Current Attempts to destroy Gun rights in Congress

[marke]

Jesus never owned a gun

But if he had you can be sure God's enemies would have tried to take it from Him. Why don't the fearful stop being stupid and take guns away from the thugs instead of trying to confiscate the guns of those who stand in armed opposition to thugs?

 

[calamity]

But if he had you can be sure God's enemies would have tried to take it from Him. Why don't the fearful stop being stupid and take guns away from the thugs instead of trying to confiscate the guns of those who stand in armed opposition to thugs?

That's stupid, since shooting people is anathema (look it up) to what the Jesus man stood for.

 

[marke]

That's stupid, since shooting people is anathema (look it up) to what the Jesus man stood for.

Yes, shooting people in cold blooded murder is wicked rebellion against God. That is why God-fearing humans have guns in the world today, to stop wicked people from killing other people with guns.

 

[pinqy]

Yes, shooting people in cold blooded murder is wicked rebellion against God.

Except for the multiple times God ordered slaughter of innocents in the OT. Or was that ok because they didn’t use guns?

 

[Rich2018]

Tens of millions of Americans own guns and see no problem with them...

So what ?

Thousands of closed-minded leftist socialists are scared to death of guns...

And for good reason

And what about the "closed mind rightist capitalists" who won't have a gun in their home ?

 

[Rich2018]

The minimum standard in any state is probable cause....

To arrest a man yes


Not necessarily to seize property


Did you watch the video ?

YouTube


That guy is a qualified lawyer. Are you ?

In any case, I disagree with civil forfeiture (except under the strictest of rules) so I certainly wouldn’t agree with using that as a standard.

Then work to change the law.

 

[pinqy]

To arrest a man yes


Not necessarily to seize property


Did you watch the video ?

YouTube


That guy is a qualified lawyer. Are you ?





Then work to change the law.

I gave a source, of lawyers, who have a strong interest and have fought strongly against civil forfeiture. That trumps the opinion of someone on youtube. Yes, police have used suspicion only, or outright robbed innocents, but those were illegal actions. Probable cause is the minimum legal standard.

 

[TypicalRussian]

No he didn't, at least no anymore that Queen Elizabeth II ordered the task force to retake the Falklands in 1982

The British government did. The king could not declare a war or a peace.





So now you admit the rest of the Westernized world does NOT base its political system on that of the USA

(just why would it not be as "efficient")

And no it doesn't work well in the USA either. I can and does produce political inertia and lame duck presidents like Obama in his second term
It is a BAD system, and if the USA is successful, it is despite its poor political system, not because of it




No they were part of the British empire - which in case you'd forgotton so were the American colonies

And like the American colonies, no-one forced Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland etc to adopt the British political system

Zimbabwe and Nigeria were both part of the British empire too...but both decided on a presidential form of government with power vested in one man




The Japanese chose to keep their emporer rather than have a president

What examples do you have of the Japanese emperor exercising power ? (are you going to cite Hirohito's 1945 radio broadcast ? (you know that was before the establishment of a constitutional monarch form of government?)




Yes but not like America

The German president holds no power - that is held by the chancellor who sits in the German parliament. Currently it is Angela Merkel





In what ways was the infant USA (which only granted suffrage to about 6% of the population) more democratic than Britain ?





I do, I studied politics and economic history at college.

He was very active in the war

USA is diverse and thats why it works, every European nation has the same size to its region

America fought for independence to be away from the British system not Canada or Australia.

The Japanese needed their emperor, its why they didnt surrender for so long, America HAD to let them keep their emperor otherwise Japan would not surrender but would fall to the Soviets after an extra 10-20 million people die.

Germany picked a President to show a head of state, like other European nations

V&A Exhibition Presents a History of Censorship in the Arts in Britain | EachOther

There are plenty of examples of the British being against free-speech

Well thats good for you if you studied those

 

[bomberfox]

well we can see that bill 5717 has 9 Republican cosponsors and 6 Dem
so does that mean the Republicans are the gun banning party?
just asking
Have a nice afternoon

Its another TD fail thread. Nice thread kill <3

 

[TurtleDude]

Except for the multiple times God ordered slaughter of innocents in the OT. Or was that ok because they didn’t use guns?

are there bans on assault bones of an ass? or worse yet, sound frequency weapons as used to topple Jericho?

