You have anything to back up your assertion that this scum was under FBI control and they told him to target this place/go on a mass shooting?Obviously his fibbie handler wanted him to get in the news and didn’t particularly care how.
You have anything to back up your assertion that this scum was under FBI control and they told him to target this place/go on a mass shooting?Obviously his fibbie handler wanted him to get in the news and didn’t particularly care how.
You have anything to back up your assertion that this scum was under FBI control and they told him to target this place/go on a mass shooting?
And that was in a state where there is a lot of guns, and the cops are some of the better trained.It’s SOP for the fibbies. Remember those guys that tried to Aloha Snackbar the let’s draw Muhammad display in Garland Texas?
They had a fibbie handler.
“As Greg engaged Simpson and Soofi, an undercover FBI agent was traveling with the terrorists in a separate vehicle, approaching the rear entrance where the gunfight happened. The agent and two terrorists had traveled all the way from Arizona, in two vehicles. It was claimed the FBI agent took pictures of the attack, just as it started. It was claimed he participated in intelligence gathering, and in planning the attack, advising the terrorists to wait until the event was ending.”
How a Texas Gunfighter Cop Stopped the ISIS Attack in Garland, Texas
On 3 May, 2015, a gunfighter traffic cop fought two Isis terrorists who had semi-automatic rifles, pistols, 1500 rounds of ammo, body armor, and the element of surprise. He survived. They died.www.ammoland.com
And that was in a state where there is a lot of guns, and the cops are some of the better trained.
Of course. Did the FBI arm them? Did anything come of it?
Did they interview the FBI agents? Are we sure they were FBI and not lying? Did the FVI make a comment?
So...“The FBI agent, only identified in the following lawsuit as UCE-1, stopped, then attempted to flee the scene.
He had encouraged the terrorists. He had taken a picture of the terrorists and had informed Simpson and Soofi he was armed.
He was stopped by Garland Police in a felony stop, at gunpoint. UCE-1 shouted he was FBI. After confirming his FBI status, he was released by the Garland Police. His involvement in the attack would not be determined until discovery was done in the lawsuit. FBI Director Comey had denied there was any FBI complicity in the attack.
An informational bulletin containing a list of suspected extremists, with a photograph of Simpson, and a possible vehicle license plate, had been sent to Garland Police by the FBI, at about 4 p.m. on 3 May. It had not reached Officer Stevens before the attack had started.
It was not a direct warning of the attack. The court ruled the FBI was acting within its allowed discretion. The lawsuit was dismissed.”
Well, yes, but also no. The real thing gun people want gone is the National Firearms Act of 1934, which is what inflicts the restrictions on suppressors, barrel length, overall length, and machine guns (besides the Hughes Amendment).
Sure, repealing the Hughes Amendment will drop the price on machine guns, but getting rid of the bureaucratic hurdles imposed by the NFA would have a much bigger net positive benefit.
Well, good luck actually getting the Supreme Court to actually hear such a case - they've been passing on all gun rights cases since Trump got elected.
Court-ordered reddit moment.
I imagine that Thomas would do the legal equivalent if 4 of the others were onboard.I'd love it if the SCOTUS reply was just a copy of the bill of rights, with the phrase "keep and bear arms" circled.
Court-ordered reddit moment.
This ruling appears to be razor-thin and based on the 9th circuit pulling a "Gotcha" on a technicality.
We need not determine whether Hawai‘i County properly applied § 134-9, because Young did not bring an as-applied challenge. Our review of the record demonstrates that, although Young peppered his pleadings with the words “application” and “enforcement,” he never pleaded facts to support an as-applied challenge
This lets them treat the case as a Facial Challenge instead of an As-Applied challenge. The previous case of Young vs. Hawaii in 2018 was one of the more brutal smackdowns I've seen in court, and when the 9th circuit is telling you your gun laws are ridiculous you know you dun goofed. The primary issue was that Hawaii's "May issue" laws amounted to "But we won't," when pressed the defense couldn't list a single instance, ever, of anybody who wasn't a security guard being issued the license. Because the law was evidently a ban in practice, it was overturned. I recall seeing it back then but can't find it now, but this news report carries the general thrust pretty well:
What the appeals court has done is change it from "As-Applied," that is a challenge because of how the law is enforced, to "Facial" which is to say what the text of the law says. The previous case won because their "may issue" was meaningles, because they never issued, ever. The appeals has changed the kind of case so that facts in evidence are no longer considered, only what the law says o nteh face, which is that they "may issue" so the fact that they never do doesn't count against it anymore.
This ruling appears to be razor-thin and based on the 9th circuit pulling a "Gotcha" on a technicality.
We need not determine whether Hawai‘i County properly applied § 134-9, because Young did not bring an as-applied challenge. Our review of the record demonstrates that, although Young peppered his pleadings with the words “application” and “enforcement,” he never pleaded facts to support an as-applied challenge
This lets them treat the case as a Facial Challenge instead of an As-Applied challenge. The previous case of Young vs. Hawaii in 2018 was one of the more brutal smackdowns I've seen in court, and when the 9th circuit is telling you your gun laws are ridiculous you know you dun goofed. The primary issue was that Hawaii's "May issue" laws amounted to "But we won't," when pressed the defense couldn't list a single instance, ever, of anybody who wasn't a security guard being issued the license. Because the law was evidently a ban in practice, it was overturned. I recall seeing it back then but can't find it now, but this news report carries the general thrust pretty well:
What the appeals court has done is change it from "As-Applied," that is a challenge because of how the law is enforced, to "Facial" which is to say what the text of the law says. The previous case won because their "may issue" was meaningles, because they never issued, ever. The appeals has changed the kind of case so that facts in evidence are no longer considered, only what the law says o nteh face, which is that they "may issue" so the fact that they never do doesn't count against it anymore.
The next time someone makes a constitution there needs to be a provision about having pedantic weasels hung by their reproductive organs from a live electric wire. Next to the one banning omnibus bullshit.This is why English is a popular predegree before going into law isn't it? See just how much you can pull with the language as opposed to spirit and context?
No. Most lawyers in college go to Pre-Law as their BA. I took some pre-law level Constitutional Law classes back in college and was the only one who was on the English track, everyone else was pre-law, some history, and some business.This is why English is a popular predegree before going into law isn't it? See just how much you can pull with the language as opposed to spirit and context?