Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

2nd Amendment Thread


Muda69

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...

The $73 Million Settlement Against Gun Manufacturer Remington is Backdoor Gun Control

https://mises.org/wire/73-million-settlement-against-gun-manufacturer-remington-backdoor-gun-control

Quote

Remington Arms, America’s oldest gun manufacturer, settled for $73 million in a wrongful-death suit filed by the families of several victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Bushmaster, the company that actually manufactured the rifle used in the shooting, is owned by Remington Outdoor Company.

The settlement followed seven-plus years of litigation, two Remington-bankruptcies, and a previous settlement offer from the gun manufacturer of $33 million, which the nine plaintiffs declined. The outcome of the case is being touted by anti-gunners, the corporate press and Democrat politicians, as a victory over the gun lobby. President Biden called the settlement “historic”.

The anti-gunners, however, are wrong. The settlement was neither a victory, nor historic, but instead revealed yet another way political actors can undermine gun rights – which is why they are so excited about it.

Not Your Typical Case

Gun manufacturers are usually protected from these kinds of lawsuits by the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). PLCAA prevents arms makers from being sued due to the misuse or criminal use of their products by a third party. Without this protection the gun industry would be subject to unique and extremely broad liability claims, making PLCAA one of the only sensible pieces of legislation Congress passed in the past 150 years...which explains why it is so reviled by Hillary Clinton and her political allies.

Gun-control advocates claim that PLCA provides “blanket immunity” from lawsuits. That is not true; under PLCAA, gun manufacturers can still be sued on multiple grounds including: traditional product liability (i.e. a gun is defective and causes injury), negligence (they transferred the gun to someone they had reasonable cause to believe was prohibited from owning a firearm), or violating of laws surrounding the sale (e.g., lying in your books).

The plaintiff's attorney, Joshua Koskoff, packed the initial lawsuit with a slew of allegations which were dismissed by a Connecticut lower court, as the allegations were invalid under PLCAA. In 2019, however, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the wrongful-death suit could move forward on the basis of a “wrongful-advertising” claim that was included in the original set of allegations. Koskoff argued that Remington "knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings."

The plaintiffs cited marketing slogans such as: “Consider your man card reissued”, “Clear the Room, Cover the Rooftop, Rescue the Hostage”. None of those claims are inherently violent, and certainly not an appeal to young men to commit mass murder. For example, Ford claims its trucks are built with “military grade aluminum,” which would mean that victims of the Waukesha Massacre should be able to sue Ford. Why else would a truck need anything “military-grade” unless it was supposed to be rammed through 80 people?

Although the case was allowed to move forward, the Connecticut Supreme Court acknowledged that winning the case in court would be a “herculean task”. The plaintiffs would have had to prove that Bushmaster’s marketing contributed to the shooter’s decision to commit the atrocity. Since the shooter did not buy the gun himself, but instead, murdered his mother and stole it from her, it is not hard to see how the claim that advertising was relevant whatsoever would have been a stretch. But if the case was virtually unwinnable, why did Remington settle?

Death by a Thousand Lawsuits

Technically, Remington did not settle – four insurance companies that represented it didFurthermore, a settlement, by definition, means that Remington did not accept liability. The idea that this is a “victory” is asinine.

The point still stands, however. The bankrupt-Remington and its agents settled because winning the case in a court of law would have been even more costly than settling because of the additional legal fees required. Keep in mind, litigation had already been going on for over seven years.

It is astronomically less expensive to be a plaintiff since they are generally paid from the settlement, i.e. after litigation is finished. The defense needs to pay up front. Activists can just keep hurling frivolous lawsuit after lawsuit at gun-manufacturers until something sticks. No big deal if the case gets thrown out, simply take notes and try again. Since the government legal system is slow and awful, the mountain of attorney’s fees needed to defend against these suits places an enormous financial burden on gun companies.

