OT: Property tax relief coming for those over 65

[mildone]

May I ask for a definition here? My understanding is that a semiautomatic weapon is one in which the shooter doesn't have to do anything (like operate a slide) between shots, but that only one bullet comes out for each pull of the trigger. Is that right? Don't most firearms fit that definition? P.S. the rifle that Oswald used to kill Kennedy was one that required him to pull a bolt back between shots, so it doesn't fit the definition I gave above, correct?

Correct, semiautomatic is one round per trigger pull, and the next round loads automatically. Fully auto is multiple rounds per trigger pull. A revolver is anlso one round per trigger pull and also loads the next round automatically.

There are other differences between revolvers and semiautos, but ammunition capacity is probably the most significant, with revolvers being pretty limited. Used to be that revolvers were considered more reliable. But nowadays, that’s not really true as the big name manufacturers have gotten very good at building highly reliable semiautos.

Nowadays, the vast majority of most handguns and rifles made are semiautomatic. You can still buy revolvers, but they’re mostly purchased by collectors. Although some folks still like a small revolver for personal protection. Rifles come in many configurations, including bolt-action like Oswald used.

I should point out that, if there were some reliable way to get and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then I might be persuaded to impose more guns bans than we have today. But the FBI doesn’t even know how many illegal guns there are in the US, and uses estimates. And even within the FBI, it seems there’s a consensus that those estimates are low, perhaps very low. The “war on illegal guns” is about as successful as the war on drugs has been.

I have one proposal for helping to eliminate one well-known method by which legal guns become illegal. Impose penalties on people who “lose” a gun, or have one “stolen”. It closes a background check loophole, and will result in a magical sudden reduction in lost and stolen guns.

Anyway, in the meantime, I’m not gonna tell people that they cannot defend themselves with the same force as they are attacked. That’s just nuts. Mass shooters go after soft targets. So do criminals. Laws that make us all softer targets is insanity.

 

[mildone]

Agree, no reason to have done that

They did it for the same reason both parties do lots of dumb things, to control voter behavior. From an electoral math standpoint, at the time, it must have made sense. We get the leadership we deserve.

Until everybody realizes how manipulated they are, stop pointing fingers at each other and look in the mirror instead, we’ll keep electing crappy politicians on both sides.

 

[retired711]

Correct, semiautomatic is one round per trigger pull, and the next round loads automatically. Fully auto is multiple rounds per trigger pull. A revolver is anlso one round per trigger pull and also loads the next round automatically.

There are other differences between revolvers and semiautos, but ammunition capacity is probably the most significant, with revolvers being pretty limited. Used to be that revolvers were considered more reliable. But nowadays, that’s not really true as the big name manufacturers have gotten very good at building highly reliable semiautos.

Nowadays, the vast majority of most handguns and rifles made are semiautomatic. You can still buy revolvers, but they’re mostly purchased by collectors. Although some folks still like a small revolver for personal protection. Rifles come in many configurations, including bolt-action like Oswald used.

I should point out that, if there were some reliable way to get and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then I might be persuaded to impose more guns bans than we have today. But the FBI doesn’t even know how many illegal guns there are in the US, and uses estimates. And even within the FBI, it seems there’s a consensus that those estimates are low, perhaps very low. The “war on illegal guns” is about as successful as the war on drugs has been.

I have one proposal for helping to eliminate one well-known method by which legal guns become illegal. Impose penalties on people who “lose” a gun, or have one “stolen”. It closes a background check loophole, and will result in a magical sudden reduction in lost and stolen guns.

Anyway, in the meantime, I’m not gonna tell people that they cannot defend themselves with the same force as they are attacked. That’s just nuts. Mass shooters go after soft targets. So do criminals. Laws that make us all softer targets is insanity.

It is really a mistake for me to even start down this rabbit hole, but data on the use of firearms for self-defense are scant. But there is little doubt that gun ownership increases the likelihood of suicide, gun accidents, and homicides in the home.
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/

FWIW, I think it is a total waste of time and energy for gun control advocates to focus on trying to ban guns. If I were they, I would focus on requiring licensing, training and insurance -- the kinds of measures that we have long accepted for motor vehicles. Pushing for prohibitions only makes it more difficult to get political support for moderate steps like these that would go a long way IMHO to reducing gun violence.

