However you feel about these protesters, fuck these anti-terror laws being used for shit that isn't terrorism.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
However you feel about these protesters, fuck these anti-terror laws being used for shit that isn't terrorism.
What I'm taking about is separate from whats going on now, but why it is occurring.
FTA:
Why was that law used? Why are we using anti-terror laws to prosecute crimes that aren't terrorism?
You don't get to decide whether or not you can use a law. Ether it applies or it does. If it does, then you must enforce it.
The real issue here is that minimum sentencing laws are bullshit.
I'll admit that I'm not the most fluent in legal matters, but is that saying that prior to this statute, that there were no other laws designed to prosecute damage of public property by fire, or that this law, created to combat terrorism as stated, automatically supersedes other such laws, or that this law was written to replace older statutes and is the only law written to deal with this situation, whether or not the crime could be reasonably deemed terrorism?
Yes, this law legally replaces previous statutes as related to federal lands and is thus the standard by which they need to be judged until ether the statute is replaced, rewritten, ruled to be incorrectly applied by a Federal Court of Appeals (it hasn't been), or ruled invalid by the Supreme Court (who have better things to do). This doesn't mean the law isn't dumb or poorly written, but there hasn't been a need to address it before now because it hasn't come up... and the fact that it's been on the books since the 90's ether means it's been doing it's job or has been used so infrequently that no one noticed.
Mind you, this is a pretty unique situation anyway. No one ever expected someone to be dumb enough to BURN DOWN FEDERAL LANDS for such a small time in the clink, but these idiots did.
I'm surprised that "re-sentencing" is a thing at all. I would have thought that'd be a variant of double jeopardy, but apparently not. Usually when the "state" makes an error in prosecution, they don't get to go back and get a do-over on that type of thing. It favors the individual, which IMO is a good thing.
But beyond that, I liked the summary above, but it seems to be a large point of contention on if the fires set were approved or not. If, as claimed, they were, and then later come back with "oh we approved it, but it got out of control, and btw we think you're poaching too, so let's throw you in prison" then that's really fishy. But if it's just a claim, then it still gets into weird territory. What I mean is, if you start a fire on your own land, and it spreads to federal land unintentionally (let's say it's not intentional for now), what does that fall under? You did legal activity that got out of hand, so... what? I honestly don't know. The "why" doesn't even matter at that point IMO.
Credit to the lawyer on this one though that they have publicly made statements that their clients are not affiliated with, nor have any comment about the occupation. Smart move.
But beyond that, I liked the summary above, but it seems to be a large point of contention on if the fires set were approved or not. If, as claimed, they were, and then later come back with "oh we approved it, but it got out of control, and btw we think you're poaching too, so let's throw you in prison" then that's really fishy. But if it's just a claim, then it still gets into weird territory. What I mean is, if you start a fire on your own land, and it spreads to federal land unintentionally (let's say it's not intentional for now), what does that fall under? You did legal activity that got out of hand, so... what? I honestly don't know. The "why" doesn't even matter at that point IMO.
Credit to the lawyer on this one though that they have publicly made statements that their clients are not affiliated with, nor have any comment about the occupation. Smart move.
I thought you were kidding about this being prevalent, but it must be widespread enough that this hash tag is trending on my Facebook news feed to mock these guys. It seriously says "#YallQuaeda: Hashtag used to mock militia that took over building at Oregon Wildlife Refuge".
My new favorite I've seen- #VanillaIsis
Last edited:
So in it's own special level of irony, #VanillaISIS started an armed siege in the middle of nowhere without bringing food or water, and are now asking for donations.
Because nothing says "independence" like asking for handouts because they forgot to bring supplies to an abandoned building in the middle of nowhere in winter.
Because nothing says "independence" like asking for handouts because they forgot to bring supplies to an abandoned building in the middle of nowhere in winter.
Wait, don't most of these militia types self-identify as survivalists?
I am a survivalist and a hick.
If Ammon Bundy hadn't gone on TV and declared that they were ready to hold out for years, there would probably be a little less mockery on that point.
And we already know the Asians thing is not true because @bhamv3 is an eternal disappointment.
GasBandit
Staff member
Another day, another overreaching executive order. Obama thinks he can close the so-called "gun-show loophole" by Presidential decree.
That's not going to go over well, I think.
In other news, it occurred to me when I heard his voice on the radio today... Ted Cruz's voice is a spot on copy of Dana Carvey's impression of George H.W. Bush.
That's not going to go over well, I think.
