“Gun-free” zones are something of a contagion, particularly among government entities. When rigorously treated (through opposition and education), they can be contained to a reasonable size and cover only “essential” places like prisons. When ignored and allowed to flourish, they have a way of spreading and infecting areas around them. That’s exactly what’s happened in Nye County, Nevada.
When Bruce Jabbour, a pro-gun county commissioner, got into office in 2021, he found out that he wouldn’t be allowed to lawfully carry his pistol in his own office. Why? Because the county building also has district court offices located in the same government complex building, and Judge Kim Wanker (yes, her real name) had issued an order banning firearms from the building, ostensibly for security reasons.
This set the judges and the county commission on course for a turf war over control of the building.
Jabbour initially tried to settle the issue with the judges privately, asking them to revise the order and limit it to only the court’s offices, leaving the rest of the building alone. That wasn’t acceptable to those in robes, so Jabbour brought the issue up at a county commission meeting.
The commission, exercising its authority over the parts of the building not run by the court, voted to have signs banning guns removed from the main doors and moved to the doors leading to the court’s portion of the building.
In response, the judges took the issue to Las Vegas media outlets, claiming that the county commission was determined to endanger the judges and their staff. Jabbour then took the matter before the county commission last week.
That item was before the board on Tuesday, May 17, at which Jabbour said judges had disrespected the commission by ignoring its action. When he consulted the Nye County District Attorney’s Office, he was reportedly told he would be in contempt of the court order if he were to remove the “no weapons” signs himself.
The commission, with no remaining options left, decided to do what any decent landlord would do when faced with problem tenants: they evicted them.
At a meeting last week, the commission voted unanimously to kick the courts out of the building and relocate them to other county-owned buildings that are either not currently being used or will soon be vacated.
Not only does this solve the standoff, but according to Commissioner Debra Strickland, the county was in need of more room anyway. Booting the courts and judges will give the county much-needed room while also respecting the Second Amendment rights of those who work there.
Stories like this are a good reminder that we should never accept an anti-gun situation as something beyond our ability to change. While there are certainly places a reasonable governmental entity might want to prohibit firearms (especially when criminal justice matters are involved), these restrictions should be kept to the minimum and not allowed to infringe on more people than absolutely necessary.
The fascist left needs to be put on reservations in the mostly Federally owned Nevada desert. Where they can no longer be a threat to freedom.
You want Fallout style super mutants this is how you get Fallout super mutants.
Could be the beginning of a great hunting business opportunity. Guide gamers on a real live hunt.
Don’t they always use ‘ants’ in Archer?
Yes but that was over sugar whereas this would have old atomic test sites……… shame we already have the hills have eyes as this could make for a fun b list horror movie.
Sounds like activists. Need to get rid of them right away.
I dunno… super mutants are pretty masculine. The left would probably excommunicate them for “hyper masculinity”. The super mutants would then form their own clan, and return to eat the leftists, cramming the leftovers in gore bags.
Seems like a win-win to me.
Disregard my previous objection.
Man are they guna need a lot of tumms
Have played all of the ‘Fallout’ games except ‘Fallout: Tactics’. I don’t recall encountering even one female Super Mutant in any of the games.
My only concern would be that what doesn’t kill them might make them stronger. So hopefully they would just f’n die. Slowly. And painfully.
Have long labored under the notion that any structure that houses federal agency employees is a “federal building”. Anyone got a source to confirm, or negate the assumption?
UNITED STATES CODE : The term “Federal building” means any building to be constructed by, or for the use of, any Federal agency. Such term shall include buildings built for the purpose of being leased by a Federal agency, and privatized military housing.
Google “United States Code” plus other info to see what the Horse’s Mouth says.
“The term “Federal building” means any building to be constructed by, or for the use of, any Federal agency.”
Thanx, for that.
Overanus
Upuranus.
federal buildings are under the authority of the GSA…
Years ago, I did remodeling and building maintenance work and one of my regular clients was a family that owned post office buildings in a couple nearby towns, and I did a few projects in them. Yes, the entire structure is considered a federal building. Connected parking lots and yards are also considered part of the overall facility, which is why there’s been so much legal wrangling over handguns in cars in the parking lots. Some of the regulations are ridiculous, going well beyond the commercial building codes and OSHA regs. Thankfully, these postmasters were all pretty easy-going and never gave me any grief.
