I need to take a step back from all these politics..... - Auto-Trend Repairs and Service Information Forums

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I need to take a step back from all these politics.....

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Ah don't worry Rex we won't hurt you. Every village needs an idiot, even if for nothing more than entertainment purposes.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Wise man once said,

Somewhere in Kenya there is a village that's still missing it's idiot with big ears.

-- Edited by SELLC on Wednesday 24th of March 2010 05:58:12 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in!

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Clearly for entertainment purposes.

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

I have seriously stepped back since the bullshit Nov 2020 to present. Sad to see the country go to hell like this but nothing I can do. Just ride it out.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Yes, I agree!

While I am very impressed with the help the company got under this administration there is a lot of things that make me worry... This new gun control legislation is not looking very good.

I do however like the most recent SCOTUS ruling on Voter ID! This to me is just common sense stuff! You need an ID for everything now days, I'd say having a valid ID to vote is necessary! If you can't or wont get an ID, then you shouldn't be able to vote. PERIOD

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

What part of the proposed gun legislation worries you?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Well, for starters I don't like the loss of due process in the "red flag" part of the law... it's pretty much a non-starter for me, not that I alone have any say in it...

HOWEVER, as this new law gets abused by people it will come to pass that the people who are reporting these red flags will eventually get shot by someone whom they have reported. It's just bound to happen, and when it does I fear that the "red flag" law will be amended to keep private the names of people who are reporting, and that is another right that will be lost... the right to face your accuser.

I think we have enough gun laws on the table, TOO MANY if you ask me... adding more isn't going to stop the violence! It's only going to make it worse and worse until eventually none of us will have guns!

The idea that the Police in Texas were too scared to enter the building because the shooter had an AR is exactly why we need to keep these guns in the hands of the public! Had the kid been carrying a .22 or a BB gun they would have just rushed him. How are we going to defend against tyranny with nothing but sling shots and BB guns? Because that is the ultimate goal! To disarm America!

I don't want to sound crass, but 14 dead people in Texas at the hands of a deranged kid does not justify our loss of rights! NOTHING that happend in ANY and ALL of the shootings combined from 1776 - today would justify the loss of our 2nd amendment rights!

Furthermore, if they want to increase the age of rifle purchases to 21, then they should also make that the minimum age for the draft... can't have it both ways! Already these ADULTS who on their 18th birthday can go to war, cannot buy hand guns, cigarettes or booze! Now it's soon to be rifles as well! It don't matter much to me since I'm over 21, but it's a slippery slope! I do agree that kids under 21 may not have the best judgement... but isn't that what growing up is supposed to fix?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Or perhaps they need to change the age to be legally an adult to 21? Makes more sense to me! Plus it will help a lot of familes who can then get the child tax credit for another three years while they transition their kids to adult-hood... but I am sure the tax man will not like this idea, not because it isn't a good one, rather because it cost them money! And that folks is what it's all about in most cases.

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

PowerStroker wrote:
What part of the proposed gun legislation worries you?

Simple, for a start. Unconstitutional, infringes the 2nd like all gun laws since 1934 MGA NFA act.

1 Red flag gun laws both violate the constitution and YOU'RE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

Example. You're neighbor doesn't like your back yard shooting range. "I hear gunfire all the time, , I feel terrorist's or some subversive group live there" Now you get "swatted" by the alphabet agencies and they confiscate your firearms. After a long battle, lots of cash, the judge may give them back. NO DUE PROCESS. You do believe in "due process" don't you PS?

2 We have over 10,000 gun laws presently on the book. They don't work, laws aren't enforced. Add more to that list that don't work? Hey, maybe we should try gun free zones, make it illegal......

3 Gun laws are written by uninformed dems, some rinos follow them in their cockamaimie usless ideas. 94 AWB Ban, Bayonet lug bad? Flashider bad, muzzle brake good (not much difference) Pistol grip bad? Barrel shroud bad? Threaded muzzle (like for a silencer) bad?

Transfers of firearms and they want private done too goes on a 4473, then a NICS check (FBI) FBI has 24 hrs after an approval to hold those records, then they go to BATF. ALL 4473, are logged in ATF computers, meaning all firearms that went thru a transfer are NOW ON A REGISTRY. Registration of firearms leads to confiscation. You said your a student of history, study what happened in many countries with gun confiscation. See attached photo, think, look down the line at what can and will happen. XrES-8yver2TMGIiVacxJRbVFTRjZOJX7Loj6oWO

4 Most gun laws are bullshit. A suppressor is "considered a FIREARM" under NFA ,and it spells out why! "Considered a firearm for tax purposes", which happens to be a $200 NFA tax/per. You can't fire a bullet with a silencer alone, it DOES not fit their own definition of a firearm, or a receiver. How about taxing vehicle mufflers too? Same thing. That wouldn't screw people for more money? Firearm muffler = bad, car muffler = good. Protecting hearing at the range is not your right without unfair taxes?

5 Ghost gun bad, but totally legal (for now) to make your own firearm as long as it never is sold, or given to anyone else. You can leave them legally in a will. "Ghost gun" is simply a homemade firearm, legal.