Despite talk about how “big” and “powerful” gun companies are, they are actually rather small, as selling guns is a low-margin business. Ruger, the largest firm in the industry, has a market cap of around $1 billion. This sounds substantial until you realize that Google makes that in profit every week. The amount of money required to defend against lawsuits like this could easily bankrupt many gun-manufacturers, which means they are forced to settle and their liability insurance pays. When word gets out that the gun industry is vulnerable to this type of attack, insurance costs skyrocket.

This was exactly the plan in this suit. Either kill Remington with legal fees, or insurmountable insurance costs. One of the plaintiffs admitted they wanted to send the message: “this is a high-risk market, it is not profitable, and you will be held accountable.”

No, this Wasn’t “Historic” – It’s a Dirty Old Trick

This type of lawsuit was commonplace prior to the passage of PLCAA – one almost bankrupted Smith and Wesson. Ridiculous, long-shot lawsuits were a favorite tactic of anti-gun activists and politicians in the 90’s and early 2000’s.

Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign), started a coalition with several big-city mayors in 1998 that was focused on crafting lawsuits to bankrupt gun companies. Ed Rendell, Philadelphia's mayor at the time, explained that the suits were intentionally designed to: 1) prevent consolidation, which meant that the defendant would need to retain lawyers for each case, 2) specifically target handgun manufacturers that were smaller than long-gun and ammunition companies, and 3) they would make claims designed to expand existing case law and set precedent that would open up more avenues of attack.

Virtually none of these lawsuits went to trial, but that wasn’t the point. The goal was to impose a financial burden on gun companies and drive them out of business. Or, in the case of Smith and Wesson, pressure them to capitulate and submit to a “Manufacture's Code of Conduct” that would force them to add certain anti-features to make guns “safer” – a goal of the gun control lobby for years.

Gun-control has been a losing item for years, but if this settlement becomes precedent, that could change. If gun-control loses in legislatures or courts, activists can simply abuse the legal structure to enforce de facto gun control by driving gun makers out of business. The end result is the same, restricted access to guns (for the law-abiding, at least).

This won’t end with Remington. The flood gates have been opened, even Mexico is now suing the gun industry for gun violence perpetrated by cartels. Remington’s settlement serves as a start reminder that the left will use whatever means necessary to advance their agenda – in this case, your disarmament.

Agreed.  The left will stop an nothing to prevent law-abiding Americans from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Handgun Carry Permits Transform a Right Into a Privilege

https://reason.com/2022/03/30/handgun-carry-permits-transform-a-right-into-a-privilege/

Quote

As of last week, 24 states have decided to let law-abiding adults carry handguns in public without a license. That policy, known as "constitutional carry," strikes critics as self-evidently reckless, while supporters think it improves public safety.

Both sides in the long-running debate about the practical impact of reducing legal barriers to public handgun possession can cite studies to support their position. But beyond that empirical question is a moral and constitutional issue that may render it moot: If people have a fundamental right to armed self-defense, should they need the government's permission to exercise it?

Because the proliferation of constitutional carry laws is a relatively recent development, research on its consequences is nascent. But there is a substantial, decidedly mixed body of research on an earlier shift: from "may issue" laws, which give government officials broad discretion to grant or deny applications for carry permits, and "shall issue" laws, which give licensing authorities little or no discretion as long as applicants meet a short list of objective requirements.

Only nine states still have "may issue" laws, one of which (New York's) is the focus of a case that the Supreme Court will decide this term. The rest either do not require permits or make it relatively easy to obtain them.

Proponents of the latter approach argue that it deters criminals by increasing the risk that they will encounter armed resistance. Opponents say that risk might make criminals more inclined to arm themselves, and they warn that reducing the legal requirements for carrying handguns could make potentially deadly violence more likely by introducing firearms into volatile situations.

A 2005 report from the National Research Council (NRC) concluded that "it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact of these laws." One author of the NRC report, UCLA criminologist James Q. Wilson, dissented from that conclusion, saying the weight of the evidence indicated that "shall issue" laws "do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous."

