Despite gun-friendly SCOTUS ruling, federal judge declines to declare possession law unconstitutiona

D.B. Cooper said:

That's inevitable. The make-up of the court will eventually change. Through attrition or through something far more sinister. What the the Republicans did, starting with refusing to allow Obama his rightful appointment of a Supreme Court justice, to their hypocrisy in nominating Justice Barrett, could easily happen in reverse 10 or more years down the road.

Click to expand...

I think that's why it's important to get all of these unconstitutional laws repealed and to get as much legal precedent as possible on our side. We need to make it as difficult as possible for them to change things in the future, especially through the legal chicanery that they all embrace. Ideally, we want this issue to no longer be an issue so we can spend our time, energy and money on other things. As it is, this issue has us all fixed in a position of conflict. The last thing I want is eternal conflict on this one issue but there has to be a clear winner before we can move on and I think, at this point, that winner is clearly us. I think we have beaten them or, at least, their plans.

And so I guess I want to, metaphorically, hear them all screaming "uncle" repeatedly while tapping on the ground. And because "they" have so much history of attacking the 2A, I'll never be able to trust them in my lifetime but I would like the memory of the pain that their war caused to be indelibly etched into the nation's collective memory so that for generations to come, everyone will understand that fighting this 2A fight is a painful and ultimately futile endeavor that yields neither profit nor votes.

I still hear them talking about gun control as if they haven't received that message however. To my ears, they are not crying "uncle" so I guess we need to keep fighting.

JN01 said:

When they are struck down, attempting to enforce unconstitutional laws will result in a flood of law suits for civil rights violations. They will be coerced to comply one way or another.

Click to expand...

If - repeat - IF these laws will eventually struck down, you know as well as I do that they will have new restrictions waiting in the wings to push through there various assemblies. Then we have to start over again with new lawsuits to fight these "infringements".

JTHunter said:

If - repeat - IF these laws will eventually struck down, you know as well as I do that they will have new restrictions waiting in the wings to push through there various assemblies. Then we have to start over again with new lawsuits to fight these "infringements".

Click to expand...

Yup. Getting pretty old. And then, I guess our president just declared that you and I have no socially redeeming value anyway, sooooooo

The way I see the problem is with the use of the word “felon”. Try using any other word, perhaps the word that could describe the majority of felons, “Black”.
Too hot?
How about Irish then? Or woman?

See? That’s the problem with trying to fit all the humans into one specific group.

If only there were some way, some human that could be trained in law and fairness and hear each problem separately and weigh each fact on its own in the specific event. Some human could judge another’s consequences for their conduct based only on that instance or case.


Nope, everything needs to fit in a box. Brokered by politicians and lobbyists in closed rooms, the cleanest and least slimy way of dealing things. More laws are written so Senators can look caring. Everything needs mandatory sentencing so the DA can look tough on crime. Everyone is the same, so no one is more, nor less, deserving of equal punishment. If one is super heinous, they will have charges pleaded away for cooperation. If mundane, charges can always be found to trump things up for yet another plea deal. The conviction rate goes up, we feel safe.

But we can’t lock up everyone forever. We could, but, money.
So now we have a large segment of second class fathers, sorry, I mean felons, that fear for their family’s well being with no way to protect them. Or fearing every contact with officials for carrying a needed weapon, not just firearms. Because not everyone felon is T-Bone from down the block. But with a scarlet letter F, that’s where many live. Shoot, we live in good places and still carry, don’t we? I guess that argument sucks…
Point being, some felons are fraudulent check writing, desperate mothers, who still live in the same frustrated environment after the fact. Only now, they have no pistol at night.
And the other, actual, felons know it.

When “we” talk about these things we mean those Actual Felons though. Right? Of course we do. That’s why it’s hard to think of them as the quiet lady with three kids across my street. The street! I meant a random street somewhere! She’s not the one we worry about. There are countless stories of the same. Unfortunately there are countless stories from LEO of everything we fear, repeatedly.
Should someone’s idiot Ex not be able to protect their children when they are with their mother because she was an embezzler ten years ago? Who gets to decide this? Psychologists or politicians?

When a human is stopped in a traffic violation the officer already knows if the car is registered and insured, upon verification of identification I don’t see why they could also not be told whether or not they were allowed a firearm if it was relevant to the stop or whatever. It tells them I’m supposed to be wearing glasses…

I know I don’t have the answer. I am a fan of second chances, though I do know not everyone deserves them. That makes it hard. Probably shouldn’t have just one shirt for that.

