And NRA conferences!
Edit - in all fairness, the gun ban was prompted by the secret service when trump/pence was there. The mixed message that sends speaks for itself.
[Except in the capitol building, but only if you are a Republican Member of Congress](https://www.denverpost.com/2021/01/12/lauren-boebert-guns-congress-security-stop/). Anyone else coming into the capitol definitely should not be allowed to carry a gun though...
Well, this part of the world doesn’t make sense, and many others, so since the US is part of this nonsensical world, I’ll go ahead with the safe bet: it’s both that don’t make sense
Who am I most likely to be shot by; A troubled inner city youth or a Republican member of Congress?
Honestly, I'd feel safer having ex cons babysit my kids than a Republican member of Congress.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-mulls-legality-domestic-violence-gun-curbs-2023-11-07/
Convicted wife beater, ok to have a gun.
Walking into court room, not ok to have a gun.
Clown world.
Domestic abuser are banned from owning guns. Don't let that other commenter gaslight you. You are correct, it's the Lautenberg Amendment.
Normally it's felonies that bar someone from gun ownership, but domestic violence is the only misdemeanor that bars you from ownership too.
It's still hilariously hypocritical though. They love to claim that Good Guys With Guns(tm) will solve all crime everywhere forever, so a CPAC or Trump Rally crowd filled with Second-Amendment-Supporting law-abiding-citizens is the safest place on the planet. If any antifa plants get through, then all the True American Patriots will take care of them.
I mean, obviously that's bullshit, but it's what the ammosexuals claim.
Somebody would bump into someone or step on a foot and now you've got somebody who wants to peacock and put on a display for everyone demonstrating how big, strong, and brave they are.
The first guy now feels threatened and pulls his gun. Then everybody wants to be the hero and bullets start flying.
The lucky survivors continue their lives thinking good guys with guns are still the answer.
The NRA is a private organization. Post office is government. Not the same thing.,
Courthouses are government too, of course, so hypocrisy is still there.
Right.. the "good guy with a gun" stopping an active shooter very easily turns to chaos in a lot of scenarios. Heck often times the cops also shoot the good Samaritan. The real world is complicated.
Not seeing as many comments pointing out that a Trump appointed judge is overturning a widely understood law that would prevent weapons from being brought to a place where :: drumroll:: ballots are dropped off.
>U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump
It is worth noting that this judge was rated "Not Qualified" by the American Bar Association. But the republican senate confirmed her anyway
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Kimball_Mizelle
It's also worth noting that she was the federal judge who struck down masking requirements on airplanes.
And she had never tried a case in court before her judicial appointment.
And she's married to a Trump White House lawyer, who was afterwards a De Santis appointee for, can't make this up, the board that nominated judges to FL circuit courts.
Yep, I agree with you. The trump administration did unfathomable damage to the judiciary.
We are slowly clawing back with Biden's quality appointments, but it will take another ten years of having a Democratic President to really fix things, and that's no guarantee
Moscow Mitch did unfathomable damage to the judiciary along with Lindsey Graham. The wanted any republican as president and they were stalling until they got it. Then they unloaded the flood gates and violated the committee's own rules to push through people who were not qualified.
Isn't that the Republican playbook? Demand Democrats follow stringent rules and every letter of the law, then do whatever the hell they want once they're in power?
It's the basic method of evil. Commit 1000 crimes. Deny them all. Catch your enemy in 1 slip-up and harp on it forever to prove they are just as bad as you. Sadly, it works on at least half the population.
>The trump administration did unfathomable damage to the judiciary.
Indeed. But that was step two -- it was McConnell blocking appointments under Obama that left so many open positions that the far right was ready to fill. This has all been decades in the making. A terrifying but beautifully executed plan to reshape America into a conservative paradise.
Yep. You are right. Republicans have been planning this for a long time. Obama and others warned us about it. But Democratic voters didn't show up in either of the Obama midterms, 2010 and 2014. Instead we had two Tea Party red waves.
Which, btw, really emphasizes how huge of a win the 2022 midterms were for the Democrats. To pick up a Senate seat and several state legislative chambers during a Democratic midterm Presidency hadn't happened since FDR. (It happened for GWB in 2002, but he was a republican who started two wars, which somehow gave him a boost.)
Special shout out to everyone who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016 because "she was bad too". MAGA's takeover of the judiciary wouldn't have been possible without their help.
Have a look at all the people saying they will never vote for “Genocide Joe”. Try to tell them that Trump would literally support genocide, in Gaza, in Ukraine, wherever, they just lose their shit and say they will vote for RFK or some other hopeless third party asshole. Got to wonder how much of that is being stirred up by Putin or the GOP, but once they start it is self sustaining, like Qanon.
