. That seems pretty easy to me and I don't know why that isn't a thing yet. Some states have requirements that an illegal immigrant can not fulfill, but citizenship or immigration status itself is not a direct requirement. Said firearms card would probably fall under that.


    Its not a slap in the face to gun owners though. Read what I said about above in this setting precedent.  It could be a slap in the face for all civil liberties we have as citizens.  That is my take on it.

    How the constitution and some parts are for the people and for citizens is going to be up for debate.  That is the next round of court battles.

    Now this would have to go up through the supreme court though.  It's not there yet but it might.

    Funny you mention Cali.  When I traveled for work and was in PA I wanted to buy a gun and showed them my drivers license and they said "nope.  You can't buy anything."
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,975
    I tend to not go for slippery slope arguments. 
    Did you say that when Roe vs Wade got overturned?
  • Options
    Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,610
    I tend to not go for slippery slope arguments. 
    Did you say that when Roe vs Wade got overturned?
    I knew states would limit abortions access. I knew this when Trump got elected, but I’m not seeing the Roe decision carry over into areas that don’t gave anything to do with abortion. 
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,975
    I tend to not go for slippery slope arguments. 
    Did you say that when Roe vs Wade got overturned?
    I knew states would limit abortions access. I knew this when Trump got elected, but I’m not seeing the Roe decision carry over into areas that don’t gave anything to do with abortion. 
    Well it does though.  The supreme court has been looking at cases differently now. Thomas talked about looking into other cases. The state gun laws got decimated from their rulings. Gerrymandering.  I see the courts doing all sorts of things different now.
  • Options
    Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,610
    I tend to not go for slippery slope arguments. 
    Did you say that when Roe vs Wade got overturned?
    I knew states would limit abortions access. I knew this when Trump got elected, but I’m not seeing the Roe decision carry over into areas that don’t gave anything to do with abortion. 
    Well it does though.  The supreme court has been looking at cases differently now. Thomas talked about looking into other cases. The state gun laws got decimated from their rulings. Gerrymandering.  I see the courts doing all sorts of things different now.
    They’ll definitely be making different rulings, but they’ll almost always align with what the right wing wants. Rulings on voting will support making voting more difficult, rulings on guns will be about making it easier to get them, ruling on discrimination will make it easier to do that, and ruling on education will be about dismantling it in the public sphere. The recent ruling on guns for illegals just highlights the flaw in the right wing logic specific to guns. 
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,975
    I tend to not go for slippery slope arguments. 
    Did you say that when Roe vs Wade got overturned?
    I knew states would limit abortions access. I knew this when Trump got elected, but I’m not seeing the Roe decision carry over into areas that don’t gave anything to do with abortion. 
    Well it does though.  The supreme court has been looking at cases differently now. Thomas talked about looking into other cases. The state gun laws got decimated from their rulings. Gerrymandering.  I see the courts doing all sorts of things different now.
    They’ll definitely be making different rulings, but they’ll almost always align with what the right wing wants. Rulings on voting will support making voting more difficult, rulings on guns will be about making it easier to get them, ruling on discrimination will make it easier to do that, and ruling on education will be about dismantling it in the public sphere. The recent ruling on guns for illegals just highlights the flaw in the right wing logic specific to guns. 
    I think it shows that clarification is needed in who can have these rights and who can't.


  • Options
    mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,993
    edited March 21
    mace1229 said:
    Oh, how the tables have turned. The NRA supported opposition to firearms restrictions on individuals on terrorist watch lists. Maybe ask them?
    It's taking away from the fact that the person broke laws to obtain that weapon.  If the constitution is interpreted that all people can have gun ownership then it is a different animal that he most likely obtained it illegally and shot at moving cars which is recklessness.

    His ownership of the gun is not what is bothering, it's the fact that the charges were dropped and what he did is not being highlighted.

    You want to have tougher gun laws?  Hw about upholding the ones we do have in place now.  This isn't it.
    What laws did he break to obtain the weapon? What laws did the seller or possessor of the weapon break when they provided it to him, with or without a fee. Just another “responsible” gun owner in a long line of them I suppose.

    What is your source for the “shot at moving cars?” I won’t click on Epoch Times so if it’s in there, my apologies.
    "Court documents show Carbajal-Flores fired his handgun at moving vehicles when he believed looters were approaching his neighborhood after police warned of potential threats. He had no prior criminal record."

    This was in one of the other articles.  I read three of them and this was the only one that included this.

    So local laws in Illinois require you to have an FOID card to purchase a gun.  I'll guess he didn't have one.  So there is a law he did break.

    I can't find a mention of if the gun was stolen or how it was purchased only he obtained it.  That should be a focal point.