According to a 2020 RAND Corporation analysis, the situation had not changed much 15 years later. The RAND review found "limited" evidence that "shall issue" laws "may increase" overall violent crime and "inconclusive" evidence of their impact on "total homicides, firearm homicides, robberies, assaults, and rapes."

There are many methodological issues with these studies, including how to control for myriad confounding variables and a general failure to measure how legal changes affect the number of people who actually carry handguns. But it is not at all clear that an individual's right to armed self-defense should hinge on the resolution of this academic debate.

Texas, where I live, stopped requiring carry permits last September. One compelling argument for eliminating the fees and training costs that the prior system entailed was that they posed formidable barriers for people of modest means in dangerous neighborhoods with good reason to fear violent criminals (who, by definition, do not bother to jump through legal hoops when they decide to carry guns).

The Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. It will soon decide whether that right extends beyond the home.

Since the Second Amendment protects the right "to keep and bear arms," and since the threat of criminal violence is heightened when people venture past their doorsteps, that question does not seem hard, especially in light of historical evidence indicating that the right was understood to include carrying weapons in public. It likewise seems clear that a licensing regime like New York's, which gives officials wide authority to decide who has "proper cause" to bear arms, is inconsistent with that right.

Even after the Supreme Court settles those issues, there will remain the question of whether less onerous regulations impose inappropriate, potentially prohibitive conditions on the exercise of a basic right. Judging from recent trends, state legislators increasingly believe they do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was never a gun owner until the summer of 2020 when I was witnessing all the Burning.  Looting.  Murdering.  Rioting going on all in the name of "social justice".

I however, have ALWAYS been a supporter of the 2A.

We have it for a reason.

Check out all countries that have banned their 2A and tell me how that has worked historically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2021 at 8:32 AM, swordfish said:

2cartoon-11.8.21-11.8.21-11.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

these liberals are morons.

On 11/4/2021 at 6:55 PM, DanteEstonia said:

...probably because she looks absolutely insane. 

Man are you not smart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2021 at 12:10 PM, DanteEstonia said:

And you are like a land whale who hid away from here for almost a year after Trump failed in his coup attempt.

Yup.

WTF are you even talking about?  Coup attempt?  Dude.  Think for yourself.  Stop being so damned brainwashed.

  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260068725.html

the recent legislation pending in California is relatively modest compared to some of the sweeping reforms that gun-control advocates are demanding in other states and on the federal level — simply because most of the toughest curbs are already part of California law. Among other things, nationwide advocates are seeking to have all private-party gun sales subjected to federal background checks, which they call the “gun-show loophole.” They also want to see the nationwide assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004, revived. Both of those laws are in effect in California. Advocates for gun owners say there isn’t much else California can do, given the protections for gun ownership enshrined in the Bill of Rights. “Here in California, we have done everything we could possibly do to control guns,” said Sam Paredes, who runs the Sacramento-area organization Gun Owners of California. “Everything short of banning (guns), and they know they can’t do that.” Paredes said lawmakers are gliding over the real issues that drive gun violence. “Is it mental? Economic? Medical? What is it? They won’t go there. Their knee-jerk reaction is to go after guns,” Paredes said. California has 107 different gun-control laws on the books, more than any other state, according to a database maintained by the Boston University School of Public Health. Massachusetts is No. 2 at 103. Still, lawmakers say Sunday’s bloodbath near the Capitol shows there’s more work to do in a state where an estimated 7 million people live in a home where guns are present. “What a sickening, senseless loss of life,” said California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon on Twitter. “It’s an epidemic, and we need #GunReform now to stop it.” Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, speaking a block from the scene, said, “Thoughts and prayers are not nearly enough .... This senseless epidemic of gun violence must be addressed.” He called for tougher laws on assault weapons, even though it wasn’t immediately clear what type of gun was used Sunday.

