tvc184

Mexico sued several US firearms manufacturers as being responsible for murders in Mexico It was not completely unexpected to be a winning case for firearms manufacturers but the unanimous decision, authored by Kagan, is a welcome sight. The case is Smith & Wesson et al. V. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) Smith & Wesson was sued along with six other gun manufacturers (Colt, Glock, Ruger, Baretta, etc.) in the United States by Mexico. The claim (that might have shut them down) was that those manufacturers were responsible for gun violence in Mexico and because the cartels used American manufactured guns. Mexico claimed that since the manufacturers did not strictly police or regulate who bought goes from FFL’s, they were responsible. The First Circuit Court of Appeals covering Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico ruled in favor of Mexico saying the suit could go forward. The firearms manufacturers appealed to the Supreme Court and their ruling was issued a few hours ago. A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the federal law, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, protects firearms manufacturers from lawsuits in state and federal courts unless it can be shown that the manufacturer was complicit by aiding and abetting the illegal gun transfers. Mexico showed no evidence that any of the manufacturers were knowingly helping the drug cartels to obtain the guns. The decision was authored by Elana Kagan who in her order wrote…. “Finally, Mexico's allegations about the manufacturers’ design and marketing decisions" add nothing of consequence. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers' production of "military style" assault weapons, among which it includes AR-15 ri-fles, AK-47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too” So in the Opinion of the Court written by Kagan, the AR15, AK47 and similar guns are “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers”. She then noted that the AR15 is the most popular rifle in the country. That language may come up in the next session or two when the Supreme Court takes up the assault weapons ban in some states under the premise that they should not be included in the common use test in the Supreme Court cases of Heller and Bruen. The main facts that are important here in my opinion are that even the liberal leaning justices, saw the stupidity of Mexico‘s claim and issued a ruling to protect gun manufacturers against what I think is a frivolous claim and that Kagan wrote the opinion. In doing so wrote that the assault rifles and even sniper rifles were widely legal and purchased by consumers and that the AR15 was the most popular rifle in the country. The flabbergasting part is that the First Circuit Court thought that the manufacturers should be liable if one of their weapons was later used to commit a crime. I guess in their opinion, if a drunk driver killed someone, the family should be able to sue Exxon-Mobil for manufacturing the gasoline.

I just found this comment I made in May 2022 in a different sports forum… [QUOTE=tvc184;n23043687] Wait until 300 kids gather at the bus stop to go home and be stationed away with a suppressed rifle. Toss Molotov cocktails or pipe bombs into school windows. Mow down the 300 kids at the bus stop with a vehicle. Do like Adam Landsa at Sandy Hook and shoot out the locked door glass to gain entry. Wait for a school bus on a known daily route to stop at a stop sign, shoot the driver, enter the bus and proceed to……. I believe in making it tough. Make the schools harder to enter, allow armed teachers and so on but how do you stop a dedicated attacker who can choose the target and time?[/QUOTE] Is it the weapon that is the problem or the mental health and/or being shy to ruffle someone’s political feelings? We joke at times after a major news incident that doesn’t involve a firearm by saying things like, Ban knives! or Ban cars! Well here you go. A British actor believes that kitchen knives shouldn’t have points on them. “I do think there is areas of innovation that we can do with kitchen knives”. I know, let’s just remove the points and sharp edges from the knife…. 🤣🤣🤣 [Hidden Content]

This is a bit off topic but I made this comment (search worked) agreeing with you in May 2023 in response to complaints of large capacity magazines. “You answer was clearly the correct assessment. If no rifle, a shotgun. Then a handgun. Then a Molotov cocktail thrown into a couple of rooms” I have made the same basic comment for years in various gun control arguments if different social media groups. If a person has intent to kill and has just a little bit of time to plan, how do you stop him? OH, BAN AR15s!! Yeah, that’ll do it…. So we have locked doors to schools. We have in most places at least one armed person. It’s over then, right? Surely no one would sprint up to a classroom window, smash it out and throw a couple of glass bottles full of easily obtained flammable liquid into the now open classroom. Surely no one would steal a car and drive it into 200 children waiting in the bus after school. Focusing on items that can injure people is a sideshow as a means to an end.

If they can get the amendments together in the conference committee to work out the differences it could be a great bill.

AND…. the fail to ID law that I mentioned is Texas law. Under Texas law, if you are not driving or you’re not under arrest, you do not have to identify yourself to the police. In approximately half of the states, if lawfully detained, you do have to identify yourself to the police or you are committing a crime.

