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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I ask again (Post #36)... what process ?
Sorry, I should have been able to see your post and quote it, but mah net is being slow this morning.

Petitioning the court to see a judge, (should it be Judge, like JUDGE, Bam!,?)
Am I just placing too high a regard of judges?
Aren’t there conditions upon release? Why couldn’t they be changed? Again for the one of four. I thought it would be much less than that, but again, tiny lady across the street, so…

Neighborhood sure has changed…:uhoh:
 
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.

.

First, it has to be Constitutional. If it's not rooted in history, it's a no go. Period. If you don't like it, then lobby to have the Constitution amended instead of bending and spinning it to fit your narrative. Next, I don’t believe in the "restore trust" paradigm. Once they are done with their time, all punishment, and are free members of society again having paid all their dues, trust has already been and should de facto be given by default.

If part of their sentence and conditions for release/parole is 5 years probation, then I am only with them being bared from gun ownership for those 5 years. If they violate probation, then locked them back up and add more time for the probation violation. If they go through those 5 years without committing a crime, have integrated back into society, and they paid all debts for the crimes they committed, all rights should be returned.
 
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…
Capital punishment by default for all felonies? What about the plethora of cases were people have been framed by L.E. (there was a recent case) or DNA or other evidence later exonerates them?

The overwhelming majority of people who are convicted of a felony didn't murder, rape, or molest anyone. It doesn't take much and the bar is extremely low nowadays when it comes to what constitutes being a felony.
 
It doesn't take much and the bar is extremely low nowadays when it comes to what constitutes being a felony.
Not in California. You need to steal more than $950 worth of stuff or it's not a felony - https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-prop-47-shoplifting-theft-crime-statewide

Of course, shop lifting, smash and grab, fill Home Depot/Walmart/grocery store shopping cart full of stuff and push it out the door crimes have soared ... Sad but true. :oops:

On recent outing to Walmart, a woman ran out the door with a box of electronics chased by employees to a waiting car. I thought about giving chase to get license plate number but ... Why? ... When the thief likely won't be properly charged even when caught? ... Crazy state laws.
 
Capital punishment by default for all felonies?
Of course not.
Let’s not push me at the way from side to side. I like the middle just fine and often see it both ways.
I may play a bit of devil’s advocate here, but I am having this conversation for my own personal betterment, selfish as that may be.
What about the plethora of cases were people have been framed by L.E. (there was a recent case) or DNA or other evidence later exonerates them?
That’s what I alluded to also, under “misconstrued police action”, but when I mention the case that springs to mind, it’s too controversial to talk about, even thought there now even more video from the store previous.
Maybe the four other officers didn’t do anything for eight minutes because he wasn’t murdering him. So yes, they were SnowJobbed. It happens.


Unfortunately, `doesn't change the very deliberate lack of Federal
prohibition relief -- which Congress has specifically de-funded.
o_O

.
I’m afraid you have me at a disadvantage.

So I assume you mean there is a way, we just defacto shut it down, because, money, politicians?


(I gotta say though. All this is much better than getting on a frosty roof to repair it. Though it will, eventually, need to be done.:D)
 
... 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?
Because some group of politicians want that person's friends, fellow criminals, and kinfolk to vote for them. Those people, and many of the boomers' grand babies who have been taught that America is an irredeemable country built on systemic racism and white supremacy, and that most of the people in jail for a violent offense shouldn't be there, but should just get a free appointment to see an oppression counselor, and maybe a reparations check.
 
Last edited:
Because some group of politicians want that person's friends, fellow criminals, and kinfolk to vote for them. Those people, and many of the boomers' grand babies who have been taught that America is an irredeemable country built on systemic racism and white supremacy.
I spend a lot more time worrying about politicians and guns than I do worrying about felons and guns to be honest. Politicians are, IMO, the bigger threat to my peace and prosperity and it's not even close. To be even more blunt, I don't care about gun crime in Chicago or Detroit or Baltimore or any other city. I just don't care. I do care about some politician deciding that my gun collection needs to be criminalized. I have a lot of money invested in that collection and I'd like to be able to lawfully sell my possessions in the future like any other possession. A law that would prevent me from doing that is a far bigger threat to my prosperity than a felon with a gun in Chicago or even in my own city. So I'm happy to do whatever it takes to get that felon's friends and kin to vote for pro-2A politicians.
 