 

[mildone]

It is really a mistake for me to even start down this rabbit hole, but data on the use of firearms for self-defense are scant. But there is little doubt that gun ownership increases the likelihood of suicide, gun accidents, and homicides in the home.
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/

FWIW, I think it is a total waste of time and energy for gun control advocates to focus on trying to ban guns. If I were they, I would focus on requiring licensing, training and insurance -- the kinds of measures that we have long accepted for motor vehicles. Pushing for prohibitions only makes it more difficult to get political support for moderate steps like these that would go a long way IMHO to reducing gun violence.

The stats on gun use are notoriously bad.

There are no stats kept on how many instances guns are used successfully for protection. In the best case, simply being armed prevents an attack without any notable or reportable violence. Sometimes it’s just firing towards an attacker without hitting anything that ends the attack. Again, criminals seek soft targets and a target that shoots at you is not soft. That doesn’t find its way into statistics.

Also, gun stats frequently don’t distinguish between gun use for protection and for crime. Or suicides which, while sad, was going to happen with or without the gun - a gun doesn’t cause depression and frankly, there are easier, cleaner, less painful. and more reliable methods. A gun death simply gets reported as a gun death, even if it’s a cop or other good guy shooting a bad guy. Gang violence often gets counted as a “mass shooting” which is often how any event with 3 or more deaths by gunfire is reported, and that’s not legitimate legal gun owners, it’s criminals shooting criminals.

I would not argue that guns being in our lives won’t lead to deadly gun accidents, of course that’s true. Gun ownership is a big responsibility and not everyone’s up to the task. Much like driving a two ton vehicle around at 80mph which can and regularly does result in carnage.

Which is why I don’t oppose regulation that seeks to limit gun ownership to people who are stable and responsible and capable of safely maintaining and operating their guns. I would strengthen such regulation.

And I think that’s where the focus should be. Not on taking guns out of the hands of law abiding people. But taking them away from criminals and the unfit. And by getting better at enforcing the laws we already have, which often doesn’t happen.

 

[BossNJ]

It is really a mistake for me to even start down this rabbit hole, but data on the use of firearms for self-defense are scant. But there is little doubt that gun ownership increases the likelihood of suicide, gun accidents, and homicides in the home.
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/

FWIW, I think it is a total waste of time and energy for gun control advocates to focus on trying to ban guns. If I were they, I would focus on requiring licensing, training and insurance -- the kinds of measures that we have long accepted for motor vehicles. Pushing for prohibitions only makes it more difficult to get political support for moderate steps like these that would go a long way IMHO to reducing gun violence.

I’ve been around quite a while and I honestly haven’t heard any talk about “banning guns.” Unfortunately, the NRA, their ilk, and the reactionary RW enthusiasts on this forum (where few of them are actual past or present gun owners) are of the “domino theory” mindset of the McCarthy era, eschewing common sense gun reforms because of the same paranoia of 70 years ago. Of course , that paranoia is stoked by the multi billion dollar gun lobby who have far too much to lose financially to adopt any common sense.

 

[mildone]

I’ve been around quite a while and I honestly haven’t heard any talk about “banning guns.” Unfortunately, the NRA, their ilk, and the reactionary RW enthusiasts on this forum (where few of them are actual past or present gun owners) are of the “domino theory” mindset of the McCarthy era, eschewing common sense gun reforms because of the same paranoia of 70 years ago. Of course , that paranoia is stoked by the multi billion dollar gun lobby who have far too much to lose financially to adopt any common sense.

Incorrect. Lot more than just talk…

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/698

I’m not an NRA member, nor part of anybody’s wing, right or left, nor paranoid, nor swayed by anybody’s lobby on any topic.

 

[Kbee3]

Wow. I can't believe how wrong you are. No one needs semi-automatic weapons. Those kids and their teachers at Sandy Hook needed their lives. Your priorities are a little off.

So true.
When I saw the pictures from the Sandy Hook massacre....and so many others involving rapid-fire guns... I was not thinking for a moment about "self-reliance and freedom". I was thinking that this is what you get in a country that has more guns than people. And that those poor kids lives were more important than the right to collect such weapons. And that we as a society failed them....all so some folks could have some fancy, but deadly toys to play with. And some others could make big bucks selling them.
I don't understand your priorities.