The parking lot only counts if it is exclusive to the post office. If the post office is in a strip mall, the shared parking isn’t Federal property. If the post office is a free standing building with a parking lot cut off from other buildings, it’s Federal property
basically true…
Judge Kim Wanker isn’t a Federal Judge.
In West Virginia, any building that houses a court of law, including municipal, magistrate circuit and supreme, is a gun free zone by action of state statute.
This came about after an elderly woman produced a .25 auto during the trial of one of the men accused of murdering her daughter. She farted several times at the defendant, fortunately no one was seriously injured.
Seems like Miner didn’t catch TTAG’s recent article discussing the utility and lethality of the diminutive .22LR and its cousins…
Hazy, I’m not the one who shot at judge Hoke.
And .25 autos can be employed to lethal affect quite easily, I know of two local murders committed with a .25.
RE: minor49IQ…”In West Virginia, any building that houses a court of law, including municipal, magistrate circuit and supreme, is a gun free zone by action of state statute.”
It’s not a Gun Free Zone if the zone has armed police, etc. An example of a Gun Free Zone? Sandy Hook.
We weren’t talking about West Virginia, we were talking about Nevada. But you make good points – Maybe we need to work on West Virginia next.
In Nev. if a fed. agency shares a building with other tenants then only the part that is Federal is no firearms NOT the whole building!
“In Nev. if a fed. agency shares a building with other tenants then only the part that is Federal is no firearms NOT the whole building!”
If (I note “If”) federal law proclaims any building with federal tenents is considered a “federal building” in whole, how would Nev. have a carve out?
It seems the county sheriff accepted that a federal court in a county owned building is, indeed, a federal building, thus the ejection of the court from the premises. Else, why not a declaratory letter to the chief judge of the federal court, citing federal law that does not extend full federal control to a building housing a court in a portion of the building?
During federal service, have never been located in a multi-use (federal/other) building. This event is quite interesting.
The last time I read the NRS statue on that, that’s the way is was.
This story is about local Court NOT a Federal. There is a No-Gun policy in Courts. This is another sharing building as the story went sounds like they would have had to argue this is a court & the county commissions did not want to go that route!
Judge wanker is not a federal judge, she is a Nevada state judge.
There is a great distinction between the state and federal courts.
not always true…sometime they just lease part of a building…and they do have control over that…not the entire building….
“not always true”
Beginning to see the light.
Once again Gun Control zealots are stuck on stupid and must be forced not to behave like plantation slave masters and tyrants.
^^^ THIS!!!! THIS RIGHT HERE!!! LOL
This is why you say engaged and become an informed voter. And vote. If you don’t want where you live to become a red communist enclave.
Local elections matter.
Nye County is adjacent to to Clark County (where 75% of the entire State’s population are located). The two Counties couldn’t be more different from each other. Nye is where Front Sight is located, and the hotel I stay at in Pahrump specifically allows you to bring your guns with you into your room. The only caveat is that they must be unloaded, of course. I always walk to and from my room with my gat holstered at my side. They even give you old bathroom (small) towels as complimentary gun cleaning mats so you don’t risk spilling liquids on the carpet or bed sheets, lol!
Nye County / Pahrump is a throwback to “Old Nevada” half a century ago. Those Pahrumpers, they like their guns…
The irony is that Pahrump is literally only a few miles from the CA border. Front Sight’s property edge is one mile from CA. So much freedom, so close to us (sigh).
“unloaded, of course”
How is that an “of course”? I’ve never had any hotel, even in much more anti-gun areas, specify the condition of firearms in my room (my home for the evening), nor asked.
On your note about irony, though, I always thought it would be cool to have build parties here on the US side of the line, and stage “loot boxes” near the border. Then the Cali rejects in Vegas passed a @#$%^&*( “Ghost Gun” law.
That law was overturned just before it was to take effect on Jan 1 of this year. It’s gone.
Haz,
That’s wonderful to hear, thanks! Do you have a link? All I found is an injunction that allowed sales of P80 kits.
Nevada AB286 was struck down as unconstitutionally vague. Both TTAG and Ammoland (Dean Weingarten) reported on the matter.
https://progunnews.com/articles/nevada-court-rules-that-ghost-gun-law-is-unconstitutional
Haz,
Thanks for the response, but the article seems to say what I read before / wrote above: Polymer 80 “won” because the judge said that the law’s attempt to define an “Unfinished frame or receiver” is unconstitutionally vague.