 

Sure - We need more gun laws on "ghost guns" and "assault rifles" (when we really don't even know what guns were used on Sunday yet) in the state with the STRICTEST gun laws in the country right now.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260131840.html

Exclusive: Suspect in Sacramento mass shooting was out of prison despite 10-year term

Smiley Allen Martin, the second man arrested after Sunday’s mass shooting in Sacramento that killed six, has a criminal record stretching to 2013 and last year was the subject of a plea by Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert’s office that he not win early release from prison, where he was serving a 10-year sentence for domestic violence and assault with great bodily injury. Despite a two-page letter to the Board of Parole Hearings urging that Martin remain in custody, he won his release and was in Sacramento on Saturday night recording himself on a Facebook Live video brandishing a handgun hours before the shooting.

On Tuesday, Sacramento police arrested Martin, 27, at a hospital after he was injured in the shooting. He faces charges of possession of a machine gun and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. A law enforcement source confirmed the machine gun is a handgun that was found at the scene Sunday that had been converted to be capable of firing as an automatic weapon.

His brother, Dandrae Martin, 26, was arrested Monday as the first person taken into custody in connection with the shooting, and is due in court Tuesday afternoon on charges of assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Law enforcement officials believe a gunfight broke out as a dispute between multiple shooters near 10th and K streets at 2 a.m. Sunday as downtown bars were closing, and authorities have not disclosed details of either man’s involvement in the events.

But documents obtained by The Sacramento Bee show the DA’s office last year vehemently opposed Smiley Martin’s release from the 10-year prison sentence he received in Sacramento Superior Court on Jan. 12, 2018. “Inmate Martin’s criminal conduct is violent and lengthy,” Deputy District Attorney Danielle Abildgaard wrote in a two-page letter to the Board of Parole Hearings on April 29, 2021, opposing his release.

The letter, obtained by The Bee through a California Public Records Act request, details offenses including robbery, possession of a firearm and giving false information to police. “In January of 2013, just six months after his eighteenth birthday, Inmate Martin was contacted by law enforcement officers,” the letter states. “Inmate Martin attempted to discard an assault rifle which he had concealed in his waistband under his clothing. “The rifle had a pistol grip and the capacity to accept a detachable magazine in front of the pistol grip. Inmate Martin was also found to be in possession of two fully loaded twenty-five round magazines for the assault weapon. Inmate Martin admitted to transporting the assault weapon and large capacity magazines to potential buyers. Inmate Martin was sentenced to probation and county jail.”

Ten months later, Martin and three others walked into a Walmart store and pushed a clerk aside in the electronics department, then fled with several Galaxy Notebooks worth $2,800, the letter states. “Video surveillance captured the incident,” the letter states. “During the investigation, law enforcement discovered additional robberies committed on November 29, 2013, and November 30, 2013, of similar electronics at other Walmart and Target stores. Witnesses positively identified Inmate Martin through surveillance photos at those subsequent robberies. “Inmate Martin pled to the robbery and was sentenced to two years in state prison.”

After his release from prison, Martin came to the attention of authorities again in November 2016, when he was stopped in a vehicle with three other passengers and asked for his name and date of birth. Martin gave the officers a phony name and ran when officers told him they were going to detain him, the letter states. “After a foot pursuit Inmate Martin was eventually incapacitated with a Taser and ultimately taken into custody,” the letter says. “Officers were able to identify him and learned he was a parolee at large.” Less than six months later, he was involved in the incident that led to the 10-year prison sentence, the letter says, when he forced his way into his girlfriend’s home. “He located her hiding in her bedroom closet and hit her repeatedly with a closed fist on the face, head, and body, causing visible injuries,” the letter says. “He then dragged her out of the home by her hair to an awaiting car. After he put her in the car, he assaulted her with a belt. “During the investigation, information was gathered that the victim had been working as a prostitute and that Inmate Martin had been assisting and encouraging her to be a prostitute. Text messages and social media conversations revealed that he would tell her what kind of sex buyer she should date, how much money to charge, how to accept payment, and what forms of payment she should accept.”