 

[TurtleDude]

Its another TD fail thread. Nice thread kill <3

you apparently didn't read past the erroneous information from another poster

That is not the bill Turtledude posted. Yours if from 2018, his is from 2020. Yours is from the 115th congress,his from the 116th congress. Different cosponsors.

This is from Turtledude's post.18 cosponsors no RINOs.
Cosponsors - H.R.5717 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
\All Info - H.R.5717 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Jake Laird Act of 2018 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

This is from yours.15 cosponsors with a lot of RINOs
All Info - H.R.5717 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Jake Laird Act of 2018 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

[pinqy]

are there bans on assault bones of an ass? or worse yet, sound frequency weapons as used to topple Jericho?

Only if the jaw bone has a pistol grip.

 

[Rich2018]

I gave a source, of lawyers, who have a strong interest and have fought strongly against civil forfeiture...

They might do, as is the YouTube presenter I listed

But what they are "fighting" is the current law

Probable cause is the minimum legal standard.

For a person yes

But not for an inanimate object.

As shown in my two examples, the onus is on you to prove "innocence"

The cop merely needs to have "suspicion"


The lawyer I listed gave an example of how this might play out

Do you say he is wrong ?

In which case, where did you get your law degree again ?

 

[TurtleDude]

Only if the jaw bone has a pistol grip.

I heard it had more than 10 teeth in it. sounds like a high capacity feeding device!

 

[Rich2018]

He was very active in the war

The king or queen of England can exert considerable influence

On foreign matters today Queen Elizabeth II's experience is of great value


You need to actually study politics and learn the difference between power and influence

USA is diverse and thats why it works, every European nation has the same size to its region

Actually if anything the USA's diverse nature is more divisive than anything, race riots, prejudice, racial strife and discrimination
Why was there a need for the Civil Rights Movement ?

Martin Luther King ?

Japanese Americans interned in WWII

Rodney King

OJ Simpson trial verdict

Ever see how people assemble in prison ?

Race is a HUGELY divisive issue in the USA

America fought for independence to be away from the British system not Canada or Australia....

Utter rubbish and shows how your knowledge of political history is ignorant

I'd have you know that every British colony had a revolt at some time (with the exception of Nigeria)

And the Revolutionary War was fought for $$$ - specifically for the middle class to make more money
It was NOT fought for "freedom" as only about 6% of Americans actually got suffrage

The Japanese needed their emperor, its why they didnt surrender for so long, America HAD to let them keep their emperor otherwise Japan would not surrender but would fall to the Soviets after an extra 10-20 million people die.

They didn't need their emperor at all
Germany gave up its monarchy after WWI
The retension of the emperor was a sticking point in surrender negotiations, the US couldn't persude the Japese to have a president

Germany picked a President to show a head of state, like other European nations

Specifically an honorary president in a parliamentary political system...not a US style president....or the leader of another "European nation" - Spain

Third world dictatorships adopted a US style presidential form of government

The leader of Spain, General Franco - adopted a form of government combining the head of state with the head of government - like the USA

There are plenty of examples of the British being against free-speech

LOL, so censorship is now anti-free speech

This from the country that boasted the Hollywood blacklist and the House Committee on "Un-American" Affairs

Let's no forget:

Comics Code Authority - Wikipedia


Censorship of broadcasting in the United States - Wikipedia


The Breakdown of Censorship in American Cinema - Inquiries Journal


"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates "indecent" free-to-air broadcasting (both television and radio). Satellite, cable television, and Internet outlets are not subject to content-based FCC regulation. It can issue fines if, for example, the broadcaster employs certain profane words."