Unless I’m missing something, the article mentions nothing about the part of the law that matters – the fact that Nevadans’s 2A “rights” are tantamount to exercising 1A rights by filling out a government permission slip to write a book, say a prayer, or speak an opinion. Even legalizing 80% receivers is pointless until / unless the “manufacturing, assembling, possessing” provisions are struck down. Is that documented anywhere?
*Nevadans’
AB286 required serialization of all PMFs by no later than Dec 31, 2021. I was well acquainted with this because one of my “newbie POTG” friends in Vegas had just made her P80 (her first and only gun she’s ever owned) only weeks before Sisolak signed the requirement into law. The core reason for the injunction against AB286 was the fact that it was specifically aimed at Polymer80, who challenged it based upon the argument that Nevada was depriving them of their livelihood based on nothing more than political opposition to their (constitutionally protected) commerce. They won on those grounds. That may or may not be satisfactory to answer your question, but it removed my friend’s requirement to find some way to mark her new gun.
Unless/until CA’s own PMF serialization & registration requirement is knocked down, I fear Nevada’s Dems will simply regroup and come back to the table with a CA-copycat bill.
It’s all about control to them.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you’re agreeing that the part that matters (assemble, manufacture, or possess) wasn’t overturned at all, making the overturning of the other part useless / irrelevant as well. Polymer 80 “won” the prerogative to sell something to Nevadans they cannot legally use. How did that remove your friend’s requirement? There’s no path to legality in the law anyway. I don’t know if anyone’s used the phrase before, but it’s “de facto ex post facto”.
You need to find a different hotel. Lots of open carry going on in Pahrump, it’s really only the casinos where they don’t want you carrying.
However, I’m guessing that all this took place in the county seat, Tonopah, over 200 miles away.
Nye County is BIG, Nevada’s largest in area, but almost everyone in it lives either in Pahrump or Tonopah. The few remaining are scattered all over.
Nevada is an OPEN CARRY state. Unless a private property is posted at all entrances as a “NO GUNS” property, it is legal to openly carry your weapons, and carry them concealed if you have a proper permit.
‘Memba the original “Walking Tall” when Buford relocated the corrupt Judge Clarke from the courtroom to the toilet and gave the judge his choice of seats?
Good times, man. Good times.
I had the exact same thought. I was wondering whether they relocated her chambers to the un-airconditioned back room of the county sewerage plant / animal control shelter / etc.
Judge Wanker clearly cannot think more than two moves ahead.
“Judge Wanker clearly cannot think more than two moves ahead.”
The ‘Dunning-Kruger’ effect in action. Those so convinced of their intellectual superiority when in realty, they’re nothing special.
(Any guesses when the SCotUS decision drops? I suspect it and abortion are the last 2 announced as they walk out the door and turn out the lights…)
I just sent Dan a quick post about that. Watch for it.
Damn, you beat me to it. Looks like we’re all showing our age.
Now, that’s a group of county commissioners that did it right way.
Only thing better would have been yet if they banished them to some dank basement in some 100 year old POS building.
It’s a good thing no NRA supporters were involved in this otherwise they would have not only accepted the restrictions but even encouraged more on the basis that “if we don’t give up something we’ll lose even more!”.
Leftists are bullies, and no bully has ever been appeased by submission
Judge Wanker…oh my, you can’t make this crap up. I wonder where her son, His most Royal Highness Albert-Duke of Wanker Hall is.
Anyone want to bet that the judges, having been publicly spanked once, will double-down on their attacks on the Constitution from within their new, exclusive, private domain?
Judge wanker did not issue the orders.
And it was a democrat commissioner who led the charge to remove the no-gun signs.
“In 2010, after several shootings at courthouses, including one at the federal building in Las Vegas, District Court Judge Robert Lane wrote an order forbidding firearms in the building and the court’s other office in Tonopah. Instead, county employees could apply to carry concealed weapons.
The judicial order specifically mentions the “courthouse” and its “courtrooms, chambers, offices, annexes” and other rooms where a judicial proceeding may be underway.
Commissioner Bruce Jabbour, appointed to the commission in 2020 by Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, applied to carry his concealed weapon as the order dictates.
