They’ll say it was “illegal” at the time so you still broke a law. Though I believe they all should be immediately set free and repaid for the time they served
What about those of us reviewed by the 9th Circuit, we who suffer a "civil" restraining order (no due process), who are denied firearms because the wife wanted a divorce and sole possession of the house? Although I am not a criminal, I am still a "civil," evidently--a "civil" who is denied my 2A Right to self-protection, who is just plain SOL as far as my house and child are concerned, even though I cannot work in my field of healthcare because of a bogus DV on my record. This ruling has no bearing whatever on my false imprisonment and armed robbery that was committed by The DOJ and its Judiciary.
That restitution is coming. I've been there as well. We are waiting on SCOTUS ruling as to Rahimi case. He won in the 5th circuit so we are well encouraged.
Domestic violence is a disqualifying crime. It doesn't matter what the ruling is in this case you are prohibited. Just like me. Mine was a bullshit charge too, but that don't matter. We are dangerous persons for the rest of our lives.
Guilty until proven innocent, and even then guilty anyhow. Restraining order is a judge's decree for an individual to PUNISH HIMSELF, to restrain himself while the government does not replace his house with any form of custody. This is direct evidence of DOJ racketeering--looting and appropriation of houses, cars, cash and prizes--because some person has merely been accused of some hogwash in a courtroom that is not even constitutional to operate.@@ZombasticRex
Lemme guess. This is a three judge panel that happened to randomly wind up with two pro-2A judges and once again we will see the full 9th Circuit will reverse this "epic" opinion.
Calvin Sengsavat from Fresno California. All my cases are public .I’m a non violent felon. Was charged with gross negligence discharge of a firearm. Then got charged with felon possession of a firearm, twice . Just finshed parole/probation . This is a great win . I’m definitely looking into this . I need those federal public defenders as well .
There is no distinction between violent or non-violent. If a person completes a sentence and is a free man. Then that is the end of it. If they are dangerous or violent. Then why are they not still in prison. The 2A makes no such distinction and, everyone has this natural right.
@Nobody13325 the good old black and white thinking, a common manifestation of immature thinking, a sign of borderline personality disorder, could also be on the autism spectrum. You might want to look into dichotomous thinking.
@@projectjfk972with the advent of lawfare previously known as persecution, people who fled to America fled many types of persecution, religious, political, because they were poor, because a wealthy person wanted to take their land, I don’t want that here, right now we have a rogue government that breaks the law knowingly because they are the very ones who are charged with upholding the law, they ain’t gonna arrest themselves now are they?
Any law that creates a class of Citizen and defines a Right to be denied to that class, based on being a memmber of that class, is a Bill of Attainder and thus Unconstitutional. And that includes so calledviolent felons. Especially since the designation of violent is situationally and chronologically dependent.
If someone is “dangerous” why aren’t they in prison? If you’re going to declare someone has done their time or paid their debt to society and they’re now free; how can you then remove their right to self defense? When a criminal is in the custody of the State, it’s the State’s duty to protect him. If he’s not in custody then whose duty is it to protect him?
I don't care what crime was committed. If you served your time, and stay out of trouble for 5 years. All natural rights should be restored automatically!
Denying a citizen their second amendment rights because they are labeled a felon is illegal unconstitutional because it violates the second amendment,but it violates the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause, but the 14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states clause as well. Depriving felon's their constitutionally protected second amendment rights is unconstitutional therefore illegal.
This will go to the enbanch panel. They'll put a stay on the 3 judge decision and most likely won't hear this case until the supreme Court has ruled in the Brian Range case in june of this year. In other words it's still in limbo.
I have my CCW appeal hearing in Riverside California later this month. My first hearing was continued so they could produce a discovery and what they filed was actually a joke full of a bunch of false accusations that I was never convicted of and the da refused to proceed with prosecution . So anyone can blame you for anything and when they find it it didn't happen it can still effect you later in life. This should go to prove without a shadow of a doubt that Chad Bianco is not Second Amendment friendly and the CCW unit in Riverside is full of crap. My attorney says they don't have a leg to stand on. But what do you expect from a chief law enforcement officer that kneels to BLM and panders to criminals. If we can't trust Chad Bianco as a sheriff we definitely cannot trust him as a governor. Vote no for Chad Bianco as governor.
