US district Judge rules ban on guns for felon is unconstitutional

[kaz]

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.

So why are you sitting on the computer making remarks if that doesn't matter?

 

[Robert W]

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.

How do laws prevent crime?


Deterrence is the theory that criminal penalties do not just punish violators, but also discourage other people from committing similar offenses. Many people point to the need to deter criminal actions after a high-profile incident in which an offender is seen to have received a light sentence.

Do Criminal Laws Deter Crime? Deterrence Theory in ...​

 

[Robert W]

So why are you sitting on the computer making remarks if that doesn't matter?

Well, frankly partly to learn, partly to be amused, partly to say what I believe, and partly trying to prevent the mind from shutting down. Why are you posting? How many citizens take their gripes to the Government they want to rule them? I have done this plenty of times. You will get condescending replies that they thank you and then they lay out what they believe. Which ends being a circle fuck.

 

[Rogue AI]

Actually you didn't have Constitutional rights protected from State governments at all until 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified.

The Constitution says your Constitutional rights can be restricted if you are convicted of a crime. If you feel people should get their vote or guns back after their prison sentence is over, that's fine, but the Constitution doesn't say that. It just doesn't, worry. You're going to have to work for it if you want it.

Personally, I'm worried about preserving rights for honest citizens, not criminals

There was no need for formal ratification found in the 14th when the Founders governed, all the problems begin only after they died. It goes back to common sense.

The right keep and bear arms along with the right to vote are inalienable rights, the only possible method of revocation of those rights would be through an amendment.

 

[Rogue AI]

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.

It is the method and rationale (or lack thereof) that is the problem with this judge. It is clear the intent has nothing to do with the Constitution but rather a separate and insidious agenda.

 

[kaz]

Well, frankly partly to learn, partly to be amused, partly to say what I believe, and partly trying to prevent the mind from shutting down. Why are you posting? How many citizens take their gripes to the Government they want to rule them? I have done this plenty of times. You will get condescending replies that they thank you and then they lay out what they believe. Which ends being a circle fuck.

I didn't say it's a waste of time, you did. I think our country is about us, it's not up to the lawyers and politicians, even if they think it is

 

[kaz]

There was no need for formal ratification found in the 14th when the Founders governed, all the problems begin only after they died. It goes back to common sense.

The right keep and bear arms along with the right to vote are inalienable rights, the only possible method of revocation of those rights would be through an amendment.

You keep talking about common sense, which is the last thing I attribute to lawyers and politicians. That's why the Constitution is an enumerated document. Common sense will get you zero from government, they have none

 

[MagicMike]

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

"A WELL REGULATED militia...."
The government has every right to REGULATE firearms and their posession.
It is right there....the first four words of 2A.

 

[Rogue AI]

How do laws prevent crime?


Deterrence is the theory that criminal penalties do not just punish violators, but also discourage other people from committing similar offenses. Many people point to the need to deter criminal actions after a high-profile incident in which an offender is seen to have received a light sentence.

Do Criminal Laws Deter Crime? Deterrence Theory in ...​

Voodoo science 'theories' are not sufficient excuses to violate the rights of citizens. All such mumbo-jumbo leads to greater abuses of power by the state and has proven time and again to be an abject failure.

 

[Robert W]

I didn't say it's a waste of time, you did. I think our country is about us, it's not up to the lawyers and politicians, even if they think it is

Well, try this time to understand. Forums are a place to make statements. Even wrong statements. They are not certain to reach the eyes of the Government. Better take your case to Government where it still might waste your time, but at least you took it to those who vote on laws.

 

[Robert W]

Voodoo science 'theories' are not sufficient excuses to violate the rights of citizens. All such mumbo-jumbo leads to greater abuses of power by the state and has proven time and again to be an abject failure.

Of course that is correct.

 

[Robert W]

It is the method and rationale (or lack thereof) that is the problem with this judge. It is clear the intent has nothing to do with the Constitution but rather a separate and insidious agenda.

It seems you will not be reasonable. But this is of course ordinary on forums.

 

[Marener]

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 judge merely following the ruling set forth by the conservative Supreme Court.

 

[Robert W]

"A WELL REGULATED militia...."
The government has every right to REGULATE firearms and their posession.
It is right there....the first four words of 2A.

Well you will need to persuade the Supreme court that is what it means. Why did you ignore the end of the amendment? Militias are indeed well regulated.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well you will need to persuade the Supreme court that is what it means. Why did you ignore the end of the amendment? Militias are indeed well regulated.

No he doesn't. The Supreme Court already agrees the government has the right to regulate firearms.

 

[Rogue AI]

You keep talking about common sense, which is the last thing I attribute to lawyers and politicians. That's why the Constitution is an enumerated document. Common sense will get you zero from government, they have none

Fair enough.

Obviously it is an enumerated document, no argument here. Yet each section is sovereign to itself, it is not a hierarchy. That starts to veer into a separate issue though. You are also correct on the 14th, it demonstrates how things are supposed to be done, through amendments, not through distorted imaginings paraded out as 'interpretation', as we've seen from the judiciary over the last 150 years or so. It's been fun, not sure what can be said though.

 

[Rogue AI]

"A WELL REGULATED militia...."
The government has every right to REGULATE firearms and their posession.
It is right there....the first four words of 2A.

Nonsense, unless you are pretending you understand the Constitution better than those who signed it. You need only look to Hamilton's death to see the Founders' intent.

 

[Robert W]

No he doesn't. The Supreme Court already agrees the government has the right to regulate firearms.

All of these recent rulings by lower federal courts are the product of court decisions striking blows against long-standing federal gun restrictions that were issued by lower court judges in the past year after the Supreme Court, in a sweeping ruling, expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms extends outside the home.

The decision by the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority has led to a flurry of challenges to long-standing laws — both federal and state — and prompted some judges to find they are unlawful under the new standard. Other judges have upheld gun restrictions, creating divisions on the law across the country. It has also led to blue states passing a new wave of gun laws in the hope that they will not fall foul of the Supreme Court’s rationale.

Supreme Court considers recoil from landmark gun rights ruling

After lower court rulings struck down long-standing gun restrictions, the Biden administration asks justices to uphold restrictions on people with domestic violence restraining orders.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All of these recent rulings by lower federal courts are the product of court decisions striking blows against long-standing federal gun restrictions that were issued by lower court judges in the past year after the Supreme Court, in a sweeping ruling, expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms extends outside the home.

The decision by the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority has led to a flurry of challenges to long-standing laws — both federal and state — and prompted some judges to find they are unlawful under the new standard. Other judges have upheld gun restrictions, creating divisions on the law across the country. It has also led to blue states passing a new wave of gun laws in the hope that they will not fall foul of the Supreme Court’s rationale.

Supreme Court considers recoil from landmark gun rights ruling

After lower court rulings struck down long-standing gun restrictions, the Biden administration asks justices to uphold restrictions on people with domestic violence restraining orders.

www.nbcnews.com

Yep.

 

[TNHarley]

"A WELL REGULATED militia...."
The government has every right to REGULATE firearms and their posession.
It is right there....the first four words of 2A.

That meant everything to be in proper working order, well organized. Not regulated by the govt smh