Watershed Supreme Court Gun Ruling Won’t Save Georgia Man Charged with Federal Felony-in-Possession

I get it… prohibited person who chose to ignore the prohibition. I also get that “legal over yonder” doesn’t change “illegal here”, nor does it change the fact that it was legal when and where the picture was taken.

It’s not entirely unlike somebody going to a place where pot is legal, getting baked out of their mind, then getting fired from a job and arguing that it was legal and therefore ok.
 
WestKentucky said:
I get it… prohibited person who chose to ignore the prohibition. I also get that “legal over yonder” doesn’t change “illegal here”, nor does it change the fact that it was legal when and where the picture was taken.

It’s not entirely unlike somebody going to a place where pot is legal, getting baked out of their mind, then getting fired from a job and arguing that it was legal and therefore ok.
Click to expand...
There are rules for different groups of people. If your a federal employee with a security clearance, pot is illigal no matter where you are. I would never support a skin color assessment, but a history of violence is a reason... knowing the specifics is critical and I don't have the access to make a reasonable decision.
 
I understand that gun control's roots are in racism, but I don't see how "felon in possession" is racist. I also don't see why it matters if a gun is legal here and not there; if you're a felon in possession, you're a felon in possession.

As to watershed ruling, I presume they refer to Bruen. Sadly, Bruen laid out several instances in which, president Biden, as well as Justice Scalia have said, the 2nd Amendment is not absolute. (I disagree, but I'm not a Supreme Court justice.) One of those instances where infringement passes constitutional muster is a felon in possession. If someone wants to argue that Bruen overturns the prohibition of felons carrying guns, fine, but that may (and should) also mean that it overturns everything else, such as sensitive places, under 21 in possession, etc. That raises the question: are we (am I?) willing to allow felons to have guns in a trade to have my own rights fully restored?
 
1. It’s illegal for someone under felony indictment to be in possession of a firearm
2. Rowson was under indictment for 2 felony charges at the time of the stop

Neither of these circumstances have a racial bias. This is not surprising and the case has no relevance to Bruen or other recent “Watershed Supreme Court Ruling” that I’m aware of.
 
ColoradoMinuteMan said:
1. It’s illegal for someone under felony indictment to be in possession of a firearm
2. Rowson was under indictment for 2 felony charges at the time of the stop

Neither of these circumstances have a racial bias. This is not surprising and the case has no relevance to Bruen or other recent “Watershed Supreme Court Ruling” that I’m aware of.
Click to expand...

There is a case somewhere (Texas, I think) where someone is making the argument that indictment alone is not grounds for being made a prohibited person because there hasn't been a conviction, yet. I'm not sure that is based in Bruen, more like right to due process-5th and 14th amendments.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
There is a case somewhere (Texas, I think) where someone is making the argument that indictment alone is not grounds for being made a prohibited person because there hasn't been a conviction, yet. I'm not sure that is based in Bruen, more like right to due process-5th and 14th amendments.
Click to expand...

It may be the case, but until those cases have reached a point in their lifecycle that they set a precedent of some sort, it really don’t make a practical difference in this or any other case.
 
The racist part comes from the judge citing laws prohibiting blacks and Indians from having firearms as "dangerous persons"

Some of those precedents, the judge noted, discriminated against Black people and Native Americans — though Engelmayer made clear that he was not endorsing those explicitly racist laws.
Click to expand...
 
N555 said:
Why are we letting people out of jail if they are too dangerous to have a gun?
But they can drive a car, buy fertilizer, black powder, plumbing supplies, purchase gasoline, have stabby things, buy hammers, ect.
Click to expand...

I've asked this question for years. People who are too dangerous to buy a gun are too dangerous to walk down the street. Someone with criminal, particularly homicidal intent, clearly don't find the law as a blocker.
 
N555 said:
Why are we letting people out of jail if they are too dangerous to have a gun?
Click to expand...

Because it’s a win, win for the .gov. It cheaper to let them go and then the public will soon demand a larger and more powerful .gov to protect them and they can continue to expand and take away rights in the name of keeping you safe. Even though they created the situation.
 
After a crime sentencing Is done in time… penalties are set by legislation, and court systems. You pay X fine and/or serve X days.

We simply can’t imprison people “until we feel you’ll be nice” there is a reason no democratic government does that, none I have ever heard of anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Mass. Supreme Court About to be Overruled
Replies
0
Views
450
cbrgator
C
U
  • Locked
Canadian Supreme Court rules that the Federal gov't can destroy gun registry data
Replies
8
Views
1K
usmarine0352_2005
U
A
  • Locked
A Pro-Gun Ruling Will Inflame Court-Packing Push, Democratic Senator Warns Supreme Court
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
IJ1981
IJ1981
U
  • Locked
  • Poll
MN Supreme Court - I don't think this is right.
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
bigione
B
N
  • Locked
Supreme court to take on the DC gun case!
Replies
8
Views
1K
romma
R
Back
Top