A good reason to carry in church

A kid was arrested in Idaho this week for attempting to shoot up some churches in north Idaho on behalf of ISIS.

Quote

FBI arrests Idaho 18-year-old for 'violent plot' to attack churches on behalf of ISIS, Justice Department says
Alexander Mercurio was planning to carry out attack in Coeur d’Alene on Sunday, according to the FBI
Greg Norman By Greg Norman Fox News
Published April 9, 2024 8:51am EDT

The FBI has arrested an 18-year-old in Idaho after uncovering his "truly horrific" and "violent plot" to attack churches in Coeur d’Alene this past weekend on behalf of ISIS, the Justice Department says.

Alexander Mercurio is now facing a federal charge of attempting to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization after the FBI says he devised a plan to "incapacitate his father, restrain him using handcuffs, and steal his firearms to use for maximum casualties" in an attack he had been planning to carry out in the northern Idaho resort city on Sunday, April 7.

"The defendant allegedly pledged loyalty to ISIS and sought to attack people attending churches in Idaho, a truly horrific plan which was detected and thwarted by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force," FBI Director Christopher Wray said in a statement.

"The Justice Department will continue to relentlessly pursue, disrupt, and hold accountable those who would commit acts of terrorism against the people and interests of the United States," added Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The FBI says Alexander Mercurio implied to a confidential human source that "in conducting the attack, he intended to perform a good deed." (FBI)

In a criminal complaint, the FBI says the investigation began when Mercurio, who is a resident of Coeur d’Alene, "reached out to confidential human sources online and indicated his support for ISIS and terrorist organizations, more generally."

"Mercurio spread ISIS propaganda online and solicited ISIS’s involvement in and approval of his propaganda efforts, discussed traveling from the United States to join ISIS, [and] considered and planned ways to support ISIS financially," an FBI investigator wrote in the complaint.

"His attack plan involved using flame-covered weapons, explosives, knives, a machete, a pipe and ultimately firearms," the investigator added. "His plan grew more precise as he eventually identified the specific church and date on which he planned to attack."

The FBI investigator also said Mercurio "made a ba’yah statement, pledging his allegiance to ISIS and stating his intention to die while killing others on behalf of ISIS."

But on Saturday afternoon, FBI agents carried out a search warrant at Mercurio’s house and took him into custody while allegedly finding items linked to the plot, including a "metal pipe," "a black Smith and Wesson fixed blade knife" and a "machete," according to the complaint.

Mercurio now faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted on the federal charge.

We do and will continue to.

Amen.

Can't say whether this passes the smell test considering the the number of false flag "attacks" by under cover feds. claiming to be "white nationalists" hitting the Coeur d’Alene area over the years. If you believed the MSM, there are nazis and white supremacist's hiding behind every rock and Doug Fir in the northern panhandle.

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Not just church it's best to carry everywhere you go, except places metal detectors ae used.

Originally Posted by Riverc

Not just church it's best to carry everywhere you go, except places metal detectors ae used.

PREZACTLY.

I don’t go to places I can’t carry, anymore.

If we cannot carry we don't go. Wife and I.

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

This is an interesting topic to me. I am working on a church now and have seen open carry here. Made me think maybe they know something that I don't.

Nuts and fairies need relocation, too.

Always carry

Even Jesus told his disciples to be armed.

Lu 22:36 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Wutz ur occupation?

You should be carrying everywhere.

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Wutz ur occupation?

Purchasing. Yours?

And the occupation of the handler who goaded the terrorist?

Sounds like he planned to use flammables. It will be terrible when a terrorist manages to get into a crowded venue like a church with a 5 gallon bucket of gasoline.

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Wutz ur occupation?

Purchasing. Yours?

And the occupation of the handler who goaded the terrorist?

^Purchases creampies from the dude on the corner.

We do at our church well. Have a number of members who are Secret Service here (Jimmy Carter). They give every appearance of being well trained.

Originally Posted by Jim_Conrad

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Wutz ur occupation?

Purchasing. Yours?

And the occupation of the handler who goaded the terrorist?

^Purchases creampies from the dude on the corner.

😂🤣

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Wutz ur occupation?

Purchasing. Yours?

And the occupation of the handler who goaded the terrorist?

It would blow ur mind I’m a fairly dangerous man movies have been made about what I do hint😉

Originally Posted by Jim_Conrad

You should be carrying everywhere.

/thread

You'd have to be a real dumbazz to not be carrying while in church or anywhere else for that matter. The muslims have made it very clear that they don't like Christian's and will kill them whenever and wherever.

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Wutz ur occupation?

Purchasing. Yours?

And the occupation of the handler who goaded the terrorist?

It would blow ur mind I’m a fairly dangerous man movies have been made about what I do hint😉

So you were the handler?

