The TLDR version is that the old leadership was corrupted and misappropriating funds for personal uses. There were several lawsuits and the old leadership has been mostly ousted. The new leadership are trying to reform the organization to prevent abuse of the prior administration from returning.
They are still around at a reduced role. Other groups have popped up like GOA (Gun owners of America) and FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition).
Nothing says new Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence like states regulation dairy.
Non-violent protests capable of dissuading hostile official intervention through MAD. Peaceable ≠ peaceful.
About 40% of the time they are unanimous. And it has been that way since at least when FDR appointed 8/9, probably longer. But people care about controversy more than consensus in their news.
That is just dog bites man vs man bites dog.
I’m glad to help, headlines and sadly even the body of news articles rarely capture nuance. Law and Politics both have their controversies but they are not synonyms. When you peek behind the curtains of headlines, things start to make more sense, because, most everyone thinks that they’re being rational. But most of us are simply viewing the matters from different perspectives. There are bad perspectives, but, unfortunately, there is not a best one.
The 5 judges were from the lower court’s dissent. It wasn’t 5 justices at the Supreme Court. It takes 4 Supreme Court justices to grant cert on a case and hear it. It sounds like only Gorsuch and Thomas voted to hear it.
Gorsuch is arguably the most pro-Native American justice the court has ever seen. He started his majority opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma with this sentence “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise.”
Thomas and Gorsuch joined Alito in a 77 page dissent, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia explicitly calling to overturn a prior case that infringed on Native American’s religious liberties by denying benefits to a peyote user.
This happens all the time. The party out of the majority proposes moon-shot legislation knowing that it won’t pass. Because they get to go home and complain about the bad (insert party name here)s who blocked the, probably unconstitutional, bill that they proposed. Then beg for donations so they can get a seat on an important committee.
Seconded, this is the best explanation here. The browning action, on which most semi automatic pistol operate on, does not function well when a suppressor is added w/ out a Nielson device or ‘booster’.
The design is made assuming the barrel weighs ____ oz, if suddenly it weighs more then the reliability is impaired.
Well it was Madison if you want to know who held the quill, but upon the consent and order of the Confederation Congress which our current Congress acts in the continuity of. See Art. XI Clause I (proclaiming the debts of the Confederation’s Congress maybe held just as valid under the Constitution’s Congress).
Your question is vague and it would be hard to give you an apt response, if you rephrase it with more clarity I’ll get back to you.
I was not talking about case law. I was talking about text. But if you want my thoughts on prior precedents let me know which ones.
Who do you think called for and commissioned the Constitutional Convention? Who do you think proposes amendments under Article V? Pick up a book.
In this thread people who haven’t read one CJ Roberts opinion in its entirety. That fault lies square only Congress and ourselves. The role of the judiciary is not the draft bill or pen amendments to the Constitution. It is to decide cases based on the law Congress made.
Active calls for violence against individuals are not protected under the 1A. This is not legal advice and any lawyer would ask more questions about what exactly you want to do because there are many possible factors not hear mention that could lead to incarceration.
Having not heard of “Krasnov” before I looked him up and my sub-3 seconds of research shows that the suggested searches and first results include the current president and theories about KGB involvement.
Any criminal trial from such a course of conduct would not require that the Government establish that “Trump =The real ‘Krasnov’” for a conviction.
This would be a poor idea, even under long standing legal doctrines and interpretations.
That kind of regulation wouldn’t even survive a 9th Circuit en banc. Existing law governing industry is not “supporting precedent” to force private citizens to waive one right just to enjoy another in their own home.
mandatory storage safety with inspections
Here in the U.S. our Constitution prohibits the government from performing searches of people’s homes with first having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and a warrant to search their home that has been signed by a judge. Const. Amend. IV.
Congress is the combination of the House of Representatives and the Senate. America has a bicameral legislature. (Congress=House of Reps + Senate)
Because this passed the Senate in Feb and the House recently it is correct to say that this bill has passed Congress.
Michael Troy has the uncreatively name American Revolution Podcast which is basically a full episode per event/battle between the French Indian War beyond the signing of the Constitution. Leans more history than entertainment but there’s some deadpan humor in there.
9.42(2)(B)'s last word “and” makes it clear to satisfy the statue one must:
-Satisfy 9.41(1);
-Satisfy either 9.41(2)(A) OR 9.41(2)(B); AND
-Satisfy either 9.41(3)(A) OR 9.41(3)(B).
That reading effectively reads the final requirement out of the text or presumes some extreme fact pattern that was not mentioned.
No problem. To add on being able to identify the way others view matters and the rational they employed to justify their actions allows us to identify logical reasons from their perspective for them to change their opinions.
On point A, I suspect he self-radicalized at first and then entered his own bubble where he further leaned more into radicalization.
On point B, I believe it does. It doesn’t matter what the negative label is; viewing individuals as the caricatures that float in our minds when we hear words like “tankie” or other words that serve only, for us, to brand individuals as part of a incorrect collective encourages us to make these same un-empathic mistakes.
We shouldn’t like many of these people we brand as things like “Tankie”; but we should understand why they feel the ways they do.
Have you seen Canadian house prices?