@@jesuszaragosaProcessServer no. I didn't have an attorney so when things got complicated I hired one and he went through all the motions. I think they would have ate me for breakfast without an attorney. It's a joke what their using to try to deny me. Comical actually. 😂 🤡 Riverside county Sheriff Department is not pro second amendment and it's not following Bruen, Heller, Caetano and McDonald. Look it up Riverside County Sheriff department has a big problem following SCOTUS requirements like the Brady list, freedom of information act and Sunshine State laws to name a few.
@@jesuszaragosaProcessServer no. I didn't have an attorney so when things got complicated I hired one and he went through all the motions. I think they would have ate me for breakfast without an attorney. It's a joke what their using to try to deny me. Comical actually. 😂 🤡 Riverside county Sheriff Department is not pro second amendment and it's not following Bruen, Heller, Caetano and McDonald. Look it up Riverside County Sheriff department has a big problem following SCOTUS requirements like the Brady list, freedom of information act and Sunshine State laws to name a few.
Write in Richard L Kemp Tennessee for president 2024,end all illegal unconstitutional gun control laws permanently, bring all Traitors to justice for illegally passing and enforcing them.
What constitutes dangerous I got into a drunken fight now im a violent felon only violent conviction I have I really wish I pleaded no contest but that's what happens when your broke and have a public pretender
Meanwhile there are premeditated violent offenders who were allowed to plead down to non-violent charges to keep the courts moving and now the 9th says they get their guns back. Questionable at best.
If all these circuit courts don’t care about SCOTUS decisions, why should we the people worry or be concerned about circus court decisions??? Especially the decisions which are so obviously unconstitutional!!! 🇺🇸 if this 🖕🏾 works for the circus courts, regarding SCOTUS decisions, than this 🖕🏾🖕🏽🖕🏻should be We the People’s response to the circus courts!?🫤
I've been saying this forever. What kind of sense does it make for instance that in some cases like your third DUI in 10 years it's considered a felony. You can still get your license back eventually but you can never own a gun. Actually you can't own a gun even if it's your first DUI. Because for instance in Arkansas your first DUI is considered a misdemeanor but it is a misdemeanor for which you could serve up to one year in jail. Even though a judge would never actually sentence you to one year in jail for your first DUI. Technically they can. And when you fill out the form to buy a gun it asks you "have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor for which you could have served up to one year in jail even if you did not serve any time?" If you answer yes they will not sell you a gun. If you answer no you just lied on the form and you can get something like 10 years in prison and 150,000 fine. Plus the FBI will already have that DUI on your record. I've never gotten a DUI but I know people who have. And it just makes zero sense
Beings im a non violent covicted felon over cannabis even though those convictions have been dismised by a california superior court judge . I caught a felon in possesion charge at a later date in 2010 as firearms in the house safe it all stemmed from a 1997 cannibis conviction. Long story but i am a non violent felon so cant i go to court file a motion to dismis the felon in possession charge and cite the 9ths ruleing on Duarte and Bruin?????
I'm not worry about this case being appealed in the 9th Circuit's En Blanc panel. Remember, this is the 9th Circuit. If the case is about laws denying rights to criminals, the panel will more than likely find in favorite of the criminals. If the case involves laws denying rights, and especially 2nd Amendment rights to law-abiding citizens, then I'll be worry.
Well, I do live in the ingloriously corrupt state of illinois, and when it comes to the 2A, it's quite the opposite, they want to disarm everyone EXCEPT the illegals, and from what I have been seeing, california has been trying to do the same (among other anti-2A states, like washington, and massachusetts)
I’m a non violent offender for the sale of drugs I been home 14 years I’m a security guard I would like to get my gun rights back so I can be a armed guard so can I go and buy a gun now in California I need help on this I’m confused
That will quickly be appelaed en banc and stayed by the 9th and then they will drag theor feet a year and kick the can down the road then overturn it. Slow walking it to scotus if they even grant cert.
