Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When did it become illegal to threaten someone.
www.thetrace.org
Yeah. They chased Rittenhouse all the way to the line of Police.
They don't have them back and aren't getting them back because they are ignorant, homocidal criminals.I'll take that to mean you admit no one was shot.
You are far more of a danger to the public than they were. If they pursue this to the end, they will get their guns back.
Where I live if someone calls the police because they're being threatened the police will tell them to call back if they get shot.A couple centuries ago.
In Georgia. We don’t have Brandishing as a crime. All that sort of thing is called Aggravated Assault here. It is a Felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
We don’t have a misdemeanor alternative. So in Georgia those two would have been going to prison for at least seven years.
And were convicted of it.They did actually.
What's wrong with the way they are handling their guns?I have no problems with guns. I have a problem with people who handle their guns like this.
View attachment 879495
View attachment 879499
View attachment 879500
Where I live if someone calls the police because they're being threatened the police will tell them to call back if they get shot.
McClosky assaulted no one. His convictions was a farce. In the first place, that claim is the result of a plea agreement, which means it's a fiction. In the second place, what McClosky did was perfectly legal. In the third place, McClosky was pardoned, which means his plea agreement are null and void.Wrong.
McCloskey was convicted of assault, he acted first:
“This appeal arises out of a petition for replevin in which appellant Mark McCloskey sought the return of two firearms that police had seized pursuant to search warrants in connection with a June 28, 2020, incident in which McCloskey and his spouse exhibited the firearms as a group of protesters passed by their home. They were charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon punishable by up to four years in prison. McCloskey and the State reached a plea agreement whereby McCloskey pleaded guilty to misdemeanor fourth-degree assault and forfeited ownership and possession in the two firearms in exchange for the State dismissing the felony charge….”
Mark McCloskey, Pardoned for Brandishing Guns at Protesters, Can't Get the Guns Back
From today's Missouri Court of Appeals decision in McCloskey v. State, written by Judge James M. Dowd and joined by…reason.com
No it didn't, you fucking moron. The Supreme Court has never ruled on a asset forfeiture case.The Supreme Court has said so.
It can only by violating the Constitution.But the point is more along the lines of yes, property can be seized without a crime being committed.
Wrong. Anything imposed by a conviction is vacated by a pardon.And a crime was committed. The people pled guilty. They were pardoned later. Pardoned means forgiven in context. So the pardon says all is forgiven. But it doesn’t mean nothing happened. So the original deal of surrendering the weapons stands.
Now your trying to weasel. However, weaseling seem to be your modus operandi when you know you are wrong.They don't have them back and aren't getting them back because they are ignorant, homocidal criminals.
I admit no one was shot because no one made that claim, you simply lack the reading skills of a child.
How do you "handle it" when you don't approve of people defending themselves?Where I live the cops will come. But it takes them at least twenty minutes. Probably more. The same for paramedics or fire department. So here you handle it alone, or with neighbors. I wouldn’t be dumb enough to stroll out there without backup of any sort. Not when half of the golden hour is wasted waiting in paramedics.
What's wrong with the way they are handling their guns?
[in the style of Trump]St. Louis lawyer Mark McCloskey has lost another round in his effort to reclaim firearms he and his wife agreed to surrender when they pleaded guilty to misdemeanors in 2021.
These are the whack-jobs who waved guns at protestors, then plead guilty to it to avoid jail time, and were later pardoned by a republican governor they had donated a lot of money to.
They don't need guns, they are obviously unstable.
Too bad they really weren't defending themselves.How do you "handle it" when you don't approve of people defending themselves?
No it didn't, you fucking moron. The Supreme Court has never ruled on a asset forfeiture case.
It can only by violating the Constitution.
Wrong. Anything imposed by a conviction is vacated by a pardon.
Where did you quote a case on civil asset forfeiture?It’s amazing how often you are wrong and remain so certain despite that.
civil forfeiture
www.law.cornell.edu
Supreme Court cases regarding Civil Asset Forfeiture are covered there.
You need to talk to Missouri. They’re under the impression that a Pardon doesn’t do what you say it does.
civil forfeiture
Have you ever thought about doing some research before you make a definitive statement?
They are sweeping each other like morons. Your kind of people.What's wrong with the way they are handling their guns?
The class envy is strong in you, whore.
What's wrong with the way they are handling their guns?
And she was randomly pointing a loaded gun, with her finger on the trigger.They are sweeping each other like morons. Your kind of people.
He is a lawyer who has accomplished enough in his life that he lives in a really nice house. He wears pink shirts. Clearly, he is at least upper-middle class. How in the world can you conclude they are “trash”? LOL! You weirdo.Those misfits? Are you serious? They're trash.