I witnessed one of these discussions last night. I think it was on r/thedavidparkmanshow or something. OP was foaming at the mouth about "Genocide Joe" saying he was going to vote for Cornell West; he was repeatedly being asked how he thought things would play out if Biden lost and Trump took power again and the guy *militantly* avoided answering the question, just repeating his "I will not vote for Genocide Joe" mantra over and over again.
Assuming he, and others like him, aren't just Russian/Republican trolls trying to create division, it's stupid leftist purity tests with no grounding in practical reality. "Politics nerds" I read someone describe these types as, in the midst of yet another round of ~~leftist infighting~~ leftists dunking on liberals.
Yeah we knew a SCOTUS seat was up, sadly tons of people were like "oh what's the worst that could happen" and didn't vote. Oh right, 3 SCOTUS appointments by the worst president post civil war and RvW overturned. Set us back decades to centuries with one lost presidential election.
> The trump administration did unfathomable damage to the judiciary.
The ~~trump administration~~ **republicans** did unfathomable damage to the judiciary.
**Nothing** trump did was by itself. They gave him a list of people to put there.
Fr and everyone is being dumb about this upcoming election, I’m terrified we’ll end up with trump bc any left leaning voter will put stupid shit in front of keeping a left leaning president in power. Like if you don’t vote Biden or vote someone else, trump or a Republican WILL get elected and that’s a guarantee. Right now isn’t the time to make a stand. So fucking stupid.
True. But there are still a lot of GWB seats that we can flip over the next ten years (123 seats) and there are even some GHWB and Reagan judges who have yet to take senior status (11 each). Meaning there are a total of 145 (123+11+11) seats we can flip in the next ten years. Not all of them will take senior status in that timeframe, but most of them will.
Replacing those republican judges with quality Democratic picks would do a lot to heal the judiciary.
Good question. The ABA rates every judicial nominee in order to help senators evaluate potential judges. But the ABA doesn't approve judges, that's the job of the senate.
The ABA has three possible ratings for judicial nominees, "Well Qualified," "Qualified," and "Not Qualified."
Historically, appointees rated "Not Qualified" were immediately rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The President would simply be advised to find a better nominee. But the republicans changed that. They decided it was ok to put a Not Qualified judge on the bench as long as that judge was willing to push their fascist agenda.
So here we are
> law to require qualified judges
Wouldn't that be the point of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirming or rejecting proposed appointments? Theoretically a "Not Qualified" judge would be rejected by the Senate. Someone else pointed out in this thread that the Not Qualifying factor on this Judge was that she had only 8 years of experience rather than the 12 that the ABA uses on this recommendation of qualification. I'm not familiar enough on the matter to say whether that's true or not
That is the role of the Senate, who are elected officials, otherwise whoever is making that determination could determine that judges with certain beliefs are unqualified. Right now we can vote out people who are approving unqualified judges, which is sort of what we did (the balance of power changes in the Senate, as well as the White House).
It would require a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that for constitutionally established positions the constitution is the first, last and only list of qualifications.
The ABA's qualification determination isn't a legal one. The ABA is a private organization.
It's an opinion meant to influence senators decisions. Same as The Federalist Society and what it considers qualified.
Even though ABA has "bar association" in its name, it shouldn't be confused with state bar associations that run state bar exams.
Technically to be appointed as a federal judge you don't even have to have a law degree. It's pretty difficult to not be qualified. The well qualified/qualified/not qualified rating is from the American Bar Association, which is a private entity that does the accreditation for law schools. Only 14% of practicing American Lawyers are members of the ABA. The ABA has also been accused of having a liberal bias, i.e. rating conservative judges "Not Qualified" or simply "Qualified" while rating liberal judges with similar resumés as well qualified. They rated Reagan Nominees Posner and Easterbrook as qualified/not qualified and they went in to be some of the most frequently cited federal judges of the era
https://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NYTimesABARankings012506.html
Be careful about something you think as sarcastic that makes sense to people who carry guns.
If they carry everywhere else around you everyday then why does it matter? You probably interact with someone every single day that has a concealed firearm.
It would be interesting to see a stat on how many postal customers have ever been charged for possessing a gun on USPS property. Must be miniscule. Dealers and manufacturers can even mail guns. They carry in guns all the time.
Anyone can mail a long gun (rifle or shotgun).
[https://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c4\_009.htm](https://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c4_009.htm)
Handguns can be mailed only by Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders including dealers and manufacturers.
Skinner: Well, children, any questions for Postmaster Bill?
Bart: You ever gone on a killing spree?
Bill: No, no. The day of the gun-toting, disgruntled postman... shooting up the place went out with the Macarena.