Censorship in the United States - Wikipedia


"On Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004, the Federal Communications Commission fined CBS a record $550,000 for Jackson's “wardrobe malfunction,” which exposed the singer's breast during this year's Super Bowl halftime show. ... It received 540,000 about Janet Jackson's breast.”"


Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction’ occurred the last time the Super Bowl was in Houston — The Undefeated


So don't go there...I've lived in the UK and the USA and the USA is way more heavily censored.

Well thats good for you if you studied those

You clearly never have beyond high school social studies.

 

[pinqy]

They might do, as is the YouTube presenter I listed

But what they are "fighting" is the current law





For a person yes

But not for an inanimate object.

As shown in my two examples, the onus is on you to prove "innocence"

The cop merely needs to have "suspicion"


The lawyer I listed gave an example of how this might play out

Do you say he is wrong ?

In which case, where did you get your law degree again ?

He is wrong. One example, and I can show 50 more, but Massachusetts has about the weakest laws protecting citizen’s rights in civil forfeiture: General Law - Part I, Title XV, Chapter 94C, Section 47
Paragraph (d) the commonwealth shall have the burden of proving to the court the existence of probable cause to institute the action, and any such claimant shall then have the burden of proving that the property is not forfeitable pursuant to subparagraph (3), (5), or (7) of said subsection (a). The owner of said conveyance or real property, or other person claiming thereunder shall have the burden of proof as to all exceptions set forth in subsections (c) and (i). “

 

[pinqy]

They might do, as is the YouTube presenter I listed

But what they are "fighting" is the current law





For a person yes

But not for an inanimate object.

As shown in my two examples, the onus is on you to prove "innocence"

The cop merely needs to have "suspicion"


The lawyer I listed gave an example of how this might play out

Do you say he is wrong ?

In which case, where did you get your law degree again ?

He is wrong. One example, and I can show 50 more, but Massachusetts has about the weakest laws protecting citizen’s rights in civil forfeiture: General Law - Part I, Title XV, Chapter 94C, Section 47
Paragraph (d) the commonwealth shall have the burden of proving to the court the existence of probable cause to institute the action, and any such claimant shall then have the burden of proving that the property is not forfeitable pursuant to subparagraph (3), (5), or (7) of said subsection (a). The owner of said conveyance or real property, or other person claiming thereunder shall have the burden of proof as to all exceptions set forth in subsections (c) and (i). “

 

[Rich2018]

He is wrong. One example, and I can show 50 more, but Massachusetts has about the weakest laws protecting citizen’s rights in civil forfeiture: General Law - Part I, Title XV, Chapter 94C, Section 47
Paragraph (d) the commonwealth shall have the burden of proving to the court the existence of probable cause to institute the action, and any such claimant shall then have the burden of proving that the property is not forfeitable pursuant to subparagraph (3), (5), or (7) of said subsection (a). The owner of said conveyance or real property, or other person claiming thereunder shall have the burden of proof as to all exceptions set forth in subsections (c) and (i). “

He's a trained and experienced lawyer - and your legal qualifications are ?


So you're obviously not a lawyer or have any legal training


Seems you can't read either so I'll bold the important bits:


"...the commonwealth shall have the burden of proving to the court the existence of probable cause to institute the action, and any such claimant shall then have the burden of proving that the property is not forfeitable pursuant to subparagraph (3), (5), or (7) of said subsection (a). The owner of said conveyance or real property, or other person claiming thereunder shall have the burden of proof as to all exceptions set forth in subsections (c) and (i). “


So, an inanimate object is regarded as "guilty" until proven "innocent", the owner of such has the burden of proof that it should NOT be forfeited

 

[Rich2018]

He is wrong. One example, and I can show 50 more, but Massachusetts has about the weakest laws protecting citizen’s rights in civil forfeiture: General Law - Part I, Title XV, Chapter 94C, Section 47
Paragraph (d) the commonwealth shall have the burden of proving to the court the existence of probable cause to institute the action, and any such claimant shall then have the burden of proving that the property is not forfeitable pursuant to subparagraph (3), (5), or (7) of said subsection (a). The owner of said conveyance or real property, or other person claiming thereunder shall have the burden of proof as to all exceptions set forth in subsections (c) and (i). “

"In Massachusetts, local police need only probable cause in order to forfeit a property, the burden falls on the owner to demonstrate their innocence or ignorance of a crime in order to reclaim their property, and police can keep up to 100 percent of the proceeds.Jul 26, 2017..."


