Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally


Try to figure out the reasoning in this one:

People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.

Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.

The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term “the people” in the Second Amendment’s guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to people in the country illegally.

“We see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded,” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.

But the panel upheld Meza-Rodriguez’s conviction, saying the federal ban on people in the country illegally possessing weapons remains valid. Wood wrote that the right to bear arms isn’t unlimited and the government has a strong interest in preventing people who have already broken the law by coming to the country illegally from carrying guns.

Meza-Rodriguez’s attorney, Joseph Bugni, said the decision contradicts itself. He plans to ask all nine active 7th Circuit judges to review the case together. If Meza-Rodriguez doesn’t prevail at that level he’ll go to the U.S. Supreme Court, Bugni said.

Judge Joel M. Flaum, a member of the panel, wrote in a concurring opinion that he doubts the Second Amendment applies to people in the country illegally. He acknowledged that the decision conflicts with other federal rulings and said the panel shouldn’t have addressed the broader constitutional question since the possession ban is clearly legal.

So if I understand this right, It is legal for a illegal to possess a gun except for the fact that they are illegal and they are not allowed to possess  a gun. Did that just about sum that one up?

Dipshits of the day: State of Illinois


Now, in the name of political correctness, one of our states wants to do away with this protection by allowing religious garments in driver’s license photos.

This can include headdresses or scarves — material that would conceal part of the head or face that would ordinarily not be allowed under law.

While most religious gear would still leave the ability to identify the subject at some level, the most concealing of Muslim religious garb for females — the burqa — would leave the entire head and face covered.

O.K. – You have got to be kidding me, right?! How can THIS be even considered an I.D. if there is NO way of knowing this person’s identity!! So much for being a Republican in Illinois.

The state of Illinois is about to start sending fliers to offices that issue drivers licenses and photo IDs to remind employees and the public that people are not required to remove religious garments that cover their heads for photos. The flier tells us:

The Secretary of State’s office recognizes and respects the increasing diversity of religions practiced by Illinois residents. Members of many religions, such as Islam and Sikhism, wear religious head coverings, also known as articles of faith.

While hats or head coverings are generally prohibited from being worn in photographs used on Illinois driver’s licenses and identification cards, customers may be photographed while wearing established religious head coverings. Photographs increase public safety. Examples of acceptable religious head coverings can be found in this flier.

So for the average Cub’s fan, Sox’s fan or Stanley Cup Hawk’s fan – too bad if you want to wear a hat. But HEY – anyone who wants to cover their ENTIRE face – that’s ok? How insane is that!?

Illinois DMV Deputy Press Secretary Henry Haupt confirmed to reporters that this would include the burqa and veil, as well as other religious coverings worn by Muslims and Sikhs.

“What we’re doing was always allowed… but what we want to ensure is that the public’s aware of them because we were told that some individuals were unaware that they could have their photo taken for the drivers [sic] license wearing them [religious head coverings],” Haupt said.

Really, Deputy Press Secretary Haupt – you were TOLD? I don’t think so. I think you were told by the Dictator in Chief to “step in line” or “get with the program” — that is IF you are a fan of Shariah Law or IF you don’t want lawyers or CAIR on your back.

The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF) took the issue to Illinois’ Secretary of State’s office about a year ago after Sikh community members complained that they had been asked to remove their dastaars, the turban Sikhs wear around their heads.

SALDEF consulted with the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other local advocacy groups and found that Muslims in Illinois were also being asked to remove their religious head coverings (hijabs or niqabs worn by some women). At that point, they decided they needed to take the issue to the Illinois state government, and worked with the Illinois Secretary of State.

Welcome to the “Land of Lincoln” – where you can now have a driver’s license without showing any REAL identity! Political correctness at it’s finest! 

I wonder why they bother to photograph at all now.

And I am curious what would happen if they refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple…….


My Philippine Vacation

The first thing about the Philippines is the traffic and the lack of organization to it. It is simply the survival of the fittest and you have to have a strong personality to endure it on a daily basis.