... So I'm happy to do whatever it takes to get that felon's friends and kin to vote for pro-2A politicians.
I don't disagree about politicians being the biggest threat, statistically, but I also don't want criminals who need to be in jail, released. And the politicians who are releasing them for votes are also the same politicians who want to take away YOUR 2A rights.

And BTW, politicians don't care about gun crime in Chicago, Baltimore, or elsewhere either. If they did, they could quickly cut it in half or less, almost immediately. But some homies would have to be made a (deserving) example of.
 
Last edited:
If you go to the Bruen standard requiring a historical analog in 1791, I would argue that there is one for denying 2A rights to violent criminals. They were usually denied ALL their rights - when they were executed. For lesser offenses, I don't believe there is an analog from 1791, other than not allowing people in jails or insane asylums to have weapons.
 
I don't disagree about politicians being the biggest threat, statistically, but I also don't want criminals who need to be in jail, released.
Sure but, realistically, that's not going to happen. Mass incarceration was, IMO, very effective in the years following the 1994 crime bill but, it seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that those 3 strikes and your out type inmates are still filling up the prisons such that there isn't a lot of room for the next generation of criminals that are largely responsible for the gun violence we're seeing today and, to make matters worse, the politicians understand that mass incarceration is incredibly unpopular with many members of their key constituencies so they aren't going to build yet more prisons to house yet more young men even if that is exactly what is needed. So we get we have here today, a revolving door and, IMO, it's going to get worse regardless of whether a law is written that would extend 2A rights back to felons. I don't think we're quite like the Soviet Union after it collapsed but I feel like that's what we're fighting to not become. IOW, we aren't fighting to "Make America Great Again", we're fighting to "Make America not be like post collapse Soviet Union". We're fighting entropy-the second law of thermodynamics. We aren't like the USSR of course but we sure aren't like 1950s America anymore either and our 2A rights are going to be increasingly important going forward as this "entropy" picks up speed.
 
If you go to the Bruen standard requiring a historical analog in 1791, I would argue that there is one for denying 2A rights to violent criminals. They were usually denied ALL their rights - when they were executed. For lesser offenses, I don't believe there is an analog from 1791, other than not allowing people in jails or insane asylums to have weapons.
Disobeying your parents was punishable by death in 1791.

If a man have a stubborn or rebellious son, of sufficient years and understanding (viz.) sixteen years of age, which will not obey the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother, and that when they have chastened him will not harken unto them: then shall his Father and Mother being his natural parents, lay hold on him, and bring him to the Magistrates assembled in Court and testify unto them, that their son is stubborn and rebellious and will not obey their voice and chastisement, but lives in sundry notorious crimes, such a son shall be put to death.” November 6th, 1646. Repealed in 1973 actually.
 
I spend a lot more time worrying about politicians and guns than I do worrying about felons and guns to be honest. Politicians are, IMO, the bigger threat to my peace and prosperity and it's not even close. To be even more blunt, I don't care about gun crime in Chicago or Detroit or Baltimore or any other city. I just don't care. I do care about some politician deciding that my gun collection needs to be criminalized. I have a lot of money invested in that collection and I'd like to be able to lawfully sell my possessions in the future like any other possession. A law that would prevent me from doing that is a far bigger threat to my prosperity than a felon with a gun in Chicago or even in my own city. So I'm happy to do whatever it takes to get that felon's friends and kin to vote for pro-2A politicians.

I would consider this approach very short sighted. Its rampant crime in those places that is being used as a pretext for more 2A violations.
I don't frequent any of those places, but I still want them cleaned up. Its good for the nation as a whole and certainly good for the 2A.
 
