aide with unlicensed gun arrested inside longworth house

[butters]

dunno, it's been quiet on the western front about him

i did see a mention on twitter that madison cawthorne brought him in but have no clue if that's true

there's clearly some problem with someone being able to walk on into a building like longworth with a firearm in their bag...a 'forgotten', unlicensed firearm at that. So was it a case of him walking through with someone like cawthorne, seen to have prestige and therefore not stopped initially and bags only checked after their entrance, or was it noted and ignored by a trump-invested security guard but was then noticed by a guard doing their job and acted upon?

 

[Lazaran]

dunno, it's been quiet on the western front about him

i did see a mention on twitter that madison cawthorne brought him in but have no clue if that's true

there's clearly some problem with someone being able to walk on into a building like longworth with a firearm in their bag...a 'forgotten', unlicensed firearm at that. So was it a case of him walking through with someone like cawthorne, seen to have prestige and therefore not stopped initially and bags only checked after their entrance, or was it noted and ignored by a trump-invested security guard but was then noticed by a guard doing their job and acted upon?

The penalty for bringing a gun into critical areas of the Capitol should be so severe that "forgetting" shouldn't factor into the equation.

"You forgot???" Fine. Go to prison for ten years mandatory.

If the guy did make it past a security point that should have stopped him, then the security officer(s) should face mandatory discipline or termination.

I bet that would cut down on "forgotten" unregistered handguns in the Capitol.

*nods*

 

[HisArpy]

No right in the BoR is absolute. Time, place and manner restrictions of free speech are perfectly constitutional. And so is a law that says, "No guns here!"

You have a reading comprehension problem. Seriously.

There are 4 little words which should mean SOMETHING even to someone as socially inept as you are.

...shall not be infringed.


Tell us again how the government created by, and constrained by, the document with those 4 little words in it can make laws in direct contravention of the restriction those 4 words place upon that government.

 

[YDB95]

You have a reading comprehension problem. Seriously.

There are 4 little words which should mean SOMETHING even to someone as socially inept as you are.

...shall not be infringed.


Tell us again how the government created by, and constrained by, the document with those 4 little words in it can make laws in direct contravention of the restriction those 4 words place upon that government.

There are four other little words at the other end: "A well regulated militia". Ain't nothing well regulated about letting everybody and their cousin have military grade weapons and carry them everywhere.

 

[pecksniff]

You have a reading comprehension problem. Seriously.

There are 4 little words which should mean SOMETHING even to someone as socially inept as you are.

...shall not be infringed.


Tell us again how the government created by, and constrained by, the document with those 4 little words in it can make laws in direct contravention of the restriction those 4 words place upon that government.

Because no right in the BoR is absolute. There are probably even constitutionally permissible circumstances where you can be forced to let troops stay in your house.

 

[GothTalk]

Because no right in the BoR is absolute. There are probably even constitutionally permissible circumstances where you can be forced to let troops stay in your house.

I didn't see any exceptions to 2A in the Constitution.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Next up: Wingnut Nation explains how a severely mentally incapacitated person with multiple felony convictions can walk in off the street and purchase an M50 machine gun without any restrictions whatsoever, becoz "there are no exceptions in the Second Amendment".

#DerpWithoutEndAmen
#FreedomToMassMurderSchoolChildren

 

[HisArpy]

There are four other little words at the other end: "A well regulated militia". Ain't nothing well regulated about letting everybody and their cousin have military grade weapons and carry them everywhere.

Unfortunately for you, had you actually absorbed some of the knowledge about the prefactory clause as determined by SCOTUS in DC v. Heller, you understand what those particular 4 words actually mean.

Hint: It's not what you think. It's not even close.

 

[HisArpy]

Because no right in the BoR is absolute. There are probably even constitutionally permissible circumstances where you can be forced to let troops stay in your house.

You should probably go read the 3rd Amendment before you shoot off your mouth. It allows the quartering of troops in time of war if there is a law which authorizes the government to do it. That's not an "exception" to the 3rd Amendment, it's the purpose of it.


Now, other than the 2nd Amendment, show me another Amendment in the BOR which specifically prohibits infringement in its language.

 

[HisArpy]

Next up: Wingnut Nation explains how a severely mentally incapacitated person with multiple felony convictions can walk in off the street and purchase an M50 machine gun without any restrictions whatsoever, becoz "there are no exceptions in the Second Amendment".

