Search results

I’m the president of my HOA. ;) We’re extremely laid back though. Our only big deal is keeping the siding the same color.

If it's a coop and not a condo, the laws are quite interesting and the "owners" don't fully own the property.

Oh man, you found one! Take back everything I said.

We should all chip in and buy one then make perfect copies of the letter to carry with us to the range.

No, but I’ve never seen it in the numbers that are thrown around. I worked in Manhttan for 4 years. Collars where the knife is the only charge are extremely rare.

These prices look so good... until I factor in the transfer fee, gas and toll to get to the closest ffl willing to not infringe the 2nd.

Over the course of my career I’ve ordered one person collared for a knife, taken one off of one more (butterfly knife, I still have it), and only “verified” the arrest of one more. All three deserved what they got. Besides them, knives don’t even register on my radar unless they’re being used...

Cops are allowed to question perps and make deals for information/contrband. It’s perfectly legal.

Juries don’t jail anyone. Judges do. Pre-civil war, “nullification” was apparently more of a thing. Currently, you’d be hard pressed to find a non-charged jury. And yes, the judge states that juries must rule on the facts and the law as written. You’re talking theory, which as I said in my...

Here’s the post for reference. Let’s stop obfuscating and start debating like adults.

No, I did not. I specifically said that such actions would cause a mistrial. I said nothing about a judge bending jurors to their will. One lone holdout will result in a hung jury with a likely mistrial leading to retrial. In some states, only a “supermajority” is necessary for a guilty...

Except I didn’t say that. Get substantial and prove something. Stop with the one-liner crap. Let’s debate. You can start by clearing up what you said earlier: you implied that justice is served if one juror bucks the other 11 or so (some states have more than 12). Can you explain in more...

The people, as I said awhile back. It’s either work to change from within or start a revolution. Those are the only options. Stomping your foot and screaming “It’s unconstitutional because I say so!” does nothing.

Oh, so I was right? My translation was correct? Who’da thought? Heck.

I always had issues with HP’s prior to doing it. Never understood the x39 HP’s but they were cheap so I have a lot.

I switched to the PSA KS-47 because I couldn’t take the constant mag issues in the AR platform. I had literally every brand possible. While these are the best, they gave me issues as well.

Fyi: Sure about this? Do you really know what happens when one person bucks the rest of the jury?

I’ve posted numerous links regarding actual Constitutional law. I’ve no interest in responding to hyperbole. For just one thread, calm your emotions and debate intelligently.

He absolutely was not happy about the decision. For anyone interested, the events surrounding Marbury v. Madison, beginning with Adam's appointments, are an amazing study in political intrigue and the early parties within our government. These were two men who would end their lives as great...

You sum it up well, where our personal beliefs and the law rub against each other. I’m not saying that what we believe is not true. I’m pointing out that it doesn’t matter and some of the more off-the-wall statements frequently seen on sites like this one are simply assinine (not directed at yours).

Work within the system to change it or foster a second revolution. Notbeing facetious, those are your only options. It’s the same scenario the Founders faced.

Jabs aside... Human nature is why decisions are rarely unanimous. This has existed from the dawn of time and always will. Curruption is a specific term with specific consequences under the law based on the scenario in which it presents instelf. Simply being in disagreement with your beliefs is...

Ok so address what I said then, don’t just pontificate. What happens when a jury tells the judge they are finding someone not guilty due to disagreement with the law, regardless of the facts of the case?

I’m not dicussing perfect world scenarios. I’m posting evidence of how things actually work in this country per the rule of law we live under.

I didn’t say that, but ok. I’m well aware by now that most of the time these conversations are not debates based on fact and law. I will continue to only post that way though.

Federal court rejects Third Amendment claim against police officers

They are welcome to address this as well: Article III

If anyone wants to address why the living founders - including Thomas “drain the blood of tyrants” Jefferson - ignored M v M, they are more than welcome. I’m all ears. Or they can just keep pontificating. Goperfect, I apologize for bringing actual Constitutional law into this conversation. ;)