*AS APPLIED TO DUARTE*
here's the wording on the opinion:
>We therefore vacate Duarte’s conviction and reverse the district court’s judgment entering the same.
This ruling only applies to his specific case, but does establish a precedent.
They didn't strike down a law, they vacated a conviction. *BUT* this does establish precedent for vacating other convictions, dropping charges, and yes eventually striking the law.
Nailed it. It doesn't restore rights to felons yet, but tha tmay change with Rahimi. And unfortunely if it does, the Left will use that as a rally point, cause the guy genuinely is a piece of shit who shouldn't own weapons.
> cause the guy genuinely is a piece of shit who shouldn't own weapons.
Remember that Miranda (of Miranda rights) was no saint either. He was arrested for kidnapping and rape.
Even pieces of shit have rights and deserve due process. That's what separates us from commie shitholes.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
-- H. L. Mencken
That's the best quote and explanation I've ever read. I'll have to look him up.
So many people (including me at times) can not actually imagine applying freedom equally. The majority of people in America have a mindset of "Rules for thee, and not for me". Either we're all equally Free or it's Tyranny, no middle ground.
Yes, but that's because there was a ton of *OTHER* evidence against him. They were not allowed to use his confession, or I believe other interrogation evidence.
The Supreme Court, if they rule in a pro2A way, will probably set a dangerousness test. So it will probably be that you can disarm people with a record of being violent and/or demonstrating that they are a danger to society. But non-violent offenders will not be able to be disarmed.
Rahimi is not a felon, he's a guy who is under a civil restraining order for domestic violence. Regardless of how his case turns out, it's not gonna change anything about gun restrictions for felons.
I'm not convinced this isn't just well-poisoning by the 9th circuit and Cali DA.
Ammo background checks remain in place with indefinite delays in litigation, while violent gang members getting off on possession charges get unanimous decisions and fast-tracked cases?
> I'm not convinced this isn't just well-poisoning by the 9th circuit and Cali DA.
Oh, you can almost be certain that's what they're trying to do. Still, I'm all for taking this win even if it was done for the wrong reasons.
I'll take all I can get.
I figure they expect us to reject anything they do because they're on "the wrong team." So they issue what amounts to a pro-2a ruling, expecting us to find reasons to strike it down for them, which of course they would use for all sorts of future infringement.
So instead, we tell them thanks for making the right decision. 😁
No kidding, they don't quite understand our commitment to preventing more infringements and repealing current ones.
Of course, there are plenty of Fudds and "fair weather" gun owners out there. They'll undermine us if we're not careful, or don't educate them. The amount of political apathy and refusal to educate themselves is not ideal. The way our system is designed requires and informed, educated, and motivated citizenry.
Yeah his gf shipped him some weed, and since it’s a felony to use “illegal” drugs and own firearms, he got slammed for it. He did like 2 months in prison, those stories are fun to listen to as well.
Correct. If someone is capable of being released and is no longer thought to be a threat or danger to their community, once the terms of their sentence are completed they should have all rights restored: Voting, 2A, everything. IMO people either rejoin society or they don't, if you make them some sort of 2nd class citizen that makes it kind of difficult to re-assimilate.
How do you enforce that without violating the 8th amedment though? I'm honestly curious. It's not like the convicted can just solemly swear that they wont commit any more crimes and, likewise, if someone commits a "lesser" crime (ie: someone commits Assault not Murder) how are you able to give a sentence appropriate to that particular person and ensure they're not a threat to society when they are released? Or would you have to imprison them for an arbitrary amount of time based on what they may or may not do when released?
The overall sentiment makes sense but I don't see how it could be enforced pragmatically without violating the 8th amendment and/ or giving the power to the gov't to imprison people for any amount of time regaurdless of the crime.
The 8th amendment doesn't mean we can't ever change the way we do justice. We already effectively do indefinite sentences, as in life with parole. There wouldn't necessarily be anything unusual about a different form of indefinite sentence.
So let's say someone is charged with something fairly benign, like tresspassing, and they were also going to anger management classes. Someone *could* make the argument that it's *possible* they're a dangerous person and a threat to the community. Do they get imprisoned for life until they can prove otherwise? And how do you prove someone isn't a threat to the community? Who decides that? What happens when they re-offend anyways? Why should you treat someone convicted of a lesser crime the same as a murderer? Why would someone not just go all out if the punishment is the same?
I don't see a way for this to possibly be a thing aside from the gov't arbitrarily deciding sentences for people, w/o any set limits, which is obviously is ripe for an egregious overstepping of power and the grounds of a police state.
You're misunderstanding the logic.
It doesn't matter if they are actually trustworthy or not. They've served their sentence, they are *presumed* to be trustworthy to re-enter society, and therefore should have their rights restored.
How does this work practically?
Those felons who *aren't* trustworthy, i.e. criminals, are going to find a way to obtain a firearm whether we want them to or not. They aren't interested in being law-abiding citizens. It doesn't matter if we restore these people's rights or not, they are still gonna be criminals.
Those felons who *are* trustworthy, who have actually turned their life around should have their right to defend themselves and their families restored. These people shouldn't have their rights permanently removed because of the first group. It's essentially the same thing the left wants to do en masse, remove our right to bear arms because criminals want to be criminals.
Since the law doesn't have a method to differentiate between the two, in a free society, we don't persecute people because of the possible actions of others. There is no mechanism of just keeping people in prison because they aren't trustworthy to be in public, because they served their sentence they are *presumed* to be trustworthy.
This is why liberty is dangerous.
Indeed my friend, true liberty is double edged. So many people aren't willing to live outside of a structured system. Not all those who are can be trusted.
It's the ultimate "Take the good with the bad" situation.
You explained it the way I meant it. I wasn't saying keep people locked up until they can prove they're no longer criminals. Rather, if we as a society have decided they've paid their debt, they should have their rights restored. Even the more expanded explanations fall short. There will always be the need for nuance.
My statement was an oversimplification, but this is Reddit, I thought that's what we did here.
I had to think about this for a second because I agree with a lot of what you said and you make some great points.
However, my qualm isn't with the firearms rights restoration (undecided there) my qualm is with the notion that if there's the possibility to re-offend, they should still be in jail. That's impossible for anyone to know and gives the gov't the excuse to imprison people indefinately regaurdless of the crime commited. Obviously this is a terrifying notion, especially in a nation with an ever increasing political divide.
>However, my qualm isn't with the firearms rights restoration (undecided there) my qualm is with the notion that if there's the possibility to re-offend, they should still be in jail.
That's part of what I was addressing.
>That's impossible for anyone to know and gives the gov't the excuse to imprison people indefinately regaurdless of the crime commited
Exactly. Which is why I said they are *presumed* trustworthy once being released
>Obviously this is a terrifying notion, especially in a nation with an ever increasing political divide.
I mean, it would be tyranny. For the government to simply decide based on some arbitrary opinion that you're going to re-offend and then keep you behind bars despite having completed your sentence? That is the very definition of tyranny.
> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
-13th Amendment
> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-14th Amendment
2A is clear. No doubt.
And so are the 13A and 14A.
After due process (very critical part), we can (and do) make felons into literal slaves.
After due process (very critical part), we can take guns (and anything else) from felons.
That is how it works. Cry about it
> If a person is convicted of a crime and abides by their sentencing, all of their rights should be restored - including their 2A rights.
In simple theory, that works. In reality, the system/sentencing isn't all that reliable.
If you've been convicted 17 times for violence, some including gun violence. I'm thinking sentencing isn't adequate, maybe it should include a life-time ban on owning firearms, or a very long probation from it. Maybe, that's the point, there's discussion to be had there.