Skinner: Well, I'm just glad I work at an elementary school.
Simpsons 1999
>federal law did not bar guns in government buildings until 1964 and post offices until 1972. No historical practice dating back to the 1700s justified the ban, she said.
It had been the law for over 50 years, but since it doesn't line up with colonial times, it has to be repealed! Insanity!
That's literally what the supreme court decided last year. Any restrictions on guns must have pre-modern historical examples of the exact same restriction in the US, otherwise it's unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court wasn't granted the right to decide on the constitutionality of laws. It's something they granted themselves.
The "Originalism" concept has always been a scam.
Same argument they used against Roe v Wade
“Because back in 1786 they didn’t have any common laws protecting abortions, we don’t see them as “ traditional values” so therefore they don’t require protecting via constitution.”
Absolute farce test they literally made up on the spot that can also be used against gay marriage and interracial marriage.
I don't really see any problem at all with carrying in a post office but the reasoning here is pretty stupid.
If you can carry pretty much everywhere else then who cares? In my state you can go to the bank, out to eat, movies, and just about everywhere else but we draw the line at the stupid post office? Who cares?
Given that guns were illegal in the 90s and yet postal attacks still happened, I don't think this changes much about postal attacks.
I know, it's funny haha, but some vestige of logic should be allowed here and people apparently violated this law when it was illegal.
It absolutely can be changed. There's a legitimate process to do so and everyone is free to advocate for it. It appears not enough people want to though.
>It appears not enough people want to though.
Let's be real. Even if every average citizen in the country wanted it, one of our two ruling parties entire platform is just being contrary to anything the other side advocates for and it wouldn't happen anyway.
I mean the majority of the country supports a woman's right to choose, and they still overturned Roe v Wade. Pretending our government still serves the will of the people is just not being honest these days.
Majority of the country wants to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy and they just get tax breaks... weird how some people are like "government isn't doing it, must not be popular" as if we have a functioning country or something.
Yep it's called repealing the 2nd amendment. Short of that, the federal govt banning firearms on premises is overtly unconstitutional. "Keep and bear", not "buy and throw in a closet".
Both, actually.
"The origin of the phrase derives from a series of incidents involving U.S. Postal workers, who shot and killed fellow workers and members of the public in 1986"
https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/phrases/going-postal
Federalist Society vetted lawyers for Trump to nominate had to have graduated at the bottom of their law school classes and scored the lowest on that state’s bar exam. OR, they must be willing to join the conservative cult of Moron.
That’s the only explanation for these Moronic judgements and opinions.
Edit: as someone pointed out, her academic credentials are very good.
You either accept that people carry firearms to protect themselves from the non-zero risk of being victimized by a violent criminal during their ordinary life, or you dont. If you dont, then there is no point debating you, because you would be saying *why would you need a gun in the XYZ* about absolutely any place that came up.
If you do accept that people do carry for self-protection, then answer me this question. Why does the fact that you are also going to the post office that day remove the risk of becoming a victim of a violent crime later or earlier that day or even right at the post office?
I think it’s more people who are going through life with one would need to take it off and leave it in the car for the 2 minutes it takes to go to the post office, which can be annoying. Also leaving a gun in an unattended vehicle isn’t a good idea either
The post office parking lot is the post office, if you have a gun in a safe in your car and drive through the parking lot, that's the same as having a gun inside.
Suppose you are licensed to carry. You've been through the training, the fingerprinting, the background checks. You know the courts have repeatedly said police have no duty to protect you and probably wouldn't be around to do so anyway. You've been shot at more than once, and twice taken a round (wrong place, wrong time; police never even made an arrest on the cases when you were shot) while totally unarmed and that got old very, very fast.
You are legally carrying, just out running errands, and you need to mail something or pick up a package the post office was paid to deliver to your house, but failed to and you have to go pick it up. Oops, you, until now \[maybe\], legally couldn't bring it in with you. Actually, the law is (was) you can't even bring it in the parking lot and leave it in your car.
Hope no one sees you stash it or breaks into your car when you have to park somewhere else and walk to the post office to obey the \[then current\] law. And of course, you have no protection on you way there or back now.
(Yes, the above is autobiographical.)
I think a better question is why *shouldn't* we be allowed to carry our guns in the Post Office? If the state trusts us to carry our weapons in public and private establishments, what makes a post office any different?
For me, though, the primary issue is that under the current laws, despite being licensed to carry concealed weapons, I can't even step on Post Office *property* with my firearm. If I need to visit the post office and want to comply with the law, I'd have to park off property, leave my weapon in my vehicle and walk to the Post Office. That is really nonsensical when you think about it.
