US district Judge rules ban on guns for felon is unconstitutional

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Democrats don't look for voter fraud, so not finding it means nothing. If they looked, they would find it. They're the ones stealing elections

Fact.

 

[Rogue AI]

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

How so? This judge is a jackass that was seeking precedent from laws that pre-dated the 2nd Amendment by 100 years. Our rights do not play into whatever games he is playing.

 

[Robert W]

How so? This judge is a jackass that was seeking precedent from laws that pre-dated the 2nd Amendment by 100 years. Our rights do not play into whatever games he is playing.

Things that disgust you and myself still have to follow the law. As the Judge decided to do.

 

[Rogue AI]

Things that disgust you and myself still have to follow the law. As the Judge decided to do.

Did he? His method doesn’t show that. One of the reasons we accept the Judiciary is because they make their rulings based on the Constitution and later precedents. This clown sought precedent outside those limited parameters. Much the reason most sensible folks reject Kennedy's gay marriage farcical opinion, and the reason it will be overturned.

 

[Robert W]

Did he? His method doesn’t show that. One of the reasons we accept the Judiciary is because they make their rulings based on the Constitution and later precedents. This clown sought precedent outside those limited parameters. Much the reason most sensible folks reject Kennedy's gay marriage farcical opinion, and the reason it will be overturned.

Go back and read again the case we are discussing. The judge did not release the convict from prison, all he did was negate the gun crime part.

 

[TNHarley]

Go back and read again the case we are discussing. The judge did not release the convict from prison, all he did was negate the gun crime part.

Rogue is talking about this idiot judge studying case law all the way back to the 1600s for precedent.

 

[there4eyeM]

Firearms are a special category. Words can't kill. Unbalanced individuals who prove themselves so have no "right" to means of easy, rapid destruction of others. Citizens do have the right to protect themselves from the unbalanced.

 

[Rogue AI]

Go back and read again the case we are discussing. The judge did not release the convict from prison, all he did was negate the gun crime part.

The reason for his ruling was not based on the Constitution, that is the point. Nor did I imply the suspect was released.

 

[Rogue AI]

Firearms are a special category. Words can't kill. Unbalanced individuals who prove themselves so have no "right" to means of easy, rapid destruction of others. Citizens do have the right to protect themselves from the unbalanced.

Every right is equal, there no validity in denying that.

 

[there4eyeM]

Every right is equal, there no validity in denying that.

You are joking, and the joke is even more amusing if you don't know it.

 

[Rogue AI]

You are joking, and the joke is even more amusing if you don't know it.

I'm not joking, that you think our rights exist on a gradient scale is misguided and rather sad.

 

[Chillicothe]

I'd engage in a bit of intellectual repartee, but I'd never do battle with an unarmed man

Yeah but, .........but give it a try.
Show the forum your chops. That you got game.
That there is a there there with you.

So again......are the Democrats rigging all elections? Any elections? If so, which ones. Name names. And explain to us how you know?

Saddle up, Skippy, show the forum whatcha got.

 

[Robert W]

Did he? His method doesn’t show that. One of the reasons we accept the Judiciary is because they make their rulings based on the Constitution and later precedents. This clown sought precedent outside those limited parameters. Much the reason most sensible folks reject Kennedy's gay marriage farcical opinion, and the reason it will be overturned.

Judge Gettleman admitted that his decision was finely balanced because 'violence plagues our communities and that allowing those who potentially pose a threat to the orderly functioning of society to be armed is a dangerous precedent.'

And he admitted that guns have become more powerful, and violence more pervasive, since the 1790s, but he insisted it did not 'justify a different result'.

'This nation's gun violence problem is devastating, but does not change this result under Bruen, which this court finds rests on the severity of (firearm law) rather than its categorical prohibition,' he wrote.

The US Attorney General's office immediately appealed the ruling, and Prince was immediately rearrested by Chicago Police on separate charges.

 

[MagicMike]

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

Probably not.
It most likely means exactly what it says.
Not

everything to be in proper working order, well organized

Otherwise that would be what was written.
But that is not what was written.
Instead it says...
A Well REGULATED militia.
As in regulated and CONTROLLED by the government.
Not the firearm free-for-all we currently have going on in this country.
This wasn't the intent of the founders and author of 2A.

 

[Rogue AI]

Judge Gettleman admitted that his decision was finely balanced because 'violence plagues our communities and that allowing those who potentially pose a threat to the orderly functioning of society to be armed is a dangerous precedent.'

And he admitted that guns have become more powerful, and violence more pervasive, since the 1790s, but he insisted it did not 'justify a different result'.

'This nation's gun violence problem is devastating, but does not change this result under Bruen, which this court finds rests on the severity of (firearm law) rather than its categorical prohibition,' he wrote.

The US Attorney General's office immediately appealed the ruling, and Prince was immediately rearrested by Chicago Police on separate charges.

You conveniently left out his research into laws that pre-date the 2nd amendment. Nor is the technological advancement a valid concern, as that has been settled decades ago. Hence the press is no longer just hand cranked printing presses.

 

[MagicMike]

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.

Oh really?
Enlighten me then.
What type of weapon was it that Hamilton was shot with?
What other types/styles of firearms were available in Hamilton's day?
The flintlock musket/pistol?
Blunderbuss?
Because those would have been the total scope of what The Founders "intended."

 

[Marener]

Rogue is talking about this idiot judge studying case law all the way back to the 1600s for precedent.

He’s required to because of the 6 idiots on the Supreme Court.

 

[TNHarley]

Probably not.
It most likely means exactly what it says.
Not

Otherwise that would be what was written.
But that is not what was written.
Instead it says...
A Well REGULATED militia.
As in regulated and CONTROLLED by the government.
Not the firearm free-for-all we currently have going on in this country.
This wasn't the intent of the founders and author of 2A.

Thats what it meant. It isnt my fault you are ignorant of history.

 

[TNHarley]

Firearms are a special category. Words can't kill. Unbalanced individuals who prove themselves so have no "right" to means of easy, rapid destruction of others. Citizens do have the right to protect themselves from the unbalanced.

So our rights are based on a scale?

 

[TNHarley]

He’s required to because of the 6 idiots on the Supreme Court.

Hes required to look at case law 100 years older than the second amendment, on a case about the second amendment?
You are so butthurt, you make no sense.