US district Judge rules ban on guns for felon is unconstitutional

[TNHarley]

And nowhere did they ever say that when one punishment ends they all have to end. You made that up

Yeah No shit. It not saying it is the fucking point. I am not saying that again.

 

[Marener]

And nowhere did they ever say that when one punishment ends they all have to end. You made that up

What other constitutional rights can we be deprived of as part of “punishment”? Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? Right to due process?

 

[TNHarley]

And that doesn’t get you very far. They disagree. They’re vague. They’re inconsistent. They don’t address the issue at hand.

Originalism requires interpretation and a motivated conservative judge no doubt has an easy time ignoring some things and emphasizing others to reach the conclusion they want.

So you are saying leftist judges just rule on emotion, instead of doing their jobs?

 

[kaz]

Yeah No shit. It not saying it is the fucking point. I am not saying that again.

You clearly did say that. You said when they get out of prison other punishments must end. That's bull shit

 

[TNHarley]

You clearly did say that. You said when they get out of prison other punishments must end. That's bull shit

IT as in the constitution. Im not explaining why again.
Its not my fault you are hard headed nor read the responses to your posts.

 

[kaz]

So you are saying leftist judges just rule on emotion, instead of doing their jobs?

I wish that were a joke. Not in all cases, but they have no qualms about going after their political opponents. Like ... Trump ....

 

[Robert W]

Why would anyone watch that video? Normal people aren't interested in these pathetic lies.

You have got very used to lies since you support democrats.

But to those who did watch 2,000 mules, now you see with your own eyes how easy it was for the Democrats to rig elections.

 

[Marener]

So you are saying leftist judges just rule on emotion, instead of doing their jobs?

No. I said nothing like that. Don’t be a troll.

 

[kaz]

IT as in the constitution. Im not explaining why again.
Its not my fault you are hard headed nor read the responses to your posts.

It's there, just not with a quote. If you're explaining, your losing, and you are losing. Seriously, no quote and it's bull, and you have no quote.

The founders had no problem saying what they meant

 

[TNHarley]

No. I said nothing like that. Don’t be a troll.

That is what you implied.
It isnt my fault you didnt realize it.

 

[konradv]

Where does the government get the authority to take away constitutional rights forever?

The same authority that allows the ultimate confiscation, the death penalty.

 

[1miseryindex]

The Judge is a fucking moron. He was convicted of a crime with his Constitutional rights preserved, unless it was Trump. Loosing his Constitutional right to a gun was part of the punishment. The Judge is an ideologue

sorry, but this makes no sense to me

?

 

[Marener]

That is what you implied.
It isnt my fault you didnt realize it.

I didn’t imply any such thing.

Much like the bullshit originalists, you took what I wrote and decided it meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

 

[kaz]

The same authority that allows the ultimate confiscation, the death penalty.

Confiscation?

 

[Nobody911]

MSN

In a ruling that seems fated to find its way before the U.S. Supreme Court, a judge in Illinois has recently found that the gun rights of a felon convicted of multiple armed robberies are protected by the Second Amendment.
The finding from U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman was issued on Nov. 2 and stems from a case involving Illinois resident Glen Price. Price, 37, allegedly brandished a gun and robbed someone on a train in September 2021. Police said he stole a cellphone and a train fare card too. When police arrested him, they found a 9 mm gun in his possession, cocaine, ammunition and a stolen credit card.

Price was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm since he already had a criminal record featuring no less than three felony convictions for armed robbery and one conviction for aggravated battery of a police officer.
Until Gettleman’s ruling on Nov. 2, Price was facing 15 years in prison for his latest offense — the mandatory minimum sentence when convicted. But Gettleman, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, relied on a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen that took him in this controversial direction.
While I am glad this man won, as he should have, searching night and day for precedent is BS. The Constitution says what it says. Why do these judges look to other rulings instead of the document itself? Does the constitution say "unless a judge says different?"

Then there is this : “The government has not demonstrated why the modern ubiquity of gun violence, and the heightened lethality of today’s firearm technology compared to the Founding, justify a different result.
Thats just fucking scary. So if the government could demonstrate why all old people should die, that would be ok with him?
ITS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. Not what the tyrannical govt says, or what you THINK.

