Looking at the first page, the circumstances surrounding the indictment are infuriating. I thought that search warrants had to be specific to avoid just that kind of fishing expedition. The initial warrant was for terrorism related charges, it seems they found no evidence of it. How come they can then turn around and go for other charges?
If a cop happens to see evidence of a crime, they don't need a warrant to arrest you for it nor for you to be charged for it. Unfortunate for this man, but he shouldn't have had drugs on him (he also had cocaine in addition to marijuana).
This administration revoked an executive order from the previous administration ("EO 14074") providing for a National Law Enforcement Accountability Database. And so, for the time being, citizens and journalists are left to collect, aggregate, and disseminate this information until the next administration takes office.
Well, also just looking at the first page, while I think there are analogous circumstances where this would've been infuriating (e.g., the government executes an unrelated search warrant, discovers both marijuana and the gun and charges him with it), in this case, it seems as though he both surrendered the gun to them and freely admitted to using marijuana which he also directed them to. That said, the search warrant was related to terrorism and it's very likely it would've authorized the agents to search for any drugs and firearms or other weapons.
They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.
uh-huh. what provision in the Constitution authorizes this, exactly?
is there anything in contemporaneous writings (Federalist Papers, for example) where someone advocated that a reasonable separation of powers would be "Article 3 judges should have the power to send legislators to jail as a side-effect of ruling that a law is unconstitutional"?
you can argue about the 2nd Amendment all you want, that's one of the oldest pastimes on the internet. but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign.
> They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states.
If you’re looking to send people to jail for violating the constitution, how about start with pretty much the entire current administration? That’ll show others that you’re speaking about honestly held beliefs.
Hell, why bring up blue states at all, given this took place in Texas?
Which part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to parse, exactly?
The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all.
If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutional constraints.
Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly?
The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia.
Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State.
Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under threat. It seems to me that anyone having a gun in their home when the state is not under attack is an open question not covered directly by "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".
But that's because I'm looking at all the words of the actual amendment. I guess your position is that "only randomly selected phrases from the constitution matter if they help me get what I want, whole sentences and the whole document don't actually matter".
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
I remember the word "regulated" back in the day does not mean "regulated" like the FDA regulates foods, it means "regulated" like we still use it for regulating a mechanical watch. "To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning."
"Well regulated" refers to their ability to shoot straight, and a militia is a civilian force. This language is about civilians being capable of handling weapons.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It’s about the right.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.
The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
> The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
Absolutely not. The state and the federal government definitely keep the monopoly of violence: you can't kill someone you believe raped your wife, the government can (under due process but still).
Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow American citizens. That's was obviously not the intent here…
A single man is no threat to the state, so your example is wrong.
A militia could be.
To be able to form militia to resist the government, individuals have absolute right to be armed.
The mechanics is really pretty simple.
And yes, I believe that extends to all arms, as is written, otherwise the intent - to be able to form militia which can overpower the government - can not be fulfilled.
That is the constitution.
I am not saying I agree with it, but at the same time, without absolute right to bear arms, the government _will_ demilitarize the people.
A well regulated militia would determine what types of guns, what ammo, what uniforms, what qualifies a member, etc.
Besides the freedom of the State means that its not subordinate to another State. Not that random people get to shoot at the duly elected State government.
> The chief purport of these amendments was to annex to the Constitution a more specific bill of rights. Freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press were thereby secured; ...; the private right to bear arms;
~ History of the United States Volume II - James Schouler 1880
> [T]he right ... to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, ... including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such States or districts without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.
> The physique and the manly appearance of the American people seems to make them well suited for the military profession. The young people very early get used to traveling and toil. Hunting is the young men's chief pasttime. This not only strengthens them bodily but teaches them to handle guns and thus prepares them for the hardships of war. In addition to this every free man has a right to keep arms in his house and to use them when he wants.
~ America 1818-1820 - Baron Klinkowstrom
> The constitution of the United States contains a number of expres limitation upon the Federal legislative power. In addition to those contained in the first then Amendments relative to freedom of religion, speech, and press, the quartering of troops, the right of the people to assemble, to petition, to keep and bear arms, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures...
~ Principles of the Constitutional Law of the United States (1917) - Westel Willoughby
> The provision in the federal constitution on the subject is; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
~ The United States Constitutional Manual (1845) - Mordecai M'Kinney
> I. Personal Rights of Individuals ... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
~ The Federal Government; it's officers and Their Duties (1871) ~ Ransom H. Gillet
> The constitution makes it the right, the laws make it the duty, of all citizens within certain ages, to bear arms.
