A California Man Had His Guns Confiscated Because He’s a Racist

Police officers red flag confiscation order

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

A California man who reportedly heads something called the Bowl Patrol and espouses hate for various minority groups has had his guns confiscated by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office via the state’s “red flag” law. In effect, he lost his guns because he’s a racist.

Given the fluid, ever-changing standards (or lack thereof) for being labeled a racist in 2020, this is a particularly dangerous and disturbing precedent.

[N]othing in the quoted statements from Sheriff’s Office officials suggests that the “gun violence restraining order” and gun seizure stemmed from any crime he had committed (including conspiracy or solicitation); it sounds like the basis for the “gun violence restraining order” is his political rhetoric. I found online what is claimed to be an excerpt from the application for the order, though I can’t vouch for its authenticity (I’m trying to get the court file myself)….

And while it does lay out a specific theory as to why he is likely to commit violence, I don’t think this can be enough. A person’s hateful and pro-violence rhetoric—whether it’s hatred for blacks and Jews, as Casarez seems to espouse, or for police officers or capitalists or government officials—is by itself the exercise of First Amendment rights, and the government can’t retaliate against such speech by using it as a basis to deny Second Amendment rights. While the government can use speech as evidence of what one has done or why one has done it (a common use in criminal procedures), I don’t think it can use it as evidence of future dangerousness sufficient to deny someone a constitutional right.

– Eugene Volokh in California Man’s Gun Seized, Apparently Because He Was a Racist Group Leader

comments

  1. avatar Southern Cross says:

    Coming soon, Minority Report for real.

    Click here to find out how to improve your social credit score. Special limited time bonus for reporting your neighbors.

    1. avatar Karen says:

      I was going to report them any ways. The bonus is just icing on the cake.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        🤣🤣🤣🤣

      2. avatar John Paul says:

        Stasis, eh?

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          You do mean Stasi?

      3. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

        Yo, Karen…. Call me. Me, Joe, and Kamala have a job opportunity for you.

        Eric Swalwell 2020

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          (smile)

        2. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          @ Chris: You love precrime, especially your beloved war on drugs.

          By your own admission your wife is severely handicapped but still driving. Your fine with that but not someone under the influence? Gtfo and I am sure you don’t see the hipocracy, it sucks when the chickens come home to roost.

        3. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

          The one who needs to GTFO is you, boy.

          You contribute nothing to the conversation and bitch constantly about your butt-hurt.

          Don’t go away mad, just go away, and don’t come back… 🙂

        4. avatar Lady googoo says:

          Im gonna jump in here as proof that nobody here can make another “gtfo”…. or go away, even mad!…..
          So what I DO want to add is a big ole STFU…..BEEOTCH BOY!!!!!

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      All Red Flag laws are pre-crime. If someone is actually making threats or doing other actual crimes, they would be arrested and possibly convicted and jailed. Instead of following due process, Red Flag lets your property be seized because “close” people or law enforcement think you might do something bad. “Close” may be family, former roommates, someone you went on a date with, co-workers, ex’s, etc that you haven’t even contacted in years. You often don’t even have the chance be represented in a hearing to dispute it or even be notified that there was an accusation until the confiscating officers show up at your door or do a no-knock raid.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        States have supposed that you don’t have a constitutional right to property. It’s not just these ‘red flag’ laws, it’s civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain. Therefore you can be denied property (i.e. they can steal your stuff) without the hassle of due process that’s involved if they were to imprison you. Interestingly, the original text of the Declaration of Independence read ‘life, liberty and property’ however Jefferson feared that that would be inferred to mean that owning slaves was a God given right, so ‘property’ was replaced with ‘pursuit of happiness’. The people passing and enforcing these laws are the people the founding fathers sought to protect us from.

        1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          Oh you Republicans love your precrime laws too. Just no the ones that work against you. Hypocrite much?

        2. avatar Umm . . . says:

          Interesting, but also sort of irrelevant since the Fifth Amendment DOES say exactly that.

        3. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Don’t mean to sound like some sort of statist cheerleader here but Imminent Domain is due Process. Court hearings are central to the process. For that matter Asset Forfeiture usually involves some sort of hearing also but all to often after the fact. That doesn’t mean the laws aren’t abused from time to time. The process correctly followed wouldn’t be unconstitutional. Full disclosure – I’m no legal scholar, but the Court generally finds that the Constitution allows the Government to do what it needs to do.

        4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Huntmaster, these court procedures happen after the theft and the accused is required to prove his innocence. Imagine serving 20 years in prison (without trial) and afterward being allowed to take the state to court in order to prove your innocence. This is not due process.

        5. avatar Paul says:

          Huntmaster –
          There have been many rulings against civil forfeiture. It’s wrong, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s one of the reasons our founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms. When a man in uniform steals your stuff under color of law, you’re supposed to shoot him dead, so that he won’t steal from your neighbors.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Why, that’s terrible!

        And he’s such a nice young man, just getting his life on track.

        “Andrew Richard Casarez, 27, has been under investigation since December ”regarding graffiti which appeared to be motivated by hate/race” and became the subject of an emergency gun violence protective order after an online website identified him as an online poster in white supremacy sites known as “Vic Mackey,” the purported leader of a group known as the “Bowl Patrol.”
        “The ‘Bowl Patrol’ is an online group that endorses violence against minorities, they take their name from known domestic terrorist (Dylann) Roof who is known for killing 9 people at a prayer meeting in South Carolina,” according to a sheriff’s declaration filed in Sacramento Superior Court. “Roof is known in the white supremacists movement for having a ‘bowl cut haircut.’”

        Well, it’s not like he was in contact with any racist mass killers… oh wait…

        “The Huffington Post investigation reported that Casarez, posting as “Mackey,” had “encouraged acts of domestic terror and called for violence against people of color.”
        “On his podcast, he boasted about his alleged connection to Robert Bowers, who is charged with the deadly shooting of 11 people inside the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018,” the Huffington Post reported, adding that Casarez “has made a point to brag about real-world crimes in his area.”

        1. avatar Karl says:

          Ah, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Ok. While I don’t have to like red flag laws Dumbass here might actually have been done a favor if he gets his shit wired. Google will remember his name so future employers will see this… however it beats the hell out of the authorities finding gas and nails and getting him for bomb making materials, that really limits his options should he choose to make some good decisions about how he lives his life. And if not, fuck him.

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Miner… Miner… Miner… What WOULD we do without your superior intellect, venerable wisdom and absolutely flawless ability to copy/paste shit that I (and probably most people posting here did) looked up hours ago when I first read the article, BUT as they say, “thanks for playing” as usual TOO MUCH TOO LATE…

        3. avatar Ad Astra says:

          So when do they start siezing the prperty of all your marxist blm buddies calling for riots and arson when they fon’t get their way?

        4. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          I don’t think anyone is saying he’s a good guy. I’m sure someone somewhere is, but I haven’t seen that in this tread.

        5. avatar Someone says:

          If he committed a crime, he needs to be convicted and locked up.
          If he did not, but is considered dangerous, do you really think that grabbing his legally owned guns, but otherwise leaving him to his own devices renders him harmless?

          Red flag laws don’t do anything to prevent crime, but legalize disarmament of political opposition.

        6. avatar jwm says:

          Your White Savior is showing through, miner.