 

[Kbee3]

Incorrect. Lot more than just talk…

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/698

I’m not an NRA member, nor part of anybody’s wing, right or left, nor paranoid, nor swayed by anybody’s lobby on any topic.

That bill is not for all guns, but only for semi-automatic assault weapons.
Why would someone in 2024...let alone 1776...have any use for a semi-automatic assault weapon ?

 

[BossNJ]

Incorrect. Lot more than just talk…

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/698

I’m not an NRA member, nor part of anybody’s wing, right or left, nor paranoid, nor swayed by anybody’s lobby on any topic.

Referring to a proposed ban of assault weapons as “banning guns” is more than a bit disingenuous. And I’m old enough to remember when Congress actually passed an assault weapons ban (and was referred to by absolutely no one as “banning guns”), and which was quite successful in reducing mass shootings.

But then, as we all know, the gun lobby strengthened it’s stranglehold on the Republican Party, and the rest is history.

For an otherwise reasonable guy, your gun fetish is a bit bizarre.

 

[retired711]

The stats on gun use are notoriously bad.

There are no stats kept on how many instances guns are used successfully for protection. In the best case, simply being armed prevents an attack without any notable or reportable violence. Sometimes it’s just firing towards an attacker without hitting anything that ends the attack. Again, criminals seek soft targets and a target that shoots at you is not soft. That doesn’t find its way into statistics.

Also, gun stats frequently don’t distinguish between gun use for protection and for crime. Or suicides which, while sad, was going to happen with or without the gun - a gun doesn’t cause depression and frankly, there are easier, cleaner, less painful. and more reliable methods. A gun death simply gets reported as a gun death, even if it’s a cop or other good guy shooting a bad guy. Gang violence often gets counted as a “mass shooting” which is often how any event with 3 or more deaths by gunfire is reported, and that’s not legitimate legal gun owners, it’s criminals shooting criminals.

I would not argue that guns being in our lives won’t lead to deadly gun accidents, of course that’s true. Gun ownership is a big responsibility and not everyone’s up to the task. Much like driving a two ton vehicle around at 80mph which can and regularly does result in carnage.

Which is why I don’t oppose regulation that seeks to limit gun ownership to people who are stable and responsible and capable of safely maintaining and operating their guns. I would strengthen such regulation.

And I think that’s where the focus should be. Not on taking guns out of the hands of law abiding people. But taking them away from criminals and the unfit. And by getting better at enforcing the laws we already have, which often doesn’t happen.

Having a gun, of course, does not make one depressed. But access to a gun increases the odds of suicide three-fold, and suicide attempts by firearms are much more apt to be successful than by other means. The majority of firearms deaths in the U.S. each year are suicides. A domestic violence victim faces five times the risk of being killed if the abuser has access to a gun. Accidental shootings account for a large percentage of deaths and injuries from firearms.

The answer is not just to take guns away from the unfit, but also doing a better job keeping the unfit from getting guns in the first place and ensuring that people who have guns know how to use them properly.

 

[mildone]

So true.
When I saw the pictures from the Sandy Hook massacre....and so many others involving rapid-fire guns... I was not thinking for a moment about "self-reliance and freedom". I was thinking that this is what you get in a country that has more guns than people. And that those poor kids lives were more important than the right to collect such weapons. And that we as a society failed them....all so some folk could have some fancy, but deadly toys to play with. And some others could make big bucks selling them.
I don't understand your priorities.

A semiautomatic gun is NOT a rapid fire gun. And you’re talking to yourself. Sober up.

 

[retired711]

A semiautomatic gun is NOT a rapid fire gun. And you’re talking to yourself. Sober up.

Actually, this is something I've long been curious about. How quickly can a good shooter fire with a semiautomatic?

 

[mildone]

Referring to a proposed ban of assault weapons as “banning guns” is more than a bit disingenuous. And I’m old enough to remember when Congress actually passed an assault weapons ban (and was referred to by absolutely no one as “banning guns”), and which was quite successful in reducing mass shootings.

But then, as we all know, the gun lobby strengthened it’s stranglehold on the Republican Party, and the rest is history.

For an otherwise reasonable guy, your gun fetish is a bit bizarre.