#DerpWithoutEndAmen
#FreedomToMassMurderSchoolChildren

You do realize (I hope) that what you say is so fucking stupid you should be embarrassed to have posted it.

Consider that certain parts of the Constitution/BOR only apply to those those US Citizens who haven't had some of their Rights revoked due to conviction for a felony. This isn't my opinion, it's fact. The Right to Vote is 1 of those things Felons don't traditionally have under the Constitution (go look it up). Gun possession is another of those things (by law).

Here's the thing you aren't getting (because you're stupidly wedded to the crap narrative about guns); if you allow 1 (the Right to Vote) then it's YOU who opened Pandora's box to allow the other, not me.

Now tell us how intelligent you are to have brought that up for everyone to see and laugh at you for.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let's review: BotanyProudBoy made the following claim

I didn't see any exceptions to 2A in the Constitution.

...and you're claiming HE is wrong.

You do realize (I hope) that what you say is so fucking stupid you should be embarrassed to have posted it.

Consider that certain parts of the Constitution/BOR only apply to those those US Citizens who haven't had some of their Rights revoked due to conviction for a felony. This isn't my opinion, it's fact. <derp snip>

If I'm reading you correctly, you're claiming Rights can be "revoked" upon conviction for a felony. Let's assume for a moment that your highly speculative position is true. Would it then follow then, upon conviction of a felony, a felon can have his 8th amendment right to "no cruel and unusual punishment" somehow "revoked" and therefore we can torture said felon to death by any means we wish. Could we bring back the Iron Maiden (not the band, the torture device).

I look forward to your next installment of "situational Rights as I see 'em".

#MachineGunz4Everyone

 

[GothTalk]

Next up: Wingnut Nation explains how a severely mentally incapacitated person with multiple felony convictions can walk in off the street and purchase an M50 machine gun without any restrictions whatsoever, becoz "there are no exceptions in the Second Amendment".

#DerpWithoutEndAmen
#FreedomToMassMurderSchoolChildren

Let's review: BotanyProudBoy made the following claim

...and you're claiming HE is wrong.

Next up, Rob still scrounging for that "Except for people (D)'eez don't like!!" clause on the Bill of Rights.

Just like the self discipline to not be a fat ass or poor, he can't actually deliver.

 

[pecksniff]

I didn't see any exceptions to 2A in the Constitution.

You won't see any exceptions to the 1A either, but there are still ways speech can get you in trouble and invoking the 1A won't help.

 

[HisArpy]

Let's review: BotanyProudBoy made the
following claim

...and you're claiming HE is wrong.


If I'm reading you correctly, you're claiming Rights can be "revoked" upon
conviction for a felony. Let's assume for a moment that your highly speculative
position is true. Would it then follow then, upon conviction of a felony, a felon
can have his 8th amendment right to "no cruel and unusual punishment"
somehow "revoked" and therefore we can torture said felon to death by any
means we wish. Could we bring back the Iron Maiden (not the band, the torture
device).

I look forward to your next installment of "situational Rights as I see 'em".

#MachineGunz4Everyone

More of your insane need to pontificate without knowledge or understanding.

Did you not notice where I said:

Consider that certain parts of the Constitution/BOR only apply to those
US Citizens who haven't had some of their Rights revoked due
to conviction for a felony. This isn't my opinion, it's fact. The Right to Vote is 1
of those things Felons don't traditionally have under the Constitution (go look
it up). Gun possession is another of those things (by law).

So, you completely missed it and went off on some stupid tangent about something I never said as if you needed to prove how absolutely uninformed and psychotic you are. Trust me, you didn't need to prove it, we already knew.

As for the "go look it up" part I mentioned; here ya go:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/civil-and-constitutional-rights-convicted-felons

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-rights-do-convicted-felons-lose/


#2 above is particularly enlightening because it lists what Rights Felons lose as
well as saying that SOME of those lost Rights can be restored. Please note that
the Right to Bear Arms in the 2nd Amendment is NOT one of the Rights which
can be restored. Also note that misdemeanor Domestic Violence convictions
ALSO result in the permanent loss of 2A Rights.

So, in your zeal to show how much of an ignorant asshole you can be on the
interwebz, you decided to just ignore what I posted while going off on some
stupid, holier than thou, incomprehensible rant about things I never said.

