Jump to content

Straw Purchase question.


Batesmotel
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, tous said:

One entry has me puzzled:  what is the difference between latino and hispanic?

Quick, name another amendment to the Constitution that guarantees rights for the citizen that requires government permission to exercise.

I'll wait over here for your answer.

Form 4473 will soon be revised to include :  did you vote for Donald Trump?

Have you ever been to a Trump rally?

Have you ever failed to use a person's preferred pronoun?

Have you ever posted a mean meme in any on-line forum?

:upeyes:

 

Now it asks if you are white, and if you answer yes, it asks if you are Hispanic or not. Really?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I straw purchased some gas for a guy who ran out and was trying to get home to his sick wife. I sorta know the couple and she is sick. He didn't ask for money, just gas in his rig. 

Far as I know he could legally buy gas, having valid drivers license and all...dunno...maybe I'll get raided in the middle of the night.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC from my days as a teacher, Latino was native heritage, Hispanic was heritage from the Spanish. Some kids didn’t make a distinction and didn’t really care. Some got REAL uptight about it even though the difference was real hazy. I was always confused about it. To me they were just kids. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LostinTexas said:

Now it asks if you are white, and if you answer yes, it asks if you are Hispanic or not. Really?

The class “Native American” was removed at some point, when it was realized that anyone born in the States is a Native American. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tous said:

what is the difference between latino and hispanic?

I have no idea WTF that means.

Perhaps it should be amended as follows:

Hispanic or Latino or Latinx.

You know....for clarity...

As to the gender question, I believe that they should include all 1,234 genders.

You know...for clarity....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Walt Longmire said:

Out west they are called Wagon Burners.

I have heard that some western states still have laws on the books allowing indians to be shot from covered wagons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2022 at 11:52 PM, tous said:

I am not a lawyer so this is my opinion only, but I have read far too many DoD contracts, so I am somewhat familiar with lawyer gobbledygook.

The two cases are not related.

Abranski v United States  was specifically about the straw purchase statute.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen  was about the onerous requirements that New York state imposed on those state citizen's right to firearm ownership, public carrying  and self-defense.

Abranski was a hippie Marxist travesty intended to restrict constitutional rights.  It succeeded.

Bruen was a victory on paper only.  Just after the decision was published, New York state created dozens of new laws restricting gun ownership and the right of self-defense out of thin air.

They employ the 'strike down the law on appeal one at a time and we'll just make another one for them to appeal' strategy.

Remember, these appeals take years and unless  a superior or appellate court issues an injunction, the restrictive laws stand.

 

Good question.

:599c64bfb50b0_wavey1:

 

The problem is that the new "straw purchase" law or regulation violates clear text and history of the 2nd as it has been interpreted in the past.  The restriction as talked about in this discussion is new, within the last decade.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Founding Fathers likely never anticipated petty, career bureaucrats altering or ignoring laws by declaring an update to existing regulations.

Sort of avoids all that Congress, President, will of the people route.

The BATFE and the EPA are well-known for this tactic to pass laws without ever having to pass a  law and certainly without the hassle of consulting Congress.

:upeyes:

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tous said:

The Founding Fathers likely never anticipated petty, career bureaucrats altering or ignoring laws by declaring an update to existing regulations.

Sort of avoids all that Congress, President, will of the people route.

The BATFE and the EPA are well-known for this tactic to pass laws without ever having to pass a  law and certainly without the hassle of consulting Congress.

:upeyes:

 

 

 

They most certainly did anticipate it and that is why they gave us the 2nd 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...