Slashdot Mirror
Texas Bills Would Bar Warrantless Snooping On Phone Location
pigrabbitbear writes "The Supreme Court may have approved the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens for just about forever, but the good old state of Texas isn't going to take that lying down. Texas lawmakers don't believe that cell phone location data is fair game for law enforcement, and a couple identical bills filed in Texas's House and Senate would provide sweeping protections for private cell users."
This isn't necessary anyway. Not when everyone willingly reports their location to Facebook and Twitter every time they need to brag about every bite of whatever they're eating. Or every bowel movement afterward.
First you're incredibly regressive (say, dealing with reproductive rights) and then you do something pretty cool.
All of these questions about what requires a warrant should be obvious. If civilians can do it without any special authorization, then it's fine for law enforcement to do it. If law enforcement expects special access due to their authority, then that special access needs a warrant.
Any exceptions should be clearly stated in law, such as access to criminal and DMV databases.
_eral US search and destroy drone program possibly to be soon implemented across the country.
To avoid Big Brother for at least a little longer.
Take this sig and smoke it.
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Are you kidding? While I think this has little to do with the discussion, your statement is completely idiotic. The United States was attacked on 9/11. Texas is a small (albeit larger than most) part of the whole. We all got hit.
Typo...
Take this sig and smoke it.
So let's innocents pay for the sinners, well thought
Sometimes it's better not having signature
While we're on the topic of warrantless wiretaps, there's something I've been trying to figure out.
Bush starts the warrantless wiretap thing, the reaction from the left is to fume with anger at the horrible abuse of power.
Obama continues it and adds in the whole "assassinate Americans using robotic aircraft" twist, and reaction from the same people is "I support the President on this, though I have mild reservations on a few aspects".
My question is... what the heck is up with that?
Interesting that they're big on personal liberty when it comes to this, but yet they're so biased in favour of patent holders in the Eastern District
A lot of people are confused about how this sort of law could be passed in Texas, which according to left-wing groupthink is a regressive bible-thumping gun-toting desert filled with rednecks who hate Darwin and force kids to pray in school.
This, of course, is nonsense. Much of the anti-Texas sentiment results from fundamental ideological differences that go to the core of the "left" versus "right" arguments.
Texans, for very valid historical reasons, have a deep seated mistrust of centralized government and authority. This can be seen in pretty much every part of our culture, especially our constitution and court systems. This way of thinking, of course, is a direct attack on everything that those on the "left" believe in. Even worse, the evidence clearly shows that our way of governing and beliefs work very well - from tort reform, to right to work, to zero income tax (just to name a few) we have a state that cherishes individual liberty, resists government interference, and we have one of the best economies in the world to show for it.
The success of Texas is a sore tooth to those on the "left". As a result, they are forced to rely on ad-hominem attacks and mischaracterization in a defensive attempt to protect and justify their beliefs, even though even casual comparisons of the success of cities and states that implement those beliefs shows that they are clearly misguided.
The fact is, disturbing as it may seem to those on the "left", Texas is beautiful, tolerant, friendly and a wonderful place to live. I moved my family here from the east coast seven years ago, and it was one of the best decisions we've ever made.
This law is just another example (among many) of Texas following in its long tradition of codifying individual rights and protecting liberties. Yes, Texas has some black marks in it's history - but show me a state (or country) that doesn't!
There is a reason why people from all over the country are flooding here, and why we gained four seats in the house in 2010. As much vitriol, misrepresentation and flat out lying that those on the "left" do about Texas, the truth is becoming more and more evident to those around the country, that just as once the United States was the place that people fled to in order to escape oppressive government, now Texas has become a safe haven within the U.S. for the same reasons.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
That would depend on whether or not the federal authorities are asking for information from a business with offices in the state of Texas. Depending on how this law is written, it is possible that a business with offices in Texas which provided information to federal law enforcement agencies that did not have a warrant for that information could be found liable for violation of this law. It is also possible that individuals with such a company could be found criminally liable (although I doubt the law is written that way). Of course the question then becomes whether or not the courts would allow the state of Texas to apply penalties in that case. It is also possible that federal courts might choose to rule evidence acquired by federal agencies without a warrant inadmissible in light of this law (which by its existence could be construed to create a presumption of privacy).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Spying on Texas citizens? A-OK.