~ Education in a Republic (1838) - Edward Everett
> A man may arm himself for a case of probable danger; he may do it with a view to no specific occurrence, and he may do it in self-defense. Who can object to it? The constitution guarantees to every man the right bear arms. No law takes it away, and none every can. The right of self-defense is an inherent one, given by God, to man. It is our own natural right, and, as Blackstone says, no human legislation can ever take it from us.
~ The Life of John J. Crittenden With Selections From His Correspondence and Speeches (US Rep, US Senator, US AG, Gov of KY) (1871) - Edited by His Daughter, Mrs. Capman Coleman
https://web.archive.org/web/20260310212334/https://fivethirt...
https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten...
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/minnlrev/vol107/iss2/3/
This administration revoked an executive order from the previous administration ("EO 14074") providing for a National Law Enforcement Accountability Database. And so, for the time being, citizens and journalists are left to collect, aggregate, and disseminate this information until the next administration takes office.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/31/2022-11...
https://bjs.ojp.gov/national-law-enforcement-accountability-...
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2026/01/26/police_miscondu...
Obligatory "Don't Talk To The Police"
Video: https://archive.org/details/youtube-d-7o9xYp7eE
Paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119
HN Threads: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwa...
"Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome."
uh-huh. what provision in the Constitution authorizes this, exactly?
is there anything in contemporaneous writings (Federalist Papers, for example) where someone advocated that a reasonable separation of powers would be "Article 3 judges should have the power to send legislators to jail as a side-effect of ruling that a law is unconstitutional"?
you can argue about the 2nd Amendment all you want, that's one of the oldest pastimes on the internet. but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign.
If you’re looking to send people to jail for violating the constitution, how about start with pretty much the entire current administration? That’ll show others that you’re speaking about honestly held beliefs.
Hell, why bring up blue states at all, given this took place in Texas?
The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all.
If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutional constraints.
It’s quite simple.
The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia.
Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State.
Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under threat. It seems to me that anyone having a gun in their home when the state is not under attack is an open question not covered directly by "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".
But that's because I'm looking at all the words of the actual amendment. I guess your position is that "only randomly selected phrases from the constitution matter if they help me get what I want, whole sentences and the whole document don't actually matter".
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
You can't have a citizen's militia without an armed populace. If 'the people' don't have guns, you don't have a militia.
It’s about the right.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.
The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
Absolutely not. The state and the federal government definitely keep the monopoly of violence: you can't kill someone you believe raped your wife, the government can (under due process but still).
Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow American citizens. That's was obviously not the intent here…
A militia could be.
To be able to form militia to resist the government, individuals have absolute right to be armed.
The mechanics is really pretty simple.
And yes, I believe that extends to all arms, as is written, otherwise the intent - to be able to form militia which can overpower the government - can not be fulfilled.
That is the constitution.
I am not saying I agree with it, but at the same time, without absolute right to bear arms, the government _will_ demilitarize the people.
Besides the freedom of the State means that its not subordinate to another State. Not that random people get to shoot at the duly elected State government.
~ History of the United States Volume II - James Schouler 1880
> [T]he right ... to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, ... including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such States or districts without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.
~ Freedmen's Burea Act extension overriding presidential veto - Congress 1866
> The physique and the manly appearance of the American people seems to make them well suited for the military profession. The young people very early get used to traveling and toil. Hunting is the young men's chief pasttime. This not only strengthens them bodily but teaches them to handle guns and thus prepares them for the hardships of war. In addition to this every free man has a right to keep arms in his house and to use them when he wants.
~ America 1818-1820 - Baron Klinkowstrom
> The constitution of the United States contains a number of expres limitation upon the Federal legislative power. In addition to those contained in the first then Amendments relative to freedom of religion, speech, and press, the quartering of troops, the right of the people to assemble, to petition, to keep and bear arms, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures...
~ Principles of the Constitutional Law of the United States (1917) - Westel Willoughby
> The provision in the federal constitution on the subject is; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
~ The United States Constitutional Manual (1845) - Mordecai M'Kinney
> I. Personal Rights of Individuals ... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
~ The Federal Government; it's officers and Their Duties (1871) ~ Ransom H. Gillet
> The constitution makes it the right, the laws make it the duty, of all citizens within certain ages, to bear arms.
~ Education in a Republic (1838) - Edward Everett
> A man may arm himself for a case of probable danger; he may do it with a view to no specific occurrence, and he may do it in self-defense. Who can object to it? The constitution guarantees to every man the right bear arms. No law takes it away, and none every can. The right of self-defense is an inherent one, given by God, to man. It is our own natural right, and, as Blackstone says, no human legislation can ever take it from us.
~ The Life of John J. Crittenden With Selections From His Correspondence and Speeches (US Rep, US Senator, US AG, Gov of KY) (1871) - Edited by His Daughter, Mrs. Capman Coleman