Huh? What are you talking about? A ban of any gun is a ban of a gun.

The term “assault weapon” is meaningless. All weapons are assault weapons. A rock can be an assault weapon. I know of no gun with a brand name or model name “Assault Weapon”. Define the term, please.

And be specific and list the actual weapons that congress banned or provide a link to the legislation.

And once again, the state with the strictest gun laws is CA and they have the most mass shootings in the nation. So you’re gonna have to show some evidence, perhaps from FBI data, that any legislation has resulted in a reduction of mass shootings. Don’t provide a link to propaganda. Just the raw data.

 

[mildone]

Actually, this is something I've long been curious about. How quickly can a good shooter fire with a semiautomatic?

Depends on the specific gun, and guns can be modified in many ways, some of which result in being able to fire more quickly. But no semiautomatic can come close to the rate of fire of a fully automatic weapon (aka machine gun, what the military use). And mods that make a gun fully automatic are illegal.

If someone uses a fully automatic weapon, they’re using an illegal weapon which is already banned. This appears to be something @Kbee3 and @BossNJ are failing to understand.

 

[mildone]

That bill is not for all guns, but only for semi-automatic assault weapons.
Why would someone in 2024...let alone 1776...have any use for a semi-automatic assault weapon ?

Where did I say anything about ALL guns? I am not talking about all guns.

 

[retired711]

Huh? What are you talking about? A ban of any gun is a ban of a gun.

The term “assault weapon” is meaningless. All weapons are assault weapons. A rock can be an assault weapon. I know of no gun with a brand name or model name “Assault Weapon”. Define the term, please.

And be specific and list the actual weapons that congress banned or provide a link to the legislation.

And once again, the state with the strictest gun laws is CA and they have the most mass shootings in the nation. So you’re gonna have to show some evidence, perhaps from FBI data, that any legislation has resulted in a reduction of mass shootings. Don’t provide a link to propaganda. Just the raw data.

This appears to be a pretty well balanced piece about the origins and meaning of the term "assault weapon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

 

[Kbee3]

I've pretty much said what I needed to say about this issue. Disappointed in some posters here. They need to go back and look at the stories covering the many massacres their toys made possible.
BTW, Someone once explained to me that the solution is serious restrictions on ammo...not the gun.

 

[mildone]

This appears to be a pretty well balanced piece about the origins and meaning of the term "assault weapon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Yes, that wiki article illustrates the problem with the term. It has no particular factually well-defined meaning.

I think the term’s use by anti-gun people was intended to mislead people into thinking semiautomatic rifles that look like machine guns are, in fact, machine guns. When they are nothing of the sort.

As I said earlier, a scary looking semiautomatic rifle (ar-15 style or ak-47 style rifles, for instance) fires no more rapidly than a boring looking semiautomatic handgun, which is what pretty much all policemen carry nowadays. By labeling them “assault rifles” or “military weapons”, it misleads the public into thinking they’re something they are not.

 

[retired711]

Yes, that wiki article illustrates the problem with the term. It has no particular factually well-defined meaning.

I think the term’s use by anti-gun people was intended to mislead people into thinking semiautomatic rifles that look like machine guns are, in fact, machine guns. When they are nothing of the sort.

As I said earlier, a scary looking semiautomatic rifle (ar-15 style or ak-47 style rifles, for instance) fires no more rapidly than a boring looking semiautomatic handgun, which is what pretty much all policemen carry nowadays. By labeling them “assault rifles” or “military weapons”, it misleads the public into thinking they’re something they are not.

What is interesting (at least to me) is the emphasis on semiautomatic rifles when the vast majority of firearms-related crime is committed with handguns. People care so much about semiautomatic rifles for the same reason that airplanes are thought to be more dangerous by many people than cars -- when an airplane crashes a lot of people die at once, and the same is true when a massacre is committed with a rifle. In addition, it is a lot easier to try to kill a celebrity with bodyguards with a rifle from a long distance than a handgun at short range. Assassinations or attempted assassinations draw a lot of public attention for obvious reasons, and this too creates a lot of concern about semiautomatic rifles when handguns pose the greater risk to society.