        7. avatar Freddie mercury says:

          Woohoo….. big deal…. FIRST AMENDMENT…. FREEDOM OF SPEECH….. GET THE FK OVER IT…. YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT HE SAYS THEN YOU STAY AWAY FROM HIM….
          YES, THIS STORY IS EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS…..I CAN SAY WHATEVER I WANT…
          AS LONG AS IT’S NOT THREATENING ANYONE DIRECTLY OR CAUSING A PUBLIC PANIC THEN IT’S FREEDOM OF SPEECH….
          READ AND WEEP….

          .MOLON LABE!

  2. avatar Just Sayin (OG) says:

    Hater’s gotta hate.
    Grabbers are gonna grab.

  3. avatar WRM says:

    I’m sure a fair minded judge will address this in an objective manner. Thats what judges do, right? /sarc

  4. avatar Omer says:

    Using the mob’s logic: the police are racist, so should they have their weapons confiscated?

    1. avatar WRM says:

      they do indeed want exactly that

      1. avatar Dude says:

        *Except the ones protecting the various politicians’ houses.

        1. avatar 9x39 says:

          Well, really it’s a big black line through a budgetary line item if they don’t supply sidearms & patrol rifles to them all. Bonus; we innocent bystanders get a free reduction on the statistical side of being “accidentally” blown away in frantic mag dumps.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          Yeah 9×0 A HUGE pile compared to payroll or operating cost for a handgun and rifle/shotgun amortized over years. clueless

        3. avatar 9x39 says:

          Hahaa, yehaaah a troll. Ride that .guv train, slave. It’s like a Beavis and Butthead Moron-A-thon when you post, except worse. Even Miners a better troll than you, and that’s saying something deutsche bag.

        4. avatar Get the fk out says:

          “Deutsch bag”?…. Germany bag????…. hmm…

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Given the Party Platforms approved by the Democratic Party over the last hundred years or so they could definitely be deemed as inherently racist. (The Platforms of 1860 and 1856 are especially notable.) Wherein they actually resolved to uphold the so called rights of the people of a state to decide whether slavery should be legal or or not within their state. This was the very Foundation of the Democratic Party. So maybe anyone associated with them should be red flagged.

      1. avatar Seasons in the Abyss says:

        I totally agree with your sentiment…. so don’t take this wrong, but it’s been obvious for a long time now the Democrat party has been transformed into the party for the criminal/ worthless class……
        Republicans for the working class is also a major shift in ideology….
        Although I’m not fooled for one second that both parties are ruled over by the same old elites, with the same old mindset they’ve always had…. this is the game of the elites….. as long as the Americans play along, this ensures the game continues forever…. and they stay in power….

  5. avatar Dude says:

    “Given the fluid, ever-changing standards (or lack thereof) for being labeled a racist in 2020”

    I’m pretty sure it’s settled science that if you’re white, then you’re racist.

    1. avatar Tim says:

      True. Not much ‘dynamism’ there.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Also the corollary, if you’re black it’s impossible for you to be a racist, no matter how hard you try.

      1. avatar HoundDogDave says:

        In that case, racism can be cured by just self identifying as black, Right?/sarc

        maybe we should ask Rachel Dolezal.

        1. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

          Dolezal now admits she’s white :

          “Rachel Dolezal admits she was born white”

          “Rachel Dolezal admits that she was born white.

          The news, which surprised no one, went viral Monday because the former NAACP leader and African American studies professor has for years insisted that she is black. When her parents stepped forward this year to say that their family is white, it created a cultural firestorm with people arguing whether race is an incontrovertible biological reality or can be an identity that is claimed.”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/02/rachel-dolezal-admits-she-was-born-white/

  6. avatar ChoseDeath says:

    I know I’m stating the obvious, but that is such a horrendously dangerous precedent. Commiefornia strikes again.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Which is why I keep saying this, and will continue until I’m blue in the face: Never, ever register your guns if at all possible.

      Apologies to any offended blue-faced Smurfs.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        Yes sir, your message is definitely worth reiteration, a million times over.

      2. avatar Karen Smurf says:

        (Triggered)
        Stand by to be flagged

      3. avatar Darkman says:

        Fortunately for some of US old bastards. We were able to acquire firearms back in the day before registration was enacted. While not these new fangled firearms people drool over today. They still do the job with amazing finality.

  7. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

    “… it sounds like the basis for the “gun violence restraining order” is his political rhetoric.”

    Why subjective ‘hate speech’ laws must be struck down, with prejudice.

    And speaking of ‘hate speech’, I’ll just leave this right here :

    “Militant Antifa Group Urges Deadly Violence Against Feds”

    “The latest example of this escalation comes from the Columbia, SC based far-left militia group, Civil Defense Corps. According to their website, they are actively recruiting “former infantry” and will be using these armed “Reserve Units” to “investigate hate crimes and threats against minorities as well as the LGBTQ+ community”. The group claims to be a 501(c)3 and even has a somewhat formal application process. In addition to general employment information and professional references, there are four questions for the applicant. The first two are “Are you comfortable around firearms?” and “What is your opinion on MAGA?”.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/militant-antifa-group-urges-deadly-violence-against-feds

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Is the third question, “Do you hate your father?”

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        What father? Sperm donor?: yes. Father?: No.

  8. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    So what court found him guilty of being a racist.

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      They NEED a court in Kommifornia?

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Being racist sure is unpopular and frowned upon, but which law made it a crime?

  9. avatar Jeff says:

    Look out, according to BLM all whites are racist. I see some major gun confiscations coming.

    1. avatar burley says:

      Civil war 2.0 is what’s coming.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Apparently, we didn’t have one in the 1860s.

    2. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      That would be attempted gun confiscations. Sooner or later the jackbooted thugs that show up to attempt those confiscations will discover the bullets being turned over first. That will please no one but the far left who hate the cops even more than gun owners.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        That’s an interesting point, there are a BUNCH of people who would have a party if they could get police and gunowners all to killing each other. Easy way to avoid that is when cops are told “go here and confiscate all guns”, they salute and say “yes, sir”, then call up the wife and go home for a quickie, take in a movie and go out to dinner, then return to work to announce “they didn’t have any guns”.

        1. avatar rt66paul says:

          where do I apply for that job?

        2. avatar Chaps says:

          What’s a ‘quicky’?

  10. avatar Von Neumann Probe says:

    Up next are the laws that will include jail time for anything considered “racist” or “hate speech”, like they have in Europe. Speaking out against Islam, communism, China, and Mexico will be included in those laws.

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      Thought we already had that in NY, Ca, Il, isn’t it a crime to say bad shit about DickBlasio and the more famous Cuomo brother?

    2. avatar Dude says:

      Since we aren’t quite there yet, they’ll have to settle for sicking the (loving, accepting, inclusive) mob on you to cancel you, and ruin your life.

      If you get on your knees and beg for forgiveness, they MIGHT let you off the hook (see Drew Brees).

  11. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    IT’S OFFICIAL…. Thought Crimes are HERE….. Well actually there, since I’m about as far away from Ca. as you can get and still be in the CONUS..

  12. avatar Must read all Californians-J. Smith says:

    So, like it their speech and expression thereof by exercising #1 means losing #2? Any officer that took an oath that goes along with this is no better than ANTIFA marxists and their politician handlers that are executing a political insurgency, currently. Sue them, get them charged under 18 USC, section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

    Here is the law:
    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      In CA, the courts will be against you up to including the 9th. Though you might luck out and get a favorable judge or panel on the way to eventually losing. Then you you have to hope the SCOTUS will take the case. And if they do, you have to hope (if the Court is the same as it is today) that Roberts doesn’t decide to go along with the current beltway opinion. Not saying it’s wrong to take them to court, but it would require considerable funds and a multi-year commitment. Some backing would be almost essential.

