Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by $P1, May 24, 2022.
Absolutely. devine can you make this happen? IP ban please.
They only spend 40% of their budget on police. This must be the best you can get with that kind of money:
Could probably build fire escapes like in city buildings?
I'm just spitballing, I have no concrete solutions.
Just don't do this. When you feel the urge to do it, don't. I mostly enjoy your posting when you're not doing this
Shouldn't a gun deal mention guns? What a load of shit
We are doomed
Ahh I see we're blaming it all on mental health and broken families. Gross.
bang up job.
Uhm what were the lesser for straw purchasing? It seems that making those severe should be ok with everyone since even chuds claim to only want good guys with guns and not criminals.
If you’re going to pass a law that does nothing, it should at least serve a political purpose. This is a Republican win. It does nothing and lets Republicans say they did something important.
"We made sure the Ds wouldn't take your guns away from you."
even if i accepted your premise this is good
The bill needs to be like DUI/interstate funding. If you don’t do X, you get zero federal funding for police body armor and swat teams.
It does nothing to stop the next school shooting and when it happens republicans will go “see, we passed a law and it still happened”
it actually does do a good bit towards making it harder for young people and people with domestic violence records from getting guns though
and again, getting ten republicans to admit that gun regulation is possible is a giant sea change from the last 30 years
How many 18-21 year olds are actually going to have something come up on review that would prevent them from getting the gun that wouldn’t already be stopped by the current background check system. Did we close the loophole on “private” transfers? It doesn’t seem like we did. The wording on clarifying that definition is pretty vague. If they closed the “gun show loophole,” they should lead with that because that would actually be something.
The most small, basic something, but it would be something.
I honestly don’t know - did either recent teenage shooter have a MH record?
The best is that republicans will get praised for co-sponsoring this proposal and nothing will be said when the same republicans who co-sponsored the bill vote against it.
They'll campaign on both supporting and rejecting it. Just like how the Durham probe was bullshit but psychos took its summary judgment as 'a clear indictment on how corrupt the system is, for all to see, so we actually won!'
Can’t wait for Republicans to vote this down!
^^^^ not happening
Even this lame bill has no chance of passing
The audacity of these fucks
"If you have a gun they just stand outside"
The Patriots spewing vitriol? Sure hope none of them do anything rash to these perceived traitors.
We are a very flawed society for not doing this already, even if the purpose of pointing this out for some ppl is that handguns are a bigger issue (so I guess don’t do anything about ARs).
Im becoming the joker
I hope God's plan is for him to be hit by a bus.
John Hinckley was just released. Maybe he’s bored and needs something to do.
Texas will sell him guns, no doubt.
This deserves more than a like
Why isn't God's plan ever to encourage gun control?
Jody Foster do some work for democracy please
“Ironically, Paxton himself cannot buy a gun under federal law, because he has been under indictment since 2015 for breaking state securities law.”
State securities fraud felony indictmentEdit
On July 28, 2015, a state grand jury indicted Paxton on three criminal charges: two counts of securities fraud (a first-degree felony) and one count of failing to register with state securities regulators (a third-degree felony). Paxton's indictment marked the first such criminal indictment of a Texas Attorney General in thirty-two years since Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox was indicted for bribery in 1983. The complainants in the case are Joel Hochberg, a Florida businessman and Byron Cook, a former Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives. Paxton and Cook were former friends and roommates while serving together in the Texas House. Three special prosecutors were trying the state's case.
The state prosecution against Paxton grows out of Paxton selling shares of Servergy Inc., a technology company, to investors in 2011. Prosecutors allege that Paxton sold shares of Servergy to investors (raising $840,000) while failing to disclose that he was receiving compensation from the company in the form of 100,000 shares of stock in return. Paxton says the 100,000 shares of stock he received from Servergy's founder and CEO were a gift, and not a sales commission, and they were provided to Paxton long before the sales transactions occurred.
On August 3, 2015, following the unsealing of the grand jury indictment, Paxton was arrested and booked. He pleaded not guilty, and has portrayed "the case against him as a political witch-hunt." Paxton and his supporters claim that the prosecution has its origin in a dispute among Texas Republicans, with conservatives like Paxton on one side and moderates like Cook on the other, and suggest that Cook's complaint, several years after the Servergy deal, was political payback.
Paxton unsuccessfully sought to quash the indictments. This challenge was rejected by the trial judge, the Fifth Court of Appeals, and the Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas' criminal court of last resort.
Paxton's trial has been delayed multiple times over side issues, such as the venue where the trial will take place and the amount of the special prosecutors' fees. In March 2017, District Judge George Gallagher, a Republican from Fort Worth, granted the prosecution's motion for a change of venue, moving the trial to Houston in Harris County. Gallagher also denied Paxton's motion to dismiss one of the charges against him because of issues which arose about the grand jury. In May 2017, the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas agreed with Paxton that the transfer of Paxton's trial to Houston required assignment of the case to a new judge to replace Judge Gallagher and all orders issued by Judge Gallagher after the change of venue were voided. The current judge in the case is Robert Johnson of the 177th District Court in Harris County. Johnson was chosen at random to preside.