I would consider this approach very short sighted. Its rampant crime in those places that is being used as a pretext for more 2A violations.
I don't frequent any of those places, but I still want them cleaned up. Its good for the nation as a whole and certainly good for the 2A.
It's not so much shortsighted as it is realistic and pragmatic. You aren't going to clean those cities up. That's the problem. It's really up to the people that live in those cities and they aren't going to vote for politicians that are promising to build more prisons to incarcerate more of their friends and kin and so none of the politicians that are trying to get elected in these places are going to make that promise. What politicians want are political solutions to their political problems and their primary political problem is getting elected and then reelected. So their obvious political solution is to simply blame the evil NRA and the 2A community for their failures so they don't have to address the actual issues like drugs, teen pregnancy, unwed mothers, failing school systems, high school drop out rates, etc. That's why Lori Lightfoot blames Indiana for Chicago's gun violence:

Lori Lightfoot Blames Indiana for Chicago’s Gun Crime… Again

So these cities are not going to get cleaned up. They are only going to get worse as the current generation of criminals for which there is insufficient prison space reproduces yet another generation of criminals for which there is insufficient prison space. And so what about it anyways? It's absolutely not my problem. I truly don't care. We have played a good game as far as defending the 2A goes. I think we can sit back and just enjoy our gun rights for at least a decade without having to worry too much about gun crime in the cities. We can't be completely complacent of course but we're well positioned to defend our position for the next 10 years. IMO.
 
It's not so much shortsighted as it is realistic and pragmatic. You aren't going to clean those cities up. That's the problem. It's really up to the people that live in those cities and they aren't going to vote for politicians that are promising to build more prisons to incarcerate more of their friends and kin and so none of the politicians that are trying to get elected in these places are going to make that promise. What politicians want are political solutions to their political problems and their primary political problem is getting elected and then reelected. So their obvious political solution is to simply blame the evil NRA and the 2A community for their failures so they don't have to address the actual issues like drugs, teen pregnancy, unwed mothers, failing school systems, high school drop out rates, etc. That's why Lori Lightfoot blames Indiana for Chicago's gun violence:

Lori Lightfoot Blames Indiana for Chicago’s Gun Crime… Again

So these cities are not going to get cleaned up. They are only going to get worse as the current generation of criminals for which there is insufficient prison space reproduces yet another generation of criminals for which there is insufficient prison space. And so what about it anyways? It's absolutely not my problem. I truly don't care. We have played a good game as far as defending the 2A goes. I think we can sit back and just enjoy our gun rights for at least a decade without having to worry too much about gun crime in the cities. We can't be completely complacent of course but we're well positioned to defend our position for the next 10 years. IMO.

Basically your argument is "they are not going to get cleaned up", which is basically ignoring the issue. They can and must be cleaned up. And if the local politicians won't do it, then its time to unleash the power of the federal government on them.
 
Basically your argument is "they are not going to get cleaned up"
It's not an argument. It is a fact. And it is going to get worse. And nothing we say here on THR is going to change that. or maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.

They can and must be cleaned up. And if the local politicians won't do it, then its time to unleash the power of the federal government on them.
The last time the power of the federal government was unleashed to address the crime problem, we got the assault weapon ban. No thanks. Let 'em kill each other. I'll try not to get in their way. I'm not running for any office here and so I'm not going to have my opinions colored or otherwise held back by any fear of jeopardizing my current or future political career. The violence occurring in Chicago and Baltimore and LA is of no consequence to me. So long as they leave me and my rights alone, I'm happy to leave them alone.
 
We should realize that after NFA and GCA are rightfully declared invalid and unconstitutional there will be no need to "restore" rights since they will not have been destroyed in the first place.

There are valid points about restoration for those who've already been found guilty of those now-invalid laws, but I believe there's a legal principle that if a law is repealed, people who've been previously convicted of it do not have their freedom restored, but must serve out whatever punishment had been meted out. Someone check me on this, but I recall that's the way things work.