Spying on Texas businesses? NO WAY
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Exactly the same as anywhere else in the US, since patents are covered by federal law.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
That's why the cops shoot first, to reduce the workload of the public defender.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Distrust of government? That's fairly traditional conservatism.
The DHS is exempt from state regulation. The state can't prevent them from asking for the information. It's the carriers who are being barred from providing it.
With nationwide public hotspot networks appearing (the payphone hotspots come to mind) it's trivial with wifi radios to keep tabs on clients making probe requests for networks, and can be far more accurate in pinpointing and tracking a device's location in real time.
Federal law trumps state law. this was nothing more than a hissy fit.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
assumption being wrong.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"oh, but I can't show you the data, it's classified." meaning "I can't turn this boat on a dime, and frankly, it would spill my drink if I could."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
My point is that news about Texas usually illustrates just how stupid their government is. For once, they look progressive.
As opposed to looking like what? Liberals?
As stupid as the government of Texas may or may not be, seems that Texas is doing pretty well overall since 2008 by keeping Unemployment well under the national average and actually *growing* its economic activity along with its population. Texas has managed to keep its budget in relative balance though the whole downturn as well. This was done by being *conservative* in outlook and generally right of center Republican with active Tea Party involvement at all levels.
If you think this policy is "progressive" then I wonder if you will like it as much when I say it looks pretty darned conservative from the eyes of this Texan.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yea, if you are liberal... Don't come here and ruin it for the rest of us... :)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
But now how will NCIS find their buddies when they visit Texas? That's their favorite way to look up someone
So let me get this straight, when Texan's were fighting along side all the other service men and women ... you ignore that, but you pick that they didn't actually have an airplane fly into their building?
You're such a douche. Next time you get your ass handed too you, you go deal with it all by your lonesome. Texas and the rest of the world will leave you to solve your own problems.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You forgot to mention the wet/dry vac. Turns on motor - **sluuuppp suck suck sluuuuuurp suck suck** - turns off motor. Ah, hold on. Missed a spot....
Life is not for the lazy.
you know what is progressive? Saying that an individual's rights is more important than a corporation's rights. Right now that is right off the chart progressive.
While it is possible that company or individual could be prosecuted I think the doctone of federal supremacy would trump state law.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I think there's a lot of truth to that. However, there are also plenty of people who were harsh critics of the Bush administration that have radically evolved their views now that THEIR guy is in office. Where are all the peace demonstrators for example?
The important point is that Texas is doing the right thing NOW. If you agree, don't knock it. The "other" team is going to take power again someday, so any protections that can established now will be welcome both now and in the future.
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
My point is that news about Texas usually illustrates just how stupid their government is. For once, they look progressive.
As opposed to looking like what?
As opposed to: See their education textbooks.
Distrust of government? That's fairly traditional conservatism.
No, thinking beyond the 1800's. That's not conservatism.
That depends on two things. First, is there any federal law stating that the agency in question does not need a warrant? If the answer is "No", then there is no basis for saying that federal law is supreme over state law. Second, and this only comes into play if the answer to the first question "No" (unless a court can be convinced to take it up as a Constitutional issue involving "Powers reserved to the states"), is the specific wording of the Texas statute. If the Texas statute enjoins law enforcement than it would not apply to federal authorities. On the other hand, if the statute enjoins businesses to not yield that information unless presented with a warrant, it could possibly apply (and would need a court interpretation of the specific wording).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
This is not a bad thing mind you. One of the abundant problems is "secret" intrusion in the lives of random folk based on trivial linkage on social graphs or the mining of common key words to identify individuals of interest. We see how silly this can get as six year old kids get taken to task for doodles or imaginary attacks by space aliens.