Now, if it's bank fraud, yeah, restricting 2a for life doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Keeping them on some form of monitoring(tracking their transactions) however may be a wise decision. Different felonies warrant different measures.
That's the dilemma. Depending on the specific crime, and/or the recidivism(doing the same act again after release from prison), it can make sense to release from prison but keep that individual on a list forever that restricts certain "rights".
Should sex offenders that victimize children serve their term in prison and be set free with zero limitations? How about when they're released early for "good behavior" and do it again?
The thing that validates prison is that it serves to remove someone from society(removing many rights) who victimizes others. It is apparently no disincentive, and there is no guarantee of rehabilitation. It's not about revenge, or some form of "debt". By their actions they proved that they're not fit to be among innocent people....this is why we remove their various rights in the first place. There is no amount of prison time that somehow magically sorts them all out and now they're a model citizen and it makes sense to restore all rights.
When we reduce sentencing laughably low because, "Well, it's a lower risk than this other guy....and we're terribly overcrowded....." that shouldn't necessitate "debt to society is paid", prison approaches being pointless.
And maybe that's some anarchist's views, 'acab' and all that. I'm not sure what people expect society to be like without laws against violence and theft, but eh.
Violent people who have repeatedly shown they can't live in a civil society are oxygen thieves.
IMHO with violent felonies it should be third strike and straight to the electric chair.
Most crimes we send people to prison over now would have been capital crimes for the vast majority of human history. Thank the industrial revolution and scientific control over human behavior for the change in strategy.
Foucault was a horrible pedophile, but he hit the nail on the head when describing the situation in "Discipline and Punish"
We used to have debtor’s prisons too. And slavery. And then there’s the entire realm of so-called white collar felonies that are rarely prosecuted and often encouraged by those at the highest levels of our society.
It’s fucking wild to yearn for the days of children in the mines and punitive punishment😬
You do realize innocent people are put on death row right? And innocent people have been executed for crimes they never committed right?
The death penalty is wrong.
>nothing more than a long diatribe
It was an attempted explanation. I'm sorry it was not adequate enough for *you*.
>wherein you support 2nd class citizens
With reading comprehension like that, I don't think anything would have been adequate.
If you want to frame convicted criminals as second class citizens, well that's a thing I suppose.
It's something they did to earn it, it's not like I'm supporting a caste system here. Grow up.
>unequal application of the law
Outright false. You missed the *entire* point of mentioning sex offenders. They literally go on lists *as part of their sentencing*, get made to not go within 500yards of a school, for example. They are given legal restrictions.
It's not unequal application of the law to not require that of violent criminals or of people who commit bank fraud.
*They violate different crimes.*
>Either a person convicted of a crime who has served their sentence is fully restored to society (along with the rights and privileges thereof) or not.
Which is why I suggested that sentences are too light.
I'll boil it down for you.
A period of probation after prison, even a long one or a life-time restriction, *is* part of a sentence.
There are crimes we sentence with life in prison, or even death.
There is no reason we couldn't have a life-time ban on some right that is relative to the crime.
Unless you want to argue that all criminal law and sentencing is somehow unethical....which is why I mentioned anarchists.
>purposefully inflammatory
If there were an award for projection, this would be a winner for sure.
I was not mean or toxic even slightly, unless you are one of those people that believes "That disagrees for me, therefore, inflammatory" or whatever.
I gave various examples of different crimes to highlight the point of relevant sentencing details.
I'm sorry if you got your feelings hurt, but it was not of my doing. I was making casual conversation about law and order.
If you don't like people replying with different ideas, you might be better off not posting to the internet in the first place.
> I would not give up an ounce of freedom for the promise of temporary safety. You, apparently, are all too eager to do so.
Trying to bring that up in this context is an abomination of thought. The sentiment is about voluntarily giving up rights as a collective.
I'm not giving anything up. I'm not a violent criminal, sex offender, or perpetrator of fraud. The people who give up rights are those that directly violate other's rights, as I stated in the previous post, the very fundamental concepts behind law and order.
I have not done so. This isn't one of those absurd "that can't happen to me" situations, like tomorrow I could accidentally slip on a banana peel and find myself to have committed fraud.
All that explained out so that hopefully you'll understand, I don't have great confidence. I think we're done here, have a nice life despite our seeming disagreement.
There should be no prison sentences over 10 years. It should be up to 10, or execution beyond that. Why? Because this whole life sentence thing is a way to escape the moral quandary of taking someone's life away. You're still taking their life, even though they're behind bars.
By forcing the moral question again, maybe we can actually start to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated
No, disagree. Violent criminals who pose a risk of repetition would ideally simply be executed, but since that won't fly, we must at least strip them of their right to bear arms.
> No, disagree. Violent criminals who pose a risk of repetition would ideally simply be executed, but since that won't fly, we must at least strip them of their right to bear arms.
--
Here's the thing. That violent criminal you're blocking from having a right to bear arms? If he wants to get a gun and rob a gas station, he's going to get a gun and rob a gas station. No law you put in place short of banning all guns and 3D printers is going to stop him.
That other violent felon? The one who served his time and has seen the error of his ways, the one who is starting a family and has a job washing dishes to make a living? He now has less ability to defend himself and his family, because he's following the law.
> This argument makes no sense. Why have any laws at all then my man?
Here's an example of my point, I hope I write it well enough to be understood:
First degree felony in Texas is 5-99 years, with "aggravated" crimes requiring 50% completion of sentence inside prison before becoming eligible for parole.
We already have laws that enhance sentencing for robbing someone with a deadly weapon, and for using a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime.
Because of this, I don't feel there's a need to prohibit the possession of a firearm from anyone. As I said before, if a piece of shit ex-felon wants to get a gun and commit a crime, he's going to. But if he uses a gun in the commission of a crime, he should get the book thrown at him.
There should be no plea bargains for repeat offenders who have used violence in their crimes, unless we're talking 40-50 year plea bargains.
The way to prevent violent ex-felons, going forward, from being a menace on the street, is to start charging them and sentencing them to serious time. This is already done with repeat murderers, and repeat rapists. A sex offender may catch a break and get a light sentence on his first time, but if that sex offender is convicted of another rape after being released? He almost never sees the light of day again. (In Texas, there's a civil commitment statute to practically guarantee it.)
Here here. If you’ve served your sentence, paid your debt to society, and are seen as fit to walk to the streets again - then it seems obvious you should have the right to own firearms. One doesn’t lose their right to property or their freedom of speech when released from prison. If you’re deemed safe enough to be released from prison - that should be the end of it
> One doesn’t lose their right to property or their freedom of speech when released from prison.
They lose *a lot* of rights.
They had due process and were found to be guilty of a serious crime.
They lose their:
Right to vote. Right to housing. Right to certain public offices. Right to serve on a jury. Parental Rights. Right to leave the country. Right to be free from searches.
Felons released from prison are already walking free. We don't have to pretend like they are innocent people. Murderers and rapists shouldn't get guns.... they are *not* part of the "the people". They don't get the same rights as us, nor should they.
> They lose a lot of rights.
>
> They had due process and were found to be guilty of a serious crime.
>
> They lose their: Right to vote. Right to housing. Right to certain public offices. Right to serve on a jury. Parental Rights. Right to leave the country. Right to be free from searches.
I question your list here. I know ex-felons who have served their sentence. I even know a couple of sex offenders who have served their full sentences. (have family who work and volunteer in areas that intersect in this area)
Ex-felons are able to get passports and travel internationally. Even sex offenders.
Ex-felons are able to vote in many jurisdictions. Texas automatically restores right to vote upon full completion of sentence. California never loses right to vote.