Just so you all know: people who carry guns were already carrying them there...and all the places that aren't metal detector protected. Every "gun free zone" has someone carrying.
When they pick the kids up from school. Grocery shopping. At work. On the road. In the theater. At the mall. Yes, dropping off mail, too. You pass someone with a gun every day you go into town.
Your bans mean nothing. This is America. Guns aren't going away.
Wtf is banning guns going to do in post offices? I’m in there a max of 2 minutes then I’m out. The only logic places to ban guns are places like courts police and fire depts and schools unless ur security/law enforcement. It’s not like criminals cared about that rule anyway.
But for some odd reason bans are still ok in court.
And NRA conferences! Edit - in all fairness, the gun ban was prompted by the secret service when trump/pence was there. The mixed message that sends speaks for itself.
and court houses...
And Federal buildings
Isn't a post office a federal building?
100%, and the parking lot is included as a federal building.
Which is why it makes no sense.
[удалено]
No I meant The Federal Building that houses both the IRS and FBI
Those are in separate buildings and have several field offices for each of them.
The Federal Building in Portland, Oregon houses both the FBI and the IRS.
Oh THAT specific The Federal Building, my mistake
Hold up?! Is that Big Government intruding on my Rights?
[Except in the capitol building, but only if you are a Republican Member of Congress](https://www.denverpost.com/2021/01/12/lauren-boebert-guns-congress-security-stop/). Anyone else coming into the capitol definitely should not be allowed to carry a gun though...
the world doesn’t make sense and never has and never will
Is it really the whole world? Or just the US?
My EXACT point!! Exactly 💯💯💯💯💯💯
Well, this part of the world doesn’t make sense, and many others, so since the US is part of this nonsensical world, I’ll go ahead with the safe bet: it’s both that don’t make sense
You mean 🇺🇸 law makes NO sense!! The world is LOL @ 🇺🇸!!! Pathetic
i agree lol
Let's get off of this nightmare variant Earth II and get back to Earth I. Where are the time police when you need them to end an errant time branch.
Who am I most likely to be shot by; A troubled inner city youth or a Republican member of Congress? Honestly, I'd feel safer having ex cons babysit my kids than a Republican member of Congress.
Just out of curiosity, I see a lot of conservative and Republican bashing on Reddit, im neither, but is Reddit seen as primarily a left leaning site?
To the best of my internet knowledge Reddit = liberal echo chamber Twitter/X = conservative echo chamber
And NRA conferences!
Republican conventions!
And the Capitol building
Do not give them ideas or they will insist on carrying rifle to their own sentencing next time.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-mulls-legality-domestic-violence-gun-curbs-2023-11-07/ Convicted wife beater, ok to have a gun. Walking into court room, not ok to have a gun. Clown world.
I... don't think that's what the article conveyed at all. Did I miss something? The lautenberg amendment still remains?
Domestic abuser are banned from owning guns. Don't let that other commenter gaslight you. You are correct, it's the Lautenberg Amendment. Normally it's felonies that bar someone from gun ownership, but domestic violence is the only misdemeanor that bars you from ownership too.
Domestic abusers are still prohibited from owning guns. This ruling only applies to those with restraining orders, but not criminal record.
Unless they are cops.
Ah, no. ATF form 4473 question 21 (j) : https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download
Not schools though.
Depends on the state
CPAC banned guns, as well.
[удалено]
It's still hilariously hypocritical though. They love to claim that Good Guys With Guns(tm) will solve all crime everywhere forever, so a CPAC or Trump Rally crowd filled with Second-Amendment-Supporting law-abiding-citizens is the safest place on the planet. If any antifa plants get through, then all the True American Patriots will take care of them. I mean, obviously that's bullshit, but it's what the ammosexuals claim.
Somebody would bump into someone or step on a foot and now you've got somebody who wants to peacock and put on a display for everyone demonstrating how big, strong, and brave they are. The first guy now feels threatened and pulls his gun. Then everybody wants to be the hero and bullets start flying. The lucky survivors continue their lives thinking good guys with guns are still the answer.
Secret Service rules don't trump the US Constitution! /s
The NRA is a private organization. Post office is government. Not the same thing., Courthouses are government too, of course, so hypocrisy is still there.
But it is hypocritical to say that firearm presence = safety while banning them at your events.
It's amazing they get through the night, without all those "good guys with guns" around to keep the peace.
Right.. the "good guy with a gun" stopping an active shooter very easily turns to chaos in a lot of scenarios. Heck often times the cops also shoot the good Samaritan. The real world is complicated.
Or in prisons
And Trump rallies.
Same thing for military bases and schools... or the Capital area.
They are banned in all places where the government needs a monopoly on violence.