If you rotate "LOL" clockwise it looks like handgun, target, handgun. Oh my, expel the child that types LOL. N.B. zero tolerance policy in schools is an obfuscation for intolerance. Intolerance by the powers that be.... it does not teach negotiation, it does not teach listening, it teaches bullying to the next generation of police men, teachers and others in positions of power.
All in all this is a good thing. I might note that Texas has real issues from the South with fall out from the War on Drugs. The WoD has turned some border towns (both sides) into war zones which is a bad thing. Knowing this, this move by Texas is a brave thing in the defense of personal privacy and human rights.
Privacy and human rights brings me to R v. W and abortion. The recent law in Arkansas inserts the gvment into the murky early days and weeks of pregnancy where natural abortion and miscarriage is common and for many a too often sad outcome. R v. W with its anchor in privacy lets a family keep the pain of a miscarriage in the family and out of criminal courts.
What does R v. W have to do with this subject... heck track anyone and flag those that stop at a location that provides early prenatal care and yes abortion services free to the poor and slap them with abortion law violations. Tie them up in court lay bare indiscretions, foolishness, rape victims, serious medical genetic risks. Oh, and then release individuals from protective custody and suicide watch 15-30 weeks later so the state does not have to pay medical bills for the prisoner.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
The political process of approving text books for public schools in Texas leaves some things to be desired, but public schools in Texas are usually pretty good from what I've seen.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
look hard? bwahahaha
Rampant entrenched homophobia
4th highest crime rate:
Taxes:
Do you known the different between Ca. Taxes and Texas actual tax rates? 1.3%. whoopee save 1.3% and have substantial lower dynamic atmosphere, economy, and services.
Population:
The people moving out of the state are wealthier than those moving in.
Health:
The most polluting state.
Science denialism throughout the culture.
AGW and Evolution for starter.
religion:
They constantly force others to have to deal with christian beliefs, while having their own ignored.
Education:
Ranked last in the nation.
Both have the same min wage, Texas has FAR less services for the low income.
So while you 'have more' in Texas, you need to spend it no more to get the same services.
""Victory or Death!""
I notice you lost and didn't all die.
Texas, blowhard capital of the world.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Where are all the peace demonstrators for example?"
have you been keeping you head under a rock?
And read the bill. It doesn't actually change anything. You know all those reason the government uses to not need a warrant? they're all exempt.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Read the bill. In no way are they barred from providing it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I know I'll be modded down, but screw it.
Yes, those terrible Conservatives and that stupid old, dusty, ancient Constitution thing, right? Thank goodness the Progressives (who are in BOTH major parties) are here with their "modern" ideas courtesy of Marx & Lenin to provide us with such modern institutions as eugenics (which the Nazis got from Progressives in the US and eventually lead to the Holocaust...nice job guys) in the form of Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood, designed to destroy the family structure, upward mobility, and social fabric of minorities and the poor/disadvantaged along with the entitlement society (working as designed, btw...see: Detroit).
With the US on the cusp of a total takeover by the Progressives, we can look forward to all of the US soon becoming like the Progressive crown-jewel that is Detroit. With warrant-less drone strikes, indefinite detention, nationwide gun bans, and no-probable-cause-or-warrant stop-and-frisks and home searches thrown in for laughs.
Progressivism is an old and failed ideology that's been tried over and over, and failed each and every time Progressives have had political/economic control. They failed miserably and were widely discredited in the 1920s, but they re-branded themselves and are back with the same failed ideology to sell it to a fresh generation that has never been educated in the history of Progressivism.
This time around they learned their lesson, and they made sure they seized control of public education first. An educated & informed populous is Progressives' and any other tyrant's or authoritarian regime's worst enemy.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
So is a bullet to the head or sterilization.
Cheap propaganda shock tactic, typical of a coward who knows their ideas do not withstand scrutiny. A truly ham-handed opening move.