California corrections spokeswoman Dana Simas said Tuesday afternoon that the parole board denied Martin parole in May 2021 but ended up being released less than a year later. “Prior to reaching a CDCR facility, Martin had already received 508 days of pre-sentencing credits, and received a variety of additional post-sentencing credits,” she wrote in an email. “He was released to Sacramento County probation in February 2022.” The letter to the parole board came as Schubert’s office and 44 other DAs were preparing to sue the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation over policies that they say would result in the “early release” of 76,000 inmates statewide. “As shown by Inmate Martin’s pattern of conduct, he is an assaultive and non-compliant individual and has absolutely no regard for his victims who are left in the wake of numerous serious offenses,” Schubert’s office wrote last April. “He has no respect for others, for law enforcement or for the law. “If he is released early, he will continue to break the law.”

Prison officials dispute the characterization that its rule changes amount to “early releases,” arguing that changes they made in how good conduct credits are applied do not amount to such a policy. But Schubert, who is now running for state attorney general as an independent, sued over the fact that CDCR implemented the changes as “emergency” regulations without public input, and prison officials subsequently opened a public comment period that ends on April 13.

 

Well - there you have it.  Mr. President - What additional gun laws do you think would have prevented this?  He was already breaking the law by simply possessing a firearm.  Let alone - already illegal (by CA law) converted firearms.   ALL WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE STILL BEEN IN JAIL!!

But it's "lax gun laws" that allow this to happen.......Yeah right.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260131840.html

Exclusive: Suspect in Sacramento mass shooting was out of prison despite 10-year term

Smiley Allen Martin, the second man arrested after Sunday’s mass shooting in Sacramento that killed six, has a criminal record stretching to 2013 and last year was the subject of a plea by Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert’s office that he not win early release from prison, where he was serving a 10-year sentence for domestic violence and assault with great bodily injury. Despite a two-page letter to the Board of Parole Hearings urging that Martin remain in custody, he won his release and was in Sacramento on Saturday night recording himself on a Facebook Live video brandishing a handgun hours before the shooting.

On Tuesday, Sacramento police arrested Martin, 27, at a hospital after he was injured in the shooting. He faces charges of possession of a machine gun and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. A law enforcement source confirmed the machine gun is a handgun that was found at the scene Sunday that had been converted to be capable of firing as an automatic weapon.

His brother, Dandrae Martin, 26, was arrested Monday as the first person taken into custody in connection with the shooting, and is due in court Tuesday afternoon on charges of assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Law enforcement officials believe a gunfight broke out as a dispute between multiple shooters near 10th and K streets at 2 a.m. Sunday as downtown bars were closing, and authorities have not disclosed details of either man’s involvement in the events.

But documents obtained by The Sacramento Bee show the DA’s office last year vehemently opposed Smiley Martin’s release from the 10-year prison sentence he received in Sacramento Superior Court on Jan. 12, 2018. “Inmate Martin’s criminal conduct is violent and lengthy,” Deputy District Attorney Danielle Abildgaard wrote in a two-page letter to the Board of Parole Hearings on April 29, 2021, opposing his release.

The letter, obtained by The Bee through a California Public Records Act request, details offenses including robbery, possession of a firearm and giving false information to police. “In January of 2013, just six months after his eighteenth birthday, Inmate Martin was contacted by law enforcement officers,” the letter states. “Inmate Martin attempted to discard an assault rifle which he had concealed in his waistband under his clothing. “The rifle had a pistol grip and the capacity to accept a detachable magazine in front of the pistol grip. Inmate Martin was also found to be in possession of two fully loaded twenty-five round magazines for the assault weapon. Inmate Martin admitted to transporting the assault weapon and large capacity magazines to potential buyers. Inmate Martin was sentenced to probation and county jail.”