I am not adverse to all (except all are an infringement/violation.) A bit of a compromise though, like I will accept the 21 age limit. And not the arguement "they can go to war and carry a M16," those young men are constantly under supervision from basic to their squad operations, and they are NOT BUYING a firearm but using one the military "owns" under military direction. Besides, no laws ever pertain to feds and a 21 age won't change anything within the military.

I got alot more but there is a start.

-- Edited by Shawnee_B on Friday 24th of June 2022 12:46:42 PM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I was of the impression that the bipartisan bill keeps due process intact. And only if a judge agrees after hearing both sides that a person is a piece of shit that shouldn't have guns, then and only then can they be confiscated. I have no problem with this... Unless ofcourse they can prove they are currently a member of a "well regulated militia."

So long as we can avoid being convicted of domestic violence we have nothing to worry about. Think of it as an incentive to behave well!

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

The list is longer than that PowerStroker some driving offenses can trigger CPL limits as well dont forget, any felony will also prevent you from getting a gun too, although many will agree that felons shouldnt have guns lol

DUIs also

PoweStroker, what if your Judge was a Catholic who was also a member of Chamber of Commerce and had a hard on for liberals would you still feel all warm and fuzzy?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

So basically you're saying that the decision whether or not to own guns is central to a man's life, to his well-being and dignity. It's a decision he must make for himself. When the government controls that decision for him, he is being treated less than a full adult human responsible for his own choices?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

What I am saying is that people don't often get equal representation... the more money you have, the better law firm you get, which increases your chances for a plea to lesser charge, or if you have a clean record it can be expunged.

The FACT of the matter here is that good people will become victims... some people are just idiots and will no doubt use these new laws to harass people they don't like.

I think the old rule that you're innocent until proven guilty is still the gold standard...

If they raise the age to 21, then at that point we are pretty much saying kids are still minors until they turn 21... They can't buy a rifle, they cant buy booze, and they can't buy tobacco! But they can vote! And I'd imagine this law is not too popular with the under 21 crowd...

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

SELLC wrote:
What I am saying is that people don't often get equal representation... the more money you have, the better law firm you get, which increases your chances for a plea to lesser charge, or if you have a clean record it can be expunged.
Just like how women of means can travel to a state where abortion is legal, but now, poor women have to use coat hangers and many will die.
The FACT of the matter here is that good people will become victims... some people are just idiots and will no doubt use these new laws to harass people they don't like.
Much like the abortion bounty laws being passed?
I think the old rule that you're innocent until proven guilty is still the gold standard...
So absolutely no reason for the government to monitor a pregnancy then huh?
If they raise the age to 21, then at that point we are pretty much saying kids are still minors until they turn 21... They can't buy a rifle, they cant buy booze, and they can't buy tobacco! But they can vote! And I'd imagine this law is not too popular with the under 21 crowd...
If older people shouldn't set rules for younger people regarding guns, they why should they set rules for their reproductive systems?

May be an image of one or more people and text

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

One of the things I admired most about RBG was her work ethic... however since she was Liberal it was often conveyed as "clinging to power"...

We're all just human, including that little fetus that was just supposed to be a blowjob... let's be honest, we all know how babies are made.

But don't worry! As I understand it they are leaving it up to the states to decide.

Someone was also saying this ruling will have an impact on all "case law" as we know it... the case mentioned was Citizens United, citing the back-track of the Supreme Court on RVW.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Oh, you're right about other case law that will be affected. The way in which Roe was overturned was to declare it Unconstitutional by virtue of it not being specifically mentioned in the Constitution. You know what else isn't mentioned in the Constitution: Interracial marriage, women's rights, gay rights, birth control, and on and on. Clarence Thomas has already come out saying the last 2 things I mentioned are on his hit list next. For some reason he doesn't have a problem with interracial marriage though, but he could be outnumbered on that one too.

Just how much of a fascist dystopian hellscape do you guys really want America to become anyway?

Oh, and some states have already made their decision in advance by passing "trigger laws" that made abortion illegal the moment the Supreme Court overturned Roe. It is already illegal in several states now for that reason.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

You know that is one thing I always hated in ALL my dealings with legal filings! That was "Case Law"...

It's rediculous! Only high end attorneys have access to proper "cliff notes" and they often time try and use this "Case Law" to invalidate your case, even though your case might be entirely different circumstances!

Often times case law will be peppered all thru court documents, causing you to have to almost re-hash dozens of other cases, many of them no-where near the same circumstances as the one in front of the court. It's just CRAZY!

I think case law just distracts from the case at hand! It's often seen as an exit ramp for Judges who want an excuse to make a poor ruling. It's also an ego thing too, as everyone wants their case to be as famous as RVW...

Thanks for the explanation on trigger laws! I didn't even know they could do such things! I guess some states just don't support abortion! I agree with you that it will be very hard for women in them states who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy...