First this is exactly what you should expect from the 9th circus!!!! If you expected anything different then I have to tell you about Santa Claus. You may want to sit down for this one.
Thus far law-abiding supporters of civilian armament should understand how critical it is to the future of gun rights in this country that the substance of this ruling prevail.
On the other hand, if you do not trust the justice system thinking it will apply non-violent felonies at-will to seize guns then you should have little confidence it will respect this ruling either.
The ninth circuit is California so although you want to hate California because that’s what your TV told you to they’re the ones that are actually saving our gun rights go figure and this is all being done during Biden administration. It would blow your mind to find out that the only people that took rights away were Trump and other Republican presidents member the bump stock
maybe your corp has it hands in too many pies? i may or may not agree if a convect should retain there birth right to self defense. but maybe that fight should be off the table till after other gun rights have been restored to all. no bands on any gun, or gun parts,
Background checks are illegal unconstitutional felony crimes in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment,10th amendment,14th amendment section 1.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Second amendment Shall not be Infringed 10th amendment Nor prohibited by it to the states 14th amendment section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside,NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES All felons who are born or naturalized in the united states of America are citizens of the united states and therefore entitled to the same privileges and immunities as any other American citizen, therefore it is illegal unconstitutional for any state or federal government to prohibit any American citizen from exercising their constitutionally protected second amendment rights because they are labeled a felon.
It's not a life long ban. If you're convicted of a non violent crime you can have your rights restored. I know a few people who have had it done. Just need to prove that you have cleaned up your act. In california anyway, idk about other places. part of me thinks getting busted for weed shouldn't remove your rights but if they're doing thefts and stuff like that or selling drugs, not so sure if they should be allowed to have weapons unless they have shown rehabilitation
I don't consider this a win. I have no problem with felons of any kind being prohibited from carrying firearms. And I don't believe it offends the Second Amendment or applicable case law. Hoping it gets reversed.
What about all the non violent offenders who've been convicted of felon in possession of a firearm over the years??
I’m also interested in what remedies are available to people who have been convicted under unconstitutional laws.
They’ll say it was “illegal” at the time so you still broke a law. Though I believe they all should be immediately set free and repaid for the time they served
@@np4057 That doesn't work. Laws ruled Unconstitutional are retroactively nullified via Marbury v. Madison.
All convictions for illegal possession would be vacated.
What about the people who have been killed or injured because they were deprived of their right to defend themselves?
What about those of us reviewed by the 9th Circuit, we who suffer a "civil" restraining order (no due process), who are denied firearms because the wife wanted a divorce and sole possession of the house?
Although I am not a criminal, I am still a "civil," evidently--a "civil" who is denied my 2A Right to self-protection, who is just plain SOL as far as my house and child are concerned, even though I cannot work in my field of healthcare because of a bogus DV on my record. This ruling has no bearing whatever on my false imprisonment and armed robbery that was committed by The DOJ and its Judiciary.
That restitution is coming. I've been there as well. We are waiting on SCOTUS ruling as to Rahimi case. He won in the 5th circuit so we are well encouraged.
Domestic violence is a disqualifying crime. It doesn't matter what the ruling is in this case you are prohibited. Just like me. Mine was a bullshit charge too, but that don't matter. We are dangerous persons for the rest of our lives.
Guilty until proven innocent, and even then guilty anyhow. Restraining order is a judge's decree for an individual to PUNISH HIMSELF, to restrain himself while the government does not replace his house with any form of custody. This is direct evidence of DOJ racketeering--looting and appropriation of houses, cars, cash and prizes--because some person has merely been accused of some hogwash in a courtroom that is not even constitutional to operate.@@ZombasticRex
@@ZombasticRex Every man who gets involved with an evil woman becomes dangerous, whether he was before that or not.
Lemme guess. This is a three judge panel that happened to randomly wind up with two pro-2A judges and once again we will see the full 9th Circuit will reverse this "epic" opinion.
Interesting how the ‘En van c’ Nutty Ninth Circus is: “Whatever Newsolini wants.” ? ? ?