      At one time, the ACLU might have lent support for the case in question since it touches on the 1st amendment as much as the 2nd. But not now, since the ACLU has become openly selective about whose rights they defend. More generally, getting organizations to back a racist might be a tough sell.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        ACLU has been shit for over 50 years. I actually used to send them money!

  13. avatar Greg says:

    So practicing the 1st Amendment, gets a person banned from the 2nd?

  14. avatar Dale Menard says:

    Is it illegal to hold racist views anywhere in the USA? And what does “racist” mean? According to the Smithsonian, all white people are racist.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      “According to the Smithsonian, all white people are racist.”

      The good news is that you can repent for this unavoidable sin by voting democrat. It’s your only path to salvation.

      1. avatar Steve J. Martin says:

        Dude, that won’t be enough. “Reparations” must be paid.

  15. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Serious question:

    Suppose that Jane Doe publicly advocates executing an identity (pick whatever demographic you want — Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Europeans, Africans, Asians, whites, blacks, Southerners, New Yorkers, homosexuals, heterosexuals, metrosexuals, etc.). Does the United States Constitution First Amendment protect that speech?

    My first impression is, “no”. Why? Because you cannot use one right to attack other people’s rights. More specifically, you cannot use your right to free speech to attack the right to life of other people, just like you cannot use your right to keep and bear arms to attack the right to life of other people.

    Explain if/why I am wrong.

    1. avatar Tim says:

      “Suppose that Jane Doe publicly advocates executing an identity….”

      Suppose someone like Louis Farrakhan publicly advocates exterminating Jews? Is that protected speech? After 40 years of listening to Black Hitler say things like this, I have to say “yes”.

      Change my mind.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Tim,

        With respect to Louis Farrakhan, I argue that government has left him alone because government thought it was better for government power/careers to leave him alone, not because government thought that the United States Constitution First Amendment protects Farrakhan’s speech.

        1. avatar Tim says:

          Well then, we really don’t have “free speech” then, do we?
          If one person ‘gets it’ because they have the right skin color, but this other guy doesn’t get it because he has the wrong skin color, we also don’t have equal protection under the law.
          Guessing you’re ‘ok’ with that?

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Tim,

          No, I am not okay with arbitrary and unjust administration of laws.

          In my opinion, if Louis Farrakhan publicly stated that he wants one or more people to kill (murder) Jews, then that is criminal and I want the applicable government jurisdiction to prosecute him for that.

          I don’t care what skin color an attacker or a victim has. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Someone’s skin color does not determine whether that person’s action is right or wrong. Nor does someone’s skin color determine whether or not another person violated him/her.

        3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          In my opinion, if Louis Farrakhan publicly stated that he wants one or more people to kill (murder) Jews, then that is criminal and I want the applicable government jurisdiction to prosecute him for that.

          Farrakhan has called for the total extermination of the Jewish people for decades..

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          And people on this list have called for the killing of Democrats, communist, liberals, etc. thousands of times, is that a crime?

        5. avatar California Richard says:

          We call for the death of anti-American traitors who hate this country, and levy war against it, in comportment with the law (even California still has the death penalty for treason: Penal Code section 37). That YOU automatically associate that with liberals, communists, and Democrats, tells me that even a blind man can see who the “anti-American traitors who hate this country” are.

    2. avatar WRM says:

      what do you mean by “advocate”?

      go read the linked story and prof volokh’s write up. if its just an expression of an opinion of course its 1A protected

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I mean that Jane Doe publicly calls for someone/anyone to kill-off some identity.

        Monumentally important caveat: I specifically used the word “identity” to differentiate from a demographic whose ACTIONS may justifiably warrant their death — e.g. a “demographic” that consists of serial killers.

        In other words publicly calling for someone/anyone to kill-off Atheists is clearly criminal and NOT protected speech. Calling for someone/anyone to kill-off proven serial killers IS protected speech because it is an administration of rational justice/self-defense against a demographic who committed serious crimes against humanity.

        1. avatar Someone says:

          The way I see it, if you say: “Gee, I wish all those sinful atheists died painful death!” It’s protected speech. Even something like: “The good God fearing people should rise and kill all atheists!” is still okay.

          What is not okay has to be more like: “There go the atheists! Come, brothers, grab these here stones and sticks and let’s kill the lot of them!”

    3. avatar Dude says:

      Death threats and inciting violence is illegal, but it’s only pursued by law enforcement when it’s convenient or made against a VIP. When people get a death threat and call the police, the usual response is, ” *yawn* go get a restraining order.” Was the person in the above story arrested for breaking the law?

    4. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      My understanding of current law and case law is more or less as follows

      Protected speech would be “All (demographic) SHOULD be killed.” because it is not inciting or threatening action. It’s like a theoretical statement.

      Saying “I’m going to kill me a (demographic)!” is not protected as it is a more or less direct threat

      Saying “I’m going to kill you, (demographic)!” is not protected because it is a direct threat. If no action follows it may not be actionable, unless there is some effect of it. Like if you say it in a room full of (demographic) with the intention to get them to leave.

      Saying “You mob should go kill that (demographic)!” is incitement to commit a felony and not protected. If the mob just laughs at you it is probably not actionable, but if the mob goes and does it then it is actionable.

      Saying “Mob, go forth and burn and loot the businesses of (demographic)!” is not protected as it is again inciting the commission of a crime.

      Saying (Demogrpahic) are the devil!” is protected as it is not inciting or threatening harm or a crime.

      IANAL, YMMV, FUBAR, DILLIGAF, SNAFU, LGBTWTFBBQ, TEOTWAKI, SHTF, STFU

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        I second Mr. Pirate’s response in its entirety.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Thank you for the thoughtful reply Crimson Pirate.

        My personal opinion about one detail of your response:

        A statement of the form, “[Identity group A] should be killed!” is also a criminal incitement to violence because the only sensible understanding of that statement is that one or more people have to carry out the killing. Therefore it is inciting people to kill [identity group A]. The equivalent statement in high-quality English is, “Someone should kill [identity group A]!”

        In case anyone is struggling to wrap their head around that concept, consider someone saying, “Excuse me.” The only sensible understanding of that statement is that the person saying it is asking another person to excuse them for something. In other words it is an abbreviated way of saying, “Will you please excuse me.” Thus, in the immediate example where someone says, “[Identity group A] should be killed,” the speaker is making an abbreviated version of the statement, “Someone should kill [identity group A].” Therefore, the abbreviated version is also an incitement to violence and is also a crime.

      3. avatar Ing says:

        Unless you’re Al Sharpton (Crown Heights riots) or Louis Farrakhan (basically a black Nazi), in which case you can get away with ALL of the above.

        1. avatar edward kenway says:

          Farrakhan is actually an Islamist. The “Nazi influence” isn’t coincidental.
          Back in the 20th Century the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, an Arab nationalist, was a particularly avid fan of Hitler’s Germany. There’s a treasure trove of documentary evidence showing a political alliance between the Mufti and the SS in occupied territories where the Mufti wielded influence. The Nazis had quite a bit in common with the Mufti’s religious and cultural views and treated him as an ally.
          Interestingly enough, the Mufti didn’t get his ant-Semitic ideas from Germany. It goes a lot further back in history to the days when Jews were commonly found in the Arab peninsula … just before Mohammed became a predominant influence in ridding the territories he ruled of strong rivals, many of whom were Jews.

