ITT, people out themselves as never having been in CT or talked to anyone in CT (D or R).
No one is going to sue over this. A CT Republican is differentiated from a CT Democrat by tie color.
You don't have to serialize firearms you make* for your own personal use. You also don't need to register them either*. In fact there's restrictions on the federal government's ability to keep a registry of guns. 18 USC 926(a)(3). From a policy perspective it'd just be creating another possession based crime that's almost impossible to enforce. Because you could just pop a "1" on the side and claim that you sent in your registration paperwork but the government screwed up.
*True for title 1 firearms (most handguns, shotguns, and rifles) not certain other classes like those that machineguns or silencers fall into.
Did he give a sperm sample or something at the crime seen? What DNA?
And public defenders though they are as skilled as any attorney are very much overworked in many places. Private counsel can offer more attention to the details of a case and spend time researching potentially novel theories to defend their client.
Not till he's proven guilty in a court of law it isn't.
We had representation. In each colony's own legislature before they started shutting them down. Representation would never happen in British parliament as it'd establish precedent for other colonies and Britain would soon be out numbered. Americans didn't want representation we wanted to prevent a precedent that we could be treated as an economic resource tile for the British to suck dry and abandon starving and sick.
Honestly not sure when. It's kinda an infamous one, it essentially says you can never introduce hearsay as evidence in a federal court because hearsay is unreliable... unless you fall into one of the 23 exceptions. Or you meet one of the two exceptions in FRE 807.
Tbf a lot make good sense and are just about government written records and making sure you don't need to find some government official who retired 10 years ago.
Https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803#
803 the exception to the rule barring hearsay which swallows the rule nearly whole.
I think calling the rising sentiment of the 1760s as revolutionary is a presentist perspective. The sinking of the Gaspee was in 1772 and the Tea Party in 1773 both are at most forms of uncivilized protest rather than revolt. At earliest revolution/independence wasn't even a firm niche view until 1775 IMO.
As for the pace at which word spread regarding India, here is an article from Sept 1771 on the matter published in a New Hampshire newspaper https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025582/1771-09-27/ed-1/seq-3/ (pg 3). I do not think it is unreasonable that by 1775 the American people would have been informed of the hazards of the extractive policies of Britain as evidenced by Bengal.
Obviously one newspaper article doesn't show full knowledge of the extent of the incident (despite that it was published in various other local journals). But thinking of the terrible conditions often unpaid men faced in the patriot camps avoiding what even this one article claims seems like a worthy hill to die on. Here's a section:
“On our arrival here, we found a river full of dead human carcasses floating up and down, and the streets crowded with the dead and dying, without anyone attempting to give them relief; so horribly has the famine raged here, that they who were able to walk and procure food for themselves were so accustomed to see their fellow creatures perishing before them, that it did not even create a painful emotion."
America was organized and ready to take advantage of anti-British sentiment, while the other two were not".
I'd agree having knowledge of what happened in India enabled the Americans to foresee the inevitable outcomes of ignoring the taxes and take early action to organize and resist. 1770 and 1775 were very close in time. If not for the Great Bengal Famine perhaps the American Revolution would have gone much differently.
If the result of fighting and failing and not fighting are both the same suddenly 1% sounds like great odds.
What bit Britain was two things the excessive spending on the French Indian war and the fact that we weren't forced to have representative bodies and militias we wanted them. American considered themselves Englishmen and to have all the rights afforded to Englishmen. Americans fought most of 1775 and into 76 not fighting for independence but for the respect of those rights after England tried to dissolve our legislative bodies.
England had no more a right to tax the colonies than Russia has to tax a Frenchman. If America didn't reject a tax on tea (even though it actually made tea cheaper) they'd be accepting the notion that it was a just authority of England to tax them. And if they had authority to tax a penny they could tax a pound. As shown in Bengal the power to tax was the power to destroy.
1770 The Great Bengal Famine occurs killing 30 million thanks to extractive taxation by England.
1775 America violently rejects extractive taxation policies and goes on to win independence from England.
1845 The Great Irish Famine kills 1 million with at least 2 million fleeing as refugees due to extractive policies on food. Which had Ireland continue to net export food during the famine.
The difference is America knew what came next and acted accordingly.
Free speech is a principle (like free trade) in addition to a fundamental right enumerated in the 1A enforceable against the government. People are making policy arguments when they discuss it in the context of private entities deplatforming advocating for private implementation of the principle into business practices.
The rifle resembled a typical spring-air rifle, but the 2000° hot, high-pressure air served not only to propel the projectile but also to ignite the propellant on the back of the V/L cartridge. The rifle uses a small, unique, and well designed part called an Obturator (obturator/ignitor) to compress the air as it is pushed through a tiny hole. This air is heated as it is pushed through the small hole enough to ignite the powder of the caseless round.
The V/L guns and ammunition were discontinued in 1969 after the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ruled that they constituted a firearm, and Daisy, which was not licensed to manufacture firearms, decided to discontinue manufacture rather than become a firearms manufacturer. About 23,000 of the rifles were made before production ceased.
This 5 shot 7.62 caliber double action revolver is actually suppressed by its unique cartridge design.
When fired expanding gases from the gunpowder pushed a plug forward which inturn pushed the liquid solution (60% alcohol 40% glycerol). This incompressible solution pushed on the bullet to launch it out of the revolver's barrel. The gases were contained in the cartridge preventing the typical sound report of a gunshot. And the liquid would follow the subsonic bullet out of the barrel as well.
view more: next ›
What do you think DNA is? The thing outside a criminals's gloves? IRL isn't CSI Miami. Go swap a NYC sidewalk and see what you get. That'd be a needle in a haystack.
This is like saying remember marathon runners only need to run 26.2 miles.
It's not having our "head [in our] asses" it's a decent respect for the freestanding system of laws. Social media vilianizing or martyrizing people alleged of cromes isn't beneficial for true justice.