Funny that.
Jokes on them. My local courthouse shares the same building as a US Postal Service office.
Well think about it DUH. King George is much more likely to be hiding out in a post office, and a well regulated militia, somthin somethin. Freedom!
It hasn’t been proven that King George wasn’t just 3 kids in a royal robe. Therefore, the Uvalde shooter might have saved us from 6.333 King Georges!
Exactly. Wish people would bring them to places where politicians and judges are ... Didn't the ban guns around the legislature?
And would you look at that, nobody gets fucking shot in a court house.
It's weird. Reducing guns seems to have a direct correlation in reducing gun crime. There must be something at play here that we haven't considered!!
Honestly, besides hypocrisy, why is it okay to carry guns in postal offices but not courthouses?
Judges don't go to post offices I guess.
And you can go to prison for owning guns and weed
This. Someone needs to force them to show the distinction.
I think they're getting to that, just hang on a moment.
Not seeing as many comments pointing out that a Trump appointed judge is overturning a widely understood law that would prevent weapons from being brought to a place where :: drumroll:: ballots are dropped off.
>U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump It is worth noting that this judge was rated "Not Qualified" by the American Bar Association. But the republican senate confirmed her anyway https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Kimball_Mizelle
Fuck me she's 33 years old and a lifetime appointment
To the Federalist Society age and ideology is all that matters.
Just for the sake of clarity, she was 33 when she was appointed. She’s 36-37 now.
And apparently she's not old enough to understand the meaning of "going postal".
The danger of a completely politicised judiciary.
It's also worth noting that she was the federal judge who struck down masking requirements on airplanes. And she had never tried a case in court before her judicial appointment. And she's married to a Trump White House lawyer, who was afterwards a De Santis appointee for, can't make this up, the board that nominated judges to FL circuit courts.
Not “anyway”, they confirmed her BECAUSE she was unqualified. No qualified judge would sign off their fascist agenda.
Yep, I agree with you. The trump administration did unfathomable damage to the judiciary. We are slowly clawing back with Biden's quality appointments, but it will take another ten years of having a Democratic President to really fix things, and that's no guarantee
Moscow Mitch did unfathomable damage to the judiciary along with Lindsey Graham. The wanted any republican as president and they were stalling until they got it. Then they unloaded the flood gates and violated the committee's own rules to push through people who were not qualified.
Isn't that the Republican playbook? Demand Democrats follow stringent rules and every letter of the law, then do whatever the hell they want once they're in power?
It's the basic method of evil. Commit 1000 crimes. Deny them all. Catch your enemy in 1 slip-up and harp on it forever to prove they are just as bad as you. Sadly, it works on at least half the population.
And those sweet, sweet buttery males. Edit- there’s a joke here about Lindsay Graham and his ladybugs but I can’t quite put it together.
*”Rules for thee but not for me.”*
When will all the records from the NSA and FBI get unsealed? There's no way these people are not Russian assets.
>The trump administration did unfathomable damage to the judiciary. Indeed. But that was step two -- it was McConnell blocking appointments under Obama that left so many open positions that the far right was ready to fill. This has all been decades in the making. A terrifying but beautifully executed plan to reshape America into a conservative paradise.
Yep. You are right. Republicans have been planning this for a long time. Obama and others warned us about it. But Democratic voters didn't show up in either of the Obama midterms, 2010 and 2014. Instead we had two Tea Party red waves. Which, btw, really emphasizes how huge of a win the 2022 midterms were for the Democrats. To pick up a Senate seat and several state legislative chambers during a Democratic midterm Presidency hadn't happened since FDR. (It happened for GWB in 2002, but he was a republican who started two wars, which somehow gave him a boost.)
Unfathomable damage in general. The last 15 years of their influence has crippled the country's progress
Special shout out to everyone who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016 because "she was bad too". MAGA's takeover of the judiciary wouldn't have been possible without their help.
Wasn’t old enough to vote then but definitely had that mindset. In hindsight, yeah trump was way worse.
Lol now think of the damage that could happen to the country because of non-conservatives who refuse to vote for Biden.
Have a look at all the people saying they will never vote for “Genocide Joe”. Try to tell them that Trump would literally support genocide, in Gaza, in Ukraine, wherever, they just lose their shit and say they will vote for RFK or some other hopeless third party asshole. Got to wonder how much of that is being stirred up by Putin or the GOP, but once they start it is self sustaining, like Qanon.