    5. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      Publicly “advocating” for (speech) is not the same as doing (action).. Incitement (actually coercing someone to act) is a crime.. Simply advocating (“I THINK they should be_____) is not the same as inciting (“go over there and kill that _____ guy”)

    6. avatar D Y says:

      It seems like it’s the threat of doing so that will get you in trouble. I’m guessing you can (well, used to be able to before we let our rights go) say “I wish xyz demographic was all dead. See swalwell and his nuke comment.

      When you threaten to murder (or lynch, etc) someone, or those from a group, you may have visitors. Which is interesting, as it’s quite common to see online arguments heat up to the point of threats of assault against a specific individual.

      I’m not sure when words crossed over to the equivalent to action however. I can swing my fists violently all I want, until I contact your body. I can say crazy stuff all day long, but that is not proof that I am going to violate your rights.

      IMO this is also part of the dangerous path we’ve gone down where many think that words or beliefs (fascists, far right, whatever you want to righteously hate that day) are acceptable justifications to physically assault those you deem to be “bad”. You said something mean, therefore I’m justified in punching you in the face. It cannot be both ways, where we will take someone’s rights for saying/believing something, yet if someone were to punch that person, the puncher would almost certainly be charged with a crime.

    7. avatar enuf says:

      (the following sarcasm is not directed at you but at the general flow of TTAG discussions)…..

      It’s not too complicated. If the accused party is doing those things against commonly thought of “liberal” or “left wing” persons and groups, then their antics are sacred and Constitutionally protected.

      Unless your politics are on the opposite side of the fence, in which case the accused antics are evil personified and deserve a heavy handed reaction from all levels of government and law enforcement.

      1. avatar Tim says:

        Have had seen Portland lately? Pretty clear which side “gets away” with mayhem & racial incitement.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          It is very clear that both sides do, just at different times and in different ways.

          None of which excuses either. The wrongs of one do not neutralize the wrongs of the other.

    8. avatar Mercury says:

      Should it be a crime to say “all humans should die”? No? Then why should it be a crime to say the same about a particular subset of that demographic?

      Should it be a crime to say that a celebrity or politician “should die in a fire”? No? Then why -is- it a crime to say that about your neighbor you’ve been having a property line dispute with?

      The answer to both is specificity and plausibility. The first example is plausible (anyone is capable of killing someone for any reason, including demography) but not specific; the right to life is an individual one, and ceases to make any sense when interpreted as a group right (humans are not, after all, a literal hive mind that dies as a whole when a member does.) The second example is specific, but not plausible; sure, anybody can commit arson, but burning down the house of someone you’ve only seen on TV and managing to do so while they’re there? Not likely. Even saying the President should “die in a fire” won’t so much as get you a visit from the Secret Service, though saying “I’m going to shoot the [press-e-dent]” will (mangled because writing that MIGHT ACTUALLY GET THE USSS AT MY DOOR, those guys don’t always read what pings on their keyphrases). Meanwhile, saying “I’m going to burn x’s house down” or “I’m going to kill x in a fire” is basically a guaranteed assault conviction if you get charged for it.

      So, what premise does that leave you on which to argue that it’s not okay to say “we should kill all the x’s” (where x is of course a demographic off your list)? Unless you’re actually in a position to make it happen (i.e. you’re the dictator of a country) it’s not plausible, and it’s hard to be any less specific without including everyone on the planet.

      So at this point your premise comes down to “everyone included in that list should be treated differently from everyone else.” If you concur with that statement, then I’d ask you “why?”. For most of that list, the leftist/academic response would be “they need protecting from the power of the majority” (remembering of course that in Intersectionalist / modern Marxist discourse a “majority” need not be a numerical majority, and indeed often isn’t). But to make that work you need a “majority” to treat them differently from, and your list includes demographics which no left-wing ideologue would call a minority, so clearly that’s not where you’re coming from.

      I find I’m at a loss to complete the thread of logic using your list, then. So I’ll have to return your question: why WOULDN’T the Constitution protect that speech? Not only via the first amendment which, as you may recall, originally constrained only the Federal Government, but (given that the Constitution is simply an enumeration of government powers, not an exhaustive list of what The People are permitted to do.) Rather, which part of the Constitution specifically states which people are “majority” members that can’t say certain things about “minority members (or any of the other potential justifications brought up above)? Remember, the Fourth Amendment is also strictly a constraint on government, and it is the only mention of a right to life in the Constitution. Since you’re talking about prosecution under the law, government must abide by both it and the first amendment, whereas for an individual actor you’re talking about more of a philosophical morality / English common law heritage issue when it comes to an individual potentially violating another individual’s right to life. Usually, “hate speech” laws are justified under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but since the only premise I was able to reach via this thread of logic necessitates the UNEQUAL protection of certain groups of people, that doesn’t track.

      If you have a way to reconcile your position with the above, or if you take the premise that the nature of the law as outlined in the first two paragraphs should not be the case under some aspect of the First Amendment or other part of the Constitution, I’d be interested in hearing about it. As far as I can tell, there is no logically consistent way to justify prosecution by either the Federal or a state government for a statement such as “we should kill all the x’s” unless it’s demonstrable (beyond a reasonable doubt, in front of a jury) that you actually have the means and opportunity to kill all of whatever x is.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        There is a difference between Free Speech and the active incitement and promotion of murder. Doesn’t matter what side is which.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Mercury,

        I have two immediate thoughts. For brevity’s sake, I will refer to general identity demographics as “Qs”.

        1) Regarding a person who publicly declares, “Someone kill Qs!”:
        It isn’t clear whether that person is issuing a call for someone to kill a few Qs or all Qs. I will argue that it is totally reasonable that many/most readers of that solicitation to kill Qs will understand that to mean kill some Qs or kill as many Qs as the reader can. Since a reader is certainly capable of killing some Qs or as many Qs as the reader can, that solicitation is both specific and plausible.

        2) Regarding plausibility in general:
        Jane Doe publicly calls out, “Someone burn down John Q. Public’s home!” If John Q. Public’s home is constructed such that it is literally impossible to burn it down (e.g. the home has brick siding, unbreakable windows, and a steel roof), does that mean Jane Doe has not committed any crime? And if someone throws a Molotov cocktail against John Q. Public’s home, is he/she only guilty of vandalism (for leaving carbon charring on the bricks) and not guilty of arson or attempted arson since it is impossible to burn down the home?

        Or suppose Jane Doe publicly calls out, “Someone kill the John Q. Public family tomorrow!” If John Q. Public’s wife is on the International Space Station for the next several days, it is impossible for someone on Earth to kill John Q. Public’s entire family since there is no way for a reader to get up to the International Space Station and kill the wife. Since it is not plausible for a reader to kill the entire John Q. Public family, does that mean Jane Doe did not commit a crime?

        My argument is simple: an individual or group who calls for one or more people to physically attack a group (because of its identity) has committed a crime and their call is therefore not Constitutionally protected speech. Whether or not a single reader could successfully attack every single member of the target demographic is not relevant.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Mercury,

        By the way, an individual who publicly calls out, “Somone kill [identity-based demogrpahic]!”, is committing a crime for the simple fact that the individual is publicly asking people to attack human beings based solely on their identify.