Thus, this "restoration" problem is quite apart from the issue of allowing patently unconstitutional laws to exist "from now on."

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
We have re-hashed the felon thing many times in here.

Where I come down, is that I think a felony should carry lifetime consequences. I think that redemption should be possible, but steep. By that, I mean, there should be an existing, functional process to have a felony expunged. But I think it should take a long time either by design or statute. Say, ten years. If you pay your penalties, and you can go an extended period of time staying out of trouble, then I am willing to entertain restoration.

I am cautious to encourage this decision to be applied too broadly. If we want a decision about felons and possession, then we should push a case that is about that, not stretch a different decision to cover it. That leaves it capricious and vulnerable to challenge.
 
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.

I tend to agree.
 
Last edited:
We have re-hashed the felon thing many times in here.

Where I come down, is that I think a felony should carry lifetime consequences. I think that redemption should be possible, but steep. By that, I mean, there should be an existing, functional process to have a felony expunged. But I think it should take a long time either by design or statute. Say, ten years. If you pay your penalties, and you can go an extended period of time staying out of trouble, then I am willing to entertain restoration.


Why limit him from guns when he is still allowed to drive a car, bus, truck, own sharp knives, pitbulls, have kids, powertools, and buy gas? He can cause untold damage with all these things.

Limiting a felon from guns relies on the same argument anti-gunners use against us, that guns are somehow the most inherently evil of all objects deserving of greater regulation and government approved privilege. Very, very slippery slope to be on..
 
My theory, which I have expressed here many times before, is that guns are a "zero sum game." That is, if you have a gun, you are stronger if your potential opponent does not. Felons, as a group, are easy to identify as "potential opponents" that should be disarmed. Therefore, a carve-out for them, regarding gun rights, can be justified.
 
Why limit him from guns when he is still allowed to drive a car, bus, truck, own sharp knives, pitbulls, have kids, powertools, and buy gas? He can cause untold damage with all these things.

Limiting a felon from guns relies on the same argument anti-gunners use against us, that guns are somehow the most inherently evil of all objects deserving of greater regulation and government approved privilege. Very, very slippery slope to be on..

They likely shouldn't be allowed to do any of those things. Remember a couple of things.

We do not release dangerous people from prison because they are no longer dangerous. Recidivism is through the roof. We release them from prison because there aren't enough beds in prison. If there was any correlation at all between rehabilitation and release, I would agree with you. There is not. Our justice system has little, if anything to do with separating safe people from dangerous people. Until it does, the rights of felons us at the very bottom of my list of things we should be fighting for. The Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of their rights without due process of law. Felons have very literally had their day in court.
 
U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney observed it was not necessary for a modern-day firearm regulation to mirror a law in existence in the 1790s for it to be constitutional.

Good.

Disagreement among the lower courts will help facilitate the evolution of Second Amendment jurisprudence.
 
They likely shouldn't be allowed to do any of those things. Remember a couple of things.

We do not release dangerous people from prison because they are no longer dangerous. Recidivism is through the roof. We release them from prison because there aren't enough beds in prison. If there was any correlation at all between rehabilitation and release, I would agree with you. There is not. Our justice system has little, if anything to do with separating safe people from dangerous people. Until it does, the rights of felons us at the very bottom of my list of things we should be fighting for. The Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of their rights without due process of law. Felons have very literally had their day in court.

The other 30 or so 1st world countries have 5x less incarceration rate than the US per capita and generally much looser or even no restrictions for former felons. Up to the early 70's most free countries were tracking about the same for prisoners per capita , then the US skyrocketed another 400% higher than everyone else. Someone needs to figure out what happened, because building more prisons obviously aint working.

As to having a day in court etc, I worked and lived in 6 x 3rd world countries and my experience is you are better off with a legal system that lets a felon own a gun than one where the government takes all your rights for an infraction.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top