Ten months later, Martin and three others walked into a Walmart store and pushed a clerk aside in the electronics department, then fled with several Galaxy Notebooks worth $2,800, the letter states. “Video surveillance captured the incident,” the letter states. “During the investigation, law enforcement discovered additional robberies committed on November 29, 2013, and November 30, 2013, of similar electronics at other Walmart and Target stores. Witnesses positively identified Inmate Martin through surveillance photos at those subsequent robberies. “Inmate Martin pled to the robbery and was sentenced to two years in state prison.”

After his release from prison, Martin came to the attention of authorities again in November 2016, when he was stopped in a vehicle with three other passengers and asked for his name and date of birth. Martin gave the officers a phony name and ran when officers told him they were going to detain him, the letter states. “After a foot pursuit Inmate Martin was eventually incapacitated with a Taser and ultimately taken into custody,” the letter says. “Officers were able to identify him and learned he was a parolee at large.” Less than six months later, he was involved in the incident that led to the 10-year prison sentence, the letter says, when he forced his way into his girlfriend’s home. “He located her hiding in her bedroom closet and hit her repeatedly with a closed fist on the face, head, and body, causing visible injuries,” the letter says. “He then dragged her out of the home by her hair to an awaiting car. After he put her in the car, he assaulted her with a belt. “During the investigation, information was gathered that the victim had been working as a prostitute and that Inmate Martin had been assisting and encouraging her to be a prostitute. Text messages and social media conversations revealed that he would tell her what kind of sex buyer she should date, how much money to charge, how to accept payment, and what forms of payment she should accept.”

California corrections spokeswoman Dana Simas said Tuesday afternoon that the parole board denied Martin parole in May 2021 but ended up being released less than a year later. “Prior to reaching a CDCR facility, Martin had already received 508 days of pre-sentencing credits, and received a variety of additional post-sentencing credits,” she wrote in an email. “He was released to Sacramento County probation in February 2022.” The letter to the parole board came as Schubert’s office and 44 other DAs were preparing to sue the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation over policies that they say would result in the “early release” of 76,000 inmates statewide. “As shown by Inmate Martin’s pattern of conduct, he is an assaultive and non-compliant individual and has absolutely no regard for his victims who are left in the wake of numerous serious offenses,” Schubert’s office wrote last April. “He has no respect for others, for law enforcement or for the law. “If he is released early, he will continue to break the law.”

Prison officials dispute the characterization that its rule changes amount to “early releases,” arguing that changes they made in how good conduct credits are applied do not amount to such a policy. But Schubert, who is now running for state attorney general as an independent, sued over the fact that CDCR implemented the changes as “emergency” regulations without public input, and prison officials subsequently opened a public comment period that ends on April 13.

 

Well - there you have it.  Mr. President - What additional gun laws do you think would have prevented this?  He was already breaking the law by simply possessing a firearm.  Let alone - already illegal (by CA law) converted firearms.   ALL WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE STILL BEEN IN JAIL!!

But it's "lax gun laws" that allow this to happen.......Yeah right.

 

 

I really question the intelligence of folks that vote for these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very small percentage of the population commits violent crimes in a metro area. The neighborhood knows who it is, the police know who it is, the prosecutors know who it is, remove them from society. These people don’t fear death, they fear being locked in a cell. Marion County is a prime example of prison reform gone wrong and how being woke costs people their lives. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

A very small percentage of the population commits violent crimes in a metro area. The neighborhood knows who it is, the police know who it is, the prosecutors know who it is, remove them from society. These people don’t fear death, they fear being locked in a cell. Marion County is a prime example of prison reform gone wrong and how being woke costs people their lives. 

Not to mesh the 2 threads, but now with biden's hand picked justice, good riddance....would expect to see more lenient sentences to come.

I know.  I know.  The lefties/rinos/never Trumpers will have yet another excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DE said:

Not to mesh the 2 threads, but now with biden's hand picked justice, good riddance....would expect to see more lenient sentences to come.

I know.  I know.  The lefties/rinos/never Trumpers will have yet another excuse.