        The crime lies in the fact that the individual called for attacks on any number of human beings, not because the intended target humans had a certain identity or were members of some identity-based demographic. Thus, I do not see how the 14th Amendment is relevant in any way — nor how the 1st Amendment would protect such speech.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Bull. You can advocate anything you like, and you can think anything you like, what can be prohibited is ACTION. You’re attempting to construct a maze of bullshit so thick that nobody can even understand it, much less comply with it. The closest you can get to “speech” which is against the law is to voice a threat, “*I* am going to kill you.” That is assault. If you tell Joe Blow to go kill somebody, there is no crime, if good ol’ Joe does so HE is guilty of a crime.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Larry in TX,

          You can advocate anything you like, and you can think anything you like, what can be prohibited is ACTION.

          An instigator who calls for someone to kill a victim/s IS acting — the instigator is actively attempting to cause the victim’s death by proxy — which should therefore be a crime. If you wind-up a machine that spins around and kills an intended target three days later, you are culpable for the victim’s death. For the very same reason, if you “wind-up” a person that “spins around” and kills an intended target three days later, you share culpability for the victim’s death.

          I differentiate between opinions and calls to action. It is not a crime for an individual or group to say that they hate some demographic. I argue that it is a crime for an individual or group to ask/order other people to kill some demographic. The fact that the instigator and the killer do not know each other directly is immaterial in my worldview.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “For the very same reason, if you “wind-up” a person that “spins around” and kills an intended target three days later, you share culpability for the victim’s death.”

          Boy, is Donald Trump in trouble!

          Oh wait, that’s different…

    9. avatar Ralph says:

      “you cannot use one right to attack other people’s rights”

      Where did you learn that? You certainly can use one right to attack other people’s rights. That’s exactly what 1A is for. Every time you advocate for a position, you are against someone else’s position.

      What is prohibited are expressions that create a “clear and present danger” that they will bring about what valid laws prohibit — such as murder, arson, or other violent and nonviolent crimes. The danger must be clear, and it must be present. Get it?

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        You certainly can use one right to attack other people’s rights. That’s exactly what 1A is for. Every time you advocate for a position, you are against someone else’s position.

        Disclaimer: I am arguing for what I believe should or should not be protected speech, which may or may not align with our local, state, and federal government positions.

        The only scenarios where I believe the 1st Amendment should protect speech over a contested position is when that contested position involves an inevitable clash of fundamental rights. For example, we have a fundamental right to travel for business and pleasure. In my opinion the 1st Amendment does not generally protect my speech advocating to limit another person’s right to travel. Having said that, we must be able to resolve a dispute where Person A demands to drive in the oncoming traffic lane of public roads and Person B demands to prohibit it. Speech about that controversy must be protected. What should not be protected is speech where Person A says, “I hate [identity-based demographic Q] and someone should kill Qs who travel on public roads.”

        Where fundamental rights are in conflict, I support the 1st Amendment protecting speech advocating for various compromises/resolutions to that conflict. What I do not support is 1st Amendment protection for speech whose purpose is to injure a demographic based solely on their identity.

      2. avatar Dave says:

        Even clear and present danger isn’t enough. It’s imminent lawless action. Check out Brandenburg v. Ohio.

    10. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Uncommon, you can advocate killing anyone or everyone, that is all protected speech. What you cannot do is pick up a gun and attempt to do so. In the early 1960s we learned that in high school. Pretty simple, and pretty obvious.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        LarryinTX,

        There are two components to my comment and ensuing discussion:

        1) What are the positions of local, state, and federal governments with respect to protecting speech which advocates killing people based only on their identity.

        2) What is a righteous position with respect to protecting speech which advocates killing people based only on their identity.

        Clearly those two components do not agree, which probably does not surprise anyone.

    11. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” you cannot use your right to free speech to attack the right to life of other people ”

      Which brings up the schoolyard line “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.”

      What you’re doing is conflating a verbal attack with a physical attack. They are not the same thing, and verbal attack does not limit or infringe on the right to life of other people. It may piss them off or make them feel uncomfortable, but it does not represent a physical threat. The 1A is, therefor, pretty much an “anything goes” proposition — that is, until someone gets a few legislators and judges to also conflate verbal and physical attack, and that’s what brings us to where we are today.

    12. avatar Explain why/if I'm wrong says:

      Because words do not equate to ATTACK…. read a dictionary for the definition of ATTACK….

      Stick and stones…..etc…..

  16. avatar Shire-man says:

    Red Flag laws weaponized?
    Nobody saw this coming.
    Nobody.

    1. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

      Inconceivable!!!!

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Incomprehensible….

  17. avatar Jim Hutter says:

    We have in the past, currently and in the future have Americans who have hatred in their heart. This is not something you can cure by taking away guns. Nor can one say he only hates minorities. What if he said I don’t like minorities and he gave a reason. (Freedom of Speech). Do you take away his guns and brand him as a hate mongrel. How many times do people call the Police and say they were threatened. The Police will ask, has he actually hurt you. Lawyers make a lot of money on cases that have no evidence at all.
    The lawyer will ask, Does my client have any priors? And will most likely have a list of people who will vouch for his demeanor. We need to disarm people, but not people who legally purchase a weapon and just practice freedom of speech. We need to disarm the bad guys who have illegal weapons.
    In summary, unless this guy showed some serious and threatening behavior, his lawyer will most likely make money for damages.

  18. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    So, when do they start confiscating BLM (“what do we want?” Dead cops”) guns? And what about the New Black Panthers (“We gotta kill us some cracker babies?)? That sounds like hate speech to me, from groups that have already DEMONSTRATED a propensity for violence AND a total disregard for for the lives and property of others..

  19. avatar Tim says:

    He should have gone boating more often, like me.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      I would love to own a boat. I’ve spent time on other people’s small boats as well as many months on deep ocean research ships including ice breakers. As much as I have loved mountain wilderness in all seasons, the raw power and beauty of the sea and The Ice is a memory that continues to call to me decades since leaving it all behind me.

      But damn, whenever I bring up the topic of boats all my guns flee to the backs of their lockers, hide behind clothes and stacks of ammo boxes in the walk-in closet of the bedroom.

      I can only conclude that my guns are suffering from Hydrophobia, a general fear of water.

      Quite possibly it is more serious than that, all my guns may be suffering from Thalassophobia, the fear of deep, dark waters rather than shallow lakes and ponds.

      I’m looking into being declared partially disabled for this condition, see if I can retire with full benefits.

      Maybe then I can afford a small boat of my own.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Sometimes you gotta tell them a little white lie (tell them they’re going to kill something) for their own good…

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You understand that AR-7s float, right?

        1. avatar enuf says:

          I have considered asking for a prescription of Diazepam to apply during gun cleaning, just to ease the gun’s anxiety.

  20. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    I wonder if this has improved his opinion of blacks and Jews.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Buy God if it didn’t, it’s off to the Gulag! The beatings will continue until opinions are correct.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Will someone get redflagged for calling BLM Black Looters Murder?!? Asking for an acquaintance😏😏😏

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      Will someone get redflagged for calling BLM Black Looters Murder

      Depends on where you are.. In FL that’s common consensus, In Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, NYC… You could possibly get immediate termination by your choice of firing squad or Social Worker (tough choice)

  22. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

    Where’s the ACLU? LoL
    Thin blue line! Cops will never violate the Constitution!

  23. avatar Montana Actual says:

    So… They taking the NFAC guns next, or nah?

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Nah, that’d be “racist”…

  24. avatar jwm says:

    Why didn’t he fight back? He was armed. Where they all white cops that took his guns?