I can do nothing but speculate but I suspect that any fail to ID was before any arrest. Up until two years ago, the only time you absolutely had to identify yourself to the police was if you’re actually under arrest. Of course, if you were driving, you had to present a drivers license or identify yourself, but you could not be arrested for failure to ID. If a driver refuse to give his identification, the police had to do what I called the Texas two-step. They had to arrest the driver for a valid charge like an expired license registration and then demand an ID after the arrest. A couple of years ago, the state finally changed that law and put failure to ID on the driver of a vehicle. I am kind of curious if they actually saw him driving or was he in a truck that was parked? If the police were just randomly patrolling and noticed the expired registration sticker, but did not see who was driving, could they lawfully demand his ID? Again, with knowing absolutely nothing of what actually happened, I could see a situation where it was possibly an unlawful arrest and all charges could be dropped against the Bpd officer. I would hope that the arresting officer actually knew what he was doing and probably so however, I’m not always that confident.

Like almost any other job, he could be fired for violating any policy violation. It’s not quite an at-will job because there has to be cause. In an at-will job a person can be terminated for almost any reason. In his case there has to a reason. An arrest is not likely a valid reason (not proven guilty) for termination but convictions or toss in things like conduct unbecoming of a police officer and it could be. These are just traffic citations though. Was it an expired license plate, an open container and not presenting a driver’s license? Strangely enough, the license and expired plate are always arrest-able offenses but the open container is not if in your county. I suspect that he could get as little as a written reprimand (which is not public by law) or a suspension without pay like maybe 3 to 7 days. That would be public. I am fairly certain that the Beaumont police are under state civil service laws. All police punishments are public information however state civil service law only recognizes a suspension as punishment. Verbal or written reprimands are not considered punishment. So could he be terminated? Sure. It will have to hold up to the scrutiny of an outside arbitrator though if they have the same grievance process that we have. So the officer’s lawyer and the city can go to one of the arbitration organizations and agree on an arbitrator to come in and hear the case. In our contract the arbitrator has to come from out of state. It is kind of like a court because each side can ask questions and call witnesses who are placed under oath.Also, if it is like ours, the arbitrator’s decision is final as it’s binding arbitration. I really have a hard time imagining that an outside arbitrator would look at three traffic citations and determine that is a valid reason to terminate a police officer. What we do not know and probably will never know, is if any officer has any history of policy violations unless it was a suspension. This officer might have a spotless record.

That was almost certainly for being a jerk if the news reports are correct. If the police had a reason to detain him for a violation such as expired registration, he has to identify himself. The report says that he was arrested for failing to identify himself. it was only a couple of traffic citations. Geez, identify yourself, sign the ticket and move on.

Yep, that’s why I said it was all nonsense. Of course he could get the Martha Stewart prosecution. Stewart was accused of insider trading and they couldn’t prove it but she stupidly did not remain silent and lied to the FBI. So she is now a convicted felon for obstruction of justice or whatever they call it.

There is no third party. The term third party is an idiom for any number of parties who are not Republicans or Democrats. I think common ones are the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc. The Dems and GOP stop them how? Those parties typically put up candidates. There simply isn’t this claimed third party and there is virtually no support for any of them. The absolute most that a third-party could do is to win maybe two states and deny anyone from getting the required 270 electoral college votes. That would throw it to the house of representatives. That is where the Constitution steps in. The House of Representatives chooses the next president. What third party, with zero members of the House, is going to win any election? The Democrats and Republicans don’t have to stop this magical third-party. Again, first off no third-party actually exists. Secondly, the most that another candidate could do is win a handful of votes and throw the election for the House. So yes, the Constitution stops any so called third party from the presidency.

What third party was ever a threat and what rules are changed? The Constitution stops any third party (which there isn’t really one). The biggest threat to third parties is third parties.

Bravo!! Until you read history and realize that it was Thomas Jefferson, who was the first person to help usher in the two political parties system by creating the Democrat-Republican Party. The Federalists had grouped together to form the Federalist Party and Jefferson wanted a party in opposition. So the guy who didn’t submit to the whole party system was the major player in creating the current two party system and was elected as president as a Democrat-Republican Party candidate. We all understand what he likely meant. People want to feel independent. “Nobody tells me how to vote including a political party!!”. That’s great and mostly true but if a person doesn’t find a bunch of mostly like minded people, he will be stranded alone on an island.

Hopefully he will choose the best treatment option out of the ones available. Prayers for a full recovery. 🙏🏿

I think that it’s all nonsense but in this supercharged political climate, I wouldn’t doubt anything.