    Besides being contrarian, are you ok with the courts ruling?  
    Playing Devil's advocate, but living in California until I was 30, I was shocked at some of the gun laws other states had (or lack of) when I moved. While IL might require something like that, many states don't require anything for a private party sale. I really had no idea until I moved out of California.  I'm willing to bet that most likely it was probably an illegal deal, but my understanding now is many states don't require any paperwork for private sales, so he could just claim he went somewhere out of state to purchase it. Maybe IL has a law where you can't bring in an unregistered firearm? I don't know. 

    But back to the original point where this was a slap in the face to gun owners because now we're faced with either tightening up gun laws which supposedly we don't want or allowing illegal immigrants to carry but we're all supposedly racist too so now we don't know what to do.
    That misses the mark. Most gun owners are for reasonable measures and checks. California had a lot of redundancy and needless fees and expenses that were really just a joke, and some states have gone in the other direction. With today's technology, you could easily have a universal check or card that is required for all sales and is an instant background check. You want to buy a gun? Go to any FFL dealer, get your firearms card, pay the one time fee, and any time you buy a gun the seller can run your card into the system or website and confirm that you are still eligible to own a gun. That seems pretty easy to me and I don't know why that isn't a thing yet. Some states have requirements that an illegal immigrant can not fulfill, but citizenship or immigration status itself is not a direct requirement. Said firearms card would probably fall under that.


    Its not a slap in the face to gun owners though. Read what I said about above in this setting precedent.  It could be a slap in the face for all civil liberties we have as citizens.  That is my take on it.

    How the constitution and some parts are for the people and for citizens is going to be up for debate.  That is the next round of court battles.

    Now this would have to go up through the supreme court though.  It's not there yet but it might.

    Funny you mention Cali.  When I traveled for work and was in PA I wanted to buy a gun and showed them my drivers license and they said "nope.  You can't buy anything."
    I wasn't referencing your comment or articles  when I was referring to it as being a slap. But other posts here have come across that way to me, as like a catch 22 to gun owners, do we want more gun freedoms or do we want to restrict illegal immigrants? When that really isn't the case at all.

    Did you have a CA license and try to buy in PA?
    I did something similar, I think it was Arizona or Nevada, can't remember. Went to a gun store, they wouldn't sell me anything, it wasn't worth the liability to them to deal with California. Which I was fine with, I was just shopping at a pawn shop and something caught my eye. 
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,688
    edited March 26
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 4,822
    I take back everything I ever said about conservatives not having any imagination. Their imaginations are truly marvelous.
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,688
    no charges will be filed.....


      Mom fishing keys out of purse accidentally shoots, kills teen daughter, TN cops say By Mitchell Willetts March 24, 2024 1:50 PM A Tennessee mother says she accidentally shot and killed her daughter while digging her keys out of her purse, Nashville police say. A Tennessee mother says she accidentally shot and killed her daughter while digging her keys out of her purse, Nashville police say. Getty Images/iStockphoto A 13-year-old Tennessee girl was fatally shot and her mother says it was an accident, investigators told news outlets. Police responded to a call about a shooting at about 10 p.m. March 23 from a home on Nashville’s south side, police told WTVF. First responders arrived to find a teenage girl with a gunshot wound, police said. The mother told police she was trying to get her keys from her purse and accidentally caused her .40-caliber pistol to fire, striking her daughter, The Tennessean reported. She stored the handgun in her purse without a holster, police said. The daughter was taken to a hospital for treatment but died in an emergency room, WKRN reported. So far, no charges have been brought against the girl’s mom, according to officials.

    Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article287049170.html#storylink=cpy

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,475
    https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/03/31/gun-accidentally-fired-at-ipswich-brewery-injures-3/?p1=hp_featurestack 

    Gun accidentally fired at Ipswich brewery, injures 3

    A concealed handgun was accidentally fired at True North Ale brewery Friday, sending two the hospital.

    By Molly Farrar

    March 31, 2024 | 5:09 PM

    "Multiple people were injured after a gun was accidentally fired in an Ipswich brewery Friday, police said. 

    Ipswich police responded to True North Ale Company a little after 5 p.m. when a man accidentally shot himself with a gun he was carrying. Police said the incident took place in the dining area, and two other people, including a juvenile, were injured."

  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,688
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 4,822
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,475
    OnWis97 said:
    Even in the wake of their son having murdered 4 classmates, his mother still doesn't think there was a problem. 

    "Asked about Ethan reporting hallucinations months before the shooting, Jennifer Crumbley, 46, told jurors he was simply “messing around.”"

    https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2024/04/09/michigan-school-shooters-parents-sentenced-to-at-least-10-years-in-prison/
This discussion has been closed.