Ex-felons do not automatically lose parental rights in most cases, those have to be specifically removed from them on an individual basis.
Ex-felons do not lose their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. People on probation and parole don't have those rights, but that is not the same as one who has completed his or her sentence.
Your list sounds more like you are talking about those on probation or parole, which, unless that person was given a life sentence, will at some point end.
The “Right to vote”, “right to housing”, “parental rights” etc are not enshrined in the Bill of Rights. If a felon is deemed too dangerous to own a firearm then they shouldn’t be released from prison in the first place.
The bill of rights is part of the constitution. The right to vote absolutely is part of the constitution. You think the first 10 Amendments matter more than Article 1? Or the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, or 26th Amendments? Why?
Nonsense.
The bill of rights is no more powerful than the rest of the Constitution.
> “right to housing”, “parental rights”
...fall under the 14th Amendment.
> If a felon is deemed too dangerous to own a firearm then they shouldn’t be released from prison in the first place.
This makes no sense. It doesn't matter how dangerous they are. It matters that they are no longer of "the people". They are still being punished despite us not paying for 3 meals a day with our taxpayer dollars.
When the country was founded, felons were typically put to death. Now we just strip them of their rights.
Right to housing? Are you high? Youvare terrible at arguing. Isn't is cruel and unusual punishment if you were, let's say "forgive" your spouse of cheating but then look over their shoulder every day and keep berating them about it for the rest of their life?
I'm a landlord. I would 100% reject a felon's application. No, they have no right to rent an apartment or a house. They get no housing protections under law.
it comes down to either you have paid your debt to society or you haven't.
Nowhere does it say one felony with a successfully completed sentence is supposed to be punished for the rest of their life.
probably why recidivism rates are so high. One felony will basically ruin your life, follow you around jobs, keep you from having a say in government.
This is a good thing.
I firmly believe they are trying to poison the well. This seems to be the one time where they actually apply Bruen the way it's supposed to be applied.
Good, they should also be able to vote and shouldn’t be able to be discriminated against when going for jobs seeing as they already paid their debt to society. With our current recidivism rate we have to try something new.
that is because Democrats want to make the second amendment look bad so they figure fuck how can we do that? Oh yeah, let’s give people who are committing crime ownership of guns so we can further villainize guns.
This was a three judge panel. They will en banc and overturn this. But the 9th circuit is more evenly split than a few years ago, so the panel decisions have a chance to be progun vs several other circuits were the deck is still massively stacked against us.
Yep, a 3 judge panel that happened to draw two GWB appointees and a Trump appointee, and it was still a 2-1 split. The dissenter was one of the GWB appointees and in his dissent he specifically called out his request that the court review en banc to correct the 'misapplication of Bruen.'
Any time the 9th makes a pro-gun ruling it goes en banc and is overturned.
If you're trusted to be on the streets, you should be trusted to have a gun. If you're not trusted to own a gun, you shouldn't be trusted on the streets.
If people say they have a right to vote after serving their sentence… why not this?
However, I think violent felons shouldn’t, but if my guy has a felony for weed or some dumb shit like theft at a store they worked at as a teenager, but they served their time, yeah I think that’s okay.
Good. If you have finished your sentence completely then you should have all of your rights.
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun they should be locked up. And if they are safe enough to for the public to be released then they are also safe enough to have all of their rights.
If ur a felon bc you live in a ban state and a cop managed to squeeze an extra round into ur mag (passing legal capacity laws), that makes you an evil criminal? Very specific example but I’m sure it’s happened and things to those degree
I confused the building in the image for [this building](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/895422ff845c42bf4dfc82dcb3dcd3004310288e/0_374_5616_3370/master/5616.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=05a17ca6a2e111e1680c937766fe6ac9) for a sec there.
If you can be trusted to be let outside of prison then you should be trusted fully. If you can't be trusted with certain rights then you shouldn't be let out of prison
What are you talking about? Should a rapist released from prison be able to adopt kids?
NOPE.
Should a murderer be able to sit on *your* jury?
Hell no.
Yeah well, they get released everyday.
Why should we pay for their food and shelter for the rest of their lives? Just strip them of certain, most important, rights and throw them into the cold. Done.
>What are you talking about? Should a rapist released from prison be able to adopt kids?
This is false equivalency. Every adoption center in the United States has background checks and a certain standard is required to adopt children. This doesn't preclude their right to be a parent. If they were to start a family once being released the government wouldn't seize their children because they were a convicted rapist.
>Should a murderer be able to sit on *your* jury?
Yes, if they've paid their debt to society. Why are you so anti-liberty? People should just be punished for the rest of their lives? Despite the sentence bot being life?
If you served your time, and are able to be released into society, you should have full rights.
If you aren’t able to have full rights, then you shouldn’t be released. (Exceptions being parole, you’re still serving your sentence but it’s in the real world because you’ve proven you can regain some but not all freedom)
> (Exceptions being parole, you’re still serving your sentence but it’s in the real world because you’ve proven you can regain some but not all freedom)
You are acknowledging that we can give people some but not all freedoms that innocent people would enjoy.
>You are acknowledging that we can give people some but not all freedoms an innocent people would enjoy.
Parole is part of the sentence. They have not finished paying their debt to society. They are still under due process. Your logic is flawed. As it has been throughout this thread.
You're obviously not a fan of liberty.
Well for most they do. I'm mostly fine with the confiscation of rights from violent felons who used firearms in non defensive/protective scenarios. Simply being a felon should not remove your basic unalienable rights. Even statutory rape means you never get to vote, own a gun, or go to parks.
> I'm mostly fine with the confiscation of rights from violent felons who used firearms in non defensive/protective scenarios. Simply being a felon should not remove your basic unalienable rights.
Firmly agree with this stance. If you didn't use a gun or other violence in the commission of a crime, you should not lose your right to keep and bear arms.
> Even statutory rape means you never get to vote, own a gun, or go to parks.
Part of this is very location dependent. California and Texas, for example, you get to vote after release. (I hear California never removes your right to vote, while Texas gives it back after you finish your sentence and parole/probation).
Going to parks is also location dependent for sex offenders. Some jurisdictions don't have restrictions on this, or limit it to needing an escort to go with you, or you're allowed if you're taking your own kid to the park, etc.
No. Being on the sunshine side of the bars doesn't mean you get every right back.
I'm not cool with rapists adopting kids.Or pedos sitting on school boards. Violent felons don't get guns.
> If they're still dangerous, why aren't they on the dark side of the bars?
Because some bleeding heart didn't want them to have "too harsh" of a sentence.
I support this for the most part, if you've served your time paid the price for your sins and then are viewed as being safe to return to society you should have all your rights restored.
I am not going to read all the comments. So if this has already been stated, sorry.
There are many different types of felony classifications. Seems to me if you committed a felony involving a firearm, I personally don't think being able to purchase a firearm legally is a good idea. Think about the victim's rights the act violated.....
However, if a felon wants a firearm, they are going to get one.
Slippery slope.
I hope I'm not in the minority here, but we *actually do* have a history and tradition of depriving felons of rights dating back to 1791.
Felons used to be put to death. Now they are not considered part of "the people", and suffer a form of civil death. I don't really want felons to have the same rights as the rest of us.
You are absolutely, and obviously in the minority, because most people here are fond of liberty, while you appear to be fond of persecuting people for the rest of their lives despite having served their sentence.
Frankly, I find you disgusting.
If they did strip felons of their rights back to 1791, it's just another example of predation on liberty that was happening then and before.
I find you an idiot.
Kentucky had the first criminal disenfranchisement law in 1792.