This is from the CNN article with national data from the USDA: The USDA reported last week that a dozen large white-shell eggs now cost $3.30 on average, down a whopping 69 cents from a week before.

My grandfather used to have a few Mallards and we ate them quite a bit when I was young.

Not where I shop.

Spin that top! CNN headlines said b that Trump’s “fiction” is now true. For “months” Trump has been talking about egg prices. I guess technically it’s true because he’s been an office a little over three months…. 🤣🤣🤣 Egg prices nationwide fell by almost 13%, the largest monthly decline in 41 years. The USDA shows a national average of $3.30 a dozen for large white eggs and down 69¢ in one week. Look at the CNN headlines… Fiction “has suddenly” become reality. 😂😂😂 [Hidden Content]

You bring up a good point. They wrote it anyway? In other words, if it was written and ratified, there was a reason. So let’s look at the at the citizenship clause. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States Note that it does not say that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. They added the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Like your question, they wrote it anyway? Was it merely a meaningless afterthought or did it mean something? In the Supreme Court ruling in Elk, they said that the phrase certainly meant something. Basically it was who is your allegiance to or which country were you a part of? John Elk was born in US territory on American soil but since he was part of a recognized Indian Nation, so even though born in the US, was not a citizen. It took an act of Congress, not the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling, to make Native Americans, American. So: 1. Was the phrase about being under the jurisdiction thereof just wasted words or did it have meaning? 2. Why didn’t the clause simply say, “all persons born in the United States are citizens”? That surely would have ended any debate. 3. Looking at the Constitution and the meaning of words, just like you brought up, why did the Supreme Court deny John Elk citizenship? If it was so clear, it should have been an easy ruling for Elk, not against him. 4. If it was so clear cut, why did it take decades later for the US Congress to make Native Americans all Americans as birthright citizens by federal law?

You seem to ignore “the right of the people…. shall not be infringed”. The Second Amendment mentions nothing about the right of the state to have a militia. Then you have to ignore Article III……

He will be out in 3 on parole but at least he will be doing time.

I worked one night but was in the other side of the city. We had a murder over a bologna sandwich. 🥪 Another time I was the first responding officer where a guy shot his brother in the center of the chest after arguing over who was going to get to wear a particular shirt that night. They were maybe 19 and 21 years old. One of them gave the other a shirt that he did not wear anymore. A couple of weeks later they were going out on different dates or different parties or something to that effect. The first brother decided that he wanted the shirt back for his special evening and the other said no, you gave it to me and I’m gonna wear it. After an argument, the first one pulled out the gun and shot his brother in the center of the chest. I thought he was going to die as his eyes were rolled back and he was gasping for air. I’m sure you’ve seen enough of those. Nope, it was a .22 and at the angle the guy was shot, the bullet hit the sternum and slid around under the fat layer around to his side. At St. Mary Hospital they ended up giving him a local and cut the bullet out. Treated and released. I guess where he was shot, he panicked and assumed it was the end, but all that over who was going to look cool that evening…..

Over a game of dominoes….. [Hidden Content]#

Oh yeah, my great grandparents on my mother’s side and great great great grandparents on my father’s were legal immigrants to this country and granted citizenship through naturalization. So I was born in the United States to American citizens, therefore under the jurisdiction of the country.

Because of the Constitution. The term birthright citizenship is not in the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment says born in the United States AND subject to its jurisdiction. In the Supreme Court case of Elk v. Wilkins they ruled that even though Elk was born in US territory, the fact that he was born on a reservation, he was under the jurisdiction of his tribe. He was therefore not a US citizen just because he was born here. The subject to the jurisdiction is the problem. In US v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court ruled on a person here lawfully. Wong was born on US soil to parents who were Chinese however they had been granted permanent citizenship. Since the US had granted his parents permanent status in this country, they were now under the jurisdiction of the US. As the Fourteenth Amendment states, a person is a citizen at birth if born in the US AND subject to its jurisdiction. As ruled in Elk, being born here did not even make a Native American a US citizen. It was settled enough that the US Congress under their authority in Article I of the Constitution, passed a law giving all Native Americans born in the US citizenship. So it literally took an act of Congress for them to be citizens. Why? Because the Supreme Court had already ruled that they were not citizens merely by being born on US soil. In my first post I said there was about a 98% of birthright citizenship being confirmed by the Supreme Court but more out of tradition. They are going to throw their collective hands up and say, “oh well, regardless of the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, we don’t want to change tradition”.