|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Federal Air Marshal Jailed over ATF’s Fake Silencer Charges
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://li
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
David Schieferle, who spent 20 years as a U.S. Air Marshal, served eight months behind bars in the Miami Federal Detention Center – which he described as a “hellhole” – 10 months on home confinement wearing an electronic ankle monitor, is currently on probation for the next two-and-a-half years. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(2/5/2025)
|
| It's like these so called defense attorneys are deep state agents. You're better off representing yourself. All through this story he says his attorney "wouldn't let me..." this and that. This was a totally rigged trial (understatement) and rigged attempts at appeals. Why are we only hearing about this LONG AFTER conviction? This should have outraged the entire intelligent side of the nation years ago. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(2/5/2025)
|
| I sent a simple email to my congressman asking straight up what he was doing to help David Schieferle and to prevent future sham trials. No excuse NOT to. Everyone, seriously. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