Why A Report Gave Mass. An '''F''' Grade For Its Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws | Radio Boston


So a police officer's suspicion is enough in some cases. But it's true that a policeman can't just drag you out of your car and claim he thinks you might have stolen it, he needs something more. But if he has it, YOU have to prove "innocence"

It's true that a police officer can also arrest you on suspicion, but you can't be convicted. The burden of proof lies with the state to prove your guilt
However YOU have to prove that your property is innocent.

 

[pinqy]

He's a trained and experienced lawyer - and your legal qualifications are ?

I can read and understand law, and have had to study the 4th amendment extensively.

So you're obviously not a lawyer or have any legal training

I don't need to be when I can read the actual law.

Seems you can't read either so I'll bold the important bits:

You bolded the wrong part:


"...the commonwealth shall have the burden of proving to the court the existence of probable cause to institute the action,
Which means the police had t have PROBABLE CAUSE to seize the property. Probable cause is a low standard. But in MA that's enough to seize property (In my state, the standard is "preponderance of evidence," which is only slightly higher.


and any such claimant shall then have the burden of proving that the property is not forfeitable pursuant to subparagraph (3), (5), or (7) of said subsection (a). The owner of said conveyance or real property, or other person claiming thereunder shall have the burden of proof as to all exceptions set forth in subsections (c) and (i). “

AFTER probable cause has been shown, THEN the burden shifts to the owner to show that the seizure was in error.

But this is a thread about gun control. Is it your claim that all guns should be treated in the same way, and that this is just?

 

[TurtleDude]

He's a trained and experienced lawyer - and your legal qualifications are ?


So you're obviously not a lawyer or have any legal training


Seems you can't read either so I'll bold the important bits:


"...the commonwealth shall have the burden of proving to the court the existence of probable cause to institute the action, and any such claimant shall then have the burden of proving that the property is not forfeitable pursuant to subparagraph (3), (5), or (7) of said subsection (a). The owner of said conveyance or real property, or other person claiming thereunder shall have the burden of proof as to all exceptions set forth in subsections (c) and (i). “


So, an inanimate object is regarded as "guilty" until proven "innocent", the owner of such has the burden of proof that it should NOT be forfeited

that used to be the standard federally. I know, I tried more civil forfeiture cases than anyone in the 6th circuit at one point. And then for several years, we didn't have any-criminal forfeiture was becoming more popular after the standards changed. The last case I tried for the DOJ was a civil forfeiture case and the Government had both the burden of showing probable cause (to seize the property by warrant) and then the burden of proof at trial (preponderance of the evidence-civil standards)

 

[TurtleDude]

I can read and understand law, and have had to study the 4th amendment extensively.



I don't need to be when I can read the actual law.



You bolded the wrong part:


"...the commonwealth shall have the burden of proving to the court the existence of probable cause to institute the action,
Which means the police had t have PROBABLE CAUSE to seize the property. Probable cause is a low standard. But in MA that's enough to seize property (In my state, the standard is "preponderance of evidence," which is only slightly higher.


and any such claimant shall then have the burden of proving that the property is not forfeitable pursuant to subparagraph (3), (5), or (7) of said subsection (a). The owner of said conveyance or real property, or other person claiming thereunder shall have the burden of proof as to all exceptions set forth in subsections (c) and (i). “

AFTER probable cause has been shown, THEN the burden shifts to the owner to show that the seizure was in error.

But this is a thread about gun control. Is it your claim that all guns should be treated in the same way, and that this is just?

