1830 DOJ to SCOTUS: Reinstate Domestic Violence Order Gun Ban. AG Merrick Garland wants gun confiscation without criminal conviction. (www.libertynation.com) COME AND TAKE IT posted 67 days ago by MasklessMarvel 67 days ago by MasklessMarvel +1831 / -1 Biden DOJ to SCOTUS: Reinstate Domestic Violence Order Gun Ban - Liberty Nation The Fifth Circuit overturned the ban on guns for anyone under domestic violence restraining orders. Anti-gun AG Merrick Garland disagrees. www.libertynation.com 185 comments share 185 comments share save hide report block hide replies
It's a right, not a privilege.
Gotta love it when the staties tell you your right to travel is a privilege not a right because the horse was replaced by a gas combustion engine and roads went from dirt to concrete and asphalt and you paid for it all kek.
except (1) it's using taxpayer dollars and is public space, and (2) many of these roads, especially highways, ban all travel other than motor vehicles.
I hope i get what you're saying, but you sure do seem to be teetering on the edge of some sovereign citizen horseshit there
Edit -- when you start going on about the "right to travel"....... That is literally a fucking sovereign citizen buzz-phrase......
Plantations that way boy 👉🏻
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The doctrine of the right to travel actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the Privileges and Immunities of a citizen of the latter state.2 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period before taking advantage of the benefits of that state’s citizenship
I'm going to audit your first amendment.
Officer: you were driving witho- Hispanicsaretacos: excuse me, Imma have to stop you there. I was tRaVElIng.
I don't get it.
"Yes! ... but..."
Anyone who ever says "yes, but" is not my Fellow American.
Must be getting close! They are checking off the boxes!
It will never cease to amaze me how they seemingly want to violate every constitutional right which gives power to the people and not but their sheep think they are the good guys by giving all the power to the government.
Liberals live in a world where they don't trust their neighbors yet any attempt to reduce crime is bad.
They don't trust their neighbors because they expect them to do the same things they would do.
They don't want any consequences for crime, because they plan to commit crimes.
The see criminals as "victims" as because they imagine themselves in the position of being punished for their crimes.
Insert that Simpson's jury meme here
My neighbors shouldn't have guns because, if i had a gun I'd probably kill someone with it.
My neighbors shouldn't have guns because one of my best friends growing up was murdered by a crazy gunman while we were breaking into his house to rape his daughter.
The sheep are sheep because they're blissfully ignorant.
24/7 bread and circuses keep them from seeing the imminent danger, allowing the weight of the retarded masses to drag down all those who do see it.
It's incredibly evil, but genius. Every "communist revolution" goes the same way, and is financed by the same vermin.
username checks out
Hinting at things we aren't allowed to talk about here.
Meaning the stormfags are in the wrong forum.
Stormfags are not MAGA
yet they like to create "rights" that are not in the Constitution (like free healthcare)
Gona be a right to travel via airplane pretty soon here to tax us to make it more affordable to those who can't reasonably afford it
These "liberals" both hate and distrust the police while depending on the police to protect them. They believe the government is full of right wing fascists while also giving up all power to the government.
They cannot think big picture. Only a bunch of disjointed small pictures.
Disjointed small pictures is an apt description.
Because our commie media has them brainwashed to the gills.
You don’t have to use your imagination to picture the endgame here. There are ten of millions of dead, disarmed citizens who undoubtedly would wish for a do-over
joke's on them.....I'm not giving up SHIT
Yeah but what about ur guns?
did I stutter?
Blm. Hes a black supremacist who doesnt want anyone defending themselves against his blm pets
Oh I meant the Garfinkel nonsense. Dude's grandpa was named Garland. It's not some recent change.
"wHy ChAnGe it?" Because of nazi shitheads probably.
The ones supporting the bans would never be the ones coming to confiscate
Regardless of allegiance, they made the choice to show up. What happens after is on them
NO VIOLENT THREATS!
What if it falls in the category of a promise instead of a threat?
“What the fuck kind of cucked nonsense is this?”
"The plan is we are going to kill our enemy the morning after Christmas while they are drunk and sleeping. They will be helpless."
/- George Washington
The founding fathers weren't fucking around.
Not before you take your mandatory smallpox inoculation, soldier
Here I'll help.
