The Goat Pen

aTm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 1:46 pm I think attorneys should be subject to a registry so anybody can look up where they live. We already do that for sex offenders so Im sure there’s no problem

innocentbystander wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:45 pm

DooKSucks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 1:41 pm

innocentbystander wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:48 pm

But that doesn't matter. You have ZERO AUTHORITY to determine why someone may want a high capacity magazine with a high rate of fire. They will tell you that your "lack-of-reason" means nothing to them. And they would be correct. You can't decide for others what kind of firearm they can or can't own because you don't see a reason for something.

Yet federal law — as do most state laws — prevent felons and people subject to domestic violence protective orders from owning firearm, and fully automatic weapons are illegal to own/possess absent special permits….

It’s shocking that you’re wrong yet again.

That was not the point I was making. So no, I am not wrong.

The point I was making is that it doesn't matter what an individual thinks of another individual who likes to own firearms. No individual has the authority to tell me that I can't have an AR-15. I don't own a fire arm. But far be it for me to tell you what you can or can't have.

As far as federal law goes and not being able to own a machine gun, well, the law is wrong. And I would vote to repeal it if I could. If I want an Uzi, I should be able to have an Uzi. We can change a law from 1986 if we want DS. Sometimes the fed fucks up. It took us 49 years to fix Satan's bargain he made with feminists back in 1973.

As far as the protective order goes, I think the TRO prevents you from having a firearm so long as the TRO is in effect. Once it is vacated by another judge who "hears-your-side" (as most of them eventually vacate if no actually charges have been made in an emergency situation) you can march yourself right down to the police department and get your guns back. Just present the same restraining order they presented you when they took your guns with another judge's signature saying that all law enforcement agencies MUST dispose of all records and the order "never happened." If the Chief of Police gives you a hard time with both vacating the order and returning your firearms (as most of them do because there are a "second-set-of-books" which means feminist imperative trumps written state law for law enforcement agencies in vacating TROs) then be civil, record the conversation in its entirety, and sue the police department and the chief for breaking the law in not returning the firearms they confiscated via TRO. Go to court, you wont need a lawyer you already have law on your side. The Chief wont give you your guns back (by the time it goes to court, they will have "lost them") but the judge/jury will give you a big ass check cut from their budget in a civil suit, as well you should. And hopefully, the Chief will lose his job for breaking the law. And he should lose his job.

Jungle Rat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 7:43 am I think we just treat IB as comedy around here. Never seen anybody more wrong about thing. Except e of course.

innocentbystander wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 1:39 am
No one (other than the people who already hate Trump) care about these hearings. It's just confirmation bias for you. The people who are going to prison for Jan 6, are already prosecuted and in prison. The rest, meh.