In other news, it occurred to me when I heard his voice on the radio today... Ted Cruz's voice is a spot on copy of Dana Carvey's impression of George H.W. Bush.
Dave
Staff member
It's only overreaching if you disagree with it just as it's only activist judges if they rule against what you believe in. It's not like Congress was going to do anything, and it's something that most Americans agree on.
GasBandit
Staff member
"Congress has failed to act" is not grounds for appropriating the powers of the legislative branch. If most americans agree on it, they can elect representatives who will act upon their will.
Just because the second amendment says that *congress* shall make no law doesn't mean the President gets to.[DOUBLEPOST=1451964257,1451963965][/DOUBLEPOST]A better measure of "is this overreaching" is to consider what you'd think if "President Trump" issued the exact opposite executive order. Say, for example, eliminating any requirement for any firearm dealer to be licensed or perform background checks. Kinda wish that one had to go through congress, wouldn't ya?
The laws that affect dealers in established locations are enforced in a round-about way already, because they haven't been able to establish laws that aren't struck down by second amendment challenges. I can't recall the details, and I'm not interested in looking them up again, but it's similar to getting Capone on tax laws rather than the laws that he was able to break without getting caught.
So your statement could equally be applied the other direction - it's insane that congress is able to pass laws that effectively limit 2nd amendment rights without actually falling afoul of the second amendment using approaches and laws never meant to impact firearm sales.
To be plain, there is a loophole, the government is using it to restrict rights guaranteed by the constitution, and you're angry they can't take the loophole further.
Ah, yes, because in the USA, there are always plenty of options to choose from - it's not like in most states and for most functions, you can choose between two variations on the same theme.
Mind that a representative democracy with several parties, like Belgium, doesn't fare much better in practice, that's not what I'm saying.
But even if all senators and congressmen were elected on this one, sole issue, and they were all magically in favor of a complete fire arm ban, they'd still get struck down by the Supreme Court. So, no, they can't just vote for the right guy.
We've amended the Constitution so many times it's just hilarious when people hide behind it as unimpeachable perfection. It was crafted by rich white male land (slave) owners when electricity and the telephone didn't exist, and guns could fire once or twice per minute if you were incredibly skilled. The Constitution was full of garbage that we've thrown out, and gun ownership will be no different.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, when it comes to gun control, the two major parties actually do pretty much hold opposite positions. So in this particular case, there actually is a choice. Even Texas does elect Democrat politicians from time to time.
And there is a process for amending the Constitution. And yes, we have done so many times. That process is made a certain way for very good reasons - and it is not lawful to circumvent that process by other, more "convenient" means. Because remember - if it goes in your favor today, the same "easy" process will be used against you tomorrow. And every time a president overreaches with an executive order, we move one step further from representative democracy and one step closer to totalitarianism.
So for some interesting takes on the matter, I went to check out the Volokh Conspiracy since while they are a bit right-of-center they also have some pretty straight-forward legal analyses.
The difference of opinion is actually fairly fascinating. The only thing they really agree on is that since the white house brief is explicitly not an executive order or series of orders, nor worded like one, the brief amounts to suggestions of policy changes by the ATF as to how they classify gun dealers and applications to circumvent background checks (corporate gun trusts, etc.), and has no actual bearing on the ability of Americans to own guns as a matter of law.
David Bernstein of George Mason (who is also probably the VC's resident write-rightwing-screed/book-blaming-Obama-make-millions guy) actually mostly brushes the whole thing off as being fairly inconsequential, with the mild point that the lack of consequence may be a sign that the executive branch is starting to back off of unilateral actions and that is good for the country.
Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern (who is mostly known as a pro-Israel international legal wonk) considers the policy suggestions very minor in the face of existing law and not a question of overreach, but believes that the brief is really more of a public tactic intended to raise the level of uncertainty on the dealer side about whether they are hobbyists or "engaged" dealers and allow the ATF to deal with unlicensed gun sales on a case-by-case basis.
David Kopel of the Independence Institute (who is also a Cato guy) has some concerns, but none of them are with the ATF policy adjustments (which he is actually in favor of). He thinks that the clarifications and streamlining around how FFL licenses are approved will actually dismantle the Clinton-era approach to deeply limiting FFLs and make it easier for unlicensed dealers in the grey areas to apply and get licensed. His major concern is that the language of the policy suggestion around "mental defective" could be used to do an end-run around Social Security Beneficiaries who are financially-represented by someone else. He's not saying that the policy suggestion is actually unconstitutional because there are no explicit laws on the topic, but would like Congress to address it.