"But but Muh freedumbz to say stupid shit" doesn't really fly when we're talking
about established FACTS regarding someone losing their Constitutional Rights
after a felony conviction. Yet, for some reason you decided that opening the
Pandora's box about "felons buying and carrying guns" means that Conservatives
support doing it, even though they don't. Which also TOTALLY belies the Leftist
belief in restoring Rights to convicted Felons. Unless what you're really
saying is that only those Rights you agree with can be restored. Which
seems sort of biased and racist to me since most convicted Felons are Black
or other minorities.

There's there's the issue of why don't you believe all Rights are equally
important? If you say you believe that, then shouldn't all Rights be restored
to Convicted Violent offenders? Even for the repeat violent offenders?

And, if that's the case, who is it who is really saying that Felons should be
allowed to buy and carry "machineguns"? Me, or you?

Seriously, it's like you're an ignorant shit with a big mouth who has an
internet connection but no actual connection with reality.

 

[HisArpy]

You won't see any exceptions to the 1A either, but there are still ways speech can get you in trouble and invoking the 1A won't help.

4 little words.

Or didn't you get that part?

 

[GothTalk]

You won't see any exceptions to the 1A either, but there are still ways speech can get you in trouble and invoking the 1A won't help.

I understand there are anti-civil rights states, most of them blue that will ILLEGALLY prosecute people for exercising their 2A rights.

Doesn't make it right.

 

[pecksniff]

I understand there are anti-civil rights states, most of them blue that will ILLEGALLY prosecute people for exercising their 2A rights.

Doesn't make it right.

Longworth building is federal jurisdiction.

 

[pecksniff]

4 little words.

Or didn't you get that part?

Those four words make no legal or constitutional difference. Might as well have said "shall make no laws," it's all the same, and you won't find any court that says different. There is nothing in the wording that makes the 2A any more sacred or inviolable than the 1A.

 

[GothTalk]

Longworth building is federal jurisdiction.

All the more reason for it to be no different than any other public space.

Those four words make no legal or constitutional difference.

Yea especially since you're ignoring the Constitution.

Anti-American's gotta anti-American.

There is nothing in the wording that makes the 2A any more sacred or inviolable than the 1A.

Correct.

So why are (D)'eez so hard to violate both??

 

[HisArpy]

Those four words make no legal or constitutional difference. Might as well have said "shall make no laws," it's all the same, and you won't find any court that says different. There is nothing in the wording that makes the 2A any more sacred or inviolable than the 1A.

You're a fucking idiot.

Shall:

Shall/May

Use of "shall" and "may" in statutes also mirrors common usage; ordinarily
"shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/97-589.html

"The mandatory 'shall' ... normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial
discretion." Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S.
26, 35 (1998)

Further, in interpreting Statutes and Constitutional clauses/amendments, Canons
of Statutory Interpretation require that Statutes and Constitutional
clauses/amendments are to be read as a whole, in context, and, if possible,
the court is to give effect to every word.

So, your idea that the words in the 2nd Amendment can just be ignored
is complete bullshit. Any interpretation REQUIRES that "...shall not" be given
effect as a MANDATORY restriction. Further your intended or contemplated
interpretation of not including them as part of what the Amendment means, is
not allowed because they MUST be included, in context, and given effect.


Saying otherwise means you're a fucking idiot. Which we already know.

 

[jaF0]

Guards shuuda just shot the fucker.

 

[HisArpy]

Guards shuuda just shot the fucker.

Seems to me that your idea goes against the concept that the guards should be defunded so that they stop murdering minorities who have their hands up.

What was needed here was an intervention so that the bag "person" could be helped rather than victimized by the "systemic white supremacy" inherent in our government.

 

[butters]

military aide arrested at a White House security gate Thursday after Secret Service found loaded firearm in a bag during security check

Patrick James Tansey, 54, who has an address listed in Virginia, was charged with carrying a pistol without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm and ammunition. The affidavit says the Smith & Wesson gun was not registered in D.C.

Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, said Tansey works at the White House and has credentials to access the grounds, but is not authorized to be armed.

so, a military aide... should be familiar with firearms? imagine so
brings loaded, illegal gun to the White House, and then is let go till oct.5th. wtf? is he gonna say he 'just forgot it was in his bag'?