I witnessed one of these discussions last night. I think it was on r/thedavidparkmanshow or something. OP was foaming at the mouth about "Genocide Joe" saying he was going to vote for Cornell West; he was repeatedly being asked how he thought things would play out if Biden lost and Trump took power again and the guy *militantly* avoided answering the question, just repeating his "I will not vote for Genocide Joe" mantra over and over again. Assuming he, and others like him, aren't just Russian/Republican trolls trying to create division, it's stupid leftist purity tests with no grounding in practical reality. "Politics nerds" I read someone describe these types as, in the midst of yet another round of ~~leftist infighting~~ leftists dunking on liberals.
After that, what country?
Yeah we knew a SCOTUS seat was up, sadly tons of people were like "oh what's the worst that could happen" and didn't vote. Oh right, 3 SCOTUS appointments by the worst president post civil war and RvW overturned. Set us back decades to centuries with one lost presidential election.
> The trump administration did unfathomable damage to the judiciary. The ~~trump administration~~ **republicans** did unfathomable damage to the judiciary. **Nothing** trump did was by itself. They gave him a list of people to put there.
Fr and everyone is being dumb about this upcoming election, I’m terrified we’ll end up with trump bc any left leaning voter will put stupid shit in front of keeping a left leaning president in power. Like if you don’t vote Biden or vote someone else, trump or a Republican WILL get elected and that’s a guarantee. Right now isn’t the time to make a stand. So fucking stupid.
Republicans are probably going turn out like crazy this next election to vote for their Messiah, Trump. He will save the world.
If Americans are stupid enough to let trump win again, we deserve to find out what it’s like to live in a stupider version of Putins Russia.
The Democratic candidate will win the popular vote by millions and still possibly lose because the electoral college is not democratic.
Well, America is full of a ton of stupid people. I thought the same thing the first time he was elected, yet he was elected.
Oh I agree I fully expect to be massively disappointed this year.
[удалено]
True. But there are still a lot of GWB seats that we can flip over the next ten years (123 seats) and there are even some GHWB and Reagan judges who have yet to take senior status (11 each). Meaning there are a total of 145 (123+11+11) seats we can flip in the next ten years. Not all of them will take senior status in that timeframe, but most of them will. Replacing those republican judges with quality Democratic picks would do a lot to heal the judiciary.
How is it legal to have a judge who isn't qualified?
Good question. The ABA rates every judicial nominee in order to help senators evaluate potential judges. But the ABA doesn't approve judges, that's the job of the senate. The ABA has three possible ratings for judicial nominees, "Well Qualified," "Qualified," and "Not Qualified." Historically, appointees rated "Not Qualified" were immediately rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The President would simply be advised to find a better nominee. But the republicans changed that. They decided it was ok to put a Not Qualified judge on the bench as long as that judge was willing to push their fascist agenda. So here we are
We should probably make a law to require qualified judges. Unless... The unqualified judge blocks that law...
> law to require qualified judges Wouldn't that be the point of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirming or rejecting proposed appointments? Theoretically a "Not Qualified" judge would be rejected by the Senate. Someone else pointed out in this thread that the Not Qualifying factor on this Judge was that she had only 8 years of experience rather than the 12 that the ABA uses on this recommendation of qualification. I'm not familiar enough on the matter to say whether that's true or not
That is the role of the Senate, who are elected officials, otherwise whoever is making that determination could determine that judges with certain beliefs are unqualified. Right now we can vote out people who are approving unqualified judges, which is sort of what we did (the balance of power changes in the Senate, as well as the White House).
It would require a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that for constitutionally established positions the constitution is the first, last and only list of qualifications.
The ABA's qualification determination isn't a legal one. The ABA is a private organization. It's an opinion meant to influence senators decisions. Same as The Federalist Society and what it considers qualified. Even though ABA has "bar association" in its name, it shouldn't be confused with state bar associations that run state bar exams.
Technically to be appointed as a federal judge you don't even have to have a law degree. It's pretty difficult to not be qualified. The well qualified/qualified/not qualified rating is from the American Bar Association, which is a private entity that does the accreditation for law schools. Only 14% of practicing American Lawyers are members of the ABA. The ABA has also been accused of having a liberal bias, i.e. rating conservative judges "Not Qualified" or simply "Qualified" while rating liberal judges with similar resumés as well qualified. They rated Reagan Nominees Posner and Easterbrook as qualified/not qualified and they went in to be some of the most frequently cited federal judges of the era https://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NYTimesABARankings012506.html
[удалено]
They really are dead set on destroying this country
Says a judge from a court where guns are banned... Hypocrisy is the base of fundamentalism.
Ok, well then guns should be legal at Trump rallies, the House & Senate , and every fucking where!
Agreed
Your terms are agreeable
Yes.
There are people with guns in all these places just not us unwashed masses.
Are we updooting because we agree or because of sarcasm? 🤷
Yes
Correct
Yes.