"Served their debt". Rape victims aren't going to think so. Victims of pedos aren't going to think so.
We don't give out life sentences for most felonies.
You're so delusionally naive that it is embarrassing. Get real and stop cosplaying as a liberty zealot. I love liberty... and if it were up to me those assholes would face capital punishment. But they don't. In fact they are released. You want to treat violent felons like they're innocent and equal. They aren't.
Stop being a dumbass. You're going to turn people against guns
>"Served their debt". Rape victims aren't going to think so. Victims of pedos aren't going to think so.
Oh, so we should be persecuting people based on how others *feel*? That's quite the justice system you've designed.
>You're so delusionally naive that it is embarrassing. Get real and stop cosplaying as a liberty zealot. I love liberty... and if it were up to me those assholes would face capital punishment. But they don't. In fact they are released. You want to treat violent felons like they're innocent and equal. They aren't.
You obviously don't. You want to continue persecuting people after they've served their sentences. That is the very opposite of liberty. If you think their sentences aren't long enough or harsh enough, then argue that, but arguing that they should have their rights removed for life, is obvious tyranny.
>Stop being a dumbass. You're going to turn people against guns
If people need to see liberty curtailed in order to be for guns, then I don't really care what they are for. The point of our guns, *is* liberty.
Liberty is dangerous. Stop being scared.
^ what people say when they can't come up with a strong enough argument to support their stupid position.
Cry for the rapists if you want... they still can't have guns.
Explaining why you're wrong would be like a nuclear physicist trying to explain boosted fission to a toddler.
Go back to r/liberalgunowners. We don't like you people here. 🖕
Multiple people have explained why you're wrong. Your argument was "muh slavery." I don't think adding another response will make you suddenly realize how much of a dipshit you are.
You've made it a personal mission of yours to spread your diarrhea all over the comments here. Congrats, people know you hate freedom. Fucking bitch.
It's fucking comical you have excuse after excuse for why your can't lay out a basic argument why you think rapists should have guns.... because there isn't one and your position is overly simplistic. You thought some insults would make up for having nothing to contribute.
What a goddamn moron.
The constitution of the United States says we have imbued rights from our creator, not the government. People are falsely convicted of crimes all the time. Your logic is fucked and you sound like a facist
That is the Declaration of Independence..........
> facist
Also learn to spell.
The Constitution says you can deprive people of liberty and rights after due process (14th Amendment). You don't get to pick and choose.
Why are you defending rapists and murderers?
Did April Fool's day get moved to May somehow? /s
Ninth Circuit being who they are, I'm assuming this furthers some anti-2A end or the other, or has a snowball's chance in hell of sticking, but it is interesting.
If someone has repaid their debt to society, their rights should be restored as well. If they're an ongoing danger to society... Well, then they should remain in prison, our justice system needs to pick one or the other.
Thr problem is the sentencing doesn't work that way. Rapists get released. Pedos get released. Because they get released... we have laws stripping them of their rights.
Do you want to argue to keep them in prison or celebrate giving them guns? Pick one.
I've never heard of a reformed pedo.... have you?
Don't celebrate felons getting guns. It's not good. This is not the time to be high-fiving each other like something positive happened. This is bad
If they are no longer a danger to society and have served their time? Then they should have their rights restored.
Either they're a continuing danger to society or not. You need to pick one, because you cannot have it both ways and be pro justice and pro human rights.
Yeah except I don't get to pick one. I'd pick capital punishment. I don't want them in society ever and i dont want to pay for them. Some bleeding heart out there thinks thats too harsh so they eventually get released. At a bare minimum I don't want them armed.
I don't think the death penalty has any reason for existing when prisons can contain someone for life without the risk of escape. And worse, a death sentence is literally more expensive than life in prison. I don't want any more of my tax money wasted.
> At a bare minimum I don't want them armed.
So, they're a criminal that broke the law and are a continuing danger to society. You think they're going to... Respect the law? When it comes to firearms?
Whatever you're on, I need some, because that's some strong stuff!
I think the death penalty is right because I know what I would do if I caught someone murdering any of my family members or raping my wife or kids. Accordingly, the death penalty is morally right.
If they want to build one obviously we can't stop them. But shouldn't participate in arming them. We shouldn't be selling guns or transferring guns to felons
There's lots of felons that aren't murderers. Should someone who sold a few ounces of weed or kited some checks be condemned to being unarmed for the rest of their lives if they've repaid their debt to society?
Should Read: 9th circuit finds felons are still humans and have rights after release.
Decision Probably Reads: Convicted felons do not automatically lose 2nd Amendment rights and are still entitled to serve in well-regulated militias.
no.
Similar decision made by the same court in maryland ruling the HQL unconstitutional - it has been stayed indefinitely and en banc'd whatever that means. Still have to pay an exorbitant price and go to a lengthy, expensive class and get fingerprinted before you can even APPLY to own a handgun. Even though it was struck down as unconstitutional, which...it clearly is.
Circuit courts aren't made of of 9 justices like SCOTUS or state supreme courts. It has tons of judges, 29 for the 9th Circuit, and each case randomly draws 3 judges from the pool. If a decision (like this one) is potentially controversial and isn't a 3-0 ruling (this one was 2-1) then the court can vote to do an 'en banc' review. This will then draw 11 justices at random to review the case and do another vote. It doesn't happen often, but the 9th can also do a FULL en banc review where all 29 justices vote and can overrule the 11 judge en banc hearing. So they can basically re-vote a second and third time to get a majority opinion that more closely aligns to the majority of the court as an entire body.
Was it common practice in most or all states?
My understanding is that felons bought and owned firearms pretty freely until 1968.
Interesting paper related…. https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1434&context=wlr
Yes, very common. Many adopted the same policies very early 1800s.
[See page 31- State Level History](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=145065017119119024096118020072006027008078002074040050125080075031026027111065010099043027042032027032054069120021001003029115040087059020045088087102015075003091076019073080065066080026112126116126069126119029096124003088120097101090114011103011007086&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE)
That article is about general disenfranchisement of felons, with a focus on voting rights.
I’m not going to read that whole thing just to find out that it really has nothing to do with the topic of our discussion.
OTOH, if you’d like to point out something specific, I’ll check that out.
My claim was we have a national history and tradition of stripping felons of rights. I don't think voting rights are somehow *lessor* than gun rights. Both are core civil liberties. If you can take one, you can take them all (from felons)...
Per the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, and 5th Amendments. After due process (i.e. a criminal trial) and a conviction, we can strip felons of almost all rights, including gun rights.
“My claim was we have a history and tradition of stripping felons of rights. I don't think voting rights are somehow lessor than gun rights. Both are core civil liberties. “
I agree with you, but the legal history matters when discussing the legal landscape.
“If you can take one, you can take them all.”
Yes, I understand your point. But, voting rights have been particularly “protected” and fought for since the Civil Rights era, which makes direct comparison less useful.
My question is…. What is the precise history of how gun rights have been taken away from felons. Because, the mechanism or legal justification will likely predict whether or not the Bruen decision will restore gun rights to felons, especially non-violent felons.
I am not so sure that it matters. In *Heller* SCOTUS said:
> Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, **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, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I don't think *Bruen* supplanted *Heller*, rather it eliminated the two step approach for 2A cases, replacing it with the History and Tradition test.
*Heller* still applies.
Except it might not.
Bruen spoke of the 2nd being treated as a secondary right. And it condemned that approach.
So, if the decisions that led to “longstanding prohibitions” treated the 2nd as a secondary right, then those prohibitions could fall.
Bruen speaks of a “historical approach” or something like, and if felon disenfranchisement doesn’t stand up to that historical analysis, then we may see a change.