"I'm going to kill person X'" that's a violent threat.
"Gun grabbers will end up feeding pigs in the woods" is a vague unspecific notion. And a good one at that.
"I am going to shoot and explode anyone who comes" is a violent threat
Eat a bag of dicks garland
So, you'll peacefully get on the train to the gulag when the time comes?
i am talking about posting them here, nimrod
Technically the FBI and ATF are full of people supporting this and will be the ones confiscating guns.
And your local police.
They tried to enforce mandates here but everyone ignored them and they gave up. Cops weren't willing to cross the line and forcibly enforce mandates with arrests.
Plenty of them did in "based" states like Texas.
Probably not your Sheriff, though. Some of them are based.
Not enough of them.
They can start with Chicago. They can walk in there and start confiscating. I’m sure the gang members meet the requirements
Wouldn't that be cute?
Leftists cleaning up their own mess, first!
Even better, its where this piece of shit Garland is from.
Can't wait if/until they try to pull this in my town in Illinois. It's an extreme melting pot. From gang bangers to lifted trucks with Trump flags flying. We all stay in our own lanes for the most part. When they bussed down joggers from Chicago during the summer of love to riot here the gangs shot at the busses while the store owners (liquor store) shot one of the rioters. It lasted about ten minutes before they left. Oh, and we had rooftop snipers on some of the shopping plazas.
With this government I know how an abused spouse feels.
This rat POS always looks like he has a gun to his head. Makes you wonder what dirt they have on this asshole for him to be so brazen in destroying the Constitution.
Yup, this POS applied for the job of SCOTUS and head of DOJ
There is only one trait that can qualify you for both in DC, ....being a Rubber stamping faggot that does whatever the fuck your told
Well I mean that’s not statistically the ONLY trait that can qualify you to be vastly overrepresented in positions of power in the Western world
He is taking a torch to the Constitution because he's still butthurt the Turtle and Co. wouldn't confirm him in 2015.
So glad he is not a SCOTUS judge
Oh, the rat is just as damaging in his current lofty position.
Conservative Judges: hey DoJ, could you take care of all these violent protestors in front of our houses? One of them tried to assassinate some of us.
DoJ: No. Those are peaceful citizens expressing their constitutional rights. Also, we need you to make it easier to take guns away from people "we" deem terrorists.
If you want to know how your typical Supreme Court Justice ruminates on the constitutionality of the cases brought before them, this effin r-tard is your model.
"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." - The Second Amendment to U.S. Constitution
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
Red Flag gun seizure workaround again, i see
this could/would be so highly abused. even a false report would get your gun seized, and even if proven it was false, the likelihood of getting your weapon back is probably slim to none. The only way is to include severe penalties for filing false reports, which we know they won't include because that will defeat the purpose of the gun seizures in the first place.
women make false reports all the time as a means of getting the revenge
all it takes is the accusation and the guy gets arrested
even if the girl later says "I lied, he didn't hit me" they won't just drop the charges because, in domestic violence cases, the state becomes the plaintiff
the reason being that many valid abuse victims either regretted making the call because of an emotional attachment or were intimidated into dropping the charges
then the guy would just beat them up again and many times would end up killing them
hoes gonna hoe
Based Justice Alito: Tell em Clarence.
Ultra Based Justice Thomas: No.
I think their stance on disarming Americans is being taken Alito bit too far.
SCOTUS to Garland - You are not on this court, remember?
them media said she was trampled by the crowd
the coroner said she died from an amphetamine overdose
and there is a video supposedly showing her being beaten by cops
I didn't need any more reasons to hate Garland.
Think about it... You go to peacefully protest in any fashion as a supporter of conservative or right leaning issues, agitators create pocket violent situations. Days later your guns are being confiscated cause you were in the same "general area" in which a violent activity took place.
This is J6 being honed into another angle of oppression for the corrupt left.
Why not just keep the domestic violent offenders? We trust these people won't get guns they have stashed somewhere and kill someone? What about knives? Aren't most domestics done via blunt force trauma? Throwing someone around or hitting someone with an object?
Didn't Darryl Brooks get charged with a domestic for RUNNING HIS WOMAN OVER WITH A VEHICLE? Then while he was out on bail, he RAN OVER SEVERAL DOZEN PEOPLE.