State violations... you can petition for restoration.
Federal felony convictions.... you're lifetime toast.

No reason... just policy
https://www.zuanichlaw.com/how-do-i-restore-my-federal-firearm-rights

And given current political machination now afoot, things only getting further buried.

JTHunter said:

If - repeat - IF these laws will eventually struck down, you know as well as I do that they will have new restrictions waiting in the wings to push through there various assemblies. Then we have to start over again with new lawsuits to fight these "infringements".

Click to expand...

Well, yes, unless you just want to quit, it is a never ending battle, but the more legal obstacles there are in the way, the harder it will be for them to think up new ways to restrict our rights. After the PLCAA was enacted, there were a few unsuccessful cases trying to challenge it head-on. After those losses they gave up on that front, now there are a couple cases trying to go after gun companies via liability for advertising.

Demi-human said:

The way I see the problem is with the use of the word “felon”. Try using any other word, perhaps the word that could describe the majority of felons, “Black”.
Too hot?
How about Irish then? Or woman?

See? That’s the problem with trying to fit all the humans into one specific group.
.

Click to expand...

False analogy. The group "felon" is not comparable to any of the others you mentioned. A person does not choose their race or sex (well, at least under non-clown world conditions) but they do choose if they are a felon or not. This is a key distinction.

Ah yes, the choice. Never circumstance. There is never a circumstance that would ever happen on this planet where someone would choose wrong. Accidentally, coerced, under duress.
Police officers have never done anything in the line of duty that has ever been misconstrued…
Not like we’re all human or anything!

Fine then. They can also choose to turn their life around, or can they?
Do “we” let them or not? Some would like prison to be the end, but it isn’t. Life goes on.

Again, we’re not talking vicious gang members, murderers, rapists and pedophile. Well I’m not anyway. These should never be let out. Yes, I believe there are some things that end your days of freedom forever.
But do non-violent single mother felons have a right to self preservation or not?
How about the elderly felons? Do they just take the licks now that they are too old for combat?
Because they made a poor decision fifty years ago do they forfeit the right to fight to be alive for the rest of their life?

That’s what it is. It isn’t to have a gun to continue nefarious actions. It’s to have it to not be murdered. Oh well, shouldn’t have taken a joyride when he was nineteen.

How about tax evaders? Not like a million felons couldn’t be made with those 87,000 new agents.
All it takes is one line change, no vote necessary. A new mandatory firearms VAT tax. Now only firearms owners are felons because they didn’t pay up on time.
Think it can’t happen? Why that would be socially sick…

Humans like black and white. Cut and dried. But life is sticky.
It would be easier to just lock ‘em all up and throw away the key and not have to deal with it.

I just don’t see why some, a minority, obviously, can’t find a way back to normalcy.
We let them vote again for crying out loud…


Anyhow, just thinking out loud. Seen it from both sides. Don’t agree with either.

The "soft on crime" mentality is obviously contagious.

Restoration of rights is a process that is not just intentionally difficult but also expensive. Read that as it is targeted such that only some folks would be able to successfully petition the courts for restoration of their rights. Some locales are easier, some worse. Either way, a reformed felon is no less a citizen and a member of society than we are, and should be entitled to the same rights, freedoms, and liberties. I think the vast majority of society would agree with that including the members here. I would argue that the same logic applies to all rights, equally, with the 2A just being one of many. Laws have been put in place making possession by a prohibited person a crime. OK, let’s work on a way to change that persons status on whether they are prohibited.

The question in this case specifically that seems to be lost on most is this… if a group of people chooses to make something a crime and goes through the proper measures to codify such as being illegal, then that should stand. Otherwise, we neuter legislators across the land significantly. Got a ticket for 90 in a 20mph school zone? Well there were no cars in 1827 so there was no law therefore no historical legal precedent. That’s ludicrous. If we make it illegal for pedofiles to use drones to watch kids then that should stand, regardless of if there is historical legal precedent or not. The law is there. It was put there by legal process. Whether that law should have been put there based upon legal situation at the time is up for debate. Don’t like the law, change it. Don’t just neuter it, or choose to enforce it or not, or regulate by interpretation. Change the stinkin words on the page, and do it by legal process. And yes this goes WAY beyond 2A. Remember, we all have the right to shut up, but not everybody has the ability.