#### The Supreme Court's Stance on Gun Control Laws

The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed various gun control laws and regulations over the years. While the Court has recognized an individual's right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, it has also acknowledged that this right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation.

In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense within the home. However, the Court also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and can be subject to certain restrictions. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, noted that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Since the Heller decision, the Supreme Court has not provided an exhaustive list of what gun control laws are permissible or impermissible. However, it has indicated that certain types of regulations may be constitutionally acceptable. For example, the Court has suggested that background checks, restrictions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and prohibitions on carrying firearms in sensitive places are likely to pass constitutional muster.

When it is mentioned that certain gun control measures are likely to "pass constitutional muster," it means that those measures are likely to be considered constitutional or in compliance with the requirements of the United States Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment.

The phrase "constitutional muster" refers to the standard or test that laws or regulations must meet in order to be deemed constitutional. In the context of gun control laws, it means that the measures are not likely to infringe upon the individual's right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has suggested that certain types of gun control regulations are likely to pass constitutional muster. These include:

1. Background checks: The Court has indicated that laws requiring background checks for firearm purchases are likely to be constitutional. Background checks help prevent firearms from falling into the hands of individuals who are prohibited by law from owning them, such as felons or those with a history of mental illness.

2. Restrictions on possession by felons and the mentally ill: The Court has recognized that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons and individuals with certain mental health conditions are likely to be constitutional. These restrictions aim to enhance public safety and prevent firearms from being in the hands of those who may pose a risk.

3. Prohibitions on carrying firearms in sensitive places: The Court has suggested that laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools, government buildings, or other locations where public safety concerns are heightened, are likely to be constitutional. These restrictions aim to maintain security and prevent potential harm.

The Court's stance on specific gun control laws can vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has not provided an exhaustive list of permissible or impermissible gun control measures, and its interpretation of the Second Amendment continues to evolve through subsequent cases.

In summary, when the Supreme Court suggests that certain gun control measures are likely to pass constitutional muster, it means that those measures are likely to be considered constitutional and in line with the requirements of the Second Amendment. However, the Court's stance on specific gun control laws can vary, and the constitutionality of any particular measure would ultimately be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Sources :

1. Understanding the Supreme Court's Gun Control Decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen | League of Women Voters

2. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-11001-CR2.pdf

 

[kaz]

sorry, but this makes no sense to me

?

OK, thanks for letting me know

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But to those who did watch 2,000 mules

...either realize what a pile of shit it is, or they are so gullible as to be embarrassments to themselves and their families.

now you see with your own eyes how easy it was for the Democrats to rig elections.

 

[Libby von H]

Preventing felons from owning firearms is preventative medication IMO

Are we talking state felony or federal felony or both.
Because if it is just state felony the state with the least strict felony law will be welcoming a great mass of felons.
And really two things come to mind unbidden
1) Felons will get guns
2) They cannot be deprived of home security just because they were once criminal too.

I am not attacking anything except your 'preventive' nonsense. There are over 400 million guns in the US now. THEY WILL GET GUNS

 

[konradv]

Confiscation?

Use any word you desire. If the government can take your life, what’s so sacrosanct about taking away a gun from a violent felon?

 

[BackAgain]

Why? Should all convicted felons be forced to register and face similar restrictions according to their crimes? Other groups can be added to the list, once you give the government that power. Which leads to the same question as always, where does it end? Best to do it right than let things get out of hand. If people are too dangerous to live in society and exercise all of their rights, they shouldn't be released in the first place.

Prior to our Constitution, people lost all their rights when they got a death penalty. That doesn’t mean that the Constitution forbids it.

It has long been true in many jurisdictions that felons also lost the right to vote — permanently.

Again, why the fuck shouldn’t part of the penalty for commission of a crime include post release supervision like parole or probation? And why the fuck shouldn’t it include closer restrictions on the freedom of movement by the special felons convicted of sex offenses?

There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. And frankly, I absolutely endorse it. I want to know if I need to be extra alert on behalf of my wife or any young kids when it comes to some scumbag child abused living in my town.