Concerning James Comey, Hillary And Guns
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 5 months ago
Whereas Hillary can skate on perceived reckless conduct when Comey himself acknowledges it is “a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,” gun owners also deemed guilty of recklessness now face a “terrifying new precedent,” per a Conservative Review analysis of the Supreme Court’s 6 -2 decision in the Voisine case.
“[T]he court ruled that crimes of recklessness rise to the same level as ‘misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence’ which preclude individuals convicted of such a crime from firearm ownership by federal law,” the article explains.
“Congress was not worried about a husband dropping a plate on his wife’s foot or a parent injuring her child by texting while driving,” Justice Clarence Thomas protested in his dissent.
Yea, we’ve discussed that case before. And I agree with David that the defendants were not the outstanding citizens you want for such cases, but of course that’s irrelevant. It often takes defendants that who are otherwise less than outstanding citizens to prove the larger point being made, i.e., rights applies to all men, not just the pretty people.
But it gets even worse than that. As we’ve seen, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, “… the word “use” does not demand that the person applying force have the purpose or practical certainty that it will cause harm, as compared with the understanding that it is substantially likely to do so. Or, otherwise said, that word is indifferent as to whether the actor has the mental state of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with respect to the harmful consequences of his volitional conduct.”
Notice the words intention, substantial likelihood, and recklessness. The point is that this list of potential infractions that would prohibit firearms ownership can be construed to be virtually anything concocted by the mind of the executive. Stay away from law enforcement. Don’t ever involve them in anything. Give them wide berth.
As for Hillary, did you really think the administration would hold her accountable? I didn’t and said so to those around me. Laws apply to little people. If you’re reading this, you are a little person. Act and plan accordingly.
On July 6, 2016 at 9:00 am, Fred said:
As we now understand, rule of law is for us and rule by law is for them.
On July 7, 2016 at 12:48 pm, soldat56 said:
There is a double standard. Needing to be nullified with an armed march on the District of Criminals.The chains are getting real heavy.As POTUS the Murderer of Bengazi will kill 100 million of us.The rest of the sheep who voted for will still be guaranteed a bed in a Adult Re Education FEMA Camp.
On July 11, 2016 at 3:46 pm, ExNuke said:
How can anyone expect anything else from the Department of “Just Us”?
On July 6, 2016 at 9:44 am, Blake said:
I’ve long known the rule of law is dead in this country.
However, the government finally got around to letting everyone else in the country know about it yesterday.
On July 6, 2016 at 6:01 pm, Joe H. said:
There was never any real chance that Clinton would face criminal prosecution because the DOJ is still controlled by Obama, who has endorsed Clinton for President. And yes, that is what a corrupt system does.