Let me add a word about the deterrent effect of gun ownership. You suggested above, rightly, that criminals seek soft targets rather than hard ones, and so will stay away from those that are known to have guns. But often (much more often, probably) the criminal doesn't know the victim has a gun, and so it's important to ask whether legal gun ownership makes a difference in this situation. I know of one where it did. For some months, there was a rapist preying on women near the Rutgers-Camden campus. One day the rapist went into a small grocery store owned by a Vietnamese couple, and grabbed the wife. The assailant was tall and the wife short -- the husband pulled out a handgun from under the cash register and shot the assailant dead, to the regret of no one. Certainly in this case gun ownership by a law-abiding citizen made a difference in the outcome. But how many times does something like this happen? so far the data suggests there aren't many. So does the deterrent effect of handguns outweigh the extra risk of suicides, homicides and accidental deaths and injuries that result from widespread legal gun ownership? It's a question worth thinking about.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Legal, processed refugees

Not people showing up at the border, saying a few magic words, let into the country, where
they don’t show up for a court date 5 years from now
Enough of that

And how did Ellis Island differ from people showing up and being let in exactly?

 

[NotInRHouse]

Oh, I guess you think coming when there was no need to get permission is the same as being an illegal -- coming without permission when permission is needed. You're displaying your usual practice of undercutting your own position through overstated arguments.

I think the Native Americans would disagree would the idea that no one needed permission. I don't recall them being so enthralled with the disease and destruction wreaked upon them.

 

[wheezer]

And how did Ellis Island differ from people showing up and being let in exactly?

This is your problem
You have to let go of previous procedures and deal with today's problems
I don't give one care about what we did before

 

[NotInRHouse]

You are talking to A liberal who figures he has to defend every liberal.position, even when it is not a good one

I can name several issues where I that go against the conservative view, he cannot

lol. Supporting the GOP is fascist, not conservative. As to conservative beliefs, I am for free trade. Historically, I am for the amnesty for immigrants as proposed by Reagan and Bush 1. I agree with Bush 1's policies on Israel and Palestine.

I am against fascist positions- putting the government in the bedroom, the exam room, dictating library books, asking Twitter to remove tweets from Chrissy Teigen, giving billions to Iowa farmers because of a deranged tariff policy, assaulting protesters, giving the police deity status (except at the Capitol, ofc)...

 

[NotInRHouse]

This is your problem
You have to let go of previous procedures and deal with today's problems
I don't give one care about what we did before

"You have to let go of previous procedures" and "I don't give one care about what we did before"

Does this apply to the Supreme Court? Because they sure seem to disagree on most topics that aren't felons trying to overthrow the government.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I often think his positions are wrong. But what bothers me much more is that he makes lousy arguments in favor of even plausible positions. This is an example. Maybe the country should be allowing more immigration: but equating people who came to this country when there was no need to get permission with people who are coming in violation of the law is fatuous for lack of a better word.

Did you miss where I said we needed immigrants due to record low unemployment?

I am talking to someone who claims to believe in a SCOTUS that says the laws (except those applying to presidents) should have historical analogue.

Historically, the one anagalogue they are looking for is 1924 Immigration Act which is widely regarded as deeply racist and antisemitic. So I am just asking what exactly the difference is today. Seems obvious there is only one- the perceived race of those arriving.

 

[wheezer]

"You have to let go of previous procedures" and "I don't give one care about what we did before"

Does this apply to the Supreme Court? Because they sure seem to disagree on most topics that aren't felons trying to overthrow the government.

You're argument is all over the place and now makes no sense

 

[NotInRHouse]

You're argument is all over the place and now makes no sense

Actually it's kind of easy.

Either historical analogues apply to ALL issues or none.

It simply can't be "well, let's see what the founders said about guns, but let's ignore them and turn to Hannity on immigration."

But as we already have been through, Republicans don't want legal immigration, either. They want less publicly, and then to marry, have affairs with, and hire, usually illegally, the rest.

To me, if you come here and want to work when we desperately need workers as we do, come on in. Ofc we can and should vet people.

 

[wheezer]

Actually it's kind of easy.

Either historical analogues apply to ALL issues or none.

It simply can't be "well, let's see what the founders said about guns, but let's ignore them and turn to Hannity on immigration."