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/what-did-fbi-really-know-terrorist-attack-garland-texas#:~:text=On%20April%2024%2C%202015%2C%20Simpson,what%20happened%20in%20Paris%20.%20.%20.

Originally Posted by Jim_Conrad

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Wutz ur occupation?

Purchasing. Yours?

And the occupation of the handler who goaded the terrorist?

^Purchases creampies from the dude on the corner.

Not my thing, but it apparently is yours.

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Wutz ur occupation?

Purchasing. Yours?

And the occupation of the handler who goaded the terrorist?

It would blow ur mind I’m a fairly dangerous man movies have been made about what I do hint😉

So you were the handler?

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/what-did-fbi-really-know-terrorist-attack-garland-texas#:~:text=On%20April%2024%2C%202015%2C%20Simpson,what%20happened%20in%20Paris%20.%20.%20.

Dude I’m doin good to handle the old lady 🤪 get a life

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Wutz ur occupation?

Purchasing. Yours?

And the occupation of the handler who goaded the terrorist?

Wut you purchase ? Rubberdiks ? Butt plugs ? Eager beavers 🦫?

Only a foolish man does not carry 24/7/365...

Originally Posted by Hastings

Sounds like he planned to use flammables. It will be terrible when a terrorist manages to get into a crowded venue like a church with a 5 gallon bucket of gasoline.

A while back I seen pictures ISIS put some men in a cage and burned them alive, they won't hesitate to do it again.

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by earlybrd

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

What was the occupation of the person who told a terrorist to
"Tear up Texas"?

Wutz ur occupation?

Purchasing. Yours?

And the occupation of the handler who goaded the terrorist?

Wut you purchase ? Rubberdiks ? Butt plugs ? Eager beavers 🦫?

can't help you out.

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln

Wrong approach- - - - -let the little scumbag try to carry out his attack, and burn him down before he manages to hurt anybody. No early release from the graveyard!

Think about that.

Lets give that another perspective.

The headlines and fallout.

"The FBI knowingly allowed an operative for ISIS to conduct an attack on innocent citizens while they were peaceably attending a church service. "X" amount of individuals were murdered, and "X" amount were grievously wounded. The FBI had been tracking and surveilling the terrorist for months and knew that he planned to conduct the attack. They let him do so, and X amount of citizens are now dead."

I don't believe that is what anybody wants to read as a news or investigative finding.

Stopping terrorists BEFORE they attack is the goal and it sounds like that is what happened.

Besides, if they can take him into custody, they may be able to glean valuable information from him that otherwise may not be able to be learned through mere electronic surveillance. There is electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT) and human intelligence gathering (HUMINT). Getting info from him may help other cases that further other cases and or prevent other attacks.

Just my observation and experience from working against these people overseas.

You are right, obviously.

And yet about every other mass shooter was "known" by the FBeye.

It's a sad day when folks can't go to church in the USA.
There are so many scumbags in this country that need to be dealt with.

In Nebraska, it is illegal to carry a gun in church unless the church follows a specific format of informing the congregation. When I spoke with a deputy sheriff about someone carrying a gun without the church following that procedure he told me that unless you were a complete idiot and flashed the gun around recklessly no one would know that you had it and if you had to use it in a shooting situation for defense of your life or others, there isn’t a judge in the state who would allow prosecution….fwiw
.

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

In Nebraska, it is illegal to carry a gun in church unless the church follows a specific format of informing the congregation. When I spoke with a deputy sheriff about someone carrying a gun without the church following that procedure he told me that unless you were a complete idiot and flashed the gun around recklessly no one would know that you had it and if you had to use it in a shooting situation for defense of your life or others, there isn’t a judge in the state who would allow prosecution….fwiw
.

I wouldn't bet on that holding true.

Originally Posted by Rock Chuck

A kid was arrested in Idaho this week for attempting to shoot up some churches in north Idaho on behalf of ISIS.

Quote

FBI arrests Idaho 18-year-old for 'violent plot' to attack churches on behalf of ISIS, Justice Department says
Alexander Mercurio was planning to carry out attack in Coeur d’Alene on Sunday, according to the FBI
Greg Norman By Greg Norman Fox News
Published April 9, 2024 8:51am EDT

The FBI has arrested an 18-year-old in Idaho after uncovering his "truly horrific" and "violent plot" to attack churches in Coeur d’Alene this past weekend on behalf of ISIS, the Justice Department says.

Alexander Mercurio is now facing a federal charge of attempting to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization after the FBI says he devised a plan to "incapacitate his father, restrain him using handcuffs, and steal his firearms to use for maximum casualties" in an attack he had been planning to carry out in the northern Idaho resort city on Sunday, April 7.

"The defendant allegedly pledged loyalty to ISIS and sought to attack people attending churches in Idaho, a truly horrific plan which was detected and thwarted by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force," FBI Director Christopher Wray said in a statement.

