The 2nd amendment DOES NOT mean you have a right to own an AR-15

[Politruk]

But it's still ok if they have one? I have no legitimate use for one. I'm still allowed to have one. You have no problem with it while expressing an opinion that you have a problem with it.

There are such things as hobbyist gun collectors. They're not part of the problem -- unless a burglar steals their guns and sells them on the black market.

I happen to have a girlfriend who is doing time for that.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

There are such things as hobbyist gun collectors. They're not part of the problem -- unless a burglar steals their guns and sells them on the black market.

I happen to have a girlfriend who is doing time for that.

I've been assaulted in my own home and robbed. Still didn't buy a gun.

What exactly, is the problem?

 

[Politruk]

I've been assaulted in my own home and robbed. Still didn't buy a gun.

What exactly, is the problem?

The problem is the millions of Americans who somehow think gun rights matter politically, which they do not. You will never use a rifle, even an AR-15, to fight government forces, including small-town police forces, with any chance at all of victory.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

The problem is the millions of Americans who somehow think gun rights matter politically, which they do not. You will never use a rifle, even an AR-15, to fight government forces, including small-town police forces, with any chance at all of victory.

You don't know that. And if it wasn't political, we wouldn't be talking about it.

 

[eric_erosfan]

The problem is the millions of Americans who somehow think gun rights matter politically, which they do not. You will never use a rifle, even an AR-15, to fight government forces, including small-town police forces, with any chance at all of victory.

I don't really get why the left is so averse to guns. Especially in the face of actual tyranny.

Maybe alone one person with a gun can't fight a government that has abandoned the Constitution. But a multitude can conduct an effective resistance. A resistance that cannot exist without firearms.

 

[Politruk]

I don't really get why the left is so averse to guns. Especially in the face of actual tyranny.

Maybe alone one person with a gun can't fight a government that has abandoned the Constitution. But a multitude can conduct an effective resistance. A resistance that cannot exist without firearms.

Hussein's Iraq was a heavily armed society. It didn't help.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Hussein's Iraq was a heavily armed society. It didn't help.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/09/10/iraq-changes-its-gun-laws/

Sounds like it was heavily regulated.

 

[MusicForTheDeaf]

 

[Baztrachian]

You don't understand the OP.

They didn't say you shouldn't have any guns at all, just no military style assault weapons, get it? Can you read?

Fuck off with your gun memes you idiot

 

[Politruk]

The issue here is that the courts are too often inserting themselves into clearly defined Executive and Legislative purviews.

To wit: The US Supreme Court has ZERO authority to order the Executive branch to go to El Salvador and take one of their citizens to the United States.

Of course it has that authority.

 

[Baztrachian]

Of course it has that authority.

Really? Where does the USSC have the authority to conduct foreign policy?

 

[Politruk]

Really? Where does the USSC have the authority to conduct foreign policy?

It's not foreign policy. They have the authority to review the legality of the executive's actions. Any actions. Ask any lawyer.

 

[Baztrachian]

It's not foreign policy. They have the authority to review the legality of the executive's actions. Any actions. Ask any lawyer.

But they do not have the authority to order the government to go to El Salvador and take one of their citizens back to the United States.

Also, they can review whatever the heck they want to review but their orders must be limited to their Constitutional purview.

For instance they cannot order the Congress to pass a certain bill, they cannot order the President to sign it, and they cannot conduct foreign policy.

 

[Politruk]

But they do not have the authority to order the government to go to El Salvador and take one of their citizens back to the United States.

They do have the authority to order the U.S. government to let him back into the country, if the Salvadoran government lets him out of prison. And they do have the authority to order the U.S. government to spend whatever money it costs to bring him back here.

 

[Baztrachian]

They do have the authority to order the U.S. government to let him back into the country, if the Salvadoran government lets him out of prison. And they do have the authority to order the U.S. government to spend whatever money it costs to bring him back here.

No, they really don't have that authority.

Nothing in Article Three says they have any say whatsoever over the external affairs of State:

Article. III.​

Section. 1.​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.​

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.​

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[Politruk]

No, they really don't have that authority.

