Uvalde PD, school district PD no longer cooperating with investigation into school shooting

a reply to: FamCore

I thought it was interesting to read an article stating Biden wants to raze the school and build a new one. Yes, it is a good idea...but it seems awfully fast. Makes me think of covering up evidence of some sort also.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am.

I swear were stuck on a horrible, repeating playlist of the utmost mundane topics.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: carewemust

Civilians can NOT own an automatic weapon.

The main federal law governing fully automatic weapons is called the National Firearms Act, or NFA. First enacted in 1934, this federal law regulates fully automatic weapons, suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices such as bombs or grenades. The NFA was subsequently modified in 1968 by the Gun Control Act and in 1986 by the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Items included in the NFA are referred to colloquially as “NFA items,” and are highly regulated. A special license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is required to manufacture, sell, and own any of these items, without exception. Whereas regular gun manufacturers and dealers must obtain a Federal Firearms License, or FFL, to legally make and sell non-NFA firearms, entities who wish to make or sell NFA items must obtain an additional license on top of the FFL. These dealers are referred to as FFL/SOT (special occupational tax) or Class 3 FFL dealers. It is a lengthy and burdensome process that requires extensive investigation by ATF.

Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”

Democrats are once again trying to exploit a shooting for nothing more than political gains, namely destruction of the 2nd amendment.

Didn't Salvadore Ramos use an Automatic Rifle? An AR-15?

YES..he LAWFULLY purchased one: en.wikipedia.org...

You're making some very strange posts as of late , seem really out of character

Staying stuck in the same paradigm, attributing all of societal ills to the agency of your ire all but solidifies that youll become everything you hate.

Others have warned over the years.

a reply to: JinMI

Yeah the 9th circuit ruling violates the Heller ruling by scotus, namely the "commonly owned" standard scotus set. I thought sctous already took this case but I was wrong so my apologies. The fact there is opposing rulings in the federal system tells me scotus will have to take it up at some point.

originally posted by: Dontlietome
a reply to: FamCore

The Uvalde PD are soulless scumbags . They helped cause the death of all these kids . They are by far the second most guilty party . They should go to jail .Now they’re flat out not saying anything whatsoever. Just in case we didn’t think they could get any sleazier , they do this . If they’re not going to jail then they should be fired and the public know who they are so they can’t let us get slaughtered again

I’m willing to bet everything the self righteous antifa scum don’t even think to doxx these pigs.

originally posted by: murphy22
Why would they? It is all "legal" and "stuff"!
Why would a "LEO" agency, "police union", with a good "dental plan",...Not want to "incriminate" themselves?... That is so 5th. Amendment, obviously they're guilty of something!..They should be arrested!...lol!

Honestly?.. "Law Enforcement" has no "legal" obligation" to do "anything", LITERALLY. ... They have no "legal" obligation, to "protect and serve", anyone. .. other than to "collect revenue", for their "employer" they honestly have no "legal" reason for existence.. That is a legal fact. .... I'll let you in, on a "secret", ... You ain't, the employer.

the worst part is that,
they didn't even call 911 as a crime was being committed!

oh wait!

a reply to: JinMI

Agreed

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

Yeah the 9th circuit ruling violates the Heller ruling by scotus, namely the "commonly owned" standard scotus set. I thought sctous already took this case but I was wrong so my apologies. The fact there is opposing rulings in the federal system tells me scotus will have to take it up at some point.

Gotcha.

While the "weapons of war" statement upheld as a barrier, im worried about any 2a rulings from SCOTUS.

That term has been weaponized, no pun intended, while lacking any definition or statute. Legislating from the bench as it were.

a reply to: JinMI

Yup and I blame Democrats and their intentional ignorance on the topic and Democrat voters who cant think for themselves, instead basking in what they are told to believe... At what point did we decides that when a person is elected to any government position they are all of a sudden an expert on all topics?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ive heard a few interviews with Kari Lake (AZ), MTG(GA), few others I cant remember.

