Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When the filthy ass oppressive government tells me I can't have a firearm then they are infringing upon my right to keep and bear arms, which is in violation of the Constitution. The government is acting illegally when they arrest someone on a gun possession law.Just more charges. Like hate crimes.
Stupid shit.
Indeed, when the Constitution was ratified people possessed this thing called common sense, long absent in modern American politics. The government imprisoned people for crimes they were convicted of, affording the defendants their whole suite of Constitutional protections. When the sentence was served the incarcerated were returned to society with all of the rights restored.
----------------------------------------------------
All elections?
Or which elections?
Name names.
And explain to the forum how you know.
What are your sources? How have your sources been vetted?
Anyone can make an unsupported claim on the internet while posting anonymously.
But, responsible adults are able to back up their claims. To prove it.
So batter up, poster 'kaz'.
Demonstrate to the forum that your avatar has gravitas and a sense of responsibility.
In most of these cases I strongly believe we should keep known dangerous people locked up for as long as we can, permanently when necessary. Therefore, cases like these wouldn't even be necessary most of the time. But, it never really made sense to me that someone who did their time and were released had certain restrictions put on them, such as 2A. Now, maybe I can see it if they are still on probation as they technically haven't finished their time. This particular guy should have never been released and should remain in jail for the rest of his life. He is a known danger to society. This case should have never been, due to that.
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 judge is going by the constitution where it states as a fact that the right to keep and bear firearms shall not be abridged.
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.
It's not bull, the permanent revocation of rights does not enter the picture until the 1850's through today. We need only look at how the Founders governed to see their intent. The current clown show lunacy does not reflect that.That is total bull. The Constitution is an enumerated document, that was the whole point
The judge is going by the constitution where it states as a fact that the right to keep and bear firearms shall not be abridged.
The criminal at the time believed he had no right to carry firearms. So what did he do? He carried a pistol. This proves that laws do not prevent crime, all they do is punish crime. So all the Judge did is understand the constitution but did not forgive the criminal for his actual crimes.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
The 2nd amendment in your heart says that, but the written constitution does not make those claims. Surely you were joking when you said it is unconstitutional to put criminals in prison. This judge will jail the criminal for his crimes but it does not mean having a firearm is a crime. This is protected in the constitution. Say he had harmed a human with the pistol, the Judge would sentence him for that. But not merely for having a pistol.Right, it's Unconstitutional to put criminals in prison too, sure it is.
What you said is true UNTIL they are convicted of a crime. The punishment for which involves losing your Constitutional rights
That's the whole problem. When this country was founded those not fit for civilized society were executed, never to return. If prisoners were deemed fit for society they were released and their rights restored. It begins and ends with bleeding heart morons that think reforming prisoners instead of punishing them is the answer. We going on 170 years of failure following the 'reform' path.In most of these cases I strongly believe we should keep known dangerous people locked up for as long as we can, permanently when necessary. Therefore, cases like these wouldn't even be necessary most of the time. But, it never really made sense to me that someone who did their time and were released had certain restrictions put on them, such as 2A. Now, maybe I can see it if they are still on probation as they technically haven't finished their time. This particular guy should have never been released and should remain in jail for the rest of his life. He is a known danger to society. This case should have never been, due to that.
I believe in reform. But not the way it is handled all over America. I have remarked in the past the better system is used in Germany. They release convicts only when reformed.That's the whole problem. When this country was founded those not fit for civilized society were executed, never to return. If prisoners were deemed fit for society they were released and their rights restored. It begins and ends with bleeding heart morons that think reforming prisoners instead of punishing them is the answer. We going on 170 years of failure following the 'reform' path.
It's not bull, the permanent revocation of rights does not enter the picture until the 1850's through today. We need only look at how the Founders governed to see their intent. The current clown show lunacy does not reflect that.
Laws are not intended to prevent crimes. Laws set forth the standards accepted by civilized society. It is not the function of government to prevent crime, that opens a door to unimaginable abuse. It is the function of government to enforce the laws. And punish those who break them.The criminal at the time believed he had no right to carry firearms. So what did he do? He carried a pistol. This proves that laws do not prevent crime, all they do is punish crime. So all the Judge did is understand the constitution but did not forgive the criminal for his actual crimes.
It is not a matter of "government" taking away a "right". It is a matter of a person renouncing a "right" by his actions.
I'm not against reform for those who can be reformed. But, for every crime you get arrested for you have probably committed another 10 you were not arrested for. Therefore, it is ridiculous to arrest criminals over and over again, in fact, it's downright stupid. There should be no such thing as a long arrest record. Maybe three strikes, and you get taken out of the game - for good. You absolutely cannot reform a hardened criminal.That's the whole problem. When this country was founded those not fit for civilized society were executed, never to return. If prisoners were deemed fit for society they were released and their rights restored. It begins and ends with bleeding heart morons that think reforming prisoners instead of punishing them is the answer. We going on 170 years of failure following the 'reform' path.
The criminal at the time believed he had no right to carry firearms. So what did he do? He carried a pistol. This proves that laws do not prevent crime, all they do is punish crime. So all the Judge did is understand the constitution but did not forgive the criminal for his actual crimes.
Well then the cops and attorneys need to quit talking about laws as preventing crimes. The sentences are supposedly as long as they are to prevent crimes.Laws are not intended to prevent crimes. Laws set forth the standards accepted by civilized society. It is not the function of government to prevent crime, that opens a door to unimaginable abuse. It is the function of government to enforce the laws. And punish those who break them.
Well then the cops and attorneys need to quit talking about laws as preventing crimes. The sentences are supposedly as long as they are to prevent crimes.
If you notice, it is not citizens making laws. It is those who you choose to be your rulers.
When this sort of topic comes up, as it will over and over, ordinary citizens are not rational. Those who think the judge is wrong will never think he is right. Even when all he did was obey the constitution.Democrat laws prevent crime. It's not illegal, it's not a crime!
Other than that, who said laws prevent crime? Most crimes are committed by habitual criminals. The point is to get them in prison. There is no way to stop the first crime
Even were you and I to agree, it means nothing to the way the law says it is. It is cool to sit in front or your computer and make statements, but in real world the constitution is the supreme law and not what people spending time as we do on a computer making remarks.You can't stop the first crime. After that they are in prison, so they can't do it again. What is confusing about that?
