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

Status
Not open for further replies.
He is a felon, the ruling was clearly not intended to give felons the right to bear arms. It was intended to prevent the type of abusive "may issue" regimes that are going on in certain states. This guy's argument is more frivolous that buttons on a dishrag.
 
Will Munny said:
He is a felon, the ruling was clearly not intended to give felons the right to bear arms. It was intended to prevent the type of abusive "may issue" regimes that are going on in certain states. This guy's argument is more frivolous that buttons on a dishrag.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's a case of historical precident from here on out, which is very important. We haven't really defined how far back we need to go, to what year or standard.

I don't believe people who have done their time with a felony should have their rights taken after for the rest of their lives. They paid for their crimes, if we don't like them being released then push for stricter sentencing.

But the US doesn't just go after violent felons, non violent misdemeanors also can take your gun rights away.
 
Well, while we're on the topic of 2A prohibitions and historical precedents, what about the Lautenberg amendment? That particular law is particularly egregious (IMO) as it has widened the scope of the 2A prohibition from felony to misdemeanor and I have no doubt that, if given the chance, they would widen it further to include more and more and yet more misdemeanor offenses until the only persons granted the RKBA are those who would be suitable candidates for either the police academy or the seminary. So, I think that before we address the issue of felons and the RKBA, we should focus our attention on this particular amendment and if we were to successfully repeal it via the Bruen decision, the door would then be opened up for us to better address the issue of felons and the RKBA. As it is, the Heller decision has shut that door in a way that would make it a difficult and probably unwinnable battle. I despise any man that abuses his wife but I just can't abide by a law that expands the felony prohibition to misdemeanors.
 
I am watching this one too. Because I agree with him. But I do think he will end up in prison. If not I say it's a win for America.
During the early settlements. Felons owned firearms for protection. What they need protection from had changed. But the need is still the same.
At the same time a lot of violent offenders were executed.
 
Well, there's plenty of case law from the founding era around the disarming of felons.

Where it gets tricky is in the lifetime disarming of felons.

And, the case of declaring that felons committing crimes with arms is a special needs case where the risk to the community could outweight the individual rights issue.

It will be a dicey issue taking some serious legal consideration.
 
I find it disheartening, nay, mortifying, that so many gun owners, members of this forum, 2A organizations (FPC) want to put guns in the hands of people who have proven that they have a proclivity to not follow our laws, especially those who have proven to be violent people with no regard for others. These are the very people that necessitate us to carry firearms every day, and some of you want to give them the means with which to attack us and our families.
 
If they have a proclivity for not following laws, a law isn't really going to stop them from obtaining a firearm if they want a firearm for committing crimes. What's more, I doubt a common violent street criminal who intended to acquire a firearm for malevolent purposes would even buy one from an FFL as they wouldn't want the gun to be traceable back to them. And most of the modern high profile mass shooters that I'm aware of had no criminal record that would have made them a prohibited person anyways. And, as such, these laws that ostensibly keep guns out of the hands of criminals serve no other purpose than to erode the rights of people who do follow the law.

And, as we saw with the Lautenberg amendment, congress has a proclivity to expand the list of prohibited persons first to felons and then to domestic violence misdemeanors and I have no doubt they would love to further expand the prohibited persons definition to include non-domestic abuse misdemeanors (and I've seen them try already) and to broaden the definition of misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in ways that would include a broader swath of the population. For example, "you spanked your child. Your 2A rights are now forfeit... for life".

And the bottom line is, the supreme court says there has to be a historical precedence for the law to be constitutional and that decision overturned a 100 year old law. Is there a historical precedent from over 100 years ago by which a felon or, worse yet, a person convicted of any misdemeanor crime has been denied his 2A rights for the rest of his or her life? I don't think so. So these prohibitions have to go or else the Bruen decision is immediately neutered. Any law that runs afoul of the Bruen decision needs to be aggressively and immediately repealed. Any law.
 
redcon1 said:
If they have a proclivity for not following laws, a law isn't really going to stop them from obtaining a firearm if they want a firearm for committing crimes. What's more, I doubt a common violent street criminal who intended to acquire a firearm for malevolent purposes would even buy one from an FFL as they wouldn't want the gun to be traceable back to them. And most of the modern high profile mass shooters that I'm aware of had no criminal record that would have made them a prohibited person anyways. And, as such, these laws that ostensibly keep guns out of the hands of criminals serve no other purpose than to erode the rights of people who do follow the law.
Click to expand...