He presumes guns are "guilty" and that establishes probable cause. Complete failure legally

 

[Rich2018]

that used to be the standard federally. I know, I tried more civil forfeiture cases than anyone in the 6th circuit at one point. And then for several years, we didn't have any-criminal forfeiture was becoming more popular after the standards changed. The last case I tried for the DOJ was a civil forfeiture case and the Government had both the burden of showing probable cause (to seize the property by warrant) and then the burden of proof at trial (preponderance of the evidence-civil standards)

OK, prove him wrong, prove that a seized object must be returned to the person possessing it, unless the state can prove they obtained it illegally, or didn't pay tax etc.

I happen to know for a fact that if you walk through US customs with a Rolex, you can't keep it if you have no proof you bought it i the USA. The customs will seize it if they suspect you bought it tax free overseas and YOU have to prove you bought it previously in the USA and paid tax in doing so.

How do you explain this:


https://www.aclu-nm.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Summer-2015-Torch-Final.pdf

 

[TypicalRussian]

The king or queen of England can exert considerable influence

On foreign matters today Queen Elizabeth II's experience is of great value


You need to actually study politics and learn the difference between power and influence




Actually if anything the USA's diverse nature is more divisive than anything, race riots, prejudice, racial strife and discrimination
Why was there a need for the Civil Rights Movement ?

Martin Luther King ?

Japanese Americans interned in WWII

Rodney King

OJ Simpson trial verdict

Ever see how people assemble in prison ?

Race is a HUGELY divisive issue in the USA




Utter rubbish and shows how your knowledge of political history is ignorant

I'd have you know that every British colony had a revolt at some time (with the exception of Nigeria)

And the Revolutionary War was fought for $$$ - specifically for the middle class to make more money
It was NOT fought for "freedom" as only about 6% of Americans actually got suffrage




They didn't need their emperor at all
Germany gave up its monarchy after WWI
The retension of the emperor was a sticking point in surrender negotiations, the US couldn't persude the Japese to have a president



Specifically an honorary president in a parliamentary political system...not a US style president....or the leader of another "European nation" - Spain

Third world dictatorships adopted a US style presidential form of government

The leader of Spain, General Franco - adopted a form of government combining the head of state with the head of government - like the USA




LOL, so censorship is now anti-free speech

This from the country that boasted the Hollywood blacklist and the House Committee on "Un-American" Affairs

Let's no forget:

Comics Code Authority - Wikipedia


Censorship of broadcasting in the United States - Wikipedia


The Breakdown of Censorship in American Cinema - Inquiries Journal


"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates "indecent" free-to-air broadcasting (both television and radio). Satellite, cable television, and Internet outlets are not subject to content-based FCC regulation. It can issue fines if, for example, the broadcaster employs certain profane words."

Censorship in the United States - Wikipedia


"On Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004, the Federal Communications Commission fined CBS a record $550,000 for Jackson's “wardrobe malfunction,” which exposed the singer's breast during this year's Super Bowl halftime show. ... It received 540,000 about Janet Jackson's breast.”"


Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction’ occurred the last time the Super Bowl was in Houston — The Undefeated


So don't go there...I've lived in the UK and the USA and the USA is way more heavily censored.






You clearly never have beyond high school social studies.

Queen Elizabeth has no influence today

The diversity factor is rather occupations than race

Farmers, white-collar,blue-collar etc, that is what makes america diverse

japan needed it's emperor because of their honor code, that is why they didnt surrender

Franco was the permanent head of state not the U.S presidential system-bad comparison.

Censoring bad words isn't censorship, America is the freest country in the world.

The USA is not censored at all-the Uk has VERY strict laws, they persecute people for "hate crimes"

Your education is not showing

 

[lurchadams]

All the sponsors currently are Democrats. The chance of this getting passed is almost zero, but it shows what many Democrats want to impose on this Country

Text - H.R.5717 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

the biggest joke is listing hundreds of firearms-many of which are obsolete and no longer relevant as NOT banned.

Who gives a ****?