Abortion is not perfect solution, not even good.
Attacking a straw man. And also you missed word there.
Second, there's always damage to the body, she can become sterile, or the next pregnancies become high-risk.
All of which can result from pregnancy. This is irrelevant unless you're going to show that on average having a legal, state-sponsored and -monitored abortion is more dangerous than a pregnancy under the same system.
women have a time limit until they can decide to have children, in a modern society, that's less than 20 years.
Irrelevant. It's their decision whether to even exercise that right.
We're humans damn it, sentient beings, not rabbits to breed just because there's food available.
Logical fallacy, appeal to emotion. Technique of propaganda, just plain folks. Also, refer to my prior response.
The government should look out for it's citizens, not it's bottom line.
Which is what it is doing when it provides them the means to abort a pregnancy they do not want. It looks out for them by providing them choice and it looks out for you by considering your financial concerns and it looks out for both of you by not brining more unwanted lives into the world.
Also, you misused apostrophes twice in your closing sentence. Snicker.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
However, if you listen to many of the people who complained vocally about the USA PATRIOT when Bush was President, you now only hear crickets now that Obama is President.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
While we're on the topic of warrantless wiretaps, there's something I've been trying to figure out.
Bush starts the warrantless wiretap thing, the reaction from the left is to fume with anger at the horrible abuse of power.
Obama continues it and adds in the whole "assassinate Americans using robotic aircraft" twist, and reaction from the same people is "I support the President on this, though I have mild reservations on a few aspects".
My question is... what the heck is up with that?
Well, there's the fact that when Bush did it it was clearly and unambiguously against the law. I freely admit that part bothered me no end. Of course, once the warrantless wiretapping became public knowledge Congress quickly passed a retroactive bill that supposedly legitimized the practice and made everything all hunky dory. Now, that law still doesn't make warrantless wiretapping right or even constitutional in my book, and I'm no big fan of a lot of what the Obama administration has done, to say nothing about my mixed feelings about the man himself... But, this does help explain why the issue was a much bigger deal to many people when Bush got caught doing it. It's the difference between a politician you hate who nonetheless gets fairly elected, and that same hated politician rigging an election in order to win. Nobody likes it when the first happens, but the latter tends to really piss people off.
No its not. I've never heard a single progressive politician proposing a law that says that. Perhaps you could let me know.
Progressive laws:
You are too dumb to save for retirement, we will take your money and give it back as we see fit and call it Social Security.
You are too dumb to medical take care of yourself, we will take your money and give it back as we see fit and call it Medicare/Medicaid
You are too fat, we will ban sodas larger than 16 oz.
You are too dumb to protect yourself, you should not be allowed to have a gun.
You are too dumb to give your political opinion on TV, we will prevent you from putting on TV commericals for a candidate 90 days before an election.
You are too dumb to develop your property correctly, we will seize it and give it to a mall developer because then the government will get more in taxes.
You are too useless to get a job, we will take money from others and pay you not to work for 2 years straight.
You are too dumb to get an ID, we will let anyone vote just by saying their name and pretend voter fraud never happens.
Those are the progressive laws I know about and that they brag about day after day.
Well, i'm Tony, and I speak for ALL liberals. I asked, they're OK with me speaking for them.
We're NOT ok with Obama's continuing of the warrantless wiretapping, and we're NOT ok with the whole "assassinate Americans without a trial" (robots or no). We're actually pretty pissed about it. If you listened to us at all, you'd have noticed that.
Actually, I'm pretty pissed at the Democratic party. I can count on my fingers the number of representatives that I consider to be liberal. The rest are just... well look, you have the same thing over there. There's often a big difference from the stances the Republican Party holds and the stances of an actual real conservative person.
Remember, we're people too. Not stereotypes. You Hick. :P
No, the feds could pretty much tell the big carriers they want to wiretap you, and that you need to route your traffic outside of Texas for them to capture. I don't think any major cell phone company is based solely in the state of Texas.