In November 2018, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals invalidated the trial court's order approving of payments of attorneys' fees to the special prosecutors in the case, and directed the lower court to issue payments "in accordance with an approved fee schedule," siding with county commissioners in Paxton's home county of Collin County, who had rejected the prosecutors's invoice. The special prosecutors in the case have suggested that if they are not paid, they could withdraw from prosecution of Paxton. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to reconsider the motion, one of three prosecutors pursuing criminal charges against Paxton asked to step down from the case.
Paxton filed a motion to move the case from Harris County to his native Collin County, in 2019. The trial court granted the motion, but in 2020, the 1st Court of Appeals in Houston blocked the case from being moved to Collin County pending further consideration of the matter. In May 2021, a panel of three justices ruled that the trial for Paxton's felony fraud charges should be moved to Collin County where Paxton lives instead of Harris County. The decision by the panel of three judges to move Paxton's trial back to Collin County was appealed by the prosecution in June. In September the appeals court denied the prosecution appeal. Prosecutors again filed another appeal this time with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  In March 2022, it was reported that the appeal had officially been put on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case docket
Securities and Exchange Commission civil actionEdit
In 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil enforcement action against Paxton in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The SEC's complaint specifically charged Paxton with violating various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and various provisions (including Rule 10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by defrauding the Servergy investors. Paxton denied the allegations. One of the defendants and Servergy itself reached a separate settlement with the SEC, agreeing to pay $260,000 in penalties.
In October 2016, U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III conditionally dismissed the complaint, finding the SEC had not alleged Paxton had any legal obligation to inform investors that he was receiving a commission, but gave the SEC two weeks to refile an amended complaint. The SEC refiled its securities fraud claims against Paxton, making the additional allegations that Paxton and Cook's investment club required all of its members to accept the same risks on all investments and that it specifically forbade members from making money off investments of other members. The SEC further alleged that Paxton did not properly disclose his Severgy ownership stake on his taxes and that he attempted to conceal the stake by at different times claiming it was his fee for legal services, that it was a gift, and that he had only received it after investing money.
In March 2017, Mazzant dismissed the civil securities fraud case, ruling that Paxton "no plausible legal duty" to inform investors that he would earn a commission if they purchased stock in a technical company that Paxton represented.With the second dismissal of the case with prejudice, the SEC could not bring new action on the same claim against Paxton. The dismissal of the SEC case did not have a direct impact on the state criminal case, which remained pending. However, the burden of proof in criminal court is higher than in civil court.
Whistleblower allegations against PaxtonEdit
In October 2020, seven of Paxton's top aides published a letter to the office's director of human resources, accusing Paxton of improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other crimes, and said they had provided information to law enforcement and asked them to investigate. The letter was signed by First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer, and the deputy and deputy attorneys general overseeing the Office's divisions for criminal investigations, civil litigation, administration, and policy. Paxton denied misconduct and said he would not resign.By the end of the month, all seven whistleblowers had left the office: three resigned, two were fired, and two were put on leave.
The Associated Press reported that the allegations involved Paxton illegally using his office to benefit real estate developer Nate Paul, who had donated $25,000 to Paxton's 2018 campaign. The Associated Press also reported that the allegations include the claim that Paxton had an extramarital affair with a woman, and that he had later advocated for that woman to be hired by Paul's company, World Class. Paul has acknowledged employing the woman, but denied that he had done so on Paxton's behalf.
In 2020, four of the former members of the Texas AG's Office sued the Office of the Attorney General, alleging that Paxton fired them for reporting misconduct to law enforcement, a form of illegal retaliation under the state's Whistleblower Act. In 2021, the district court denied Paxton's motion to dismiss the suit. Paxton's office appealed, claiming that the Whistleblower Act did not apply to allegations of misconduct by Paxton, as an elected executive-branch officer, and that as an elected official he must have the power to control his top lieutenants, who are high-level political appointees. In October 2021, the Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Paxton's bid to have the case dismissed and affirmed the trial court's order.
Ethics complaints pursuant to 2020 election challengesEdit
In response to a complaint from Galveston Democrats that his challenges to the 2020 election were frivolous and unethical, a state disciplinary body ruled that a complaint against Paxton for professional misconduct could go forward. The complaint to the State Bar of Texas was initially dismissed by the Bar's chief disciplinary counsel, but was later revived by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, and the State Bar launched an investigation into Paxton. Another ethics complaint alleging Paxton's election challenges were unethical and seeking sanctions or disbarment was filed by Lawyers De
I guess there's enough attention elsewhere where he can do this now without much blowback
Amazing. Who could have seen this coming?
They would have to prevent me from choking him to death if my child was killed in that school and he said that to me.
I’d like to knock his fucking teeth out.
now i guess we just have to wait until the next mass school shooting to get the debate going again
Any God that has a plan which includes 10 year olds getting decapitated by bullets is a shitty fucking God.