"The Justice Department will continue to relentlessly pursue, disrupt, and hold accountable those who would commit acts of terrorism against the people and interests of the United States," added Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The FBI says Alexander Mercurio implied to a confidential human source that "in conducting the attack, he intended to perform a good deed." (FBI)

In a criminal complaint, the FBI says the investigation began when Mercurio, who is a resident of Coeur d’Alene, "reached out to confidential human sources online and indicated his support for ISIS and terrorist organizations, more generally."

"Mercurio spread ISIS propaganda online and solicited ISIS’s involvement in and approval of his propaganda efforts, discussed traveling from the United States to join ISIS, [and] considered and planned ways to support ISIS financially," an FBI investigator wrote in the complaint.

"His attack plan involved using flame-covered weapons, explosives, knives, a machete, a pipe and ultimately firearms," the investigator added. "His plan grew more precise as he eventually identified the specific church and date on which he planned to attack."

The FBI investigator also said Mercurio "made a ba’yah statement, pledging his allegiance to ISIS and stating his intention to die while killing others on behalf of ISIS."

But on Saturday afternoon, FBI agents carried out a search warrant at Mercurio’s house and took him into custody while allegedly finding items linked to the plot, including a "metal pipe," "a black Smith and Wesson fixed blade knife" and a "machete," according to the complaint.

Mercurio now faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted on the federal charge.

👍👍To law enforcement members for doing great job. Please be vigilant, when you see or hear something say something.🫡

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

In Nebraska, it is illegal to carry a gun in church unless the church follows a specific format of informing the congregation. When I spoke with a deputy sheriff about someone carrying a gun without the church following that procedure he told me that unless you were a complete idiot and flashed the gun around recklessly no one would know that you had it and if you had to use it in a shooting situation for defense of your life or others, there isn’t a judge in the state who would allow prosecution….fwiw
.

I wouldn't bet on that holding true.

I think you are an idiot... or a troll.

I always carry in church. Churches are a target rich environment for nut cases and Muslims. Same for gas stations and convenience stores.

On behalf of the Israeli Secret Intelligence Services?

Whenever our church is open there are LEO on the premises, uniformed and plain clothes.

Originally Posted by CashisKing

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

In Nebraska, it is illegal to carry a gun in church unless the church follows a specific format of informing the congregation. When I spoke with a deputy sheriff about someone carrying a gun without the church following that procedure he told me that unless you were a complete idiot and flashed the gun around recklessly no one would know that you had it and if you had to use it in a shooting situation for defense of your life or others, there isn’t a judge in the state who would allow prosecution….fwiw
.

I wouldn't bet on that holding true.

I think you are an idiot... or a troll.

Then everyone hiring an attorney for legal advice/representation is an idiot since they could just go ask a member of law enforcement for the same service fot free.

Originally Posted by Strop10

Then everyone hiring an attorney for legal advice/representation is an idiot since they could just go ask a member of law enforcement for the same service fot free.

You are very wrong...

LEO responds to what they believe is an infraction of State/Commonwealth Code (i.e. Legislated Laws).

LEOs are NOT lawyers... they are arresting agents of the Courts.

Many times the DA or CA backs them... but many times the DA or CA does not back them.

Originally Posted by CashisKing

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

In Nebraska, it is illegal to carry a gun in church unless the church follows a specific format of informing the congregation. When I spoke with a deputy sheriff about someone carrying a gun without the church following that procedure he told me that unless you were a complete idiot and flashed the gun around recklessly no one would know that you had it and if you had to use it in a shooting situation for defense of your life or others, there isn’t a judge in the state who would allow prosecution….fwiw
.

I wouldn't bet on that holding true.

I think you are an idiot... or a troll.

Originally Posted by CashisKing

Originally Posted by Strop10

Then everyone hiring an attorney for legal advice/representation is an idiot since they could just go ask a member of law enforcement for the same service fot free.

You are very wrong...

LEO responds to what they believe is an infraction of State/Commonwealth Code (i.e. Legislated Laws).

LEOs are NOT lawyers... they are arresting agents of the Courts.

Many times the DA or CA backs them... but many times the DA or CA does not back them.

So why am I an idiot for saying I doubt the legal advice provided by the deputy concerning Nebraska judges' views on the law intended to prevent peaceable church attendees from being armed?

What insult will i receive for noticing the legal advice giving deputy is exempt from the carry in church prohibition?

https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1202.01

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by CashisKing

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

In Nebraska, it is illegal to carry a gun in church unless the church follows a specific format of informing the congregation. When I spoke with a deputy sheriff about someone carrying a gun without the church following that procedure he told me that unless you were a complete idiot and flashed the gun around recklessly no one would know that you had it and if you had to use it in a shooting situation for defense of your life or others, there isn’t a judge in the state who would allow prosecution….fwiw
.

I wouldn't bet on that holding true.

