High Court Punts on 2nd Amendment Cases Challenging Lifetime Ban on Owning Guns

AMart

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2020
Messages
2,283
Reaction score
2,359
Points
1,893
Conservative Court my ass.

The clock is ticking on Liberty.


The Supreme Court on Monday opted not to take up three challenges to a federal ban on gun ownership for people who've been convicted of nonviolent crimes.
The decision reinforced the apparent inclination by the court to skirt Second Amendment questions. But it also surprised and dismayed some gun advocates who'd hoped the court would whittle away at the lifetime limitation.
As reported by USA Today, the court's sidestepping the issue let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of an array of nonviolent offenses -- driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns, selling counterfeit cassette tapes -- from owning a firearm.
The decisions Monday were handed down without explanation.
The news outlet said the last time the nation's highest court issued major gun rights rulings dates back to 2008 and 2010. The court struck down handgun restrictions in the District of Columbia and Chicago.
USA Today says four justices are needed to take up a case, but five are needed for any majority opinion. There have been, of late, only minority dissenting opinions indicating eagerness to address Second Amendment issues.
The court was considering the latest gun cases amid a spate of recent mass shootings n places including Georgia, Colorado and Indiana.
The three gun ownership cases involved varied circumstances: In one, a Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty to a DUI in 2005 challenged the ban on purchasing or owning a gun. In another, a Pennsylvania woman who pleaded guilty to making a false statement on her tax returns sued over the ban. In a third, involving a man who pleaded guilty in a cassette counterfeiting matter back in the 1980s, there was yet another challenge to the firearms ban.





I'd be curious to know what driving under the influence, making false statements on a tax return, or selling counterfeit cassette tapes has to do with one's right to own a gun? It's a wonder anyone has a gun right left in the country!
There are a hell of a lot of people with convictions like that who own guns.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I bet a lifetime ban on gun ownership for any crime from a parking ticket to mass murder would drop the US gun death rate. Maybe someday we could even extend it to include Original Sin. ; - )

Or greatly increase it.
When laws become too draconian, then one sort of feels obligated to violate it and shoot those trying to enforce it.
It actually then is self defense.
You find out who the threats really are when they try to enforce draconian laws, and then we know who should die before they harm too many others.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
The clock is ticking on Liberty.
lol

Hyperbolic nonsense.

Laws are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

The SCOTUS has been wrong many times.
The Dred Scott decision, Alcohol Prohibition, etc.
In my opinion they are also wrong about the War on Drugs, 3 strikes laws, asset forfeiture, foreign wars, federal gun control laws, etc.
If the SCOTUS is wrong enough, then another armed rebellion become warranted.
The SCOTUS is NOT the supreme arbiter.
We are.
Which is why we need to remained armed.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I have to admit, if you're going to have a life time ban on guns, it should be for crimes that are relevant...not selling counterfeit cassettes or lying on your taxes...

I agree. Kinda wonder why we have a SC if they don't want to do their duty.
The remedy is to petition Congress to amend the law, not whine about the Supreme Court.

The reason I disagree is that legislation usually has to be blanket so that it can be applied in a vastly wide range of different cases.
That does not mean it is supposed to always be applied just because it can be.
There should often be many exceptions, and the police, prosecutors, and judges should apply fairness and common sense to prevent blanket laws from being applied inappropriately. When that does not happen and a law is still too harshly applied, then the SCOTUS should step in.
The fact they don't is because they are too lazy or like the revenue draconian laws generate.

Again, it if unfathomable as to how alcohol prohibition got past the SCOTUS.
I have never heard of legislation so absurdly illegal as that.
It is the ultimate in nanny laws that can never be remotely legal, because they have no basis in law in a democratic republic, which is where laws can only defend against the abuse of others. And clearly alcohol abuses no one else in any way.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,457
Reaction score
782
Points
893
There will be no armed rebellion.

The state and local LEO, the NG, and the Armed Forces would crush such before it got started.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Conservative Court my ass.

The clock is ticking on Liberty.


The Supreme Court on Monday opted not to take up three challenges to a federal ban on gun ownership for people who've been convicted of nonviolent crimes.
The decision reinforced the apparent inclination by the court to skirt Second Amendment questions. But it also surprised and dismayed some gun advocates who'd hoped the court would whittle away at the lifetime limitation.
As reported by USA Today, the court's sidestepping the issue let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of an array of nonviolent offenses -- driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns, selling counterfeit cassette tapes -- from owning a firearm.
The decisions Monday were handed down without explanation.
The news outlet said the last time the nation's highest court issued major gun rights rulings dates back to 2008 and 2010. The court struck down handgun restrictions in the District of Columbia and Chicago.
USA Today says four justices are needed to take up a case, but five are needed for any majority opinion. There have been, of late, only minority dissenting opinions indicating eagerness to address Second Amendment issues.
The court was considering the latest gun cases amid a spate of recent mass shootings n places including Georgia, Colorado and Indiana.
The three gun ownership cases involved varied circumstances: In one, a Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty to a DUI in 2005 challenged the ban on purchasing or owning a gun. In another, a Pennsylvania woman who pleaded guilty to making a false statement on her tax returns sued over the ban. In a third, involving a man who pleaded guilty in a cassette counterfeiting matter back in the 1980s, there was yet another challenge to the firearms ban.


SCOTUS can certainly and legitimately do what it did. People, indeed, can be regulated regarding firearms based on their behavior. Having said that, I personally don't think all crimes, and particularly those that are non-violent, should carry lifetime firearms bans.

I do not think anyone out of prison can legally have any additional restrictions like gun bans.
Do they still rights like self defense or not?
Of course they must.
We can not have a 2 tiered society with different levels of rights.
If we do, then we would be just like Russia, that gets rid of all their dissidents just by declaring them mentally unfit and committing them to institutions.
Same with voting. If you don't allow ex-felons to vote, then how can you make them pay taxes without violating the basic "taxation without representation" principle?
There are still many things this country does that are basically very wrong.
Which is why there will always be a need for most citizens to be armed.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
There will be no armed rebellion.

The state and local LEO, the NG, and the Armed Forces would crush such before it got started.

Wrong.
Armed rebellion is inevitable in every country there ever was or ever will be.
It is the nature of government that is ways regresses to a draconian state, and not rebelling then would be a criminal act.

In most countries, the LEOs, NG, Armed Forces participate in or initiate the rebellion even more than the average citizens, who are sort of passive by nature.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,457
Reaction score
782
Points
893
There will be no armed rebellion.

The state and local LEO, the NG, and the Armed Forces would crush such before it got started.

Wrong.
Armed rebellion is inevitable in every country there ever was or ever will be.
It is the nature of government that is ways regresses to a draconian state, and not rebelling then would be a criminal act.

In most countries, the LEOs, NG, Armed Forces participate in or initiate the rebellion even more than the average citizens, who are sort of passive by nature.
Do you stand there in your bathroom and recite that into the mirror?

Rarely so, in the West. Those entities are almost always invested in the status quo. That is why the insurgency at the Capitol was so impotent. Now more than 400 of them are going to get jail and prison time, some of them for many years.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top