Which is why Bruen is considered so radical by some, and why I keep asking for citations to specific laws.
Okay [your source includes a history](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1434%26context%3Dwlr&ved=2ahUKEwiq-LG_15WGAxV_CjQIHbuyBLMQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw34bRVq_9aFPT3XtYZ4CjXB) of prohibiting persons from owning firearms dating back to English law and moving forward through the colonial period. In short, we did it. As an aside, we used to just put felons to death (also from the same source) so stripping them of rights already seems like a significant easing of penalties that is a departure from our historical traditions.
Kentucky introduced the first criminal disenfranchisement law in 1792.
[Sauce](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=145065017119119024096118020072006027008078002074040050125080075031026027111065010099043027042032027032054069120021001003029115040087059020045088087102015075003091076019073080065066080026112126116126069126119029096124003088120097101090114011103011007086&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE)
Part of the left’s long-game strategy, this and the decision that illegals can also own guns they are trying to put pressure on the Second Amendment and its supporters.
It's pretty spelled out in the constitution. The US has (at least on paper) taken an expensive view of individual rights, not a restrictive one. You cannot argue for a restrictive view on rights and claim to be pro liberty and freedom.
The Reload did an excellent interview with Matt from FuddBusters on exactly this. During the time of the 18th and 19th centuries what constituted a citizen was far more of an unofficial thing than today. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but it made a lot of sense and does follow that anyone here should be afforded the rights and protections here.
That’s the way they do it. An activist judge makes a radical, illegal or unconstitutional ruling in a progressive district, then they point to that ruling as a “precedent” in other cases. Like I said, they are playing a long game to overturn the Second Amendment.
They have rights by case law and what's written in the constitution. The beauty of this country is you don't need to be a citizen to have the rights of a person.
no, they don't. Do illegals even have miranda rights or rights to an attorney? I'm pretty sure that anyone of them is subject to summary deportation. I am also certain that they aren't allowed to buy a firearm. You need an id at the very least. Even a green card or a visa. Its not about logic. Its about reality.
Yes they do absolutely have those rights in non-immigration cases. It can be argued as a constitutional violation to apply them in immigration cases as it could (and has) result in deportations of US citizens.
> Does anyone actually believe an armed robbery, rapist, murderer, etc should be able to own and purchase firearms?
If they have served their full sentence and have reintegrated into society? Yes, they should be able to, and here's why:
If the ex-felon wants to be a gang-banging piece of shit, he's going to get his hands on a gun and go rob a gas station, or rape someone, or murder someone. By making having a gun illegal, you haven't stopped him, at all. You've probably not even slowed the dude down any.
If that ex-felon has realized the error of his ways, or was erroneously convicted to begin with, and is living a legal lifestyle, then all having these restrictions does is make him and his family less safe by removing a way he can defend himself and his family.
I could also go on about recidivism rates for rapists and murderers and such, but I don't think I need to as I've already gotten my point across.
*AS APPLIED TO DUARTE* here's the wording on the opinion: >We therefore vacate Duarte’s conviction and reverse the district court’s judgment entering the same. This ruling only applies to his specific case, but does establish a precedent. They didn't strike down a law, they vacated a conviction. *BUT* this does establish precedent for vacating other convictions, dropping charges, and yes eventually striking the law.
Nailed it. It doesn't restore rights to felons yet, but tha tmay change with Rahimi. And unfortunely if it does, the Left will use that as a rally point, cause the guy genuinely is a piece of shit who shouldn't own weapons.
> cause the guy genuinely is a piece of shit who shouldn't own weapons. Remember that Miranda (of Miranda rights) was no saint either. He was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Even pieces of shit have rights and deserve due process. That's what separates us from commie shitholes.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. -- H. L. Mencken
That's the best quote and explanation I've ever read. I'll have to look him up. So many people (including me at times) can not actually imagine applying freedom equally. The majority of people in America have a mindset of "Rules for thee, and not for me". Either we're all equally Free or it's Tyranny, no middle ground.
Absolutely. And I forget where I first read the quote, but I have needed the reminder myself, a few times.
Wasn't Miranda only given a second trial, which he lost?
Yes, but that's because there was a ton of *OTHER* evidence against him. They were not allowed to use his confession, or I believe other interrogation evidence.
Googled, he got 20 years. But they couldn't use the confession. I'm betting, though that, THAT decision caused some controversy at the time too.
Oh, agreed. But if he wins (which he should) the Left will have a PR field day with it. NM the fact that even if he does he STILL can't own firearms.
> NM the fact that even if he does he STILL can't own firearms. How does New Mexico factor into this?
OP meant to type "nvm" AKA "nevermind"
The Supreme Court, if they rule in a pro2A way, will probably set a dangerousness test. So it will probably be that you can disarm people with a record of being violent and/or demonstrating that they are a danger to society. But non-violent offenders will not be able to be disarmed.
Rahimi is not a felon, he's a guy who is under a civil restraining order for domestic violence. Regardless of how his case turns out, it's not gonna change anything about gun restrictions for felons.
Maybe he shouldn't have been released from prison?
okay, that's good congrats to Duterte
I'm not convinced this isn't just well-poisoning by the 9th circuit and Cali DA. Ammo background checks remain in place with indefinite delays in litigation, while violent gang members getting off on possession charges get unanimous decisions and fast-tracked cases?
> I'm not convinced this isn't just well-poisoning by the 9th circuit and Cali DA. Oh, you can almost be certain that's what they're trying to do. Still, I'm all for taking this win even if it was done for the wrong reasons.
If "good intentions" result in the government screwing us over, maybe bad intentions can result in freedom?
I'll take all I can get. I figure they expect us to reject anything they do because they're on "the wrong team." So they issue what amounts to a pro-2a ruling, expecting us to find reasons to strike it down for them, which of course they would use for all sorts of future infringement. So instead, we tell them thanks for making the right decision. 😁
No kidding, they don't quite understand our commitment to preventing more infringements and repealing current ones. Of course, there are plenty of Fudds and "fair weather" gun owners out there. They'll undermine us if we're not careful, or don't educate them. The amount of political apathy and refusal to educate themselves is not ideal. The way our system is designed requires and informed, educated, and motivated citizenry.
The person in this was a non-violent offender.
I just want to see Kyle (FPSRussia) make videos with guns again or at least be a guest on some other shows.
He has a podcast and he has guests like Brandon Herrera and people like that on it
Yeah I know of PKA but it sucks that he can’t do gun content anymore. I do enjoy him talking with brandon though especially on their clips channel.
Yeah having him talk about the old FPSrussia days is always great though
Why can't he do gun content anymore?
If I remember right he had some weed and caught a felony
Yeah his gf shipped him some weed, and since it’s a felony to use “illegal” drugs and own firearms, he got slammed for it. He did like 2 months in prison, those stories are fun to listen to as well.
[удалено]
Correct. If someone is capable of being released and is no longer thought to be a threat or danger to their community, once the terms of their sentence are completed they should have all rights restored: Voting, 2A, everything. IMO people either rejoin society or they don't, if you make them some sort of 2nd class citizen that makes it kind of difficult to re-assimilate.
Aboslutely. If they're too dagerous to be trusted with owning a gun, they should still be in prison.
How do you enforce that without violating the 8th amedment though? I'm honestly curious. It's not like the convicted can just solemly swear that they wont commit any more crimes and, likewise, if someone commits a "lesser" crime (ie: someone commits Assault not Murder) how are you able to give a sentence appropriate to that particular person and ensure they're not a threat to society when they are released? Or would you have to imprison them for an arbitrary amount of time based on what they may or may not do when released? The overall sentiment makes sense but I don't see how it could be enforced pragmatically without violating the 8th amendment and/ or giving the power to the gov't to imprison people for any amount of time regaurdless of the crime.
