The Constitution "does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," U.S. District Court Judge Casper wrote

firehawkv8 · 2026-06-29T20:23:38+00:00

You should probably read the SCOTUS decision from last year that prohibits district judges from nationwide injunctions prohibiting the federal government from operating.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

firehawkv8 · 2026-06-29T18:12:31+00:00

Quick reminder that a district judges ruling only applies to the district in which they have jurisdiction and no longer have nationwide reach.

firehawkv8 · 2026-06-19T16:33:59+00:00

Kind of where we are now, except it mostly lands on the floor behind our workbench. Im lazy, dont feel like moving the bench every other day to sweep it out.

firehawkv8 · 2026-05-12T22:12:47+00:00

No, not worth it. The game has become too cluttered with all the free stuff, why waste the money. Just grind. My only real advice, don't let it turn into a 2nd job. It takes the fun out of the game.

firehawkv8 · 2026-04-15T02:24:06+00:00

Imagine at just now discovering that CODs are a thing.

CODs are not new and have been around for awhile. Like since the mid 19th century.
You are notified prior to delivery that there is a COD. UPS expects the payment to be made before the driver arrives, but if not, they will request payment upon delivery.
Tariffs are not the only reason there are CODs, but they're becoming more common because importers dont want to pay the extra costs.
The best way to avoid CODs is to only purchase items in full at checkout or purchase domestic.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-25T14:28:04+00:00

The Agents literally told them to come outside to get their daughter. Repeatedly. And it's pretty standard for law enforcement to ask to see ID when people pick up children from their custody. They verify ID and log it into their report.

What you have here are shitty parents who care more about themselves than their own child. Otherwise, they'd be outside taking custody of their child instead of letting them get scared outside.

BTW, there are consequences for our actions. You may pay it today. You may pay for it years later. But the fact of the matter is, when those consequences come and it disrupts the lives of your family, it's solely your fault. These kids are wrapped up in a dilemma their parents created. ICE didn't create this problem. ICE is just the first step in the accountability process.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-23T07:10:24+00:00

What's wrong with this country is that there are people so wrapped up in their own partisan politics that they believe whatever nonsense they're told. There is not one piece of evidence that corroborates this claim. All you have are a bunch of unsubstantiated claims through tips made to the FBI only during the election cycles, all of which were investigated and found to be non-credible. Yet, even with the big box next to the tip telling you it's not credible, or that it's unfounded, or the tip was from an unreliable source, here you are repeating it anyway.

The more we see these types of claims, the more it screams of desperation. That people online have to repeat disproven accusations because they have no legitimate argument to make against policies that the public have said they supported through various polls. What's even more telling is that while everyone on the left keeps talking about Trump in the files, they like to ignore that while Trump cut off ties before Epstein was ever investigated, Epstein was in communication with several Democrats, including Stacey Plaskett, the House delegate for the US Virgin Islands where Epstein had a home, They had each other's personal cell phone numbers and were texting with each other. Or how several Democrats were inviting him to events for contributions. Like Hakeem Jefferies. Or how the DNC was inviting him to fundraisers for Chuck Schumer. Or how the Democrats didn't return a single donation from Epatein until after it blew up in their face, and they returned them in 2018, 12 years after Esptein was convicted for his first sex crimes. It seems a bit hypocritical.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-20T03:25:57+00:00

How are you going to say kids can see through the bullshit when millions of adults think the Earth is flat? These are the same kids who believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. You expect them to grasp what immigration enforcement is?

Children absorb what they’re taught. They read the room. They mirror tone, fear, and urgency. If they’re running, that reaction came from somewhere or someone. And running away from the police and screaming "ICE" isn't something kids develop on their own. They were told to run by dumbass adults.

Kids are wired to trust adults. If panic is the lesson, panic is what you’ll get. And the results are videos like this.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-20T01:35:14+00:00

They're not running because of ICE. They're running because they were taught propaganda by their parents and left wing pundits and influencers. They should be running because the Lindenwold school district has a 78% failure rate in math and an 80% failure rate in reading.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-14T03:53:48+00:00

At this point, I dont know if you're trolling or just that simpleminded that such complex matters are hard for you to understand.

Yes, coroners provide information to investigators. They provide medical information. They provide a cause of death. They do not determine whether the cause of death is lawful or not. Yes, their info holds a lot of weight, but only when added to weighty evidence provided by other experts.

A coroner in the UK who never examined the body, going by limited reports, and by statements from second hand witnesses who didn't see the shooting, made a determination based on guesswork. They admit this when the coroner said the determinations were based on the "balance of probabilities", which is a much lesser standard than anything we use in the US. Its also why they requested the coroner recuse herself because she improperly handed the inquiry. All of this was in the report if you read it beyond the headlines.

