[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Family of man shot, killed by police sue city of Southaven, officers Source: WREG URL Source: https://wreg.com/2019/06/20/family- ... ue-city-of-southaven-officers/ Published: Jun 20, 2019 Author: Eryn Taylor and Jessica Gertler Post Date: 2019-09-28 16:54:06 by nolu chan Keywords: None Views: 1061 Comments: 15 Family of man shot, killed by police sue city of Southaven, officers Posted 10:02 am, June 20, 2019, by Eryn Taylor and Jessica Gertler Updated at 05:13PM, June 20, 2019 SOUTHAVEN, Miss. — The family of Ismael Lopez, the man that was shot and killed by police nearly two years ago, has filed a lawsuit against the city of Southaven, the police chief and the two officers involved in his death. The family is seeking $8 million in actual and compensatory damages, $12 million for punitive damages and $25,000 for funeral costs. In July 2017, Southaven officers were sent to Surrey Lane to look for a suspect wanted for an aggravated assault in Tate County. Officers mistakenly went to the wrong home. Lopez reportedly opened the door to find two officers there and tried to run. Reports indicate that the officers shot through the door, striking and killing Lopez. Officers told investigators they saw a rifle barrel pointed through the open door. At that point, a dog charged out of the house, and Officer Samuel Maze shot at it. Officer Zachary Durden began yelling for the person inside to drop the weapon, then fired several shots through the door. According to the lawsuit, Lopez didn't have a gun in his possession and didn't pose an immediate threat to the officers. "The City of Southaven law enforcement officers utilized excessive force in with respect to Ismael Lopez and acted in deliberate indifference to his health and welfare by escalating the situation in an unnecessary fashion," attorneys said. They also claimed that the department has a history when it comes to excessive force. "Defendants City of Southaven and Chief Pirtle have allowed police officers to engage in a pattern of conduct that violates the civil rights of persons residing in the City for years leading up to the death of Ismael Lopez by failing to enforce policies and procedures and by ratifying the unconstitutional conduct of officers by not punishing them and instead allowing them to continue serving as law enforcement officers." "Municipal policymakers are aware of, condone and facilitate by their inaction, a “code of silence” in the Southaven Police Department, by which officers fail to report misconduct committed by other officers, such as the misconduct in this case." Attorneys are asking for a jury to hear the case. Southaven Mayor Darren Musselwhite released a statement on the lawsuit Thursday afternoon, saying the city's officers had been cleared by investigations. "Last year, a Desoto County Grand Jury reviewed all facts of this incident and made a decision to not indict any of our Southaven Police Officers. In addition, this matter was investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice, which also cleared the City of Southaven Police Officers. We are ready to vigorously defend our officers and City in a court of law in this matter," the statement read. "Since we will try this case in a courtroom and not the media, I advise all that value the truth to be cautious of the partial facts and misinformation that has been circulated by some since this event occurred." Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2. #2. To: All (#0) https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-10086-CR0.wpd.pdf United States v Portillo-Munoz, 11-10086 (5th Cir, 29 Jun 2011) REVISED JUNE 29, 2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 13, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk No. 11-10086 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ARMANDO PORTILLO-MUNOZ Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Before GARWOOD, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. GARWOOD, Circuit Judge: FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW On July 10, 2010, the Castro County, Texas, Sheriff's department was notified that a person at the Rodeo Arena in Dimmit, Texas, was “spinning around” on a red motorcycle with a gun in his waistband. A Dimmit Police Officer arrived at the scene and found a .22 caliber handgun in the center console of a four-wheeler driven by defendant-appellant Armando Portillo- Munoz. Portillo indicated to the officers present that the gun was for killing coyotes. After searching his person, officers found a dollar bill in Portillo's pocket with a white powder substance inside the folds. Portillo was arrested and booked in the Castro County jail for unlawfully carrying a weapon and for possession of a controlled substance. He admitted to being a native and citizen of Mexico illegally present in the United States. According to Portillo's Presentence Report (PSR), he first came to the United States in 2005 but left after six months. Portillo illegally reentered the United States in 2009 and had been present for one year and six months before this incident. At the time of his arrest, he was working as a ranch hand in Dimmit. He stated that he obtained the firearm to protect the chickens at the ranch from coyotes. He had been employed there since January 2010, prior to which he had worked at a dairy farm in Hereford, Texas. His PSR did not report any prior criminal history, arrests, or previous encounters with immigration officials. Portillo was indicted on August 31, 2010 for one count of Alien, illegally and unlawfully present in the United States, in Possession of a Firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). His attorneys filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that conviction under the statute would violate the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court denied Portillo's motion to dismiss. Portillo then entered a conditional guilty plea on January 12, 2011. He admitted that he is a citizen and native of Mexico illegally present in the United States and that he knowingly possessed a firearm in or affecting commerce which had been shipped or transported in interstate commerce. The district court sentenced him to ten months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Portillo filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION I. Second Amendment Portillo raises two arguments on appeal: that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm violates the Second Amendment and that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. We address the Second Amendment argument first. We review de novo the constitutionality of federal statutes. United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2009). Portillo clearly reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds in his conditional guilty plea. Under the laws of the United States, “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person . . . who, being an alien . . . illegally or unlawfully in the United States . . . to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). There is no question that Portillo's conduct violated this statute. We are only asked to decide if Portillo's conviction under this statute violates the United States Constitution. Whether the protections contained in the Second Amendment extend to aliens illegally present in this country is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Several district courts have previously considered the constitutionality of this statute, but none of our sister circuits have done so. The text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. const. amend. II. In 2008, the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008). The individual laying claim to the Second Amendment's protections in Heller was a United States citizen, so the question of whether an alien, illegal or legal, has a right to bear arms was not presented, and the Court took care to note that it was not purporting to “clarify the entire field” of the Second Amendment. Id. at 2821. However, the Court's