You've made a very valid argument. Nothing there with which I would disagree. However, your premise is, essentially, that, because criminals are going to break gun laws anyway, we shouldn't have gun laws at all. Carry that to its conclusion and what you're saying is that, because criminals are going to break the laws, we shouldn't have any laws. For example, if someone really wants to kill someone, they're going to do it, so why have a law against murder. It's the same slippery slope concept that has led to Oregon decriminalizing just about all drug use.

redcon1 said:
...the bottom line is, the supreme court says there has to be a historical precedence for the law to be constitutional and that decision overturned a 100 year old law. Is there a historical precedent from over 100 years ago by which a felon or, worse yet, a person convicted of any misdemeanor crime has been denied his 2A rights for the rest of his or her life? I don't think so. So these prohibitions have to go or else the Bruen decision is immediately neutered. Any law that runs afoul of the Bruen decision needs to be aggressively and immediately repealed. Any law.
Click to expand...

Again, nothing in there with which I would disagree. I'm just hoping that more good than bad will come out of Bruen.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
your premise is, essentially, that, because criminals are going to break gun laws anyway, we shouldn't have gun laws at all. Carry that to its conclusion and what you're saying is that, because criminals are going to break the laws, we shouldn't have any laws.
Click to expand...
Well, the constitution is pretty specific with regards to the RKBA so I don't think we can carry that logic to the conclusion you have suggested. If we were talking about drug legalization and not 2A rights, I might agree however even though I'm pretty libertarian as far as that goes too. I think the gradual erosion of our 2A rights is the more slippery slope here. We have basically been in a war with these anti-2A forces for multiple decades now and we are now in a position to just destroy them and I am loving it and I do believe they would happily destroy us if the roles were reversed, if they were empowered with a weapon such as we have here.

So I want to use that weapon and I want to absolutely and irreversibly crush them with it while we can. I don't want them getting back up again 10 years down the road and forcing us to refight this war when we're in a weaker position. To be even more blunt, I don't care one iota if criminals have guns. I am/we are way past all of that. Crushing the life out of the anti-2A agenda is the only thing that matters. We didn't start this fight and we aren't responsible for the fallout. I didn't mean to call you out on that post though. It was a fair point and I just wanted to speak to it and now I have.
 
Will Munny said:
That is beyond fanciful. We are not even remotely close to that, in fact we are far worse off then we were 6 years ago. All we have is a court ruling that no one is going to enforce.
Click to expand...
That's not how I see it. I haven't been this optimistic in about 20 years. We have McDonald, Heller, and now Bruen. 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 during which time we will be the dominant force in this little contest we're having. The states can kick and scream and throw their little temper tantrums all they like but at the end of the day, we hold the high court and they are at the disadvantage.

What's more, record numbers of new gun owners have been joining our ranks in the past few years and we have a multitude of well funded, well organized pro-2A groups taking the fight to the antis across all 50 states, now empowered by the staunchly pro-2A Supreme court and the aforementioned trio of Supreme Court decisions . To put it all less eloquently, we have kicked their butt so hard that I suspect they're hesitant to even fight us at this point for fear of losing more than they have already lost. Gun control has been a disaster of a position for them and I don't think the issue is important enough to them to sacrifice everything else they allege to care about over it but I hope I'm wrong. I hope they keep fighting because look how well it has worked out for them.

So while I may be a little excessively optimistic, I really don't think that we're "far worse off than we were 6 years ago".
 