I had jury duty 2 years ago for a domestic violence. Guy beating his girl. They still live together during the trial. She was testifying FOR HIM. The entire defense was "it just happened once, therefore not guilty." Sounds like an admission of guilt.
here is the thing about domestic violence: when someone reports domestic violence, the state becomes the plaintiff
the victim cannot recant and drop the charges
the idea being that too many women get intimidated into changing their minds and then get beat up again
all it takes to get arrested is an accusation
and some of the laws are ridiculous
i swear this is true: my friend's girlfriend was totally furious at him and threw his phone off the balcony of their apartment and into the lake across from the building
she then decided to call the cops and say he hit her just to get his ass in trouble
the cops came and, when they heard the whole story, they arrested her because throwing the phone in the lake was domestic violence
this occurred in Kansas where that is considered to be an attempt to intimidate, harass, or control the partner
so you can see why the DOJ is going after domestic violence- the laws are broad, it basically just takes an accusation to get someone arrested and impossible to get the charges dropped
that makes easy first targets for gun grabbers
I get what you're saying, all it takes is someone to lie, to grab guns. This is true yes. That's where history should be taken into account, which it is with bail. Is this a one time thing, or does this person have a violent criminal past?
What you explained, was told to us as well that the state was the plaintiff, charges cannot be dropped. In the trial I sat in on... she was constantly looking over to him. The prosecutor didn't even call it out, but I feel like the prosecutor was doing a poor job. It was us in the jury room saying "anybody notice the victim was always looking to the defendant for his approval?"
In our case, the defense showed off the injury photos, black eye, greatly bruised cheek and grab marks on her arm. Defense then said, "you won't find any injuries like this anywhere on the victim's body any more, because he did it once. He had too much to drink that night. One time event."
Defense did a far better job of proving his guilt than the prosecutor. prosecutor looked like he just rolled out of bed. Spent 1 - 5 minutes with each witness, Defense spent an exorbitant amount of time with every little detail, which just kept proving his guilt time and time again. Terrible public defender, and the public defender looked like the slick, expensive attorney.
yeah a lot of these cases are one and done
they couple gets drunk, they get into a fight and things go a little too far
they end up regretting it and it never happens again
I can see a law that allows the victim to drop the charges once but then the state takes over from the second time on
Next: Change definition of domestic violence to be more "inclusive". Did you slam the door on your woke child? Did you look at your wife funny? No guns for you.
domestic violence includes anything meant to intimidate or cause fear, it does not have to be physical
I have friend who's whacked out GF went to jail for throwing his phone in a lake
so slamming a door or giving a "threatening look" could be domestic violence
That's how a marxist would circumvent the Constitution. why climb a wall if you can go around it.
No Due Process.
When is this faggot going to drop dead from a blood clot? It' faggot mother fuckers like him that necessitates the 2A.
So now the DOJ is giving orders to SCOTUS?
What happened to separation of powers?
SCOTUS to DOJ: You're not the boss of us.
EVERY SECRET SERVICE AGENT PROTECTING A DEMOCRAT HAS VIOLENCED ME AT HOME.
Civilian disarmament... if you for it you're most likely for kid mutilating.
Having an vindictive person in charge of the judiciary branch, is not proper procedures for an unbiased and unjust justice.
i know what you are saying but I am going to be that guy
there is no judiciary branch
we have executive (President), legislative (Congress) and judicial (SCOTUS and federal courts) branches
DOJ is in the executive branch and their boss is the president
ok,, all's good.
If somebody is dangerous enough to warrant have their guns taken away from them, they're too dangerous to be living in free society, where they have access to all sorts of other things that can be used to kill people. I'm all in favor of "red flag" laws if they involve locking up an obviously crazy and dangerous person with full public disclosure of who has been locked up, and why, and where.
Abuses of government power is now routinely concealed under the guise of "privacy laws" and that needs to stop. It's often at the root of why dangerously crazy people weren't identified as such and locked up before they commit a horrific violent act. Nobody was allowed to share information with other people, which would have enabled "putting the pieces together" and heading off a tragedy. Read up on the Virginia Tech massacre, where professors were terrified of Seung-Hui Cho but powerless to do anything because his behavior was being treated as a disability. But in fact, Cho had been ordered by a court to undergo psychiatric treatment, and due to the infernal "privacy laws", neither university officials nor faculty (much less students forced to live a dorm with him and attend classes with him) were allowed to know about that court order, or about the fact that he had failed to comply with it.