language does provide some guidance as to the meaning of the term “the people” as it is used in the Second Amendment. The Court held the Second Amendment “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Id. Furthermore, the Court noted that “in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,' the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset” before going on to say that “[w]e start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” Id. at 2790-91. The Court's language in Heller invalidates Portillo's attempt to extend the protections of the Second Amendment to illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens” or “members of the political community,” and aliens who enter or remain in this country illegally and without authorization are not Americans as that word is commonly understood. Prior to its decision in Heller, the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the phrase “the people” in the context of the Fourth Amendment and indicated that the same analysis would extend to the text of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Court held that its analysis of the Constitution “suggests that ‘the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, . . . refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1061 (1990). Portillo relies on Verdugo-Urquidez and argues that he has sufficient connections with the United States to be included in this definition of “the people,” but neither this court nor the Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment extends to a native and citizen of another nation who entered and remained in the United States illegally. Moreover, even if there were precedent for the proposition that illegal aliens generally are covered by the Fourth Amendment, we do not find that the use of “the people” in both the Second and the Fourth Amendment mandates a holding that the two amendments cover exactly the same groups of people. The purposes of the Second and the Fourth Amendment are different. The Second Amendment grants an affirmative right to keep and bear arms, while the Fourth Amendment is at its core a protective right against abuses by the government. Attempts to precisely analogize the scope of these two amendments is misguided, and we find it reasonable that an affirmative right would be extended to fewer groups than would a protective right. The Second Circuit laid out compelling reasons for why an illegal alien could not claim that a predecessor statute to section 922(g)(5) violated the Fifth Amendment right to equal protection by saying that “illegal aliens are those who . . . are likely to maintain no permanent address in this country, elude detection through an assumed identity, and — already living outside the law — resort to illegal activities to maintain a livelihood.” United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128-29 (2d Cir. 1984). The court went on to approvingly quote the district court's statement that “one seeking to arrange anassassination would be especially eager to hire someone who had little commitment to this nation's political institutions and who could disappear afterwards without a trace ...” Id. at 129 (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, the Supreme Court has long held that Congress has the authority to make laws governing the conduct of aliens that would be unconstitutional if made to apply to citizens. In Matthews v. Diaz, the appellees were lawful resident aliens challenging a federal law that limited eligibility to Medicare Part B to aliens who had been admitted for permanent residence and had also resided in the United States for at least five years. 96 S.Ct. 1883 (1976). The Supreme Court upheld both conditions as constitutional against a challenge under the Due Process Clause. The Court pointed out in its opinion that the crucial question was whether discrimination among different types of aliens was permissible, as contrasted with discrimination between aliens and citizens and held that “[n]either the overnight visitor, the unfriendly agent of a hostile foreign power, the resident diplomat, nor the illegal entrant, can advance even a colorable constitutional claim to a share in the bounty that a conscientious sovereign makes available to its own citizens and some of its guests.” Id. at 1891 (emphasis in original). The Court went on to say that “[i]n the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.” Id. The Court, in several cases striking down state laws restricting otherwise lawful activities in which aliens could engage, has emphasized that the rights thus protected were those of aliens who were lawful inhabitants of the states in question. In 1915, the Supreme Court held in Truax v. Raich that the complainant, a native of Austria admitted for residency in the United States, was entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment because he was “lawfully an inhabitant of Arizona.” 36 S.Ct. 7, 9 (1915). See also id. at 10 (states cannot “deny to lawful inhabitants . . . the ordinary means of earning a livelihood.”). See also Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 73 S.Ct. 472, 477 & n.5 (1953); Torao Takahashi v. Fish and Game Comm'n, 68 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1143 (1948). This court noted in Lynch v. Cannatella that “the Constitution does not forbid all differences in governmental treatment between citizens and aliens, or between aliens who have been legally admitted to the United States and those who are present illegally.” 810 F.2d 1363, 1373 (5th Cir. 1987). The courts have made clear that the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from making laws that distinguish between citizens and aliens and between lawful and illegal aliens. We find that analysis persuasive in interpreting the text of the Second Amendment. Whatever else the term means or includes, the phrase “the people” in the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not include aliens illegally in the United States such as Portillo, and we hold that section 922(g)(5) is constitutional under the Second Amendment. II. Due Process Violation Portillo argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights, both on its face and as applied. We hold that Portillo waived the right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute on Fifth Amendment grounds. Portillo's conditional guilty plea explicitly says that Portillo is entitled to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss “only as it relates to whether the statute in question 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the defendant's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and to self-defense.” At Portillo's rearraignment hearing, the court again said that Portillo was reserving his right to appeal the order denying his motion to dismiss “as it relates to the statute in question, that is, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), in which you contend that the statute violates your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and to self defense.” We hold that the text of the conditional guilty plea only reserves Portillo's right to appeal on the grounds that the statute violates the Second Amendment, thus we do not reach the merits of whether Portillo's due process rights were violated. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of Portillo's motion to dismiss. AFFIRMED nolu chan  posted on  2019-09-28   16:55:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 2. #3. To: nolu chan (#2) we do not find that the use of “the people” in both the Second and the Fourth Amendment mandates a holding that the two amendments cover exactly the same groups of people. Well, they do. Had the Founders intended differently they would have said so. "The Second Amendment grants an affirmative right to keep and bear arms" Bull Shit. The Second Amendment grants no right. It protects the existing right from infringement. misterwhite  posted on  2019-09-28 17:25:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 2. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com