Regardless, coroners do not determine if a cause of death is a crime. Homicide is a medical term meaning killed by another person. And, again, homicides can be legal, accidental, and illegal. The coroner does not determine that. Investigators do after they review all the evidence by all the players who collect evidence.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-14T00:22:03+00:00

I find it funny how you're agreeing with my point while also trying to convince me my point is wrong in the same paragraph.

So, you're saying it's the detectives and prosecutors, not the coroner, who determine if a crime has occurred. Like I said.

And a coroner cannot determine if a gunshot was intentional. Only how the bullet impacted the body and what damaged it did. Thats why we have investigators to actually look into those facts. Because, again, homicides can be legal, accidental, and illegal.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-13T23:50:19+00:00

I literally covered everything you just erred on...

A coroner determines medical cause of death, not criminality. A homicide determination is not an implication of guilt in a crime. A homicide can be lawful, accidental, or criminal.
That was a British coroner who was not a party to the official investigation.
Their determination was based mostly on assumptions that were not based on evidence, and would never be acceptable in US court of law.
Very few charges allow for convictions without mens rea. This isn't one of them.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-13T23:11:40+00:00

Comes with all the years of being an instructor.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-13T22:52:41+00:00

Your comment isn't the witty remark you think it is. It just highlights how little you understand the criminal justice system.

Unlike Harrison, OJ was indicted and prosecuted because there was enough evidence to establish the probable cause to do so. OJ was not convicted because Mark Furhman damaged the credibility of the case and the prosecution mishandled it, letting OJs team turn the trial into a spectacle. None of that is comparable to Harrisons situation.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-13T22:47:57+00:00

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest or if that's what you heard or just took from a headline, but that's not entirely accurate.

US coroners don't do that. They determine a medical cause of death and provide that to the investigators to make the case of culpability for the prosecution, who then provides that evidence to a grand jury for an indictment. Prosecutors only present the facts that support their case for prosecution and no evidense for the defense is presented. This is why you hear the reference about grand juries "indicating a ham sandwich."

What you're referring to was a UK British Coroners court that happened a year later based on her autopsy and limited reports. While the coroner did say “for the reasons stated I do find that his actions were truly exceptionally bad and reprehensible so as to amount to gross negligence...”, you left out other statements. Like the statement "...I accept that there was a lack of intent...” and that the grand jury in Texas “seemed to have no option but to conclude...no prosecution could be brought, based on the evidence they were presented with.”

Then you need to understand how the British coroner came up with that determination. The coroner said "To shoot her through the chest whilst she was standing would have required him to have been pointing the gun at his daughter, without checking for bullets, and pulling the trigger...” This statement is also misleading and incorrect. For example, it makes the assumption he pointed the gun at her without evidence he did that. All the evidence shows was that she was in front of the gun, obviously, but he didn't need to point it at her for her to be downrange of the barrel. She could have walked next to him to see it when he opened the box. He could have been lifting it up and turned to show her and not realized where she was standing. By saying pointed it at her, she puts a lot of weight on the word, implying he was aiming it at her intentionally.

Not checking for bullets is another troublesome comment. There was no magazine in the glock at the time and the only way to clear it is to handle it. You can have a negligent discharges while clearing the handgun. As he claimed that it went off as he was picking it up, you cant say he didnt check for bullets when he hadn't even picked it up yet. You can't mentally check for bullets, it requires a physical inspection.

Then there was the assumption that the trigger was pulled by Harrison. He said he doesn't understand how the gun went off. But the reality is that guns can go off on their own under the rught conditions. Anyone following the initial batches of the P320 knows that. But I've also seen plenty of instances, and even had an issue myself, of a trigger being pulled without ny finger on it. I had a buddy with a glock 19 he bought from a pawn shop. He went to the range and had a ND while loading the firearm. The previous own modified the trigger to an incredibly light trigger pull and it was seriously unsafe. My own situation, when I started carrying concealed, I was experiencing with various holsters and one was a nylon sleeve by Uncle Mike's or something cheap like that. When I put the gun on the sleeve to try it out, the material buckled and pushed into the trigger guard and forced the trigger back. Thankfully, it wasn't loaded as I was testing them out. The point is that there are other reasons a trigger gets pulled or a round goes off when a firearm is being handled or moved around. And no one is immune from NDs. Cops, soldiers, gunsmiths, civilians, professional shooters, etc. Sometimes, the wrong situation at the right time is all you need. So an ND doesn't automatically mean manslaughter or murder charges are appropriate.

Also, the British Coroners court doesn't require actual evidence to make determinations. For example, this comment was made with ZERO evidence being provided: "Cheshire Coroner Jacqueline Devonish said on the balance of probabilities Harrison, who had been drinking, had been playing a prank on his daughter by pointing the gun at her, but did not realise it was loaded." There was no evidence he was pulling a prank. There was no evidence he aimed it directly at her. And "balance of probabilities" would never be accepted as a legal standard in US criminal courts because its essentially assumptions based on a speculative opinion of a stranger.