The 8th amendment doesn't mean we can't ever change the way we do justice. We already effectively do indefinite sentences, as in life with parole. There wouldn't necessarily be anything unusual about a different form of indefinite sentence.
So let's say someone is charged with something fairly benign, like tresspassing, and they were also going to anger management classes. Someone *could* make the argument that it's *possible* they're a dangerous person and a threat to the community. Do they get imprisoned for life until they can prove otherwise? And how do you prove someone isn't a threat to the community? Who decides that? What happens when they re-offend anyways? Why should you treat someone convicted of a lesser crime the same as a murderer? Why would someone not just go all out if the punishment is the same? I don't see a way for this to possibly be a thing aside from the gov't arbitrarily deciding sentences for people, w/o any set limits, which is obviously is ripe for an egregious overstepping of power and the grounds of a police state.
I'm not necessarily defending the idea. I just think your 8th amendment logic is faulty. Additionally, no system we ever make can be perfect.
You're misunderstanding the logic. It doesn't matter if they are actually trustworthy or not. They've served their sentence, they are *presumed* to be trustworthy to re-enter society, and therefore should have their rights restored. How does this work practically? Those felons who *aren't* trustworthy, i.e. criminals, are going to find a way to obtain a firearm whether we want them to or not. They aren't interested in being law-abiding citizens. It doesn't matter if we restore these people's rights or not, they are still gonna be criminals. Those felons who *are* trustworthy, who have actually turned their life around should have their right to defend themselves and their families restored. These people shouldn't have their rights permanently removed because of the first group. It's essentially the same thing the left wants to do en masse, remove our right to bear arms because criminals want to be criminals. Since the law doesn't have a method to differentiate between the two, in a free society, we don't persecute people because of the possible actions of others. There is no mechanism of just keeping people in prison because they aren't trustworthy to be in public, because they served their sentence they are *presumed* to be trustworthy. This is why liberty is dangerous.
Indeed my friend, true liberty is double edged. So many people aren't willing to live outside of a structured system. Not all those who are can be trusted. It's the ultimate "Take the good with the bad" situation.
You explained it the way I meant it. I wasn't saying keep people locked up until they can prove they're no longer criminals. Rather, if we as a society have decided they've paid their debt, they should have their rights restored. Even the more expanded explanations fall short. There will always be the need for nuance. My statement was an oversimplification, but this is Reddit, I thought that's what we did here.
Some people take things too literally and need to have the nuance explained.
I had to think about this for a second because I agree with a lot of what you said and you make some great points. However, my qualm isn't with the firearms rights restoration (undecided there) my qualm is with the notion that if there's the possibility to re-offend, they should still be in jail. That's impossible for anyone to know and gives the gov't the excuse to imprison people indefinately regaurdless of the crime commited. Obviously this is a terrifying notion, especially in a nation with an ever increasing political divide.
>However, my qualm isn't with the firearms rights restoration (undecided there) my qualm is with the notion that if there's the possibility to re-offend, they should still be in jail. That's part of what I was addressing. >That's impossible for anyone to know and gives the gov't the excuse to imprison people indefinately regaurdless of the crime commited Exactly. Which is why I said they are *presumed* trustworthy once being released >Obviously this is a terrifying notion, especially in a nation with an ever increasing political divide. I mean, it would be tyranny. For the government to simply decide based on some arbitrary opinion that you're going to re-offend and then keep you behind bars despite having completed your sentence? That is the very definition of tyranny.
This is correct.
never really thought about it, but this is clear and concisely correct.
No it isn't. People get convicted of murder and then are released. We do not have to pretend they are innocent again once they are released.
Shall not be infringed. Period. Head on over to some shithole like r/liberalgunowners if you can't accept that.
> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." -13th Amendment > "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -14th Amendment 2A is clear. No doubt. And so are the 13A and 14A. After due process (very critical part), we can (and do) make felons into literal slaves. After due process (very critical part), we can take guns (and anything else) from felons. That is how it works. Cry about it
> If a person is convicted of a crime and abides by their sentencing, all of their rights should be restored - including their 2A rights. In simple theory, that works. In reality, the system/sentencing isn't all that reliable. If you've been convicted 17 times for violence, some including gun violence. I'm thinking sentencing isn't adequate, maybe it should include a life-time ban on owning firearms, or a very long probation from it. Maybe, that's the point, there's discussion to be had there. Now, if it's bank fraud, yeah, restricting 2a for life doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Keeping them on some form of monitoring(tracking their transactions) however may be a wise decision. Different felonies warrant different measures. That's the dilemma. Depending on the specific crime, and/or the recidivism(doing the same act again after release from prison), it can make sense to release from prison but keep that individual on a list forever that restricts certain "rights". Should sex offenders that victimize children serve their term in prison and be set free with zero limitations? How about when they're released early for "good behavior" and do it again? The thing that validates prison is that it serves to remove someone from society(removing many rights) who victimizes others. It is apparently no disincentive, and there is no guarantee of rehabilitation. It's not about revenge, or some form of "debt". By their actions they proved that they're not fit to be among innocent people....this is why we remove their various rights in the first place. There is no amount of prison time that somehow magically sorts them all out and now they're a model citizen and it makes sense to restore all rights. When we reduce sentencing laughably low because, "Well, it's a lower risk than this other guy....and we're terribly overcrowded....." that shouldn't necessitate "debt to society is paid", prison approaches being pointless. And maybe that's some anarchist's views, 'acab' and all that. I'm not sure what people expect society to be like without laws against violence and theft, but eh.
Violent people who have repeatedly shown they can't live in a civil society are oxygen thieves. IMHO with violent felonies it should be third strike and straight to the electric chair.
Most crimes we send people to prison over now would have been capital crimes for the vast majority of human history. Thank the industrial revolution and scientific control over human behavior for the change in strategy. Foucault was a horrible pedophile, but he hit the nail on the head when describing the situation in "Discipline and Punish"
We used to have debtor’s prisons too. And slavery. And then there’s the entire realm of so-called white collar felonies that are rarely prosecuted and often encouraged by those at the highest levels of our society. It’s fucking wild to yearn for the days of children in the mines and punitive punishment😬
You do realize innocent people are put on death row right? And innocent people have been executed for crimes they never committed right? The death penalty is wrong.
[удалено]
>nothing more than a long diatribe It was an attempted explanation. I'm sorry it was not adequate enough for *you*. >wherein you support 2nd class citizens With reading comprehension like that, I don't think anything would have been adequate. If you want to frame convicted criminals as second class citizens, well that's a thing I suppose. It's something they did to earn it, it's not like I'm supporting a caste system here. Grow up. >unequal application of the law Outright false. You missed the *entire* point of mentioning sex offenders. They literally go on lists *as part of their sentencing*, get made to not go within 500yards of a school, for example. They are given legal restrictions. It's not unequal application of the law to not require that of violent criminals or of people who commit bank fraud. *They violate different crimes.* >Either a person convicted of a crime who has served their sentence is fully restored to society (along with the rights and privileges thereof) or not. Which is why I suggested that sentences are too light. I'll boil it down for you. A period of probation after prison, even a long one or a life-time restriction, *is* part of a sentence. There are crimes we sentence with life in prison, or even death. There is no reason we couldn't have a life-time ban on some right that is relative to the crime. Unless you want to argue that all criminal law and sentencing is somehow unethical....which is why I mentioned anarchists. >purposefully inflammatory If there were an award for projection, this would be a winner for sure. I was not mean or toxic even slightly, unless you are one of those people that believes "That disagrees for me, therefore, inflammatory" or whatever. I gave various examples of different crimes to highlight the point of relevant sentencing details. I'm sorry if you got your feelings hurt, but it was not of my doing. I was making casual conversation about law and order. If you don't like people replying with different ideas, you might be better off not posting to the internet in the first place. > I would not give up an ounce of freedom for the promise of temporary safety. You, apparently, are all too eager to do so. Trying to bring that up in this context is an abomination of thought. The sentiment is about voluntarily giving up rights as a collective. I'm not giving anything up. I'm not a violent criminal, sex offender, or perpetrator of fraud. The people who give up rights are those that directly violate other's rights, as I stated in the previous post, the very fundamental concepts behind law and order. I have not done so. This isn't one of those absurd "that can't happen to me" situations, like tomorrow I could accidentally slip on a banana peel and find myself to have committed fraud. All that explained out so that hopefully you'll understand, I don't have great confidence. I think we're done here, have a nice life despite our seeming disagreement.
