Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Cinnamon

This country full of lawyers

4 posts in this topic

Has lost its freaking mind! There simply is no end to the absurdity. Pulls hair and screams. lol omg  Sorry about that lil tirade but DAMN!

By TODD RICHMOND, Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.

Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.

 

The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.

<snip>

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/08/25/people-in-us-illegally-have-right-to-guns-but-cant

Edited by Cinnamon
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gah!@#!!@$!! ""Old Billy was right: let's kill all the lawyers - kill 'em tonight",

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally im more afraid of using a pen in front of somebody than a lethal weapon.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever read some of the verbage of the laws?  Doctors and lawyers take 8000 level courses and seems they start going backwards.  Half of what they write doesn't make any sense. 

Of course everyone thought the McDonalds spill the coffee in my crotch lawsuit was frivilous, but it turns out there was a problem with the coffee makers regulating temperature.  But they sued McDonalds and not the coffee makers, and McDonalds didn't even sue the coffee makers. 

I was curious about one law and pulled the minutes.  I also had business law.  Most of the time the laws aren't even consistent with the legal process.  I talked to the legal department, and they're all like we don't care if we didn't previously consider this or that, or whether this was erroneous, we slipped the rule in the way we wanted it, and don't try to convince us to change it (we change the rules we like), because we aren't going to change it because of statute of limitations.  It all sounds fine and good, but when the government's involved they breach everything all the time.  It was interesting to find a clause explicit in the minutes that said even if they don't know what they are doing that they still have "to have more control".  Business law states that you follow whatever law is written, and not the emotion that goes with it, but hell, what law wasn't written with some dingy emotion tied to it?  Then they there's the laws and conditions on them written because they don't want redundant court cases showing up over minor problems.  So now we have to do some silly little thing to stay out of the court room, to be consistent with the laws written with a slight deviation. 

When the government decides it isn't going to follow its' own rules, then you have anarchy.  They always try to pawn it off on the citizens deciding that they aren't going to follow the rules and then it's anarchy.  Hell, no!  It's the government that doesn't follow the rules, and everyone else decides well hell why should we?

Edited by counterintelligence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.