F/Up on Swallwell’s Remarks

What is an assault weapon? Glad you asked. Well, your big  mouth is an assault weapon, under the law. See below for the definitions.

The legal definitions of assault and battery are very specific. They have to be that way.

When I was a licensed insurance broker, I was required to take classes to support my professional development and I had to pass the tests, if I wanted to keep my broker’s license. One of those classes was law as it relates to the insurance business and the terms used in creating insurance policies. Some of them are extremely specific, such as the language of a Kidnap/Ransom policy, and others are in a more generalized manner on the surface, such as an umbrella liability policy, but the actual language of the company’s policy even for a UL rider to your homeowner’s policy is in the insurer’s documentation.

So here you are, in a simple but clear summary of the two.

Respectively, “assault” and “battery” are separate offenses. … In an act of physical violence, assault refers to the act which causes the victim to apprehend imminent physical harm, while battery refers to the actual act causing the physical harm. – Wex Legal Dictionary.

That’s clear to me. Assault is a verbal threat of some kind (get off my lawn or I will whatever you) as opposed to actual battery (…or I will whatever you), which requires physical contact. It does include making threatening moves.

But this means also that any politician, including and especially those who are the most loud-mouthed and self-involved of the current bunch – any politician who refers to confiscating “assault weapons” is saying he’s going to take away your right to free speech. Why? Because making threats does not violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, but it does violate criminal law and civil law.

Now, technically, what Swallowswell – er, Swallwell is doing is making a threat to take away your property, something that you bought and paid for, implying that he will include using force to do so if he decides it’s a necessity, through seizure, a synonym for confiscation.

After reading that ridiculous “well, there will be these exceptions” by him, I came to the legitimate conclusion that he is so harebrained, he has no idea what kind of threat he is making. One could literally accuse him of not only violating your 2^nd Amendment rights, but also of violating that good ol’ 1^st Amendment part regarding freedom of speech, because the only valid assault weapon you have is your Big Mouth. And those are not the only two Amendments he’s violating.

Think about that for a moment.

It may seem incongruous, but as a technicality, he’s already made a threat that violates the whole due process thingy, which is another right guaranteed by the US Constitution, as indicated below.

The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. – Wex Legal Dictionary.

This is not the same thing as invoking eminent domain to put a highway through your living room. The Fifth Amendment carries language called the Takings Clause. Eminent domain invokes the Takings Clause to put that highway through your living room, which is legal as long as you are justly compensated.

The part about the Takings Clause follows:  The Fifth Amendment’s reference to “due process” is only one of many promises of protection the Bill of Rights gives citizens against the federal government. Originally these promises had no application at all against the states (see Barron v City of Baltimore (1833)). However, this attitude faded in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago (1897), when the court incorporated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. In the the middle of the Twentieth Century, a series of Supreme Court decisions found that the Due Process Clause “incorporated” most of the important elements of the Bill of Rights and made them applicable to the states. If a Bill of Rights guarantee is “incorporated” in the “due process” requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, state and federal obligations are exactly the same.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

I’m no Constitutional scholar and don’t pretend to be. However – and this is important – if he wants to violate these parts of the U.S. Constitution this badly, in his eager haste to get votes outta the people he detests, then everything the he proposes from the start of his tossing the hat into the ring should be examined closely, picked apart until it frays into rags, and rebutted on an ongoing and constant basis. For example, he says nothing – zero, zip, nada – about compensating the owners of “assault weapons” for handing over such things to the government. Those “buy your guns” offers by local police offer compensation, not seizures, and they are not enforced. They are voluntary turn-ins.

Furthermore, he is so ignorant of legal terms (no surprise there) that he fails to realize that anything can be used as a so-called assault weapon, including a bottle of salad dressing or a can of cat food. He really is that stupid, and while he may think he’s being clever, his ignorance of legal terminology (assault vs battery) – should he pursue that path – can literally mean infringing on your right to speak freely.

If you want to keep your rights, pay attention to people like this. You already know, basically, what a looter and a pillager he and others like him can be.

Now you know just how ignorant he and others like him are.

Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Gun Grabbing Fascists, Legal, Liberals suck