I think you are an idiot... or a troll.

Originally Posted by CashisKing

Originally Posted by Strop10

Then everyone hiring an attorney for legal advice/representation is an idiot since they could just go ask a member of law enforcement for the same service fot free.

You are very wrong...

LEO responds to what they believe is an infraction of State/Commonwealth Code (i.e. Legislated Laws).

LEOs are NOT lawyers... they are arresting agents of the Courts.

Many times the DA or CA backs them... but many times the DA or CA does not back them.

So why am I an idiot for saying I doubt the legal advice provided by the deputy concerning Nebraska judges' views on the law intended to prevent peaceable church attendees from being armed?

What insult will i receive for noticing the legal advice giving deputy is exempt from the carry in church prohibition?

https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1202.01

Actually, you don’t have to say anything and you are still an idiot…

Originally Posted by shrapnel

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by CashisKing

Originally Posted by Strop10

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

In Nebraska, it is illegal to carry a gun in church unless the church follows a specific format of informing the congregation. When I spoke with a deputy sheriff about someone carrying a gun without the church following that procedure he told me that unless you were a complete idiot and flashed the gun around recklessly no one would know that you had it and if you had to use it in a shooting situation for defense of your life or others, there isn’t a judge in the state who would allow prosecution….fwiw
.

I wouldn't bet on that holding true.

I think you are an idiot... or a troll.

Originally Posted by CashisKing

Originally Posted by Strop10

Then everyone hiring an attorney for legal advice/representation is an idiot since they could just go ask a member of law enforcement for the same service fot free.

You are very wrong...

LEO responds to what they believe is an infraction of State/Commonwealth Code (i.e. Legislated Laws).

LEOs are NOT lawyers... they are arresting agents of the Courts.

Many times the DA or CA backs them... but many times the DA or CA does not back them.

So why am I an idiot for saying I doubt the legal advice provided by the deputy concerning Nebraska judges' views on the law intended to prevent peaceable church attendees from being armed?

What insult will i receive for noticing the legal advice giving deputy is exempt from the carry in church prohibition?

https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1202.01

Actually, you don’t have to say anything and you are still an idiot…

You are upset at me and anyone else who isn't an idiot or at least isn't gullible.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/19151495/nra-haters-forum

Strop10,

Are you calling me an idiot and/or liar?

You seem to be posing as an expert in the law. Where and when did you get your degree? Are you licensed in Nebraska?

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

Strop10,

Are you calling me an idiot and/or liar?

You seem to be posing as an expert in the law. Where and when did you get your degree? Are you licensed in Nebraska?

Don't worry about Strop10...

He was bridge expert 2 weeks ago...

And a Murder Hornet expert before that...

And so on... and so forth...

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

Strop10,

Are you calling me an idiot and/or liar?

You seem to be posing as an expert in the law. Where and when did you get your degree? Are you licensed in Nebraska?

The deputy you referenced has no law degree in Nebraska, but is exempt from the law you mentioned.

If you end up having to shoot someone in a church in Nebraska(without jumping through the hoops you detailed) and get saddled with an anti 2A/authoritarian judge(very common) the deputy's legal advise and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee.

It should also be noted that the deputy(who is exempt from the law) could enhance his career/improve his lot in life by making an arrest for a violation of the law you referenced.

I have decided that to watch others be slaughtered is just something I could never live with. I carry everywhere, always!
Sometime I wonder in church if I'm the only one, In Idaho, probably not, thankfully!

Originally Posted by CashisKing

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

Strop10,

Are you calling me an idiot and/or liar?

You seem to be posing as an expert in the law. Where and when did you get your degree? Are you licensed in Nebraska?

Don't worry about Strop10...

He was bridge expert 2 weeks ago...

And a Murder Hornet expert before that...

And so on... and so forth...

1) since I did not say any of that, what does that make you?

2) specific to this topic(and since I have to be wrong) what legal protections will the phrase "a deputy said I could _______" provide you in court after a self defense shooting?

Originally Posted by CashisKing

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

Strop10,

Are you calling me an idiot and/or liar?

You seem to be posing as an expert in the law. Where and when did you get your degree? Are you licensed in Nebraska?

Don't worry about Strop10...

He was bridge expert 2 weeks ago...

And a Murder Hornet expert before that...

And so on... and so forth...

And he dominates every thread he post on in an effort to make it about him. That makes him a troll.

Originally Posted by Jim1611

Originally Posted by CashisKing

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar

Strop10,

Are you calling me an idiot and/or liar?

You seem to be posing as an expert in the law. Where and when did you get your degree? Are you licensed in Nebraska?

Don't worry about Strop10...

He was bridge expert 2 weeks ago...

And a Murder Hornet expert before that...

And so on... and so forth...

And he dominates every thread he post on in an effort to make it about him. That makes him a troll.

What have I posted to make it about me in any thread?