It was Bea and Vandyke (pro-2A) vs Milan Smith, Jr (anti-2A)
A pro-criminal stance is totally normal for the 9th circuit. They would also say illegal immigrants can have guns.
@@gorkyd7912 👍
@gorkyd7912 which is consistent with the 2nd amendment since it says "people" and not "citizens" or "non-felon" or "anyone but violent felons".
Calvin Sengsavat from Fresno California. All my cases are public .I’m a non violent felon. Was charged with gross negligence discharge of a firearm. Then got charged with felon possession of a firearm, twice . Just finshed parole/probation . This is a great win . I’m definitely looking into this . I need those federal public defenders as well .
There is no distinction between violent or non-violent. If a person completes a sentence and is a free man. Then that is the end of it. If they are dangerous or violent. Then why are they not still in prison. The 2A makes no such distinction and, everyone has this natural right.
Lol you a bitter ex-convict or current inmate getting out sooner than later?
@@projectjfk972 neither, actually just an old guy. Who is tired of all the muddling around with the Constitution. Things either are or, they aren't.
@Nobody13325 the good old black and white thinking, a common manifestation of immature thinking, a sign of borderline personality disorder, could also be on the autism spectrum. You might want to look into dichotomous thinking.
@@projectjfk972with the advent of lawfare previously known as persecution, people who fled to America fled many types of persecution, religious, political, because they were poor, because a wealthy person wanted to take their land, I don’t want that here, right now we have a rogue government that breaks the law knowingly because they are the very ones who are charged with upholding the law, they ain’t gonna arrest themselves now are they?
Who can not like Kostas? It's impossible. Every interaction I've had with him he has been a class act and a real professional!!!
VICTORY!! JUSTICE!
Great work. Keep up the fight.
Any law that creates a class of Citizen and defines a Right to be denied to that class, based on being a memmber of that class, is a Bill of Attainder and thus Unconstitutional. And that includes so calledviolent felons. Especially since the designation of violent is situationally and chronologically dependent.
An extra comment to help boost the RUclips algorithm!
If someone is “dangerous” why aren’t they in prison?
If you’re going to declare someone has done their time or paid their debt to society and they’re now free; how can you then remove their right to self defense?
When a criminal is in the custody of the State, it’s the State’s duty to protect him. If he’s not in custody then whose duty is it to protect him?
I don't care what crime was committed. If you served your time, and stay out of trouble for 5 years. All natural rights should be restored automatically!
I tend to agree with you and hope it works out well.
Thank you for the update stay safe.
Denying a citizen their second amendment rights because they are labeled a felon is illegal unconstitutional because it violates the second amendment,but it violates the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause, but the 14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states clause as well. Depriving felon's their constitutionally protected second amendment rights is unconstitutional therefore illegal.
This will go to the enbanch panel. They'll put a stay on the 3 judge decision and most likely won't hear this case until the supreme Court has ruled in the Brian Range case in june of this year. In other words it's still in limbo.
Thanks for always bringing good info!
I have my CCW appeal hearing in Riverside California later this month. My first hearing was continued so they could produce a discovery and what they filed was actually a joke full of a bunch of false accusations that I was never convicted of and the da refused to proceed with prosecution . So anyone can blame you for anything and when they find it it didn't happen it can still effect you later in life. This should go to prove without a shadow of a doubt that Chad Bianco is not Second Amendment friendly and the CCW unit in Riverside is full of crap. My attorney says they don't have a leg to stand on. But what do you expect from a chief law enforcement officer that kneels to BLM and panders to criminals. If we can't trust Chad Bianco as a sheriff we definitely cannot trust him as a governor. Vote no for Chad Bianco as governor.
So you didn’t have any discovery at hearing?
@@jesuszaragosaProcessServer no. I didn't have an attorney so when things got complicated I hired one and he went through all the motions. I think they would have ate me for breakfast without an attorney. It's a joke what their using to try to deny me. Comical actually. 😂 🤡 Riverside county Sheriff Department is not pro second amendment and it's not following Bruen, Heller, Caetano and McDonald. Look it up Riverside County Sheriff department has a big problem following SCOTUS requirements like the Brady list, freedom of information act and Sunshine State laws to name a few.