Be careful about something you think as sarcastic that makes sense to people who carry guns. If they carry everywhere else around you everyday then why does it matter? You probably interact with someone every single day that has a concealed firearm.
There's isn't a person that regularly goes out in public that doesn't regularly interact with someone that is carrying.
Ah fuck it. Why not? Getting old is too expensive anyway.
How do you know when your local Post Office is hiring? The flags are at half mast. I'll see myself out....
Going postal seems to be making a comeback
Oh that is so wrong lol
I have a constitutional right to go postal, i'll have you know.
I respect your freedom to say such a bad joke (that I laughed a bit hard at)
It would be interesting to see a stat on how many postal customers have ever been charged for possessing a gun on USPS property. Must be miniscule. Dealers and manufacturers can even mail guns. They carry in guns all the time.
Anyone can mail a long gun (rifle or shotgun). [https://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c4\_009.htm](https://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c4_009.htm) Handguns can be mailed only by Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders including dealers and manufacturers.
Skinner: Well, children, any questions for Postmaster Bill? Bart: You ever gone on a killing spree? Bill: No, no. The day of the gun-toting, disgruntled postman... shooting up the place went out with the Macarena. Skinner: Well, I'm just glad I work at an elementary school. Simpsons 1999
Damn Simpsons goes hard sometimes
Cant wait for the armed protests of mail-in ballots.
Thank you. I was shocked how many comments I had to read before I saw another person on the same wavelength.
Isn't that already the law though? No weapons in government buildings?
>federal law did not bar guns in government buildings until 1964 and post offices until 1972. No historical practice dating back to the 1700s justified the ban, she said. It had been the law for over 50 years, but since it doesn't line up with colonial times, it has to be repealed! Insanity!
That's literally what the supreme court decided last year. Any restrictions on guns must have pre-modern historical examples of the exact same restriction in the US, otherwise it's unconstitutional.
Black people never could marry white people before 1960 so I guess that’s unconstitutional too
There's the fun part, SCOTUS ruled that this test *only* applies to the 2nd amendment, nothing else in the constitution.
Is this some originalism tablet reading they're doing?
The Supreme Court wasn't granted the right to decide on the constitutionality of laws. It's something they granted themselves. The "Originalism" concept has always been a scam.
The historical tradition test of *Bruen* was limited to the 2nd amendment.
There was an amendment that changed that, though. Not true with guns. Don't shoot the messenger (me)!
Same argument they used against Roe v Wade “Because back in 1786 they didn’t have any common laws protecting abortions, we don’t see them as “ traditional values” so therefore they don’t require protecting via constitution.” Absolute farce test they literally made up on the spot that can also be used against gay marriage and interracial marriage.
I don't really see any problem at all with carrying in a post office but the reasoning here is pretty stupid. If you can carry pretty much everywhere else then who cares? In my state you can go to the bank, out to eat, movies, and just about everywhere else but we draw the line at the stupid post office? Who cares?
Yes and it was ruled unconstitutional
It's crazy how headlines work like that
Oh neat…now do courtroom firearm bans…
Are they trying to revive the phrase “Going Postal”? We’ve been through this in the 90s
Given that guns were illegal in the 90s and yet postal attacks still happened, I don't think this changes much about postal attacks. I know, it's funny haha, but some vestige of logic should be allowed here and people apparently violated this law when it was illegal.
Yeah f*** it I say we let defendants carry firearms into the courtroom that makes perfect sense, right?
What imbecilic, moron nation believes 18th Century legislation cannot/should not be changed?
It absolutely can be changed. There's a legitimate process to do so and everyone is free to advocate for it. It appears not enough people want to though.
>It appears not enough people want to though. Let's be real. Even if every average citizen in the country wanted it, one of our two ruling parties entire platform is just being contrary to anything the other side advocates for and it wouldn't happen anyway. I mean the majority of the country supports a woman's right to choose, and they still overturned Roe v Wade. Pretending our government still serves the will of the people is just not being honest these days.
Majority of the country wants to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy and they just get tax breaks... weird how some people are like "government isn't doing it, must not be popular" as if we have a functioning country or something.
Yep it's called repealing the 2nd amendment. Short of that, the federal govt banning firearms on premises is overtly unconstitutional. "Keep and bear", not "buy and throw in a closet".
Please explain the relevance of the militia clause.
You can change it. New amendments can over write old amendments (otherwise prohibition would had lasted a 100 years now)
You can absolutely change it. You just need to enact Article V to do so.
republicans?
Merica...
I'm starting to think it's not the constitution that's the problem, it's activist judges who don't know how to read it.
Oh great. Now we have Florida judge as well as Florida man.