Nothing in Article Three says they have any say whatsoever over the external affairs of State:

These are not external affairs of state. These are internal matters of due process.

 

[Baztrachian]

These are not external affairs of state. These are internal matters of due process.

The thug in question is now in his home country. Yes, some judge might take umbrage at an illegal being deported but no American judge has any authority to order the US Government to go to El Salvador and retrieve this criminal.

 

[Politruk]

The thug in question is now in his home country.

That does not remove his case from the jurisdiction of American courts.

And you know perfectly well that he is no more a thug than Henry Winkler is a thug.

 

[HisArpy]

That does not remove his case from the jurisdiction of American courts.

And you know perfectly well that he is no more a thug than Henry Winkler is a thug.

Lol. According to the SCOTUS the court never had lawful jurisdiction in the first place because Garcia's only remedy is a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the Judicial District where he was held. Which wasn't DC where his lawyer filed the case.

Thus, according to SCOTUS the judge had no authority, and still has no authority, to order anything. Because he has no jurisdiction.

Then there's the matter of what happens if the court makes a finding on someone who is outside the territory of the US. How does the court enforce that decision? They can't order the administration to do something outside the country because that would be a usurpation of Art II powers whereby they direct the administration's activities in foreign affairs.

All they can do is make the order. It's up to the aggrieved party to attempt to enforce it via "sister state" request to the foreign government/courts.

Here, the SCOTUS said the Admin had to "facilitate" Garcia's return but left open what that was supposed to mean. Trump has contacted El Salvador regarding Garcia's return but El Salvador has refused to do so. That's a stalemate which the court cannot change no matter how hard the judge bangs his gavel and screams at the lawyers in the courtroom. All the court can do is order the US to ensure that transportation is available to return Garcia to the US should El Salvador change its mind and agree to his extradition from El Sal to the US. Which the Admin has said it would do.

Because that's what we're really talking about here; extradition. And unless El Sal agrees, the US can't do squat about it other than do a prison break and kidnapping.

Which the court has no authority to order since it would be both a violation of Art II and the law and the court cannot order someone to violate the law.

 

[Bray123]

El Salvador is only keeping him in prison because the Idiotic Supreme Leader is paying then to do that. Any more of those trade deals and the he'll be imposing tariffs.

If he said that the payments are going to stop and that a plane was on its way to collect him, he'd be sat on it within the day.

 

[HisArpy]

El Salvador is only keeping him in prison because the Idiotic Supreme Leader is paying then to do that. Any more of those trade deals and the he'll be imposing tariffs.

If he said that the payments are going to stop and that a plane was on its way to collect him, he'd be sat on it within the day.

Lol. So much coping, so little intelligence.

 

[Baztrachian]

should El Salvador change its mind and agree to his extradition from El Sal to the US.

That's also an issue. El Salvador's extradition treaty with the USA only allows to extradite fugitives from justice to the USA.

https://www.oas.org/ext/Portals/33/Files/TreatiesB/USA_biltreat_elsal_eng_1.pdf

Garcia was deported and is not a fugitive from justice in the USA. The USA has exactly no lawful argument under treaty for bringing this Salvadoran citizen to the USA.

 

[Politruk]

Lol. So much coping, so little intelligence.

Bray is not wrong on any point.

 

[Politruk]

That's also an issue. El Salvador's extradition treaty with the USA only allows to extradite fugitives from justice to the USA.

https://www.oas.org/ext/Portals/33/Files/TreatiesB/USA_biltreat_elsal_eng_1.pdf

Garcia was deported and is not a fugitive from justice in the USA. The USA has exactly no lawful argument under treaty for bringing this Salvadoran citizen to the USA.

OTOH, if he is released, the USA has no legal reason not to let him come back.

 

[Baztrachian]

OTOH, if he is released, the USA has no legal reason not to let him come back.

He's an illegal alien and is barred from re-entry. If he shows up at a US port of entry he'll be refused at best, imprisoned for two years and then deported again at worst.

8 U.S. Code § 1326​