@@jesuszaragosaProcessServer no. I didn't have an attorney so when things got complicated I hired one and he went through all the motions. I think they would have ate me for breakfast without an attorney. It's a joke what their using to try to deny me. Comical actually. 😂 🤡 Riverside county Sheriff Department is not pro second amendment and it's not following Bruen, Heller, Caetano and McDonald. Look it up Riverside County Sheriff department has a big problem following SCOTUS requirements like the Brady list, freedom of information act and Sunshine State laws to name a few.
@@jesuszaragosaProcessServer my reply keeps getting deleted! 😲
FYI I subpoena my file at Sheriff office yesterday. I used my oldest son to serve paperwork. They gave us a hard time but still accepted service.
Great job guys 👏 keep up the good work.
They need to get this rolling for the rest of the USA
Hilarious. The 9th Circuit is overturned by the Supremes on every decision that is important.
Thanks for getting to the point so quickly.
Write in Richard L Kemp Tennessee for president 2024,end all illegal unconstitutional gun control laws permanently, bring all Traitors to justice for illegally passing and enforcing them.
What constitutes dangerous I got into a drunken fight now im a violent felon only violent conviction I have I really wish I pleaded no contest but that's what happens when your broke and have a public pretender
People who belittle their violent transgressions; blaming the alcohol- that’s what constitutes dangerous
Meanwhile there are premeditated violent offenders who were allowed to plead down to non-violent charges to keep the courts moving and now the 9th says they get their guns back. Questionable at best.
Thenks for Help save 2A
Great information
Al gore rhythm.
If all these circuit courts don’t care about SCOTUS decisions, why should we the people worry or be concerned about circus court decisions??? Especially the decisions which are so obviously unconstitutional!!! 🇺🇸 if this 🖕🏾 works for the circus courts, regarding SCOTUS decisions, than this 🖕🏾🖕🏽🖕🏻should be We the People’s response to the circus courts!?🫤
I've been saying this forever. What kind of sense does it make for instance that in some cases like your third DUI in 10 years it's considered a felony.
You can still get your license back eventually but you can never own a gun.
Actually you can't own a gun even if it's your first DUI. Because for instance in Arkansas your first DUI is considered a misdemeanor but it is a misdemeanor for which you could serve up to one year in jail.
Even though a judge would never actually sentence you to one year in jail for your first DUI. Technically they can.
And when you fill out the form to buy a gun it asks you "have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor for which you could have served up to one year in jail even if you did not serve any time?"
If you answer yes they will not sell you a gun. If you answer no you just lied on the form and you can get something like 10 years in prison and 150,000 fine. Plus the FBI will already have that DUI on your record.
I've never gotten a DUI but I know people who have. And it just makes zero sense
So if we have such non violent misdemeanors, we have to sue to get our rights back?
Exactly
Nonviolent felonies, not misdemeanors.
Nice insights, thanks guys
Yes more winning!!
Shall not be infringed, not sure what's so fuckin hard to understand
It's a Democrat thing,normal people understand things
XLNT work 😊😊. Howdy Kostas!
This decision from the 9th!?!?
Never would've thunk it.
The 9th usually is so pinko it's absurd.
Does this mean that those of us in Florida with non-violent crimes can have guns now?
Beings im a non violent covicted felon over cannabis even though those convictions have been dismised by a california superior court judge .
I caught a felon in possesion charge at a later date in 2010 as firearms in the house safe it all stemmed from a 1997 cannibis conviction.
Long story but i am a non violent felon so cant i go to court file a motion to dismis the felon in possession charge and cite the 9ths ruleing on Duarte and Bruin?????
I'm not worry about this case being appealed in the 9th Circuit's En Blanc panel. Remember, this is the 9th Circuit. If the case is about laws denying rights to criminals, the panel will more than likely find in favorite of the criminals. If the case involves laws denying rights, and especially 2nd Amendment rights to law-abiding citizens, then I'll be worry.