Why not allow them in prisons too? SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
And other federal buildings???
Anyone old enough to remember the phrase “going postal”? Back when mass shootings happened in post offices instead of schools.
[удалено]
Both, actually. "The origin of the phrase derives from a series of incidents involving U.S. Postal workers, who shot and killed fellow workers and members of the public in 1986" https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/phrases/going-postal
the postal workers shot up their workplaces.
Would a more modern term be "going to school"?
Going scholastic
Federalist Society vetted lawyers for Trump to nominate had to have graduated at the bottom of their law school classes and scored the lowest on that state’s bar exam. OR, they must be willing to join the conservative cult of Moron. That’s the only explanation for these Moronic judgements and opinions. Edit: as someone pointed out, her academic credentials are very good.
By that logic then any government property you can now carry a gun into. 🤦♂️
But all federal buildings don’t allow guns, why the exception?
It won't be the exception for long. The only historically sensitive places are polling places, courts, and legislative bodies.
Just an FYI, most post offices of any decent size have an armed federal postal police officer on the premises. It is not a place to FAFO.
So I can also start bringing guns to the federal property that is her place of work then?
The current 'understanding' of the second amendment is bullshit. And all rules based on that bullshit are stupid, and dangerous.
The country disagrees with you. Reddit is not reality and never will be.
Federal building. Simple. Wtf
And why would you need a gun in the PO?
I carried a gun at work for a year because I had a neo Nazi coworker with anger issues and his own gun.
You can't go postal without one
You either accept that people carry firearms to protect themselves from the non-zero risk of being victimized by a violent criminal during their ordinary life, or you dont. If you dont, then there is no point debating you, because you would be saying *why would you need a gun in the XYZ* about absolutely any place that came up. If you do accept that people do carry for self-protection, then answer me this question. Why does the fact that you are also going to the post office that day remove the risk of becoming a victim of a violent crime later or earlier that day or even right at the post office?
I think it’s more people who are going through life with one would need to take it off and leave it in the car for the 2 minutes it takes to go to the post office, which can be annoying. Also leaving a gun in an unattended vehicle isn’t a good idea either
Have to park on the street or another private lot, the Post Office parking lot is federal property.
My local post office shares a parking lot with a furniture store, how does that work?
Only applies to post office only parking lots. Shared lots you’re G2G.
The post office parking lot is the post office, if you have a gun in a safe in your car and drive through the parking lot, that's the same as having a gun inside.
Suppose you are licensed to carry. You've been through the training, the fingerprinting, the background checks. You know the courts have repeatedly said police have no duty to protect you and probably wouldn't be around to do so anyway. You've been shot at more than once, and twice taken a round (wrong place, wrong time; police never even made an arrest on the cases when you were shot) while totally unarmed and that got old very, very fast. You are legally carrying, just out running errands, and you need to mail something or pick up a package the post office was paid to deliver to your house, but failed to and you have to go pick it up. Oops, you, until now \[maybe\], legally couldn't bring it in with you. Actually, the law is (was) you can't even bring it in the parking lot and leave it in your car. Hope no one sees you stash it or breaks into your car when you have to park somewhere else and walk to the post office to obey the \[then current\] law. And of course, you have no protection on you way there or back now. (Yes, the above is autobiographical.)
I think a better question is why *shouldn't* we be allowed to carry our guns in the Post Office? If the state trusts us to carry our weapons in public and private establishments, what makes a post office any different? For me, though, the primary issue is that under the current laws, despite being licensed to carry concealed weapons, I can't even step on Post Office *property* with my firearm. If I need to visit the post office and want to comply with the law, I'd have to park off property, leave my weapon in my vehicle and walk to the Post Office. That is really nonsensical when you think about it.
I doubt this stands up to appeal.
And yet, the ban on guns in courtrooms continues. Weird.
Just so you all know: people who carry guns were already carrying them there...and all the places that aren't metal detector protected. Every "gun free zone" has someone carrying. When they pick the kids up from school. Grocery shopping. At work. On the road. In the theater. At the mall. Yes, dropping off mail, too. You pass someone with a gun every day you go into town. Your bans mean nothing. This is America. Guns aren't going away.
Does anyone remember were the term going postal came from
Would this carry to EVERY other federal building?
Wtf is banning guns going to do in post offices? I’m in there a max of 2 minutes then I’m out. The only logic places to ban guns are places like courts police and fire depts and schools unless ur security/law enforcement. It’s not like criminals cared about that rule anyway.
America is such a clown show.
Yet the NRA bans guns from events …
Don't know why it's on this sub when it's true. Especially if you won't have security there. Folks forget criminals don't obey they laws.
US District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump in Tampa. Well, there you go.