There are cars and a massive number of them, even more motorcycles, with most carrying two passengers, Taxi’s, Buses, multi person route jeeps, and tricycle taxis.

It is a constant jockey for position and constant lane changes and beeping of horns. The horns are just to warn others of your presence. There are no rules of the road and no cops writing tickets. Cars are travelling on all sides of the road in every direction with brief periods of head on traffic and bumpers inches from each other.

There are no crosswalks and the pedestrian’s just step out and cross the street anywhere. And there are vendors walking in between cars trying to sell products. There are no right of ways laws, (Or at least adhered to). There also does not seem to be many accidents either. The cars do not have a lot of scratches or dents.

If someone were to drive like that here they would be involved in road rage situations regularly with the pettiness we have on our roads here and the self-righteous mindset we have about everything. Personally I think with them it is a way of life and they generally have a sense of respect for others. Which we certainly do not have here either.

Going to Quezon City from the airport it was about a 20km drive but took almost two hours with many of the roads very narrow, which we would almost call alleys.

There were numerous fast food outlets like Mc Donalds, KFC, and Jollibee. Funny how areas that are poor in nature still can support fast food places.

Most of the building are made of cement and most have metals roofs, which makes lots of noise during the daily downpours. They have homeless people sleeping on the sidewalks and lots of panhandling by all age groups from 5 yrs. old to the elderly. I even saw one woman who appeared to be in her 70’s carrying a small child trying to gain sympathy for change for milk.

Going to a bank to exchange currency I was met at the door by several armed security guards who also had shotguns slung across their shoulders and one went to see if I was to be allowed in to do business. I also noted there were armed security guards at almost every business along the route we took and they are held in high esteem there, Another area that they show respect for. Coming out of the bank I had a short walk to my restaurant and he offered to walk with me for my safety and he wanted to protect me from the hot sun with an umbrella.

Next my stay at a Chinatown hotel……..

Man Found with Rosie O’Donnell’s Daughter

The man who was found with Rosie O’Donnell’s missing daughter and was subsequently arrested isn’t a predator, his attorney told TheWrap on Monday.

Robert L. Tarver, Jr., the attorney for Steven M. Sheerer, said that he will present evidence he believes will show that his client isn’t guilty of endangering the welfare of a child.

The 25-year-old Sheerer, of Barnegat, New Jersey, was arrested over the weekend on the charges of third-degree distribution of obscenity to a minor and third degree endangering the welfare of a child. Each carries a penalty of five years in New Jersey State Prison.

Sheerer (pictured above) was arrested after Chelsea O’Donnell was found at his residence. According to prosecutors, an examination of O’Donnell’s cell phone revealed “evidence of inappropriate communications over the last several weeks” between Sheerer and O’Donnell.

But Tarver asserts he has evidence that Sheerer has been wrongfully charged.

“We intend to vigorously and aggressively deal with these charges, because we know that they’re wrong,” Tarver said.

“The suggestion is that he’s some sort of predator,” Tarver added, “and that’s not the case.”

While Tarver noted that he hasn’t been able to review the inappropriate material that Sheerer allegedly sent, he also said that his client hasn’t been charged with anything “inherently illegal,” adding child pornography is not among the accusations. He characterized the statutory elements of the charges against his client as “open to interpretation.”

Sheerer’s initial court appearance was Monday, where the charges against him were read. The next court date for Sheerer will likely take place in the next two to three weeks, said Tarver, who has asked that his client’s bail be reduced from $40,000 to $20,000.

O’Donnell said via her website on Aug. 18 that Chelsea had gone missing, saying that she hadn’t been seen since Aug. 11. She was found later that day.

The following day, the comedian posted that Sheerer had previously been charged with third-degree possession of heroin with the intent to distribute. Tarver told TheWrap that his client had appeared at every court appearance he’s been scheduled for in the past, citing that as a reason for why Sheerer’s bail should be reduced.

Rosie just got pissed that she was with a man period……….