But as we already have been through, Republicans don't want legal immigration, either. They want less publicly, and then to marry, have affairs with, and hire, usually illegally, the rest.

To me, if you come here and want to work when we desperately need workers as we do, come on in. Ofc we can and should vet people.

This is simple
Have enough immigration, but all of it legal

If someone shows up.at the border, they don't get in till they are allowed to legally

When discussing immigration, always put legal in front of the word immigrant, and you will be fine

 

[retired711]

I think the Native Americans would disagree would the idea that no one needed permission. I don't recall them being so enthralled with the disease and destruction wreaked upon them.

I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with you. Every time one of your weak arguments is refuted you change the subject and make an even weaker one. At least for the time being, you're going on "ignore."

 

[NotInRHouse]

This is simple
Have enough immigration, but all of it legal

If someone shows up.at the border, they don't get in till they are allowed to legally

When discussing immigration, always put legal in front of the word immigrant, and you will be fine

They are entering legally. Being a refugee is legal. See the Refugee Act of 1980.

 

[wheezer]

They are entering legally. Being a refugee is legal. See the Refugee Act of 1980.

Keep them in Mexico till screened, fully approved, no future court dates
Not to mention the millions here illegally crossing unchecked because Dems don’t want a wall

 

[RUInsanity]

Keep them in Mexico till screened, fully approved, no future court dates
Not to mention the millions here illegally crossing unchecked because Dems don’t want a wall

Weren't border crossings

 

[NotInRHouse]

Keep them in Mexico till screened, fully approved, no future court dates
Not to mention the millions here illegally crossing unchecked because Dems don’t want a wall

That's breaking the law. Courts have ruled.

Crossings at a record low. Lower than the felon's time in office.

Why didn't Republicans build a wall when they had full control for 2 years? Oh right. They know a wall is dumb.

And I thought Mexico was paying? Oops

 

[wheezer]

That's breaking the law. Courts have ruled.

Crossings at a record low. Lower than the felon's time in office.

Why didn't Republicans build a wall when they had full control for 2 years? Oh right. They know a wall is dumb.

And I thought Mexico was paying? Oops

Wrong
The Supreme Court did not rule that remain in Mexico was illegal, they ruled that Biden could end it through executive order

And we had a huge spike in illegal aliens in the states since Biden

 

[wheezer]

That's breaking the law. Courts have ruled.

Crossings at a record low. Lower than the felon's time in office.

Why didn't Republicans build a wall when they had full control for 2 years? Oh right. They know a wall is dumb.

And I thought Mexico was paying? Oops

and the final numbers for 2023 were the worst ever.... you can point to a single month, June 2023 eg here and there, but it winds up being misleading

FACTSHEET: Final FY23 Numbers Show Worst Year at America’s Borders—Ever – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

 

[mildone]

and the final numbers for 2023 were the worst ever.... you can point to a single month, June 2023 eg here and there, but it winds up being misleading

FACTSHEET: Final FY23 Numbers Show Worst Year at America’s Borders—Ever – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

That’s a pure propaganda site run by all Republicans. So the information there cannot be trusted any more than a propaganda site run by all Dems could be. Do you have any objective data to present, from an unbiased source, so that we might be well-informed, rather than disinformd by either party’s politicians?

 

[tom1944]

This is simple
Have enough immigration, but all of it legal

If someone shows up.at the border, they don't get in till they are allowed to legally

When discussing immigration, always put legal in front of the word immigrant, and you will be fine

I thought if the show up and request asylum they are legal until a determination is made. Is my understanding incorrect?

 

[wheezer]

I thought if the show up and request asylum they are legal until a determination is made. Is my understanding incorrect?

Probably correct only problem is that they all know the magic words to say and thus qualify
We let them in then they disappear with A court date years off

 

[Kbee3]

Probably correct only problem is that they all know the magic words to say and thus qualify
We let them in then they disappear with A court date years off

Huh ?
Why would a court date be years off ? Maybe they need more courts.

 

[wheezer]

Huh ?
Why would a court date be years off ? Maybe they need more courts.

Maybe the procedure needs changing
In NYC cases started in 2023 have dates in
2033
Other cities, some are at 2027, national average almost 4 years

So, show up at the border, say the magic words they all know need to be said, come in, and maybe show up in court years later

Good system? Does it sound safe?