”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
@HCM addressed it in the post above. This is not a one way street we're traveling. On top of that, he made a complete fool of himself with Sacha Baron Cohen a year or so back.
What we don't need is buffoons, racists, empty suits and miscreants being the face of those who stand with the 2A.
I worked hard to establish a rep professionally and personally...it takes very little these days to lose it.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I guess my take is that this will clearly go nowhere, as everyone knows it’s a bullshit stunt, but that's sort of the point. It’s definitely a conversation starter, as we know that the reason schumer won’t lose any sleep over this is because he’s a long-time senator. Anyone else would have to jump through big hoops, and we all know it.
Plus, what do justices G&K say when they get asked? Option one is "no comment" probably their best and most likely response, but they could also A: take the high road and say "While we do believe the Senator’s statement to be threatening, we do not believe that the statements alone are reason to strip him of his 2A rights..." (can you imagine?)
Or, B: "We we do believe the Senator’s statement to be threatening, and believe that this action is viable under NY law..."
Either way, it’s ‘fuck that Schumer guy’ time. Or, maybe my head is still in the dark. Hardly the first time.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Why would a violation of a NY harassment statute be applicable to words spoken in DC?
Also, disarming his security detail because he “might have access” is laugh-out-loud ridiculous. That’s not how possession works.
I'd agree if GOA had a history of seriously taking on 2A issues. As it stands, they tend to act childish and screechy, and this is just one more high-visibility publicity stunt that will go nowhere... just another chapter in a long book of blatant attention-seeking behavior (in lieu of anything productive - the "in lieu of" is the part that I find irritating).
While I agree with the double edged sword analogy, it is prudent, in this case, to remember this sword was forged in the fires of our opponents on the other side of the 2A argument to be wielded against us. The double edge would appear to be cutting them in this case.
While I dont think this tactic is anything more than a publicity stunt, it does serve to further illustrate the absurdity of "red flag" laws. Additionally, at least someone is doing something other than pearl clutching and "Harumpffff...bad form old sport" type statements. Flip the script on this and have an R type do the same thing and I'll bet my next pension check we would see a forced resignation from the Senate within 24 hours. The double standard in this country has gone beyond sickening from my point of view, and is likely to culminate in consequences none of us want to see or are prepared to face.
As long as the thread is wandering, this seems to be a genuine vengeful-ex-makes-things-up red flag story:
https://reason.com/2020/03/05/she-sa...e-up-his-guns/
The detective who filed the petition admits she just took the allegations as given, w/o attempting any corroboration.
The target of the red flag also got to get an involuntary mental exam.
At the end of the eventual hearing, the prosecutor agreed there was no basis for a continuing order.
I think this is pertinent to the LE section given the failure of the Sheriff’s Detective to conduct any follow up investigation whatso ever before filing. So my question is what are the consequences for the ex-wife and the mother-in-law?
Can they be sued for attorneys fees? Prosecuted for making false statements, she clearly perjured herself is anyone going to do anything about it?