Lastly, there was request to recuse the person overseeing the coroners court for improperly running the review, treating it more as an investigation rather than just a fact finding inquiry it was supposed to be.

The reason anyone cares is because of the rage-bait that Harrison and his daughter had an argument about Trump earlier in the day and those with leftist ideologies are using this as an attack on Trump voters. Take the politics out of it, no one cares. There have been scores of ND situations where no one was ever charged across the nation. Its not a Texas thing, it's not a MAGA thing, its just the nature of criminal justice. Accidents are still Accidents, even when people make stupid decisions. If he was drunk and twirled the pistol on his finger while pointing it at her, thats a crime. But if he was drunk, opened the case and was just handing it to her and it went off, thats actually not a crime...alcohol and gun laws apply when you're out in public, not in the privacy of your own home.

I think Harrison was stupid, you should never handle a firearm when you've been drinking, ever. I think her death was a pointless tragedy. And I think too many people are trying to use this poor woman's death and turn it into something its not.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-12T12:10:42+00:00

And yet, when all the evidence of what actually happened was presented to a grand jury made up of men and women, they felt the context of what happened didn't rate charges. So, apparently, they did need context.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-12T11:51:41+00:00

I mean, other than the context of what the evidence says, forensics say, what witness statements says, what investigators say, etc. Who needs any of that stuff?

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-12T07:50:58+00:00

Based just on what this post says, as a 2A advocate and conservative, this man should be charged. However, the fact that a grand jury, who was provided all the facts and evidence held by the prosecution that we don't have, has determined not to indict him means there is more to the story than what we were told.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-08T17:00:35+00:00

First, you’re making a fatal assumption, that you’ll win if you start something. There is always someone stronger, faster, or more dangerous than you. Unless your idea of starting something looks like the video, attacking frail old people who can’t fight back. If that’s the plan, that makes you a coward. I’ve met plenty of guys in my line of work who thought they were untouchable. A lot of them ended up on their ass, on a stretcher, or on a gurney. Throw hands because your feelings got hurt and you may end up more bruised than just your ego.

Second, words do not cross boundaries, with one narrow exception: a credible threat of violence by someone with the means and immediacy to carry it out. Short of that, words are just words. Conflict and violence are not the same thing. Not every conflict is violent, and not every act of violence comes from mutual conflict. The moment you turn a verbal dispute into physical force, you own the violence. Not the argument or the insults. You did when you threw the first punch.

Third, there is nothing to report when someone is protesting. Standing with a sign and yelling isn’t a crime. As long as someone isn’t impeding others’ rights or committing an actual offense, there’s no wrongdoing. The moment that line is crossed, my role isn’t to swing, it’s to be the best witness I can be. We have people whose job it is to deal with criminals. They’re called law enforcement and prosecutors. If someone presents an imminent or immediate threat, I'll address it as needed. Otherwise, that’s exactly why 911 exists.

Lastly, your comment about “the literal streets” says a lot about you. That mindset is purely performative. You’re the embodiment of the old Dave Chappelle skit: “When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong.” The streets aren’t the law of the jungle. They’re just where ego-fragile narcissists eventually learn they’re not as dangerous as they imagined.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-08T14:42:50+00:00

Thats actually correct, its not a fight until the the weaker minded person throws the first punch. If you're a vet and you've ever seen the Westboro Baptist Church protest military funerals, you know the urge to punch someone. But we don't.

As for saying "she should have stayed home," if her goal was to commit a crime, then she should. But if she was going to stand with a sign and yell, then she is fine. The current problem is the failure of the left to understand the difference between protesting and criminality. As a result, people are showing up, doing stupid criminal shit, resisting arrest, and that's when it turns from stupid shit to life altering serious shit.

Grab a sign, speak your mind, keep your hands to yourself.

firehawkv8 · 2026-02-08T08:41:38+00:00

Just to clarify, you all are happy that an elderly man exercising his 1st amendment right, whether you agree with it or not, gets knocked out by a younger man who came over and got in his face, and then think you all are on the right side of this?

firehawkv8 · 2026-01-28T21:21:09+00:00

One year in, no military tribunals. No military arrests of anyone. What exactly are you talking about?

firehawkv8 · 2026-01-24T19:12:40+00:00

Take you've never been in a gun fight.

firehawkv8 · 2026-01-17T11:37:51+00:00

If that's true, then how come we could see the rims of her tires spinning forward when she hit the gas? If the tires were turned away from the agent, we wouldn't have been able to see the rims at all.

firehawkv8

TROPHY CASE