But the idea of taking somebody's guns away, and then leaving them roaming free with access to vehicles, propane tanks, baseball bats, knives, etc, just doesn't pass the rationality test.
See, red flag laws are stupid
we already have laws that say if someone is a danger to themselves or someone else they can be locked up for 72 hours without court intervention
start reporting people who obviously meet that criteria and you can end most of the madness
that's what those professors should have done
Most of the time it doesn't do any good. There are way too many obstacles to actually locking people up when it's clearly necessary. Even bigger obstacles to keeping them locked up beyond 72 hours.
Looked what happened to Virginia state representative Creigh Deeds, whose dangerously insane son stabbed him 13 times, critically injuring him, before killing himself. Hospital couldn't find an available "psychiatric bed" anywhere (though it was soon discovered that a bed was available somewhere in the state), so they released him. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/va-state-sen-creigh-deeds-files-6m-suit-son-suicide-article-1.2486661
And if they don't get locked up, or get locked up and then let out, they often retaliate against whoever reported them (or whoever they think reported them). You'd think the liability risk if a crazy person is released and then does something horrible, would motivate hospitals and courts/law enforcement to find a way to keep these people locked up. But they face just as much or more liability if the crazy person later convinces a court that they weren't quite crazy enough to be locked up against their will, and were "deprived of their civil rights".
Psych beds are also extremely expensive, and the low priority given to public safety means that people can't just be locked up in jail if no psych bed can immediately be found. If a person is just put in jail, they can sue because they were "denied mental health treatment", and if they manage to kill or seriously harm themselves while in jail, the liability is huge.
those are extreme examples and they are just as likely to happen after any confinement
there is no way to know if a person is cured
fully 90% of the cases are people who have attempted to commit suicide
many places don't put them in psych hospitals per se, they just put them in a facility and observe them
if they continue to exhibit that they will cause potential harm, the clock resets
law enforcement can't really be held liable when the law forces them to hold and then release people
this all stems from the fear that, like the Soviets, our government would use mental hospitals as ersatz prisons
and, in some instances, the hospitals actually being to confine people, like that Kennedy chick they wanted to keep out of site
so strict laws were passed to keep people from being hospitalized against their will
the pendulum has swung so far the other way that now we have armies of schizophrenics infesting our cities and schizophrenic kids shooting up schools
the problem is that mentally ill people don't think they are mentally ill
we need to come up with a process that will get them help without violating their rights
And that is why "privacy rights" need to be scrapped in the case of anyone who is involuntarily locked up due to dangerous mental condition. And also need to be scrapped with regard to medical professionals, law enforcement, employers, school/college officials, etc, sharing information about people whose mental stability they are reasonably concerned about. The law needs to protect individuals and institutions from liability for sharing information about a mentally ill person in good faith.
Most importantly, the rights of the psychologically stable majority need to be very explicitly prioritized over the rights of the severely mentally ill.
Start by confiscating all the illegal owned guns in Chicago.
Felons, Kids, Thugs - everyone should have a gun, and I do mean this literally, I'm not shit posting. It's always this special carve out and that special carve out, and we shouldn't spy on our citizens, but terrorists, and the government shouldn't be involved in local law enforcement, but terrorists.
It's always some ligitimizing extracircumstancial thing which leads to another and another and another, and then it no longer needs to be ligitimizing it's just what we want now.
if everyone carried a gun, thugs, felons etc would be much less like to start some shit
I concur. If felons are that dangerous then why are they free? And what difference does it make to tell them to promise not to arm themselves.
If we're honest about reforming people then once you've done the time to pay for your crime you should have all rights restored. Doing less than that leads to creating a new agency to take care of people who aren't allowed to take care of themselves.
Oh Dem Boys, be careful, that is a real touchy subject, because it is a American constutional right.
Whenever one plan doesn't work, they try another plan.
Trump Guns Gas War
Rinse and repeat.
and the libtards don't see the hamster wheel they have been made to run on for eight years
FDR was the OG commie
I might go with Wilson. FDR just took it further because he had a depression and then a war as the excuse to do it.