Jump to content

davel501

Supporting Team IV
  • Posts

    1,994
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by davel501

  1. In Garland v. Cargill, the court rules that a bumpstock does not convert a rifle into a machinegun and cannot be restricted as such.
  2. I keep forgetting that Federal regulations > Bill of Rights.
  3. Right, I don't think a normal person's laptop would be valuable in any way beyond reimaging the hard drive and using the machine as your own.
  4. Chatgpt thinks you're rolling the dice if you lie on this form. I haven't checked the references for hallucinations. Prompt: Can a person be guilty of perjury if the question is unconstitutional? Response: Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. The constitutionality of a question could potentially affect a perjury charge, as the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protection against self-incrimination. This means that a person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves, which includes providing testimony that could lead to their own criminal conviction. In the case of **United States v. Dunnigan**, a conviction for perjury resulted in an enhanced sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines because the defendant was found to have willfully impeded the administration of justice¹. However, the Court of Appeals initially found that enhancing a sentence based on a defendant's alleged perjury would be unconstitutional, reasoning that it would apply to every defendant who is convicted after testifying in their own defense¹. The Supreme Court has also recognized the power to compel testimony and disclosure, provided there is an immunity from prosecution for the compelled testimony. This means that if a person is compelled to testify, they cannot be prosecuted based on that testimony or any information derived from it². Therefore, if a question is deemed unconstitutional, such as violating the Fifth Amendment rights, it could potentially invalidate a perjury charge. However, this is a complex area of law and the specific circumstances of each case can greatly affect the outcome. It's important to consult with a legal professional for advice on specific legal matters. Source: Conversation with Copilot, 6/11/2024 (1) United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) - Justia US Supreme Court .... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/87/. (2) The Power to Compel Testimony and Disclosure - Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/08-power-to-compel-testimony-and-disclosure.html. (3) Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States.
  5. What was the reason for the search of his laptop other than who it belonged to. I don't see law enforcement having probable cause for that search.
  6. That's a pretty steep penalty for exercising a constitutional right.
  7. There is a case right now that Justice Jackson is handling. Can't find the reference but maybe it rings a bell for @Euler. She just gave the pro-gun side a month extension to beyond the end of this session without even any debate. I wish I could find the case, but reading it, she could have smacked it down but instead was unexpectedly nice. Almost feels like good news is coming soon.
  8. Oh wait - if he does time Biden can say his son is a political prisoner. This could get interesting. The kid may be taking one for the team.
  9. He won't pardon him. The justice department will get him a slap on the wrist and a future administration will pardon or expunge this as politically motivated.
  10. The better way to phrase it would be "Did you believe that you were a drug user?"
  11. I can't find a copy of the order but the thought is when he signed the order he agreed to abide by the terms of it, admitting it was correct. His failure to challenge it is thought to be fatal to his case. I kind of hope scotus takes that out.
  12. I've heard that too but I'm struggling to make the connection between the cases. I expect a narrow loss for Rahimi because he signed away his rights. It would seem weird for them to drop in a "P.S. Friedman isn't good law" in that ruling.
  13. Mark Smith's latest video talked about how there's 3 options. 1) Someone is writing an epic concurrence on how the 7th got it completely wrong but the case isn't ready yet. 2) an epic dissent on how the 7th got it completely wrong and so did the majority on scotus. 3) cert is granted.
  14. ...or you run out of money. There's a lot of people in prison because it made more sense to spend 5 years in prison than risk doing 20 and your mom having to sell her house because you owe a lawyer $200k.
  15. I was thinking about Schoenthal v. Raoul when I wrote that but there's a bunch more examples.
  16. No aggravated battery with a firearm. Witness must not have been interested.
  17. Can you point to the spot in the constitution where it says your right to smoke shall not be infringed?
  18. It's a red herring. The constitution does not apply on military facilities.
×
×
  • Create New...