Like I have said, RVW was the tripple dog dare of the legal world and this ruling is going to shake the very foundation of the court... let's hope it can do away with case law, as RVW will remain an argument that the SCOTUS sometimes changes it's mind... only problem with that argument in a court case is that the SCOTUS would actually have to overturn whatever precidented case law that said case was built on to mean anything. In other words, it's a moot argument.

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

PowerStroker wrote:
I was of the impression that the bipartisan bill keeps due process intact. And only if a judge agrees after hearing both sides that a person is a piece of shit that shouldn't have guns, then and only then can they be confiscated. I have no problem with this... Unless ofcourse they can prove they are currently a member of a "well regulated militia."

So long as we can avoid being convicted of domestic violence we have nothing to worry about. Think of it as an incentive to behave well!

I would not have a problem at all with them taking the guns ONCE determined the guys a problem. But in the past it has not worked that way, there was no due process, many examples (one below). This bipartisan bill "says" they want to incorporate due process. I hope so, but what are the individual states actually going to do?.

Ha, the domestic violence was funny, sorta. If you had a conviction of DV, you can't own a gun. OK. Prob was over 50% of LEO's had DV convictions and could not have a gun! ATF rewrote it, now a cop is excluded. If you are a man and beat your wife (some man) it shouldn't matter if you're a cop and need the gun for your job, retrain the fucker to a job he doesn't need a gun.

Here's 2018, how it "was".

In 2018, five states had laws that fit the bill of a typical red flag law. With Hawaiis governor signing Act 150 in early July, that number has rose to 17 states and the District of Columbia. Nearly all GVROs provide for the removal of a persons firearms without ever giving them notice. In many of these schemes, including Californias, a confiscation order may be issued against someone completely unaware of any accusations underlying the order, first learning of the petition when the police arrive to seize their firearms.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/452837-red-flag-laws-and-their-awful-consequences/

"We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process," Trump said in a White House speech.

_____________________________________________________________________

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210823/a-red-flag-case-florida-man-s-rights-virtually-disappear

A recent case in Florida illustrates one of the many issues with these orders.

On May 31, 2020, officers of the Lakeland, Florida police department petitioned for a risk protection order under that states red flag law against E.P. Officers took E.P. into custody and seized his firearms and ammunition. The ex parte order served on E.P. instructed him that the hearing on the final risk protection order (RPO) was scheduled for June 12, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. in the court facility located at 255 N. Broadway Ave., Bartow, FL. This date, time and place were confirmed on June 3 by the police departments attorney, and again in a court notice issued prior to June 12.

E.P. presented himself at the appointed date and place at 1:30 p.m. and waited until 3:00 oclock. He testified that he was not let into the courtroom, nor was he aware that the hearing would take place virtually or how to attend. In fact, the hearing was held as a remote videoconferencing event, without notice of this change to E.P. At that hearing, the court determined, incorrectly, that E.P. had elected not to attend and entered a RPO against him. E.P was prohibited from having custody or control of, or purchasing, possessing, receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for up to a year, and was required to surrender any guns or ammunition not already in the custody of the police to law enforcement.

This isnt too surprising. Florida news sources analyzing RPO cases in two Florida counties found that such petitions were overwhelming likely to result in an order against a defendant, with judges granting the orders in 90% of all cases. Fewer than two in ten respondents had been represented by counsel these proceedings are civil in nature, so respondents arent eligible for assistance from public defense lawyers.

E.P. appealed the order against him on the basis that it was made without giving him an opportunity to appear or notice that the proceedings would take place by means other than those designated in the courts official documents. The state law, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 790.401(3)(a) and (b), mandates that a court must issue a notice of hearing to the affected person, and may issue a final order pon notice and a hearing on the matter.

It was not until August 13, 2021, that the courts order was invalidated. A unanimous panel of the appellate court ruled that E.P.s due process rights were violated by the failure to notify him that the final hearing would take place virtually instead of in the court facility listed in the ex parte order. Citing Florida caselaw, the court observed that [p]rocedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard ... at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. The lack of proper notice deprived E.P. of his right to be heard and accordingly, the order must be reversed.

The case highlights the weakness of a model predicated on the presumption that persons named in a petition are dangerous, and that it is therefore appropriate to strip them of their rights and property without notice or a meaningful opportunity to respond until after the fact. E.P. was obligated to spend time and money to undo the trial courts blunder and even so, there is no indication in the case report that he had his property or his gun rights restored prior to the appellate court ruling.

The case is E.P. v. Lakeland Police Dept., No. 2D20-2121, 2021 WL 3573015 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2021).

So, after a year an a half of having this red flag shit happen and he still has no guns, reputation ruined, stress, costs,,, was that right? NO DUE PROCESS

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

SELLC wrote:

Is it me, or do the Red Flag Laws look incredible ???...

-- Edited by Rastus on Monday 27th of June 2022 05:00:08 AM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Amber Heard is a hottie, that's for sure!

I "Heard" she even had a fling with our favorite retard, Elon Musk.

But she comes with baggage now! And at least $10 million in debt! Not to mention she's not fully housebroken!