In the world we live in. This is a very minor incident and not one that’s particularly uncommon particularly in NM and AZ where there are long sections of the border that is running through wide open desert with no fence and isn’t always clearly marked.
Blowing it up with histrionics into something it isn’t doesn’t make for a very persuasive argument.
Heads should be rolling for allowing this to happen. But no, we lost our dignity and we lost our ability to defend our own nation. Israel is doing great though.
Might as well give America up to Mexico at this point?
This is almost identical to the event which started the Mexican-American War, except that back then our soldiers had nuts swinging down to their knees.
Lol turn those soldiers loose, that you denigrate, and they would be doing a thunder run through Mexico City in a day.
Bullshit. The Mexican American war started over years of Mexico protecting border raiding bandits that would cross over en force attacking American farms, ranches, and towns along the border and then flee back into Mexico with the spoils of their raids.
The ACA has not ben ruled constitutional. Aspects have ben ruled constitutional as well as unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional the medicaid mandate.
Constitutional the Mandate.
The entire law has never been ruled constitutional.
I am going by what is on the law library reference to the issue is as it pertains to certain state Laws that allows for an appeal process to take place to restore such rights such as the state of Indiana does and depending on the crime committed by such felons that will allow it so. So no it is not inaccurate.
This is from the official DOG website citing specific case law regarding restoration of rights.
www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1435-post-conviction-restoration-civil-rights
Cases
You need to reread your history!
The court did not overrule supremacy nor the ban on felons possessing firearms. In the cited case the two men were convicted of misdemeanors.
What is at issue in the case is the federal definition classifying you as a felon if the possible penalty exceeds the old 11 month and 29 day rule.
Even if a felon’s state rights are restored the federal ban on felons possessing firearms still remains.
American troop quality is basically shit, the majority of our soldiers are illiterate druggie inner city criminals and kids recruited for a free ride and to get vet benefits, or women looking to get pregged and receive $50k a year in child support from a poor soldier.
This isn’t a fighting force. Hasn’t been for a while.
Lol, every new generation of soldier hears this shit but in reality they are every bit as lethal as the proceeding if not more so…
You don’t appear to have a clue. In which branch did you serve and in what capacity? When?
Far more so. The only thing that has kept the US military in check is politics.
That is not what is cited and clearly you are ignoring that fact! Whatever, arguing with you is pointless!
Once again.
The court did not overrule supremacy nor the ban on felons possessing firearms. In the cited case the two men were convicted of misdemeanors.
What is at issue in the case is the federal definition classifying you as a felon if the possible penalty exceeds the old 11 month and 29 day rule.
Even if a felon’s state rights are restored the federal ban on felons possessing firearms still remains.
“In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), a conviction does not disqualify an individual from possessing firearms if the person convicted “has had civil rights restored.” In § 922(g)(1) cases based upon a State felony conviction, courts have uniformly looked to the law of the State where the conviction was obtained to determine whether the defendant’s civil rights have been restored and whether such action has nullified the conviction’s incidental prohibition on firearms possession. With respect to Federal felony convictions, the Supreme Court declared in Beecham v. United States , 511 U.S. 368 (1994), that only Federal law can nullify the effect of the conviction through expungement, pardon, or restoration of civil rights. This is so, the Court ruled, even though there is no Federal procedure for restoring the civil rights of Federal felons.”
Clearly there is precedent that a person convicted of a felony can restore their gun rights based on the circumstances of their case!
And the federal restoration can only be achieved by petitioning to do so in Federal Court and in accordance with Federal Law.
" United States v. Ramos , 961 F.2d 1003, 1009 (1st Cir.), cert. denied , U.S., 113 S. Ct. 364 (1992), the court held that the term “restored” in § 921(a)(20) requires the State to make an “individualized official judgment” that the defendant should be excepted from the prohibitions of § 922(g)(1). The Criminal Division takes the position that where State law contains any provision purporting to restore civil rights – either upon application by the defendant or automatically upon the completion of a sentence – it should be given effect. It is not necessary that the State issue an individualized certificate reflecting the judgment of State officials regarding an individual defendant. The Ramos case should be limited to its unique facts and not extended in attempts to nullify the effect of other State schemes for civil rights restoration. A State restoration document that is absolute on its face should disqualify the affected State felon from prosecution under § 922(g)(1) unless the facts of the case strongly support a finding that the felon had actual notice of his/her continuing State firearms disability despite the terms of the restoration document.
Which again only addresses this particular state’s law just as it says.
Even if you get the restoration of rights at the state level, you then have to follow the process to become eligible again under federal law.
Just curious, are you a lawyer? Do you interpret law as a profession?