The difference of opinion is actually fairly fascinating. The only thing they really agree on is that since the white house brief is explicitly not an executive order or series of orders, nor worded like one, the brief amounts to suggestions of policy changes by the ATF as to how they classify gun dealers and applications to circumvent background checks (corporate gun trusts, etc.), and has no actual bearing on the ability of Americans to own guns as a matter of law.
David Bernstein of George Mason (who is also probably the VC's resident write-rightwing-screed/book-blaming-Obama-make-millions guy) actually mostly brushes the whole thing off as being fairly inconsequential, with the mild point that the lack of consequence may be a sign that the executive branch is starting to back off of unilateral actions and that is good for the country.
Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern (who is mostly known as a pro-Israel international legal wonk) considers the policy suggestions very minor in the face of existing law and not a question of overreach, but believes that the brief is really more of a public tactic intended to raise the level of uncertainty on the dealer side about whether they are hobbyists or "engaged" dealers and allow the ATF to deal with unlicensed gun sales on a case-by-case basis.
David Kopel of the Independence Institute (who is also a Cato guy) has some concerns, but none of them are with the ATF policy adjustments (which he is actually in favor of). He thinks that the clarifications and streamlining around how FFL licenses are approved will actually dismantle the Clinton-era approach to deeply limiting FFLs and make it easier for unlicensed dealers in the grey areas to apply and get licensed. His major concern is that the language of the policy suggestion around "mental defective" could be used to do an end-run around Social Security Beneficiaries who are financially-represented by someone else. He's not saying that the policy suggestion is actually unconstitutional because there are no explicit laws on the topic, but would like Congress to address it.
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, and I'm sure you understand the point I'm about to make as well as anyone, but just to be clear, when I talk about the constitution I mean the living document as amended and updated over time. It's hardly perfect right now, and will continue to change. The US Constitution is the original document and all its amendments - not just the original document alone.
12 of the 27 amendments ratified have occurred in the 1900's. I'm sure you can find it within your racist heart to blame the white men of the 1900's for its current state, but to pretend that the constitution as it stands today reflects only the experience, understanding, and knowledge of people that lived in the late 1700s is willfully ignorant.
I would be interested, though, exactly what garbage was in the constitution that was thrown out that you're thinking of? A lot of the amendments, like the constitution itself, merely limited the government's ability to interfere with people. In other words, from my perspective, the constitution said nothing about most of the garbage the government was doing, and the amendments made it clear that the government had limited ability in areas it was meddling in.
Take, for instance, the right to vote. The constitution didn't say women could or could not vote, but the 19th amendment restricted the government from prohibiting women from voting. So in this case the states could choose the qualifications for voters, and all but one eliminated women from the polling place. Rather than fight on a state by state level, the suffragette movement focused on a federal "fix" - a constitutional amendment that would guarantee them the right to vote, by limiting the government's power (and specifically the state's power) to choose who gets to vote and who does not.
The legislature finds a problem, they expand the law (ie, the government's power) and they are limited by the constitution. They cannot expand the law or the government's power beyond the restrictive bands of the constitution.
So given that you're clearly separating the constitution from its amendments, and have claimed that the pre-amendment constitution includes a lot of "rich white male land (slave) owner's" garbage, I'd appreciate understanding your perspective more by asking you to provide a few examples of this.[DOUBLEPOST=1452015888,1452015567][/DOUBLEPOST]
Given that the gun check is implemented through the ATF, which is under the president's command, "suggested policy changes" are essentially orders. The kicker, though, is that unlike an executive order, they are less easily challenged through existing legal processes.
Regardless, the changes are minor, and as far as I can tell political and publicity related in nature. The president can claim he's doing something, he can inflame his opponents, he can test the waters for another way to alter gun laws, he can keep the conversation going even though none of these actions would have affected the mass murders that happened under his presidency.
And there's the rub that I think most people have with most gun control laws: virtually all of them are marketed upon the idea that if you'd had them, you would have prevented tragedy X, Y, Z, or all 3. The problem is that it usually won't affect any of those cases, and they are failures in existing mental health or other legislation, or that the shootings in question were by criminals who flaunted the laws in the first place. And for the other segment of people supporting them, it's just another plank along the road to outright ban, and therefore any restriction is better than right now by that logic.
Few things outside of outright bans (which IMO is bad for numerous reasons I won't get into) will actually prevent that type of event from happening (and IMO wouldn't prevent it either), if indeed any legislation can.