I disagree, I think if you look at this locally, which ultimately it is, I think you can get changes made. I think there is a reasonable chance changes may be coming to Indy/Metro. I don’t think SCOTUS has jack shit to do with the issues I’m talking about, automatic bonds, taxpayer funded bail, if they need to go to prison, send them to prison.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I disagree, I think if you look at this locally, which ultimately it is, I think you can get changes made. I think there is a reasonable chance changes may be coming to Indy/Metro. I don’t think SCOTUS has jack shit to do with the issues I’m talking about, automatic bonds, taxpayer funded bail, if they need to go to prison, send them to prison.

 

Hey, no actual intellectual exercise allowed here. You’re only allowed to spout a bunch of slogans, catch-phrases, and other political-inspired gibberish. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I disagree, I think if you look at this locally, which ultimately it is, I think you can get changes made. I think there is a reasonable chance changes may be coming to Indy/Metro. I don’t think SCOTUS has jack shit to do with the issues I’m talking about, automatic bonds, taxpayer funded bail, if they need to go to prison, send them to prison.

 

yes, but what i am saying is, when you have a justice w such a lenient mode of thinking in regards to violent criminals, if something got to the sc, she is sitting there w her ultra weak punishment stances.

4 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Hey, no actual intellectual exercise allowed here. You’re only allowed to spout a bunch of slogans, catch-phrases, and other political-inspired gibberish. 😉

good riddance dude.  just because you do not agree with something doesn't mean it is incorrect.  you of all people should know this in your profession.

Edited by DE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DE said:

good riddance dude.  just because you do not agree with something doesn't mean it is incorrect.  you of all people should know this in your profession.

In fairness, I suppose it’s theoretically possible for something to be both correct and gibberish. 🤣

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DE said:

yes, but what i am saying is, when you have a justice w such a lenient mode of thinking in regards to violent criminals, if something got to the sc, she is sitting there w her ultra weak punishment stances.

Ehh, she’s one of nine and she’s replacing a justice that typically lands on the left side of the aisle, not a hill I’m willing to die on. A LOT of Indy’s problems could be solved by just having a judge look at a criminal’s record and decide bail accordingly rather than have a prescribed bail schedule. This is just simple local policing/justice fixes that will never rise to the level of SCOTUS. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Ehh, she’s one of nine and she’s replacing a justice that typically lands on the left side of the aisle, not a hill I’m willing to die on. A LOT of Indy’s problems could be solved by just having a judge look at a criminal’s record and decide bail accordingly rather than have a prescribed bail schedule. This is just simple local policing/justice fixes that will never rise to the level of SCOTUS. 

ok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

A very small percentage of the population commits violent crimes in a metro area. The neighborhood knows who it is, the police know who it is, the prosecutors know who it is, remove them from society. These people don’t fear death, they fear being locked in a cell. Marion County is a prime example of prison reform gone wrong and how being woke costs people their lives. 

SF Agrees, they should be locked up and strict justice served, just like this perp needed - but when a shooting happens in Sacramento that prompts the POTUS (and the rest of the MSM and the other leftist groups out there) to call for stricter gun laws to distract from their glowing flaws where this obvious really bad guy is let out and commits crimes resulting in what happened here, I have a problem with the normality of it every time it happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

SF Agrees, they should be locked up and strict justice served, just like this perp needed - but when a shooting happens in Sacramento that prompts the POTUS (and the rest of the MSM and the other leftist groups out there) to call for stricter gun laws to distract from their glowing flaws where this obvious really bad guy is let out and commits crimes resulting in what happened here, I have a problem with the normality of it every time it happens. 

thank you.

exactly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll never not laugh at this and since the term “ghost gun” is in high rotation, enjoy the chuckle. 
For anyone who doesn’t know, you are able to build a firearm for personal use, it need not be serialized. You can not legally sell it. My guess is you are FAR more likely to find guns at crime scenes with serial numbers scratched off than not having any to begin with. To buy an 80% receiver, then do the work required to turn it into a functional firearm my guess is beyond the means or work ethic to be employed by many criminals. 
 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...