Will Munny said:
All we have is a court ruling that no one is going to enforce.
Click to expand...

Using the Bruen standard, laws have already been struck down in Colorado and New York with many more cases coming up soon and many new cases are being filed. George Wallace resisted the courts opinion on segregation, but in the end, he lost too.
 
JN01 said:
Using the Bruen standard, laws have already been struck down in Colorado and New York with many more cases coming up soon and many new cases are being filed. George Wallace resisted the courts opinion on segregation, but in the end, he lost too.
Click to expand...

George Wallace is not a relevant example. He was on the opposite side of the issue from the White House. That does not apply in this case. The guy in the Oval Office is on record saying that none of us need to have more than a double barreled shotgun. If you think he is sending in the military to force NY or CO to comply then you are dreaming.
 
Will Munny said:
George Wallace is not a relevant example. He was on the opposite side of the issue from the White House. That does not apply in this case. The guy in the Oval Office is on record saying that none of us need to have more than a double barreled shotgun. If you think he is sending in the military to force NY or CO to comply then you are dreaming.
Click to expand...

The President is irrelevant in this case. My point was that Wallace thought he could ignore the civil rights of black citizens, he was wrong. Similarly, Houchel, Newsome, Murphy and their cohorts think they can give SCOTUS the finger with their Draconian laws. 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.
 
redcon1 said:
I think the gradual erosion of our 2A rights is the more slippery slope here. We have basically been in a war with these anti-2A forces for multiple decades now...
Click to expand...

Agreed. And yeah, we've been fighting this for more than my entire life.

redcon1 said:
I don't want them getting back up again 10 years down the road and forcing us to refight this war when we're in a weaker position.
Click to expand...

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.

redcon1 said:
I didn't mean to call you out on that post though. It was a fair point and I just wanted to speak to it and now I have.
Click to expand...

If I need to be called out, call me out. You made a well-formed argument.
 
redcon1 said:
...I may be a little excessively optimistic...
Click to expand...

Almost certainly. We could lose the House in the next election or in the 2-3 elections. As I mentioned earlier, there could be an opening on the Court at any moment. (Who expected Scalia to pass when he did?)
 
JN01 said:
The President is irrelevant in this case. My point was that Wallace thought he could ignore the civil rights of black citizens, he was wrong. Similarly, Houchel, Newsome, Murphy and their cohorts think they can give SCOTUS the finger with their Draconian laws. 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...

I hope you're right, but I don't think you are. These entrenched, anti-2A, state-level politicians aren't backing down, and this president isn't going to enforce these rulings. Every time their laws get struct down, they simply reword them and pass them and the clock starts all over again. The 'flood of lawsuits" isn't working, and it's not going to work.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
I find it disheartening, nay, mortifying, that so many gun owners, members of this forum, 2A organizations (FPC) want to put guns in the hands of people who have proven that they have a proclivity to not follow our laws, especially those who have proven to be violent people with no regard for others. These are the very people that necessitate us to carry firearms every day, and some of you want to give them the means with which to attack us and our families.
Click to expand...
some might argue that if you have done your time, and are back in society, does that person no longer have a right to defend themselves? like everyone else? the other side of it is, and I think this may be relevent to today's legal system climate, if a person is violent - has commited violent crime in the past, and is highly likely to commit violent crime again in the future upon release, why are they released?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Biden Administration’s ‘Ghost Gun’ Rule Vacated by Texas-Based Federal Judge
Replies
4
Views
640
old lady new shooter
O
A
Colorado Supreme Court interprets 'straw purchase' law to encompass shared use of guns
Replies
6
Views
879
hk940
hk940
M
  • Locked
SCOTUS Won't Hear RKBA Cases
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
patmccoy
P
A
  • Locked
SCOTUS to act on 2 Gun Cases
Replies
17
Views
2K
Aim1
A
12Bravo20
  • Locked
Some good news on California's 'fee-shifting' gun control scheme
Replies
1
Views
375
Robert
Robert
Back
Top