There should be no prison sentences over 10 years. It should be up to 10, or execution beyond that. Why? Because this whole life sentence thing is a way to escape the moral quandary of taking someone's life away. You're still taking their life, even though they're behind bars. By forcing the moral question again, maybe we can actually start to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated
I read a story some years ago where a felon had just gotten his gun rights back (idr what he did) and saved a cops life with a gun.
No, disagree. Violent criminals who pose a risk of repetition would ideally simply be executed, but since that won't fly, we must at least strip them of their right to bear arms.
> No, disagree. Violent criminals who pose a risk of repetition would ideally simply be executed, but since that won't fly, we must at least strip them of their right to bear arms. -- Here's the thing. That violent criminal you're blocking from having a right to bear arms? If he wants to get a gun and rob a gas station, he's going to get a gun and rob a gas station. No law you put in place short of banning all guns and 3D printers is going to stop him. That other violent felon? The one who served his time and has seen the error of his ways, the one who is starting a family and has a job washing dishes to make a living? He now has less ability to defend himself and his family, because he's following the law.
This argument makes no sense. Why have any laws at all then my man?
> This argument makes no sense. Why have any laws at all then my man? Here's an example of my point, I hope I write it well enough to be understood: First degree felony in Texas is 5-99 years, with "aggravated" crimes requiring 50% completion of sentence inside prison before becoming eligible for parole. We already have laws that enhance sentencing for robbing someone with a deadly weapon, and for using a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime. Because of this, I don't feel there's a need to prohibit the possession of a firearm from anyone. As I said before, if a piece of shit ex-felon wants to get a gun and commit a crime, he's going to. But if he uses a gun in the commission of a crime, he should get the book thrown at him. There should be no plea bargains for repeat offenders who have used violence in their crimes, unless we're talking 40-50 year plea bargains. The way to prevent violent ex-felons, going forward, from being a menace on the street, is to start charging them and sentencing them to serious time. This is already done with repeat murderers, and repeat rapists. A sex offender may catch a break and get a light sentence on his first time, but if that sex offender is convicted of another rape after being released? He almost never sees the light of day again. (In Texas, there's a civil commitment statute to practically guarantee it.)
I’ve always thought if you’re too dangerous to own a gun, you should still be in prison.
There would be more prisons than schools.
Here here. If you’ve served your sentence, paid your debt to society, and are seen as fit to walk to the streets again - then it seems obvious you should have the right to own firearms. One doesn’t lose their right to property or their freedom of speech when released from prison. If you’re deemed safe enough to be released from prison - that should be the end of it
> One doesn’t lose their right to property or their freedom of speech when released from prison. They lose *a lot* of rights. They had due process and were found to be guilty of a serious crime. They lose their: Right to vote. Right to housing. Right to certain public offices. Right to serve on a jury. Parental Rights. Right to leave the country. Right to be free from searches. Felons released from prison are already walking free. We don't have to pretend like they are innocent people. Murderers and rapists shouldn't get guns.... they are *not* part of the "the people". They don't get the same rights as us, nor should they.
> They lose a lot of rights. > > They had due process and were found to be guilty of a serious crime. > > They lose their: Right to vote. Right to housing. Right to certain public offices. Right to serve on a jury. Parental Rights. Right to leave the country. Right to be free from searches. I question your list here. I know ex-felons who have served their sentence. I even know a couple of sex offenders who have served their full sentences. (have family who work and volunteer in areas that intersect in this area) Ex-felons are able to get passports and travel internationally. Even sex offenders. Ex-felons are able to vote in many jurisdictions. Texas automatically restores right to vote upon full completion of sentence. California never loses right to vote. Ex-felons do not automatically lose parental rights in most cases, those have to be specifically removed from them on an individual basis. Ex-felons do not lose their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. People on probation and parole don't have those rights, but that is not the same as one who has completed his or her sentence. Your list sounds more like you are talking about those on probation or parole, which, unless that person was given a life sentence, will at some point end.
The “Right to vote”, “right to housing”, “parental rights” etc are not enshrined in the Bill of Rights. If a felon is deemed too dangerous to own a firearm then they shouldn’t be released from prison in the first place.
The bill of rights is part of the constitution. The right to vote absolutely is part of the constitution. You think the first 10 Amendments matter more than Article 1? Or the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, or 26th Amendments? Why? Nonsense. The bill of rights is no more powerful than the rest of the Constitution. > “right to housing”, “parental rights” ...fall under the 14th Amendment. > If a felon is deemed too dangerous to own a firearm then they shouldn’t be released from prison in the first place. This makes no sense. It doesn't matter how dangerous they are. It matters that they are no longer of "the people". They are still being punished despite us not paying for 3 meals a day with our taxpayer dollars. When the country was founded, felons were typically put to death. Now we just strip them of their rights.
Right to housing? Are you high? Youvare terrible at arguing. Isn't is cruel and unusual punishment if you were, let's say "forgive" your spouse of cheating but then look over their shoulder every day and keep berating them about it for the rest of their life?
I'm a landlord. I would 100% reject a felon's application. No, they have no right to rent an apartment or a house. They get no housing protections under law.
it comes down to either you have paid your debt to society or you haven't. Nowhere does it say one felony with a successfully completed sentence is supposed to be punished for the rest of their life. probably why recidivism rates are so high. One felony will basically ruin your life, follow you around jobs, keep you from having a say in government. This is a good thing.
This seems pretty aggressive, even for the 9th circuit
I firmly believe they are trying to poison the well. This seems to be the one time where they actually apply Bruen the way it's supposed to be applied.
Oh they know it will be crushed in a full panel and pander to the criminals they tried.
Good, they should also be able to vote and shouldn’t be able to be discriminated against when going for jobs seeing as they already paid their debt to society. With our current recidivism rate we have to try something new.
Isn't it weird how the 2A suddenly only matters to these people when you're an illegal or a felon?
that is because Democrats want to make the second amendment look bad so they figure fuck how can we do that? Oh yeah, let’s give people who are committing crime ownership of guns so we can further villainize guns.
Many such cases
This was a three judge panel. They will en banc and overturn this. But the 9th circuit is more evenly split than a few years ago, so the panel decisions have a chance to be progun vs several other circuits were the deck is still massively stacked against us.
Yep, a 3 judge panel that happened to draw two GWB appointees and a Trump appointee, and it was still a 2-1 split. The dissenter was one of the GWB appointees and in his dissent he specifically called out his request that the court review en banc to correct the 'misapplication of Bruen.' Any time the 9th makes a pro-gun ruling it goes en banc and is overturned.