Jabbour’s request was denied.“
https://www.8newsnow.com/i-team/i-team-its-not-if-it-happens-its-when-it-happens-judges-fear-for-safety-after-county-votes-to-allow-guns-in-court-pahrump-nye-nevada/amp/
Jennifer, thanks for a hearty chuckle to end a busy work day.
…this is quite humorous!
The judges are not necessarily anti-gun, but they are averse to getting shot. Before gun bans in courthouses (and metal detectors), some judges up here installed bullet proof benches in the event an angry litigant (usually a soon to be ex-husband) decided to try to shoot the other party, the other party’s attorney, and of course the judge. Most of those judges were armed as well (as were their courtroom deputies) but the litigant always drew first.
Maybe judges should make better rulings. My experience is judges are very agenda based, and the ones that aren’t, wont disagree with their agenda based cohorts. If they actually followed the law, perhaps none of them would have issues. Alas, they are politically animated creatures beholden to their own collective stupidity.
Put the judges’ chambers in a tent city in the desert.
Maybe Sheriff Joe can move to Nevada to supervise security.
I live there and know several of the commissioners. They’re often a hot mess and one may be going to prison, but at least they did this right.
Mad props to TTAG for that tweet directed at Julie Grant. That’s some quality free speech right there.
She can fuck right off to the gallows as far as I’m concerned.
For those wondering what you are talking about…
https://twitter.com/guntruth/status/1528786003187716097
Geez strych9, reading TTAGs most excellent tweet almost leads a guy to thinking that maybe ttag doesn’t approve of things like Moderating™ or restricting or redacting people’s words and speech! Could it really be true? Could they really, truly, be that mind bogglingly hypocritical?? (the highly unfortunate fly in an otherwise pleasing ointment). Maybe ttag too, in their very own words and sentiments, can fuck off, fuck all the way off and then keep fucking off when they continuously march our comments into the re-education camps. Or, call me a dreamer… THEY COULD JUST STOP DOING IT. 😶
This brings warm feelings to my heart.
You’ve missed what’s actually going on here.
Under NV state law, in order to declare a government building a gun free zone, somebody has to pay for armed guards to staff a metal detector checkpoint.
The court system wanted the whole building gun free but because they didn’t want to pay for that extra staffing, they wanted to mooch off the county government’s general fund.
By putting the court in their own building, the county forces the court to pay for the security out of their budget. Faced with that choice, the court may or may not do it.
The real story here isn’t about being feel-good about the county being pro-2A. It’s about the success of a state law meant to ban fake “safety zones” without any actual safety.
I’ve delt with judges almost all of my adult life. From county to federal. Most were okay, but more than a few were full of themselves. It doesn’t hurt for a couple to find out their feet are made of clay too.
They’re often the same type of people that like to sit on commissions and boards. They love the sound of their own voice, and they love being in charge. There’s a reason lawyers are willing to take a sizable pay cut to become a judge.
😶
@American Patriot
“This story is about local Court NOT a Federal.”
Indeed. Took the matter beyond local.
Here is our statue: (Nevada revised statues) NRS 202.3673
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Legal/LawLibrary/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec3673
I carry where ever I go so I keep up with the laws……
That link spells it out exactly & in regards to federal it’s towards the bottom. it’s not long!
“That link spells it out exactly & in regards to federal it’s towards the bottom. it’s not long!”
Thanx for the link. Statute seems clear; judge over-stepped authority. Sheriff/county commission might be better served to challenge the judge directly. Seems that the county is at risk of a charge of intimidating a judge due to the eviction: back off, or face disruption of court proceedings.
Would rather deal with the written law, rather than blowback from an alleged act of intimidation of a judge.
All hail our powerful and unaccountable overlords, the judges. With a single letter they may dictate our everyday lives. Everyone is so pleased you seem to support them. In fact, finding legal reasons why they are obviously superior to us citizens, please submit your application as a law clerk. The address is immagonnasuc$yourdi$k/nonbinary/$ole dot commie. Please click. I earned nothing explaining why you are a traitor.
“Jabbour initially tried to settle the issue with the judges privately, asking them to revise the order and limit it to only the court’s offices, leaving the rest of the building alone…”
A reasonable solution? NOT ALLOWED!
Why does the County Commissioner have to educate the judges on the meaning of strict scrutiny.\?
The only time a person should be searched and thus disarmed is when they’re incarcerated. PERIOD!
had one in Pittsburgh actually use the “N-word”…[at the airport..not his courtroom]…and he got away with it….