Wow, I mean just wow. Your paranoid rantings are worthy of a Kazinsky-style manifesto. Look, since you seem not to understand the Constitution that you so revere, let me enlighten you just a little - it is designed to be modified (through amendments) and is a framework for laws. Every law is passed the way the constitution spells out and can be challenged the way it spells out. You so-called originalists just don't like the laws so you claim they're unconstitutional. Well you don't get to decide, SCOTUS does - that's the way the constitution says its to be done. Yes, progressives failed - in abolishing slavery, getting women the right to vote, allowing interracial marriage, ending child labor, cleaning up our air and water, and providing education for all children regardless of how poor their parents are. Nazis, progressive? You are laughably wrong on that one. Warrantless drone strikes and indefinite detention are NOT progressive ideas - they are totalitarian (like the Nazis were).
The political process of approving text books for public schools in Texas leaves some things to be desired, but public schools in Texas are usually pretty good from what I've seen.
It's not the process - it's the content. It's the 21st century and they're still denying evolution. That's what I mean about the brain cell problem down there. At least they finally woke up and realized that family planning works https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=624284320930416&set=a.116898608335659.16274.108038612554992&type=1&theater.
I wouldn't say exactly
Other Progressive laws:
Women get to vote
Racial minorities get to vote
You can't have separate public school systems, water fountains, public transit, etc. for whites and "coloreds"
You can't charge a poll tax to keep poor people from voting
You can't just dump whatever crap you want into the air and water that other people breathe and drink
Those are federal courts.
Suddenly killing is OK as long as we save money.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
the last constitutional amendment was a long while ago. the currently tolerated status quo is one where opinion polls determine our rights and the executive branch has far more power than a plain reading of the constitution would infer. Some parts are ignored and undermined (most of the bill of rights, just ask a defense attorney about your 4th ammendment rights erosions.) Others are aggrandized, most notably the supremacy clause and article 2. Also, Obama is continuing and extending all the policies you labeled totalitarian, so how's that HOPE and CHANGE working out for you?
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Wow, I mean just wow. Your paranoid rantings are worthy of a Kazinsky-style manifesto.
Ah yes, another false-narrative bit of propaganda from Progressives, the laughable idea that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are "extreme" and "radical" and so is anyone that speaks out in their defense. The Constitution is the *norm* and the increasingly more-Progressive/Left the nation has been going and the Progressives and fellow political-travelers that advocate for such are the "extreme" and "radical" ones. Progressives and those on the Left are who wish to grant government powers and control that are not granted to it in a plain-language reading (as it was intentionally written to be read so) of the Constitution.
Well you don't get to decide, SCOTUS does
You are also wrong about the SCOTUS determining what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS interprets what is written in the Constitution and does it's best to make a decision in a case before it that most-closely comports with the intent and meaning of the relevant portion of the Constitution. It does *not* have the power to "find" by some tortured re-interpretation of the meaning of plain words and dodgy extrapolations, new Rights, entitlements, or Federal powers.
But all of this is moot regarding whether, in the end, the SCOTUS determines what is Constitutional. We the People are who makes that determination.
And if, in our collective estimation, Government has gone beyond control and threatens rather than protects our "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"; ...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Which is the reason for the Second Amendment, and why there is a sudden massive across-the-board push on by the government and the Progressive/Left against civilian gun ownership. The big US economic/monetary collapse (that will either initiate or be initiated by an EU economic/monetary crisis) which is imminent, maybe only a couple of months away, will create the masses of desperate, hungry, and angry people that will provide the excuse to roll out martial law and militarized domestic forces.
Much more difficult to put US citizens in camps (as happened before in the US...*twice* in recent history...in WW1/WW2...both under Progressive POTUSs, btw) when a lot of them are well-armed and you're on *their* home-ground, not yours, regardless of how much more military force you have. If you try to use military muscle, better have lots of replacement troops ready and plenty of body-bags. Vietnam and Afghanistan are examples. If so many civilians in both countries had not been armed the US would have two victories it does not now have.