...a reformed felon...

Click to expand...

ay, there’s the rub.

Who decides ?
On what basis ?
By what due process ?

Having "paid their debt to society" has little -- if any -- bearing on future trust to abide by that society's social order.
"almost 44% of criminals released return before the first year out of prison."
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-state.

So given those numbers, lets not play the automatic sympathy card given that "...an unreformed felon is far less a citizen and trustworthy member of society...."

As to the Right of the People.... I grant that Trust is presumed out of the starting blocks.
But that trust once LOST... needs be carefully considered as to how regained.
..."debt paid" or not.

I would welcome discussion on that last point.


.

Demi-human said:

Ah yes, the choice. Never circumstance. There is never a circumstance that would ever happen on this planet where someone would choose wrong. Accidentally, coerced, under duress.
Police officers have never done anything in the line of duty that has ever been misconstrued…
Not like we’re all human or anything!

Fine then. They can also choose to turn their life around, or can they?
Do “we” let them or not? Some would like prison to be the end, but it isn’t. Life goes on.

Again, we’re not talking vicious gang members, murderers, rapists and pedophile. Well I’m not anyway. These should never be let out. Yes, I believe there are some things that end your days of freedom forever.
But do non-violent single mother felons have a right to self preservation or not?
How about the elderly felons? Do they just take the licks now that they are too old for combat?
Because they made a poor decision fifty years ago do they forfeit the right to fight to be alive for the rest of their life?

That’s what it is. It isn’t to have a gun to continue nefarious actions. It’s to have it to not be murdered. Oh well, shouldn’t have taken a joyride when he was nineteen.

How about tax evaders? Not like a million felons couldn’t be made with those 87,000 new agents.
All it takes is one line change, no vote necessary. A new mandatory firearms VAT tax. Now only firearms owners are felons because they didn’t pay up on time.
Think it can’t happen? Why that would be socially sick…

Humans like black and white. Cut and dried. But life is sticky.
It would be easier to just lock ‘em all up and throw away the key and not have to deal with it.

I just don’t see why some, a minority, obviously, can’t find a way back to normalcy.
We let them vote again for crying out loud…


Anyhow, just thinking out loud. Seen it from both sides. Don’t agree with either.

Click to expand...

It does not matter what the police did, a person can only be convicted by a jury of peers.
That tax does not exist, so its not relevant.
Letting them vote is an issue, the fix is to remove the franchise from anyone that cannot own a firearm, problem solved.

D.B. Cooper said:

The "soft on crime" mentality is obviously contagious.

Click to expand...

What are you worried about? You got away with it…

In questions about humans, the answers are very different from policemen to priests.


The problem isn’t solved. Every human still has the right to effective self preservation.

Demi-human said:

What are you worried about? You got away with it…

In questions about humans, the answers are very different from policemen to priests.


The problem isn’t solved. Every human still has the right to effective self preservation.

Click to expand...

That presumes a framework of "human rights", I reject that framework. Law abiding citizens have rights, because they also bear responsibilities under the document that grants those rights. If someone does not bear the responsibilities under the document that grants those rights they should get nothing.

Will Munny said:

If someone does not bear the responsibilities under the document that grants those rights they should get nothing.

Click to expand...

With absolutely no recourse to regain equal citizenship ever. If you can’t be trusted out with a gun, you shouldn’t be out at all. Time stops, all punishments are life sentences.

I disagree.

A 28% recidivism rate in Michigan means that 72% learned their lesson. Right? Or no?

So we’re passing law on the majority because of the minority? I thought we didn’t like that around here?

So the glaringly thin sliver, of the ~8% of citizens that have been convicted of a felony that wish to have their rights restored is just too much to look at on an individual basis to see if some could be a shining example and regain full citizenship?

Too much work. Everything’s too much work, and we know they’re not worth it, right?


Hmm. Fun conversation. You have given me much to think about. I genuinely thank you for having it with me, Mr Munny.

Demi-human said:

A 28% recidivism rate in Michigan means that 72% learned their lesson. Right? Or no?

Click to expand...