The only time a person should be searched and thus disarmed is when they’re incarcerated.
Does anyone else find it ironic that, in the federal (and most state) courtrooms in our country, ostensibly responsible for enforcing and upholding our “constitutional” rights, we are disarmed by UNconstitutional statute?? If, as most of us seem to believe, the essence and purpose of the 2A is to preserve our right to “. . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, 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.”, then there are few places that have LESS justification for banning firearms than Federal buildings, or ANY courtroom.
Just sayin’, is all.
@Umm . . .
“I don’t know if anyone’s used the phrase before, but it’s “de facto ex post facto”.”
Not quite.
A law making a formerly legal activity/item illegal after a specified date is not “ex post facto” law. Making legal prior activity illegal back to the date prior to the law is more likely to be “ex post facto” (this is a question because a number of non-gun laws have been installed federally and locally, with retroactive provisions).
An “ex post facto” law must make what you did prohibited prior to enactment of a current law. Ex: Two years ago, you bought a machine gun legally. A year later, you legally sold the machine gun to another person. Today a new law states that anyone in possession of a machine gun, at any time in their life, is guilty of the crime of possession of a machine gun. Such law is correctly “ex post facto”.
I know what “ex post facto” means. Do you know what “de facto” means?
The Constitution limits punishment (deprivation of life, liberty, and property) to those convicted under due process of law.
A law that punishes not undoing a legal action “X” compels action (deprivation of liberty), including the uncompensated forfeiture (deprivation) of property, effectively (de facto) punishing that perfectly legal past action. Saying “Well, you aren’t technically being punished for X because you can escape conviction for X by voluntarily punishing yourself for X” is mere lawyerly sophistry. The vast majority of laws acknowledge the injustice of doing so by automatically grandfathering legal past choices, or (at the very least) by providing some path to grandfathering.
Criminalizing an action/item is not ‘de facto’ “ex post facto.”
All laws restrict some sort of human behavior. One can be punished judicially for violating a law enacted today, but not for the activity that happened before enactment of that law.
A law that violates other laws, or the constitution may be invalid (after adjudication), but prohibiting something today, that was permissible yesterday, is not ‘de facto’ anything.
Changing the speed limits on a road or street are not ‘de facto’ “ex post facto” laws. And yes, you can avoid judicial punishment by limiting onself to lower speeds (if the speed limit was reduced).
A law prohibiting a legal action performed yesterday is a new law, not ‘de facto’ anything. A new law is ‘facto’, going forward from the day the new law takes effect. Claiming ‘de facto’ “ex post facto” does not strengthen opposition to the law, nor add weight to the argument that a law should be overturned. Being prohibited today is not the same as being denied yesterday, under any circumstance. We need to be careful with our language, among ourselves, as well as with gen pop.
“De facto . . . is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice, in contrast with de jure, which refers to things that happen according to law.” The US has a de facto two-party system. We were de facto at war with Iraq. They’re called that specifically because because they aren’t technically stated in law, but operate with similar effect.
Speed limits – governing choices that are literally made moment by moment – are not comparable in any way, but automobile laws provide an excellent analogy. Technology progresses, and governments update standards to require the latest and greatest thing. Can you imagine them applying your philosophy, and not only prohibiting operation of every car without airbags, etc., but also punishing mere ownership? You couldn’t sell your beloved car (which is worth practically the same to you as the day you bought it) to anyone within any practical range; outside that, it would be pennies on the dollar, and you’d have to spend many thousands more than you originally paid for a replacement. Everyone recognizes that would be punitive and unjust. You can not only legally drive that car forever, but even sell it, unrestricted (although you obviously can’t misrepresent it as upgraded). That sliver of basic decency carries over as grandfather provisions in “assault weapon” laws, even in the CSSR.
ENDEAVOR TO PERSEVERE , THOUGHT ABOUT THIS LONG ENOUGH
AND THEN DECLARED WAR . SOMETHING LIKE THAT FROM JOSEY WALES MOVIE .
GLAD NO HIGH NOON SHOOT OUT !
ALLS WELL THAT ENDS WELL .
Googled her name, found that she’s got a record of incompetence. I’m shocked!
@Umm . . .
