Saturday, September 17, 2016

I'd wondered how the prosecutors would get around not prosecuting

this idiot; they're using But investigators uncovered no evidence that Lucas, 45, actually transferred the gun and never determined the name of the gun-owning friend, Clackamas County District Attorney John S. Foote said in a letter to the Oregon State Police.
In other words, "Find a way to pretend it didn't really happen so we don't have to enforce this against him."

Which, now that I think about it, opens up a defense for anyone these clowns DO charge with this.


"This triggers me" is the new "my dog ate my homework."


 Sounds good to me.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sparked controversy Friday evening after suggesting at a campaign rally in Miami that the Secret Service detail that protects Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton be disarmed.

“She wants to destroy your Second Amendment,” Trump said. “I think what we should do is she goes around with armed bodyguards, like you have never seen before. I think that her bodyguards should disarm, right? Right? Think they should disarm. Immediately, what do you think?”


So, Missouri legislature overrode the veto by the Governor, and they've become a Constitutional-carry state.  And the New York Slimes lies about it; anyone surprised?
Just to pick one of the lies,
Mr. Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed the measure in June, saying it would allow individuals with a criminal record to legally carry a concealed firearm even though they had been, or would have been, denied a permit under the old law’s background check.
Which means he lied, since anyone with a felony record, or a conviction that could have resulted in a sentence exceeding one year (regardless of what sentence was actually handed down), or anyone under a domestic violence restraining order or found guilty of a domestic violence charge is - by Federal law - prohibited from possessing a firearm. Period. Doesn't matter how they carry it. So if their criminal record would have prevented them having a permit, it should prevent them from having a FIREARM.

But the New York Times' Editorial Board doesn't tell you that.
Of course not; it doesn't go with the Preferred Narrative.


Also sto- borrowed from a comment here by Geek with a .45,
I've concluded that there are two types of people running around loose in the world: Those who understand that letting their dogs take a dump on FDR's grave is a patriotic imperative, and everyone else who thinks he's some sort of hero.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does this mean I can open carry (OR CCW) in MA., CA, NJ without being charged?
That's what I'm getting!!

Roger V. Tranfaglia

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed the measure in June, saying it would allow individuals with a criminal record to legally carry a concealed firearm even though they had been, or would have been, denied a permit under the old law’s background check."

No, nothing would change. Criminals already carry concealed illegally and they would still be carrying illegally, as criminals (felons)are forbidden to own guns.
Can't fix Stupid.