Garland says DOJ would ‘advance’ Biden’s pro-gun control policies

[livingston]

Garland says DOJ would ‘advance’ Biden’s pro-gun control policies
The role of the Justice Department is to advance the policy program of the administration as long as it is consistent with the law."



"Where there is room under the law for the president's policies to be pursued, I think the president is entitled to pursue them," Garland continued.

Biden has long been a gun control proponent.

Garland says DOJ would ‘advance’ Biden’s pro-gun control policies

Merrick Garland, President Biden’s nominee for attorney general, signaled Monday that the Justice Department under his leadership would “advance” the policies of the Biden administration on gun control.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Tisto]

Merrick Garland would happily send the military door to door to confiscate EVERYTHING including slingshots if he could. He would even whisper the idea into the ear of anyone powerful enough to make that call. He is as ANTI 2A as they come.

 

[Dr. Evil]

And Trump was not a 2nd amendment supporter. Yeah, I think you know my follow up by now.

 

[tirwin1]

Doesn't matter if he gets confirmed. Based on the video excerpts I saw he's almost as out of it as biden. Someone else will be running the DOJ.

 

[GOPerfect]

And Trump was not a 2nd amendment supporter. Yeah, I think you know my follow up by now.

But, bump stocks....

 

[GOPerfect]

I have watched a decent amount for these hearings....

Be afraid, be very afraid!

 

[libertysnake]

I have watched a decent amount for these hearings....

Be afraid, be very afraid!

Have a lawyer on speed dial, and try to comply as best you can with the letter of the "policies" that these people put into place. That's all we can do.

Outside of that, fear is useless. Whenever I feel like these fuckers are closing the noose around us, I have to remind myself: no man or jury will take my character from me. They will never rob me of my intent to be a good man, and to act honorably.

 

[prambo]

This jackhole is definitely in the running for the "Roland Freisler Lifetime Achievement Award".

 

[Catskillkid]

Still would rather see him in the DOJ than on SCOTUS. Get ready for another Fast and Furious or Operation: Chokepoint in this administration.

 

[Robin]

That commie fuck was a whisper away from a seat with the supreme's. Do not underestimate how much utterly Unconstitutional damage he can do as AG, especially with the machine he has behind him.
The shit coming down is bad, like nothing seen in this country before.
Robin

 

[drowhawk]

This is why we need LEO's that are going to hold true to their oaths, and refuse to enforce any unconstitutional edicts coming down the pipeline.

 

[speedkills27]

This is why we need LEO's that are going to hold true to their oaths, and refuse to enforce any unconstitutional edicts coming down the pipeline.

I cant believe people are still relying on this notion that cops are somehow 2A friendly and are going to save us from gun control

 

[GOPerfect]

This is why we need LEO's that are going to hold true to their oaths, and refuse to enforce any unconstitutional edicts coming down the pipeline.

Not gonna happen on a large scale.

A couple here and a few there.

What needs to happen, and it won't, is for politicians and their appointees to be held accountable for their actions and their ignorance of our laws. These people hate the United States and they need to be accountable.

 

[speedkills27]

Not gonna happen on a large scale.

A couple here and a few there.

What needs to happen, and it won't, is for politicians and their appointees to be held accountable for their actions and their ignorance of our laws. These people hate the United States and they need to be accountable.

Agreed its not going to happen not while things are still comfortable for middle America. Call me a pessimist but I see the country sliding into a Canadian or European like soft socialism and being a place where PC and social justice are held above reason and facts. Personal freedom will be diminished in favor of keeping everyone safe. It doesn't take much to see it, most of it is already happening and there's nothing currently to stop it.

 

[drowhawk]

I'm not relying on anything. Was more of a "wouldn't it be nice" statement.

Just goes to show you at the end of the day a lot of LEO's don't care about the integrity of their character. They just want that paycheck signed and deposited.

Not to bash ALL LEO's either. I know there are some good ones on here so please don't think I'm being "that guy."

 

[BerettaGuy]

When will enough be enough? In San Francisco, they raised the felony level of theft to 999.00. People are looting stores and as long as the value is below 1000 the police don't arrest. If the store clerks call the police, and the perpetrators are black, they are called racist for putting the thieves life in danger. This is Social Justice Warrior crap on steroids. Elected Democrats who pooped themselves on Jan 6th are trying to shut down conservative tv shows. Basically, the Constitution is being totally ignored, but a tiny few and we the majority are being shadowbanned and shamed by these assholes.
For me, the best that can happen is the Democrats get everything so FUBAR that the only recourse left is anarchy. I mean why in the hell should I obey "the law" when our own elected officials don't. Fed up. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't these gender-confused, binary, emeffers not understand!

 

[Saltwater60]

This is why we need LEO's that are going to hold true to their oaths, and refuse to enforce any unconstitutional edicts coming down the pipeline.

Those LEOs will be here for a bit. The BLM protests were designed to force those guys to retire so that they can be replaced with commie fucks.