They may be hoping that they can control/restrict food and energy supplies after the collapse and trade food and heat for turning in firearms. A twisted "Hunger Games" scenario. "Sorry you and your kids are starving and freezing, but we've allowed you all we can for just a .22 revolver three months ago. Don't you know any neighbors you could turn in? Those guns would count towards you and your kids eating and not freezing."
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
So the last amendment was a long time ago. You missed the major point - the constitution is a FRAMEWORK FOR LAWS. If a law is passed through it's process and upheld through it's process, then it's just as legitimate as the original document. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean squat. The Hope and Change is working great for me - Bush's Great Depression was averted by the stimulus, the Affordable Care Act was passed - though I'd have preferred a single-payer system. Yes, I'd have preferred a more liberal agenda by Obama, but anything's better than the way the Republicans buttfuck everyone but the extremely wealthy.
Ah yes, another false-narrative bit of propaganda from Progressives, the laughable idea that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are "extreme" and "radical" and so is anyone that speaks out in their defense. The Constitution is the *norm* and the increasingly more-Progressive/Left the nation has been going and the Progressives and fellow political-travelers that advocate for such are the "extreme" and "radical" ones. Progressives and those on the Left are who wish to grant government powers and control that are not granted to it in a plain-language reading (as it was intentionally written to be read so) of the Constitution.
Holy shit, you're insane. Progressives don't think the Constitution and the Bill or Rights are extreme or radical, we just think that all the laws passed under the constitutional framework and upheld in the courts are just as legitimate as the original paper. Do you think there should be no laws but the Constitution? You're deranged.
You are also wrong about the SCOTUS determining what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS interprets what is written in the Constitution and does it's best to make a decision in a case before it that most-closely comports with the intent and meaning of the relevant portion of the Constitution. It does *not* have the power to "find" by some tortured re-interpretation of the meaning of plain words and dodgy extrapolations, new Rights, entitlements, or Federal powers.
So whenever you don't like the SCOTUS decisions, you just unilaterally declare them as tortured re-interpretations. Right!
But all of this is moot regarding whether, in the end, the SCOTUS determines what is Constitutional. We the People are who makes that determination.
I think you mean YOU the people, Mr. Kazinsky II
And if, in our collective estimation, Government has gone beyond control and threatens rather than protects our "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"; ...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Which is the reason for the Second Amendment, and why there is a sudden massive across-the-board push on by the government and the Progressive/Left against civilian gun ownership.
Utter nonsense. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Faux Noise. No one is coming for your guns. Arms ownership is fine. Don't you think there should be a reasonable limit to what a civilian should own? How would you feel if your neighbor exercised his "2nd amendment rights" by owning a nuclear bomb or chemical or biological weapons?
The big US economic/monetary collapse (that will either initiate or be initiated by an EU economic/monetary crisis) which is imminent, maybe only a couple of months away, will create the masses of desperate, hungry, and angry people that will provide the excuse to roll out martial law and militarized domestic forces.
Much more difficult to put US citizens in camps (as happened before in the US...*twice* in recent history...in WW1/WW2...both under Progressive POTUSs, btw) when a lot of them are well-armed and you're on *their* home-ground, not yours, regardless of how much more military force you have. If yo
It really IS the process that results in the textbook issues. Your example is not a good one, they do teach evolution in the public schools, dispute your representation otherwise.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"Texas, which according to left-wing groupthink is a regressive bible-thumping gun-toting desert filled with rednecks who hate Darwin and force kids to pray in school." -- hey, you just perfectly described my whole extended family from southeast Texas! I've been here 40+ years ...
I'm curious. Why do you think I don't know they are federal courts?
Because you seemed to be implying the the state of Texas had something to do with appointing them.
Didn't mean to imply that. I was just saying that patent litigation isn't exactly equal 'anywhere in the US' by showing that East Texas is a preferred district.