  25. avatar WI Patriot says:

    We’re getting there…gear-up, for real, the shit is comin’ down the pike…

  26. avatar Prndll says:

    It is so easy to label someone a ‘racist’ that it really is just an excuse. The average person has no real idea what racism actually is anymore.

    1. avatar adverse6 says:

      If you are white and not a member of The Socialist Party, you are racist.

      1. avatar Prndll says:

        For a while the thing I heard was only those that have the power can be racist.

        I didn’t understand that at first but I can to realize it was all just a BS lie.

        1. avatar Someone says:

          Only those with power can be racist and only whites can be in position of power. In B. H. Obama’s case, it was his white half that got into the White (clear clue) House.

  27. avatar DerryM says:

    Well, let’s see now…the Sacramento Police, by Leftist definition, are “systemically racist”. The fellow in question is identified as “Andrew Casarez”….whose last name sounds like it is of Hispanic origin, so he might be “a person of color”…Casarez is accused of leading a racist group, saying, possibly posting, “racist hate-speak”, but hasn’t reportedly actually done anything that could be construed as a “hate-crime” against any other person or organization. He might have caused some snowflakes to be offended and feel bad by his hate speak, so I guess that counts, by some long stretch of the imagination, as a “sort of” hate-crime.

    Looks like we have racists persecuting racists under the cover of Red Flag Laws {with the tenuous evidence that Casarez “might do something bad”}, so, is that a racist act of aggression on the part of the Systemically Racist Sacramento Police? Meanwhile black lives matter White “allies” are burning-out Black owned independent businesses and murdering Black young men in Seattle, but that’s “Not-Racist”…

    …but we only care about Red Flag Laws being used to unConstitutionally seize lawfully owned [we must presume, for the time being] firearms from some guy in the Sacramento area because he said/advocated racist ideas and led a “racist group”, but we don’t know if he ever threatened anyone and it does not appear he ever actually committed a “hate-crime” against anyone, and we should care.

    This case illustrates how twisted and perverse American Law and Law Enforcement has become and how Red Flag Laws have become a weapon that can be used against anyone by anyone to infringe upon our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear Arms to serve a political agenda that is fundamentally unConstitutional. When your right to freedom of speech (also natural, civil and Constitutionally protected) is weaponized against you [no matter how objectionable, despicable and offensive what you say is, except if treason or outright sedition] all your rights and liberty are being put in jeopardy. This is what the Marxist Left {now controlling the Democrat Party} has done, is doing and will continue to do. This is bald-face Tyranny in action. All our Constitutionally protected rights are interconnected and all are under deliberate interconnected assault.

    Today, to be a “one-issue” Voter/Thinker/Advocate must mean the “one-issue” is the total package of your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights..all of them. Yes, I support the idea that the Second Amendment underpins the other rights, but we can see how the perversion of one right is being weaponized against the others. We absolutely must put a stop to this to preserve the American Constitutional Republic. We, the People, are the actual, legitimate State. The Government was created by and consented to by US as the instrument that serves our interests and benefit. “the security of a free State” specified in the Second Amendment is a double-meaning because we, the people (the natural, original State) created and consented to our Government (the instrument of the State) as a reflection and extension of the power and legitimacy that belongs rightly, naturally and firstly to US. The Left wants US to believe it is the other way around. It is not and we have to do whatever is necessary to put these things back in their proper perspective and relationship.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      The problem with all that is he advocates ideological violence with Dylan Roof as his inspiration. No matter what added elements and fashionable political flavors may be in the mix from the right or left, the Dylan Roof Bowl Patrol element element makes him pond scum.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        ANYONE who holds THAT fuckbag up as a hero is WAY worse than pond scum, lower than Western Pacific whale shit…..

        1. avatar Dude says:

          To be fair, the guy sounds like a racist nut that should be watched, and prosecuted for any crimes.

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          isn’t that what I said?

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Pond scum, yes, criminal, no. Roof was prosecuted for what he *did*, not for what he thought or advocated.

  28. avatar enuf says:

    So he ran a violence promoting website under an assumed name that espouses the mass murderer Dylan Roof as an inspirational martyr?

    Well, the questionable processes of law are disturbing and California is entirely untrustworthy in the protection of Civil Rights towards gun owners, but for myself I hope he and his fuckwit buddies all experience those tragic boating accidents along with their firearms.

    It is difficult to muster much sympathy or tolerance for anyone who espouses Dylan Roof as a role model, a martyr and an inspiration for a race/ideological civil war.

    Fuck all fuckwits.

  29. avatar John Galt says:

    And here lies my concern with the president.

    President Trump has endorsed red flag laws “take the guns first, due process second” and what will we get in a lame duck term?

    Though he has made tepid campaign endorsements of the Second Amendment, in reality he has done nothing or less to promote it. Even lobbied against national reciprocity.

    Why hasn’t he directed his attorney general to sue states violating and restricting the constitution? Why hasn’t he withdrawn fed funs from those states? Why has he not championed Or even discussed this issue????

    So far it’s been (very) bad appointments, bump stock regulation, antifa carrying guns and threatening people treated as ambassadors while 25,000 law abiding gun protesters who picked up their trash are allowed by the administration to be labeled white supremests and domestic terrorists.

    What has he EVER DONE?……not a rhetorical question

    Maybe we should sit it out and let the puppet idiot take the presidency and the commies take the house and senate and get right to the real fight to save the country from the communists rather than making excuses for being boiled slowly.

    I am just asking….can the president be trusted with the second amendment, let alone to expand it any more than the communists? Why? And please show your work.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      The Federalist Society just came out with an open editorial stating that Trump should be impeached for promoting the delaying of the November elections.

      That’s The Fedralist Society, in the person of one of the founders, the organization that has been solidly with Trump and has supplied him with his judicial candidates. Trump has bragged about using the Federalist society to select his judge appointments.

      And now a founder has called for Trump’s immediate impeachment.

      How clear must it become that Trump is Anti-American, Anti-Constitution, Anti-Gun, Anti Democracy and clear and present danger to the Security of a Free State?

      Had the Republicans and Democrats a scrap of honor and an ounce of backbone, Trump would have been impeached on a long list of charges, convicted in the Senate and replaced by Pence a couple of years ago. We should now be seeing President Pence and a new VP running against a Democrat in a very different race scenario.

      Instead a Domestic Enemy of this American Republic is begging for four more years and publicly playing with violating the US Constitution to get it.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/opinion/trump-delay-election-coronavirus.html

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Calling for impeachment without a crime is Anti-American, Anti-Constitution, and Anti Democracy, but the TDS horde doesn’t care about such things.

        P.S. Your buddy Miner beat you in the race of posting non-related TDS nonsense today. Same topic too.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          It’s not a good look for the sitting POTUS to suggest delaying the election. It would have been better for that suggestion to come from Congress, or perhaps from the RNC chair. But I agree that bad optics isn’t an impeachable offense.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          @Phil
          Agreed.

        3. avatar enuf says:

          “Calling for impeachment without a crime is Anti-American, Anti-Constitution, and Anti Democracy”

          Flase, complete nonsense. Promoting a break from the Oath of Office is a Clear and Present Danger to United States and is deserving of Impeachment.

          So said The Federalist Society, who are no slouches in the Conservative movement and defense of the Constitution from an Originalist point of view.

          “TDS” is not an ailment afflicting the Federalist Society.

        4. avatar Dude says:

          enuf,
          Do you believe the president is the only person in this country that doesn’t have freedom of speech?

        5. avatar Dude says:

          “So said The Federalist Society”

          Link?