 

[spat]

This is why we need LEO's that are going to hold true to their oaths, and refuse to enforce any unconstitutional edicts coming down the pipeline.

Even if 99% of them did that, it only takes 1% to make it happen.

Then of course anyone who resists the 1% will have the full 100% after them.

 

[GOPerfect]

I'm not relying on anything. Was more of a "wouldn't it be nice" statement.

Just goes to show you at the end of the day a lot of LEO's don't care about the integrity of their character. They just want that paycheck signed and deposited.

Not to bash ALL LEO's either. I know there are some good ones on here so please don't think I'm being "that guy."

I have talked about this a bit in the past. While some laws are easy to see they are being violated, others are not.

We do have a system of checks and balances in the US, sometimes those checks work and other times, they do not.

While many will fault the Police all of the time, I only fault them some of the time. There are many officers in many departments that have no clue of the deep, deep down laws and regulations in these once United States. They look at current laws, laws passed by the elected body. They enforce these laws.

While I try to my job very well, I will never lie, my paycheck and the survival of my family are always foremost in my mind. I do not go out of way to violate the Rights of the people though.

Many officers do not always know all of the law, that would be impossible. Each and everyday, out elected elite pass more and more garbage; no way any cop can be apprised of all of the changes. Quick example of this, this is one experience that I had years ago. In my town, there is a parking ban during the winter months. I for got to move my truck, I got a ticket. I researched a bit and went to court. I found an old, very old law in my town that made it unlawful to park a vehicle in the driveway over night due to fire codes of decades passed. I brought that newly found information to court and beat the parking ticket. The following month, the old law was removed from the Town laws.


I will ask this question and see if it can stay civil....


What makes a law un-Constitutional? Serious question. Who decides what is and what is not a violation of the Constitution? Do we want the street cop to decide on the side of the road?

 

[GOPerfect]

When will enough be enough? In San Francisco, they raised the felony level of theft to 999.00. People are looting stores and as long as the value is below 1000 the police don't arrest. If the store clerks call the police, and the perpetrators are black, they are called racist for putting the thieves life in danger. This is Social Justice Warrior crap on steroids. Elected Democrats who pooped themselves on Jan 6th are trying to shut down conservative tv shows. Basically, the Constitution is being totally ignored, but a tiny few and we the majority are being shadowbanned and shamed by these assholes.
For me, the best that can happen is the Democrats get everything so FUBAR that the only recourse left is anarchy. I mean why in the hell should I obey "the law" when our own elected officials don't. Fed up. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't these gender-confused, binary, emeffers not understand!

I believe this has happened in many places to include NYC. Sad state of affairs,.

 

[spat]

Not gonna happen on a large scale.

A couple here and a few there.

What needs to happen, and it won't, is for politicians and their appointees to be held accountable for their actions and their ignorance of our laws. These people hate the United States and they need to be accountable.

We are either headed for Versailles or IngSoc.

Either way these guys will be held accountable.

The people really running things will not be keeping these figureheads around any longer than necessary.

Remember, the most dangerous profession in any totalitarian dictatorship is to be the right man of the dictator.

 

[GOPerfect]

We are either headed for Versailles or IngSoc.

Either way these guys will be held accountable.

The people really running things will not be keeping these figureheads around any longer than necessary.

Remember, the most dangerous profession in any totalitarian dictatorship is to be the right man of the dictator.

I hope it is Ingsoc. Being part of a place called Oceania just sounds nice, calming.

And they have some coll looking logos and designs. They gray uniforms look great as well, I will never need to think about what to wear.

 

[spat]

I have talked about this a bit in the past. While some laws are easy to see they are being violated, others are not.

We do have a system of checks and balances in the US, sometimes those checks work and other times, they do not.

While many will fault the Police all of the time, I only fault them some of the time. There are many officers in many departments that have no clue of the deep, deep down laws and regulations in these once United States. They look at current laws, laws passed by the elected body. They enforce these laws.

While I try to my job very well, I will never lie, my paycheck and the survival of my family are always foremost in my mind. I do not go out of way to violate the Rights of the people though.

Many officers do not always know all of the law, that would be impossible. Each and everyday, out elected elite pass more and more garbage; no way any cop can be apprised of all of the changes. Quick example of this, this is one experience that I had years ago. In my town, there is a parking ban during the winter months. I for got to move my truck, I got a ticket. I researched a bit and went to court. I found an old, very old law in my town that made it unlawful to park a vehicle in the driveway over night due to fire codes of decades passed. I brought that newly found information to court and beat the parking ticket. The following month, the old law was removed from the Town laws.


I will ask this question and see if it can stay civil....


What makes a law un-Constitutional? Serious question. Who decides what is and what is not a violation of the Constitution? Do we want the street cop to decide on the side of the road?

Yes, we *do* want every street cop to be able to say "this law is unconstitutional, I will not enforce it."

Just like we want every soldier to be able to say "this order is illegal, I will not follow it".