No. It means 28% got caught again. And some portion of the 72% have yet to be caught again.
One issue with recidivism rates is that they are not static measures, but rather change over time to some limiting value. Your quoted numbers make no mention of how the rates were calculated which is a serious problem.
If I measure recidivism 3 minutes after someone leaves the prison gate and gets in their brothers dodge ex-police car then recidivism rate is going to be 0%. Obviously that is the wrong answer. So the only recidivism rate that is worth talking about is a lifetime recidivism rate.
Furthermore, such rates only take into account subsequent convictions, not arrests, and certainly not crimes which did not result in an arrest.
I'm not sure I want someone having their 2A rights back if they held up a liquor store last time, or robbed a family at gunpoint. For them to never have access to a firearm again seems like a very reasonable concept.

...the only recidivism rate that is worth talking about is a lifetime recidivism...

Click to expand...

"...almost 44% of criminals released return before the first year out of prison."
(See citation/details in Post 36)

The ending sentence/1st para opt cit above also doesn't give me much of a warm fuzzy either . . .

In 2005, about 68% of 405,000 released prisoners were arrested for a
new crime within three years, and 77% were arrested within five years.

Click to expand...

redcon1 said:

We have a super majority in the supreme court and we have control of the HOR now so they won't be packing the court to get their way and so we will be holding onto that super-majority for at least a decade

Click to expand...

Point of fact:
In a decade Clarence Thomas will be 84, Samuel Alito will be 82, John Roberts will be 77. At the end of the next presidential reign, (roughly six years) it’s certainly possible the majority could swing.
Obviously the next presidential election is (as always) the most important one ever, until 4 years after that.

- delete -

D.B. Cooper said:

The "soft on crime" mentality is obviously contagious.

Click to expand...

No one is being soft on crime. The people convicted of a crime had to do hard time time. They had to answer to and pay for the laws they broke. They paid their debt once they were released, off probation, and all fines and restitution is paid.

I do not believe they should have their 1st A, 2nd A, 3rd A, 4TH A, 5th A, 6th A, 7th A, or 8th A rights should disappear for life.

The "anti-Constitution" mentality is obviously contagious.

Will Munny said:

I'm not sure I want someone having their 2A rights back if they held up a liquor store last time, or robbed a family at gunpoint. For them to never have access to a firearm again seems like a very reasonable concept.

Click to expand...

I agree. And is not what I’ve said the entire time.
The whole time you’re making me argue against this point. I have never said we should be letting this violent class of felon out.
If one is happy with two classes of free citizens, and the problems that creates, why should there be a problem with two classes of convicts?

I've said it all before and I'll say it again.

1. All these arguments were worked out before the Amendments were ratified by Congress as a whole.

2. The Bill Of Rights was composed expressedly to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government's powers.

3. The Inventors of our country were not dummies, but were well-steeped in the history of governments across the seas.

4. I subscribe to the Darwinian aspects of the "Billy the Kid Theory," where malefactors will weed themselves out or get weeded out by benefactors or by other natural selection mechanisms. Billy killed seven or eight people, but stopped at the age of 22. Thanks to a benefactor with a gun. The Valentine's Day massacre removed 6 or 7 malefactors from society.


5. The danger in watering down or eliminating 2A is far greater than the dangers of observing it literally. ("And spare me the nuclear warhead argument.")

I haven't said this before, but:

6. Gray is a people.

Styx said:

I do not believe they should have their 1st A, 2nd A, 3rd A, 4TH A, 5th A, 6th A, 7th A, or 8th A rights should disappear for life.

Click to expand...

Nor do I . . . depending.

What Process should we use to restore the Trust required to hand a deadly weapon
back into the less-than-1-out of four who won't be re-arrested within five years?

Again, I welcome discussion on that point.

.

I didn’t pry, but they lady across the street is out.
Should she be allowed to fend off a rapist or not?

I think yes.

If it was a convicted rapist, I think no.

Which is why, perhaps lost in my first response, we have judges. I wager that a human petitioning to have these righted reinstated after incarceration wouldn’t possess a firearm otherwise. Why else go through the process?

Styx said:

No one is being soft on crime.

Click to expand...

Right. But this thread isn’t about capital punishment, or the lacking of it.

I don’t think they should be out, but, we’re letting them out…

I ask again (Post #36)... what process ?

Right now, he Congress has said "NO" -- and SCOTUS has effectively
concurred -- to funding any Federal effort to restore those rights.
https://www.zuanichlaw.com/how-do-i-restore-my-federal-firearm-rights

So it will take Congressional change to Appropriation Law to even start
the process.

This still, however, sidesteps the elephant in the room of how one restores
the trust required -- given the documented level of repeat offenders.

Again, open for discussion there (after we get the money problem solved)