        6. avatar Huntmaster says:

          The Federalist Society did NOT say that. One member did.

        7. avatar Miner49er says:

          One of the founders of the Federalist Society said that.

          “Calling for impeachment without a crime is Anti-American, Anti-Constitution, and Anti Democracy”

          You must be right, we don’t have that first amendment freedom of speech when it comes to speaking against Donald Trump because he is the chosen one, right?

        8. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          You must be right, we don’t have that first amendment freedom of speech when it comes to speaking against Donald Trump because he is the chosen one

          No one said you can’t speak out against Trump (you do it all the time) the message from the Federalist Society is that NO ONE can speak for the whole group or give the impression that they are representing the whole group.. If there was no right to speak against Trump Clinton News Network, MSDNC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, Chris Wallace, NYP would ALL be out of business because that’s ALL they do… It must really SUCK to be YOU, how does it feel to be wrong ALL the time….

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Didn’t Trump say that Congress should do it? It can’t be an impeachable offense for a President to suggest a course of action to Congress, or to advocate for a course of action the Pres. thinks Congress should take. It might be impeachable if he did it though executive order, but even then the usual response would be to take him to court to challenge the constitutionality of the action rather than to impeach.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Pretty sure Congress can repeal an executive order, though obviously they’d have to override a veto. Which would clearly be the correct response, as opposed to impeachment. Either takes a supermajority in both houses.

      3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        No he can’t however his anti-constitutional efforts pale compared to the ones Joe Biden promises. We are in a no win situation. We can thank the people that primary’d him in. Electing him was one hell of a Pyrrhic “victory”. He was a reckless imbecile for suggesting the delaying the election something that is clearly unconstitutional and very suspicious. The fallout from that was easy to predict. I always thought he was an idiot but this buggers the imagination.The man is a friggin’ political disaster for conservatives. He has fvcked us for his for the sake of his ego.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          He recommended no such thing, you need to check your sources, they are lying to you.

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          He tweeted “Delay the election until people can properly, securely, safely vote???” That is a suggestion just like I said it was. People with impulse control problems should stay off twitter, 100x so if they are the president. I don’t see it as impeachable, but I do see it as an attempt at political suicide.

        3. avatar Dude says:

          He was calling attention to what he saw as an issue. People are welcome to debate and disagree with opinions. Here’s a question for the scholarly legal keyboard warriors on here: since when is it illegal to suggest amending the Constitution? In other news, TDS is real.

      4. avatar strych9 says:

        The folks at The Federalist should, perhaps, consult their copy of the Constitution.

        There is nothing wrong with a POTUS suggesting legislation or prodding Congress to take action. No one would even suggest such a thing. And, per Article II; “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”.

        There’s no crime here. If the people at The Federalist were honest they would admit that they simply dislike the current POTUS and that because “high crimes and misdemeanors” is undefined this a convenient, yet entirely unseruous, political way to attack the guy and nothing more.

      5. avatar Hans says:

        Enuf of Enuf !!!! D…..bag.

      6. avatar adverse6 says:

        BS…….

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      What you’ll get in a lame duck term is a hell of a lot better than in a Biden/Token term.

    3. avatar Ad Astra says:

      Ended the Obama registation of long arm sales in southern border states (fallout from the fast& furious scheme). Ended the firearm prohibitin on social security recipients who assign there financial matters to others. You know just off the top of my head but please do go on about “BUT MUH BUMPSTOCKS!”. And SC justices doing dumd ship. Cause has never happened before right?

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “Ended the firearm prohibitin on social security recipients who assign there financial matters to others.”

        So you think it’s OK to be ruled incompetent to handle your financial affairs but A-OK to own deadly weapons?

        You’ ll hold that position right up until some psychopath kills a family member.

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          So you think it’s OK to be ruled incompetent to handle your financial affairs but A-OK to own deadly weapon

          Who the fuck said ANYTHING about being ruled incompetent, even a person with no experience in handling finances was subject to scrutiny… Barack Obama’s Social Security Administration (SSA) issued the final version of a rule that will doom tens of thousands of law-abiding (and vulnerable) disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients to a loss of Second Amendment rights under the guise of re-characterizing them as “mental defectives.” The SSA, for the first time in its history, will be coopted into the federal government’s gun control apparatus, effectively requiring Social Security applicants to weigh their need for benefits against their fundamental rights when applying for assistance based on mental health problems.
          I’m still working on this copy/paste thing, but I’ve studied your technique and I think I’m getting the hang of it.. Now I’ve got to work on that selective edit stuff to get to say what I want…

  30. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    How much you very that this guy does have other guns stashed away? How much you very that this illegal seizure of his property pisses him off so much that he decides to use those guns to commit a mass shooting against the people who turned him in, or people who just look like the people he suspects turned him in?
    Film at 11.
    Now popping popcorn.

  31. avatar adverse6 says:

    Don’t vote for The Socialist Party next election and they win, you’ll have everything confiscated. No more Constitution. Obviously, you’ll be an enemy of the state.

    1. avatar An Unprosecuted Political Felon in a Deep Blue State says:

      Outstanding!
      It’s always nice to know a promotion to a gulag is in order. It makes a common citizen stand head and shoulders above the casual dopers, shootists, and pedophiles being released from overcrowded jails. /s

  32. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Turner Diaries

  33. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    I was going to respond to a post by John Galt and reply by Enuf about the Federalist societies head calling for another impeachment but the thread seems to have vanished. Was I imagining it or was it in a post that was pulled or something?

    1. avatar Dude says:

      I guess it’s back now. This site seems to be experiencing technical difficulties lately. Try refreshing your browser to see if the comments appear.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/opinion/trump-delay-election-coronavirus.html

      Trump Might Try to Postpone the Election. That’s Unconstitutional.
      He should be removed unless he relents.
      By Steven G. Calabresi

      Mr. Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law.

      July 30, 2020, 4:03 p.m. ET

      I have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980, including voting for Donald Trump in 2016. I wrote op-eds and a law review article protesting what I believe was an unconstitutional investigation by Robert Mueller. I also wrote an op-ed opposing President Trump’s impeachment.

      But I am frankly appalled by the president’s recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election. Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist. But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.

      Here is what President Trump tweeted:

      With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???
      — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020

      The nation has faced grave challenges before, just as it does today with the spread of the coronavirus. But it has never canceled or delayed a presidential election. Not in 1864, when President Abraham Lincoln was expected to lose and the South looked as if it might defeat the North. Not in 1932 in the depths of the Great Depression. Not in 1944 during World War II.

      So we certainly should not even consider canceling this fall’s election because of the president’s concern about mail-in voting, which is likely to increase because of fears about Covid-19. It is up to each of the 50 states whether to allow universal mail-in voting and Article II of the Constitution explicitly gives the states total power over the selection of presidential electors.

      Election Day was fixed by a federal law passed in 1845, and the Constitution itself in the 20th Amendment specifies that the newly elected Congress meet at noon on Jan. 3, 2021, and that the terms of the president and vice president end at noon on Jan. 20, 2021. If no newly elected president is available, the speaker of the House of Representatives becomes acting president.

      President Trump needs to be told by every Republican in Congress that he cannot postpone the federal election. Doing so would be illegal, unconstitutional and without precedent in American history. Anyone who says otherwise should never be elected to Congress again.

      Steven G. Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law.

  34. avatar JUST THE FACTS! says:

    That is the purpose of red flag laws so they can take guns who don’t think the right way for politicians!