In fact, I would go even further. Any law the officer has any doubt about should not be enforced.

If officers were personally held civilly responsible for enforcement of a law that's later found unconstitutional, I bet they would be *very* selective about what they are willing to enforce.

If they aren't willing to risk their paycheck to enforce it, why should we be asked to risk our freedom ?

 

[GOPerfect]

Yes, we *do* want every street cop to be able to say "this law is unconstitutional, I will not enforce it."

Just like we want every soldier to be able to say "this order is illegal, I will not follow it".

In fact, I would go even further. Any law the officer has any doubt about should not be enforced.

If officers were personally held civilly responsible for enforcement of a law that's later found unconstitutional, I bet they would be *very* selective about what they are willing to enforce.

If they aren't willing to risk their paycheck to enforce it, why should we be asked to risk our freedom ?

Gotta be careful with that. Like I said, some laws are easy to see they are wrong, others, not so much.

I know a lot of cops, most of them, I would not want them deciding what is and what is not Constitutional.

" In fact, I would go even further. Any law the officer has any doubt about should not be enforced."...... This, I can get on board with. When I am unsure of something, I reach up higher, if they do not know, my supervisor will reach out higher. Not a difficult thing to do.


" Just like we want every soldier to be able to say "this order is illegal, I will not follow it"."........ This one, this is even tougher, I have been in this situation a couple of times, very tough indeed.

 

[speedkills27]

What makes a law un-Constitutional? Serious question. Who decides what is and what is not a violation of the Constitution? Do we want the street cop to decide on the side of the road?

I understand what you mean here. Every person (even police) is an individual and they all have their own version of unconstitutional. For me specifically, no victim, no crime

 

[spat]

Gotta be careful with that. Like I said, some laws are easy to see they are wrong, others, not so much.

I know a lot of cops, most of them, I would not want them deciding what is and what is not Constitutional.

" In fact, I would go even further. Any law the officer has any doubt about should not be enforced."...... This, I can get on board with. When I am unsure of something, I reach up higher, if they do not know, my supervisor will reach out higher. Not a difficult thing to do.


" Just like we want every soldier to be able to say "this order is illegal, I will not follow it"."........ This one, this is even tougher, I have been in this situation a couple of times, very tough indeed.

Well, the thing is, it's not "is this law wrong".

If you are not 100% certain it is right, then you do not enforce it.

And you do not get to pass that responsibility up the chain of command either. You can ask you supervisor to explain it, but if you can't understand his explanation, then you still don't enforce it.

I see no danger in this. What's the worst that could happen ? A bunch of BS vague ass laws go unenforced ? All the important ones will be obvious and anyone who can't recognize that shouldn't have a badge anyway.

This would be in addition to all the existing checks, so it can never increase the likelihood of an unconstitutional law being enforced. The worst thing it can do is cause a valid law to be unenforced.

 

[Robin]

Agreed its not going to happen not while things are still comfortable for middle America. Call me a pessimist but I see the country sliding into a Canadian or European like soft socialism and being a place where PC and social justice are held above reason and facts. Personal freedom will be diminished in favor of keeping everyone safe. It doesn't take much to see it, most of it is already happening and there's nothing currently to stop it.

I'd say you're really optimistic, we are way beyond that already! Good Lord, take a look around. This faux government isn't of, by, and for the people.
Robin

 

[drowhawk]

What makes a law un-Constitutional? Serious question. Who decides what is and what is not a violation of the Constitution? Do we want the street cop to decide on the side of the road?

I would think if we're talking in the context of the 2A, "shall not be infringed" would be clear and concise language for a LEO to stand on if he/she refuses to enforce a law restricting 2A. I don't know where we went wrong (way before I was born obviously) but that language could not have been any clearer. I think the founding father's only mistake was not listing it first and specifying that it exists to protect the following nine rights.

 

[spat]

I would think if we're talking in the context of the 2A, "shall not be infringed" would be clear and concise language for a LEO to stand on if he/she refuses to enforce a law restricting 2A. I don't know where we went wrong (way before I was born obviously) but that language could not have been any clearer. I think the founding father's only mistake was not listing it first and specifying that it exists to protect the following nine rights.

The mistake the founding fathers made was not listing penalties for those attempting to violate it.


As far as RKBA goes, my preference would be to have any attempt to violate it recognized as an actionable attack on everyone potentially subject to the infringement.

An attack that could be invoked as a defense to criminal prosecution i.e. "self defense".

That would in fact give an assassin a legal defense if the target had infringed on their 2A rights....

 

[GOPerfect]

I would think if we're talking in the context of the 2A, "shall not be infringed" would be clear and concise language for a LEO to stand on if he/she refuses to enforce a law restricting 2A. I don't know where we went wrong (way before I was born obviously) but that language could not have been any clearer. I think the founding father's only mistake was not listing it first and specifying that it exists to protect the following nine rights.

The violations to the Second Amendment have been happening since the amendment was first created.

These violations are not new, the American people have been being violated since 1794.