When asked about the NFA and a push for aboloshing it, these folks dont know what it is.

Plotiticians and leaders should not be synonymous.

I cant remember any poloticians that would take an offensive position on the 2A.

a reply to: JinMI

Our issue with the 2nd amendment stems from the intent of the founding fathers. The US Constitution was never suppose to apply to the states, but DC and federal employees. The states were suppose to do the governing of their state wall to wall.

Baron vs Baltimore (1833 i think) was a case brought by Barron citing the city of Baltimore violated his federal rights. It made its way to Scotus and they ruled against Barron, reaffirming that the constitution did not apply to citizens of the states.

It was not until the adoption of the 14th amendment, shortly after the civil war, that scotus made the change. The 14th amendments was designed to apply ONLY to the southern states that broke away from the Union. Scotus debated the issue and came up against the issue of have constitutional amendments that only applied to the citizens of some states and not others.

Instead of striking the amendment down they opted to apply the 14th amendment, and by extension the full federal constitution, to all states.

Prior to that the states were in control of their own gun laws. Some states allowed ownership while some states outright banned ownership. So we ran into the issue of trying to balance the US constitution and the various state laws on the same topic. We are still dealing with that problem today.

a reply to: JinMI

Oh God.. If a person does not know what the various laws and what scotus says on those laws then they should not weigh in on the topic until they learn (yeah I know I look hypocritical for being wrong on scotus taking the case etc).

a reply to: Xcathdra

I get that. RvW is going to hammer that point home.

Thus why I bring up the unconstitutionality of the NFA.

Looking at it as the constitution intended, its unlawful in assertion every bit as much as it is to apply to all states.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

Oh God.. If a person does not know what the various laws and what scotus says on those laws then they should not weigh in on the topic until they learn (yeah I know I look hypocritical for being wrong on scotus taking the case etc).

Well, I forgive you nobody from nowhere. Not holding or in pursuit of public office.

However to those people who would wish to lead, its just about a deal breaker.

a reply to: JinMI

True but thankfully Supreme Court rulings can be overturned decades down the road and as society changes. However restricting the 2nd amendment, in my opinion, would be a bridge to far and end in civil war 2.0

a reply to: Xcathdra

Absolutely!

Which is why I have to wonder about the "weapons of war" quote.

Its technically not legally binding as there is no statute or definition. BUT, and it may simply be a plotitical play, that is used to further restrictions and acquisition.

A gross misstep IMO.

a reply to: JinMI

It is a political ploy and nothing else. Every time Democrats argument on any topic is not gaining the traction they want, they turn it into something else using language designed to scare the hell out of people.

I mean look at the mass shootings and where they occurred under Obama. Compare that to Trump and now Biden. We seem to have gotten a break under Trump but picks back up under Biden.

Just like Obama try to sign the US up to a UN plan to restrict firearm ownership. It did not even come into his thought process that it would be illegal under our constitution but he didnt care. Thats like Biden giving away US sovereignty away to the WHO.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

Yeah the 9th circuit ruling violates the Heller ruling by scotus, namely the "commonly owned" standard scotus set. I thought sctous already took this case but I was wrong so my apologies. The fact there is opposing rulings in the federal system tells me scotus will have to take it up at some point.

Quite a few people who make their living following these things very closely have pretty much the same consensus; a decision on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. Bruen by the end of June if not sooner.

Hopefully they get it right.

a reply to: FamCore


Seems like the Chief epically failed!

In combat cowardice is punished by death.

Now that this is out of the way let’s discuss just being stupid. They think they are protecting each other with that hold the blue line crap but plans are being made to sacrifice someone else besides these children. By shutting up everyone at that scene is leaving themselves wide open to being the one standing when the music stops.

To not get out in front of this is stupid and you risk being suicided. I would be telling everyone that would listen my story and hope for a new identity in Alaska.

Cops are really stupid.