    1. avatar Eff Bee Aye says:

      Well, that too. But mostly it’s to try to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous, incoherent lunatics like you.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Wrong. Whatever may be wrong in these laws, such as lack of Due Process, the aim is to prevent violence, murder and mass killings. All this conspiracy theory stuff is so much insane, kool-aid drinking deranged nonsense.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Lack of due process is enuf wrong with these laws. In a just society such a lack would not be tolerated.

        1. avatar Chadwick says:

          Yes, in a just society…

      2. avatar Someone says:

        That’s BS and you know it, enuf. Unless you honestly believe, that someone dangerously violent is suddenly incapable of violence if his legally owned firearms are grabbed. That he can’t go and get some other gun illegally, or use other tool to commit violent crimes. That only legal guns are the problem, not the person, so we should take the guns away and leave the (now very pissed) person free to do what he wants.

  35. avatar FedUp says:

    So if Maxine Waters says to attack and chase off everyone associated with the current administration, that is protected speech under the 1st?

    OOps – my bad – anyone gets a pass for attacking evil orange man….

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Wrong. No matter who promotes violence against another, they are wrong and should be assessed for criminal charges or commitment to a mental institution. Whether that is a neo-Nazi scumbag or Maxine Waters, what is right does not change.

      If you want to complain that the laws as you see them are unequally enforced, there are good arguments to be made that way. But two wrongs do not make a right, the wrongfulness of one does not excuse the wrongfulness of another.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Whether that is a neo-Nazi scumbag or Maxine Waters

        Mad Maxine/neo-Nazi scumbag? I don’t see the difference..

  36. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    What fuck was wrong with posting the EXACT words of the FEDERALIST SOCIETY rebuttal to that bullshit KOMMIE NYT hit piece…. Is NYT editing/censoring TTAG now?
    Read it here:
    https://reason.com/2020/07/31/reminder-the-federalist-society-does-not-take-positions-on-legal-questions/

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Hmm. That’s interesting. It’s almost like enuf doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      “The Federalist Society goes out of its way to not take positions on legal issues.”

      “The casual reader would simply assume that the Federalist Society, as an organization, thinks that the President should be impeached for a tweet.”

      “There is no analysis to explain why a “fascist” tweet is a high crime or misdemeanor. It is simply stated as a conclusion. Maybe “abuse of power”? But the Newspaper of Record published this Op-Ed anyway.”

      This NYT Op-Ed served it’s purpose of feeding the hungry TDS horde.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Yeah, but we already knew that about Enuf (suspected MINER alter ego)… Anyway I took the time to look it up AND using everything I learned from Miner about copy/paste to port the entire response with credits to reply to ENUF, saw it “awaiting moderation” and watched it disappear like magic from the same thread that contained a verbatim copy/paste of the Kommie NYT article….

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Ooops, now it’s back, but still awaiting moderation? That’s okay TTAG if it’s that offensive just take it down… I made my point right here…

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          “(suspected MINER alter ego)… “

          No, he is his own man.

          I don’t have a monopoly on rational thought, but it does seem there are very few on this forum who engage in the practice.

        3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Miner you don’t have ANYTHING on rational thought, in fact YOU would not recognize rational thought if it walked up to you wearing a shirt with bold print saying I AM RATIONAL THOUGHT and introduced itself to you as rational thought…

        4. avatar 9x39 says:

          Miner, & rational thought, that’d be a laugh if it weren’t so lowly & pathetic. Pull the other one. Can’t expect anything less else from a fundamentally dishonest individual who’s been proven a liar more times than anyone can be bothered to keep track of.

  37. avatar Red in CO says:

    Overandoverandoverandoverandoverandover… and yet the boot lickers will still screech that most cops are on our side and that they’re “just following orders”. At this point, it is intellectual cowardice of the highest order to refuse to acknowledge that law enforcement is a tool of the state, and that the VAST majority of individual LEOs, if forced to choose between helping people and carrying out the whims of the government, will choose the latter.

  38. avatar JOHN THAYER says:

    Threats, including threats of death, have a long history in probably every culture on earth. Threatening to kill the king may get you hung. Threatening to kill gypsies or some other disliked minority may get you local popularity. We need to study Western societies pre-1900 or maybe even pre-1800 to re-discover the roots of our culture. Almost none of our present day social ideas are rooted in our people’s past.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “Almost none of our present day social ideas are rooted in our people’s past.”

      I completely disagree, almost every single one of our social ideas are rooted in our past.

  39. avatar Joe John says:

    He should have lit up those cops. Oath breakers are fair game.

    1. avatar edward kenway says:

      Lighting up the cops, as you say, is simply giving the Left exactly what it expects and doesn’t attack the real source of the problem.
      In a sane country with a proper interpretation of law and order, a good cop would refuse to participate in “red flag” confiscations without due process. The issue lies higher and all you have to do is look at who runs and administrates the jurisdiction the dishonest cops work for. This is why people who have the common sense and financial means are leaving places like NYC, NJ, and Whacko-fornia.

      1. avatar Joe John says:

        Oh I’d have the politicians dragged out into the street and shot too. It wasn’t Nancy Pelosi going to the home to physically collect the guns; hence, start with the closest target of opportunity.

        A law is only as effective as its enforcement. If they start getting a Waco every time they come to collect, they’ll start to think twice about it.

  40. avatar 2aguy says:

    They routinely call Conservatives, Trump supporters, Tea party members and even Libertarians racists…………..do people understand now why we oppose red flag laws? Do you understand now why those who want to “just give them red flag laws and they will leave us alone because red flag laws are just common sense,” become not common sense when the left wingers are in charge?

  41. avatar Dennis says:

    Any guesses on how long it’ll be before they can take your guns because you’re “white”!?

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      The white and black racists have been trying to change the definition of white to racist. There’s a side note of redemption through contributions to the democrat party. Very likely this is what we see in less than five years.

  42. avatar Chadwick says:

    He probably just posted “build the wall!” to his social media account. Or was it “all lives matter”. Got what he deserved /sarc

  43. avatar Ronald west says:

    California’s laws suck and if there is any racist going on it’s the stupid law makers, and enforcement for they are discrimination against his rights of free speech and the right to like are dislike.

  44. avatar Country Boy says:

    The real problem boils down to this: No one eats out of the skulls of their dead enemies anymore………..

    LOL. That may or may not be a good thing……..?

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      No one eats out of the skulls of their dead enemies anymore

      You sure about that?

  45. avatar Tom Worthington says:

    “Red Flag Law”. That pretty much explains what happens next. A further explanation is actually unnecessary. My local sheriff thinks they are a good thing. That one single issue is enough for me to vote for somebody else…ANYBODY else.

  46. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    #EndWhiteGenocide

    There, did I make the list?

  47. This why the [email protected] organizations should be supporting some or certain Police Reforms…Because it was the Sheriff’s in the field that stripped a U.S. of the Private Property and THEIR Constitutional Rights….Whether they were following orders or NOT…The Action of the Law Enforcement community, the .Gov, and Weapons control under the guise of public safety…Are ALL incompatible with the U.S. Constitutional-Bill of Rights….

  48. avatar Cop in that pic says:

    Not sure go accurate all that info is since the picture used is from Vero Beach FL, and those two officers are making sure all those who needed to evacuated before Hurricane Dorian. I would know since I’m in that picture…never been to California.

  49. avatar Nelson says:

    Kinetic Civil War 2.0 seems almost inevitable at this point. FFS.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email