All laws limit behavior after the effective date of the enacted law. Thus, all laws are “ex post facto”, or in your analysis ‘de facto’ “ex post facto”. As in anything permissible yesterday, but no longer permissible today is ‘de facto’ “ex post facto”. But in reality, laws that change past behavior are ‘facto’, not ‘de facto’.
Regardless, unless a law makes past legal behavior criminal even though only committed prior to a new prohibition, it is not “ex post facto”, nor is it ‘de facto’ “ex post facto”. ‘De facto’ “Ex Post Facto” cannot be “the same as”, because the past and the present are not the same.
To be “de facto” the same as “ex post facto”, a person violating a new law must also be declared guilty of committing the now illegal action prior to enactment of a new law. This would mean that even though a law did not exist yesterday, and the law itself does not apply retroactively, today’s illegal act will be charged, along with a charge of committing an illegal act in the past….even though the current/new law does not declare past action illegal.
A non-ex post facto 2022 law would only punish bad behavior in 2022 and onward.
A law that criminalizes waking up on 1 Jan without having jumped through your butt to reverse a 2019 behavior has nothing to do with your 2022 behavior. For all practical purposes, it punishes actions you performed legally in 2019. Most everyone who writes laws on any subject (including most gun laws, even in CA) understands how grossly unjust that would be. Why don’t you?
“A non-ex post facto 2022 law would only punish bad behavior in 2022 and onward.”
Precisely. An “ex post facto” law would punish you for something you did legally prior to 2022. As a result, if all privately owned firearms were legal to possess in 2021, and a new law declared possession illegal in 2022, you would be charged for a crime under 2022 law, but not for legally owning a firearm in 2021.
A law enacted in 2022 that makes all possession of privately owned firearms illegal subjects you to a charge of possession of an illegal firearm in 2022. If the 2022 law allows charging you for legal possession in 2021 such law would be “ex post facto”. Charging you for possession in 2022, would not be “ex post facto”.
The amount of time one has to become compliant with the law has no bearing on assessing a law as being “ex post facto”. One could dispute the fact that the law sets an unreasonable burden for people wishing to become compliant, but a claim that the law is “ex post facto” would fail. (Why do you think there are not hundreds of thousands of law suits claiming “ex post facto” when virtually any law enacted makes something illegal going forward that was legal prior to enactment of the law?)
Why aren’t there hundreds of thousands of lawsuits against punishing the owners of lawfully acquired property? Perhaps because (as I noted above, with numerous examples you have not even attempted to counter while dwelling on semantics) such laws are almost universally reviled and avoided.
@Umm
“…such laws are almost universally reviled and avoided.”
No, they aren’t. The vast majority of people comply with laws. You are making a claim that thousands of laws are invalid, unconstitutional simply because legal behavior yesterday, is made illegal at some point in the future. The words “ex post facto” is used to declare that a disfavored law (whatever it is I don’t like) is, on its face unconstitutional, therefore null and void.
Once upon a time, use of cocaine was legal in the US. Then it was made illegal to possess, or use….from the effective date of the law, forward. Proven use of cocaine prior to the change in law could not be charged as a crime. Legally acquired cocaine was, indeed, contraband, simply because possession and use as of the effective date of the law was a crime; people’s privately purchased property could be confiscated as “contraband” (maybe a “takings” case could be originated).
Your statement that “ex post facto” hasn’t been asserted because such laws are “universally reviled and avoided” is pretty weak sauce. Do you really believe that since the founding of the nation, absolutely no one thought to file a suit against government for making illegal today, what was legal yesterday?
Based on your reasoning, no new laws are legitimate, because they make illegal today what was legal yesterday. Using that theory, no new laws were permissible after the ratification of the Constitution; because new laws would affect past behaviors.
If you suddenly wake up a criminal because of a new law, you might have redress in objecting to an unreasonable law, but such law is not “ex post facto” on its face.
Your repeated generalizations about my statements, when I have been very clear and specific, go far beyond “strawman” to outright lies. Good day to you.
“Your repeated generalizations about my statements, when I have been very clear and specific, go far beyond “strawman” to outright lies.”
You are trying to reason from a specific instance, upward to “ex post facto”. I am outlining a general understanding of “ex post facto” that covers all the specifics you cite.
As to you affection for specifics, which statement have I made that is a “lie”? Interpretations are opinions. Not liking an interpretation does not make such a “lie”.
Seems quite a few here are competing in the “Angels on the head of a pin” contest that is not being held.
Comments are closed.