Well, I do live in the ingloriously corrupt state of illinois, and when it comes to the 2A, it's quite the opposite, they want to disarm everyone EXCEPT the illegals, and from what I have been seeing, california has been trying to do the same (among other anti-2A states, like washington, and massachusetts)
The first time the 9th went along with bruen
But only to help criminals.
Watch out for US v. Kittson in the 9th! 23-4132. It’s about full autos
I’m a non violent offender for the sale of drugs I been home 14 years I’m a security guard I would like to get my gun rights back so I can be a armed guard so can I go and buy a gun now in California I need help on this I’m confused
What about non violent misdemeanors? Are there any states in the 9th with misdemeanors that have (potential) penalties greater that 2 years?
Doj appealed decision
Awesome!
How does one restrict a 'right'?
That will quickly be appelaed en banc and stayed by the 9th and then they will drag theor feet a year and kick the can down the road then overturn it. Slow walking it to scotus if they even grant cert.
Yeah, epic. Unconstitutionaly epic
Yessir
The 9th circuit hasn't been bound by the SCOTUS yet.
First this is exactly what you should expect from the 9th circus!!!! If you expected anything different then I have to tell you about Santa Claus. You may want to sit down for this one.
Thus far law-abiding supporters of civilian armament should understand how critical it is to the future of gun rights in this country that the substance of this ruling prevail.
On the other hand, if you do not trust the justice system thinking it will apply non-violent felonies at-will to seize guns then you should have little confidence it will respect this ruling either.
I hope we get fps russia back
What about the non-violent non-felons who still dont hsve their rights respected? My rights werent taken from me with due process of law.
This is good news, but then how will courts define "dangerousness"? I can see #Kommiefornia coming up with all kinds of ways to skirt this ruling.
The ninth circuit is California so although you want to hate California because that’s what your TV told you to they’re the ones that are actually saving our gun rights go figure and this is all being done during Biden administration. It would blow your mind to find out that the only people that took rights away were Trump and other Republican presidents member the bump stock
Like Rahimi??
Rahimi is clearly a violent felon.
maybe your corp has it hands in too many pies?
i may or may not agree if a convect should retain there birth right to self defense.
but maybe that fight should be off the table till after other gun rights have been restored to all.
no bands on any gun, or gun parts,
The 9th jerkit court of shlemiels
9th Circus Course of Banana Peels.
Background checks are illegal unconstitutional felony crimes in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment,10th amendment,14th amendment section 1.
Yeah, NICS and state background checks are unconstitutional. The original 3-judge MSI v. Moore opinion is persuasive
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Second amendment
Shall not be Infringed
10th amendment
Nor prohibited by it to the states
14th amendment section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside,NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
All felons who are born or naturalized in the united states of America are citizens of the united states and therefore entitled to the same privileges and immunities as any other American citizen, therefore it is illegal unconstitutional for any state or federal government to prohibit any American citizen from exercising their constitutionally protected second amendment rights because they are labeled a felon.
@CRPA I'm waiting for you to address the black airman gunned down by police in FL.
The *California* rifle and pistol association?
The Civil Rights Lawyer channel has. He is an awesome civil rights attorney
It's not a life long ban. If you're convicted of a non violent crime you can have your rights restored. I know a few people who have had it done. Just need to prove that you have cleaned up your act. In california anyway, idk about other places. part of me thinks getting busted for weed shouldn't remove your rights but if they're doing thefts and stuff like that or selling drugs, not so sure if they should be allowed to have weapons unless they have shown rehabilitation
Just be homeless and/or illegal alien - full rights and privileges + monthly stipend. Problem solved 👌
Hes notnoerfecr but hes 10,000 times better than emperor newsome.
9th Circuit Court needs a reboot. Someone there is in fantasy land!
Nobody cares about the 9th circut or the west coast
I don't consider this a win. I have no problem with felons of any kind being prohibited from carrying firearms. And I don't believe it offends the Second Amendment or applicable case law. Hoping it gets reversed.
Shall not be infringed. You support violating rights of people. You support treasonous laws.
Violent or not it's still a felony. You were warned.
😒😮💨🙄🫨🫣🤮
lolololo.......aaaaaaaand nothing will change in reality. heres yer click for cash.