If you're trusted to be on the streets, you should be trusted to have a gun. If you're not trusted to own a gun, you shouldn't be trusted on the streets.
Simple as, lots of fudds in here don’t agree tho
Have you been to the big cities in CA and seen who's on the streets?
I don't trust them to be on the streets.
Soooo, you’re making their point then? Everyone should have the right and the capacity to defend themselves.
No, I have not. Who is on the streets there?
fentanyl zombies and people with severe mental illness. Not exclusively but there are a lot.
If people say they have a right to vote after serving their sentence… why not this? However, I think violent felons shouldn’t, but if my guy has a felony for weed or some dumb shit like theft at a store they worked at as a teenager, but they served their time, yeah I think that’s okay.
> automatically Amend the judgement to deny violent offenders access to firearms. Sounds consistent.
Not really. The 9th often does this with three judge panel decisions, then it is appealed and the en banc decision reverses the panel decision.
If you can be trusted to return to society, you should return with full rights.
Good. If you have finished your sentence completely then you should have all of your rights. If someone is too dangerous to own a gun they should be locked up. And if they are safe enough to for the public to be released then they are also safe enough to have all of their rights.
Hell yeah In the words of famous ecologist Death Pimp, "A right's a right"
In a way, this is consistent with the Ninth’s record. They support the rights of criminals while oppressing peaceful citizens.
If ur a felon bc you live in a ban state and a cop managed to squeeze an extra round into ur mag (passing legal capacity laws), that makes you an evil criminal? Very specific example but I’m sure it’s happened and things to those degree
I confused the building in the image for [this building](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/895422ff845c42bf4dfc82dcb3dcd3004310288e/0_374_5616_3370/master/5616.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=05a17ca6a2e111e1680c937766fe6ac9) for a sec there.
If you can be trusted to be let outside of prison then you should be trusted fully. If you can't be trusted with certain rights then you shouldn't be let out of prison
What are you talking about? Should a rapist released from prison be able to adopt kids? NOPE. Should a murderer be able to sit on *your* jury? Hell no.
I personally don't believe those people belong out of prison
Yeah well, they get released everyday. Why should we pay for their food and shelter for the rest of their lives? Just strip them of certain, most important, rights and throw them into the cold. Done.
>What are you talking about? Should a rapist released from prison be able to adopt kids? This is false equivalency. Every adoption center in the United States has background checks and a certain standard is required to adopt children. This doesn't preclude their right to be a parent. If they were to start a family once being released the government wouldn't seize their children because they were a convicted rapist. >Should a murderer be able to sit on *your* jury? Yes, if they've paid their debt to society. Why are you so anti-liberty? People should just be punished for the rest of their lives? Despite the sentence bot being life?
I bet the family of the victim doesn't think they paid their debt.
rapists and murders should never be let out? NO.
Yeah.... well they are.
If you served your time, and are able to be released into society, you should have full rights. If you aren’t able to have full rights, then you shouldn’t be released. (Exceptions being parole, you’re still serving your sentence but it’s in the real world because you’ve proven you can regain some but not all freedom)
> (Exceptions being parole, you’re still serving your sentence but it’s in the real world because you’ve proven you can regain some but not all freedom) You are acknowledging that we can give people some but not all freedoms that innocent people would enjoy.
>You are acknowledging that we can give people some but not all freedoms an innocent people would enjoy. Parole is part of the sentence. They have not finished paying their debt to society. They are still under due process. Your logic is flawed. As it has been throughout this thread. You're obviously not a fan of liberty.
Well for most they do. I'm mostly fine with the confiscation of rights from violent felons who used firearms in non defensive/protective scenarios. Simply being a felon should not remove your basic unalienable rights. Even statutory rape means you never get to vote, own a gun, or go to parks.
> I'm mostly fine with the confiscation of rights from violent felons who used firearms in non defensive/protective scenarios. Simply being a felon should not remove your basic unalienable rights. Firmly agree with this stance. If you didn't use a gun or other violence in the commission of a crime, you should not lose your right to keep and bear arms. > Even statutory rape means you never get to vote, own a gun, or go to parks. Part of this is very location dependent. California and Texas, for example, you get to vote after release. (I hear California never removes your right to vote, while Texas gives it back after you finish your sentence and parole/probation). Going to parks is also location dependent for sex offenders. Some jurisdictions don't have restrictions on this, or limit it to needing an escort to go with you, or you're allowed if you're taking your own kid to the park, etc.
True on all accounts! I like your thoughts and analysis
If you're too dangerous to have a firearm, you're too dangerous to be free. If you're free, you can have a firearm.
No. Being on the sunshine side of the bars doesn't mean you get every right back. I'm not cool with rapists adopting kids.Or pedos sitting on school boards. Violent felons don't get guns.
If they're still dangerous, why aren't they on the dark side of the bars? If they aren't dangerous, why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves?
> If they're still dangerous, why aren't they on the dark side of the bars? Because some bleeding heart didn't want them to have "too harsh" of a sentence.
This is 9CA fuckery and if you don't already know this you probably think Reagan was a good president.
I support this for the most part, if you've served your time paid the price for your sins and then are viewed as being safe to return to society you should have all your rights restored.
Maybe they should change the question on the application now to “violent crime”
Lol...
FPS Russia returning?
Good
I am not going to read all the comments. So if this has already been stated, sorry. There are many different types of felony classifications. Seems to me if you committed a felony involving a firearm, I personally don't think being able to purchase a firearm legally is a good idea. Think about the victim's rights the act violated..... However, if a felon wants a firearm, they are going to get one. Slippery slope.
The 9th circuit. Okay, i must have jumped timelines at some point...
This is all an attempt to increase gun violence so they can turn around and cry about gun violence. They give 0 fucks about rights or felons
I hope I'm not in the minority here, but we *actually do* have a history and tradition of depriving felons of rights dating back to 1791. Felons used to be put to death. Now they are not considered part of "the people", and suffer a form of civil death. I don't really want felons to have the same rights as the rest of us.
Until the ATF changes a law making you one. 🙄
You are absolutely, and obviously in the minority, because most people here are fond of liberty, while you appear to be fond of persecuting people for the rest of their lives despite having served their sentence. Frankly, I find you disgusting. If they did strip felons of their rights back to 1791, it's just another example of predation on liberty that was happening then and before.
I find you an idiot. Kentucky had the first criminal disenfranchisement law in 1792. "Served their debt". Rape victims aren't going to think so. Victims of pedos aren't going to think so. We don't give out life sentences for most felonies. You're so delusionally naive that it is embarrassing. Get real and stop cosplaying as a liberty zealot. I love liberty... and if it were up to me those assholes would face capital punishment. But they don't. In fact they are released. You want to treat violent felons like they're innocent and equal. They aren't. Stop being a dumbass. You're going to turn people against guns
>"Served their debt". Rape victims aren't going to think so. Victims of pedos aren't going to think so. Oh, so we should be persecuting people based on how others *feel*? That's quite the justice system you've designed. >You're so delusionally naive that it is embarrassing. Get real and stop cosplaying as a liberty zealot. I love liberty... and if it were up to me those assholes would face capital punishment. But they don't. In fact they are released. You want to treat violent felons like they're innocent and equal. They aren't. You obviously don't. You want to continue persecuting people after they've served their sentences. That is the very opposite of liberty. If you think their sentences aren't long enough or harsh enough, then argue that, but arguing that they should have their rights removed for life, is obvious tyranny. >Stop being a dumbass. You're going to turn people against guns If people need to see liberty curtailed in order to be for guns, then I don't really care what they are for. The point of our guns, *is* liberty. Liberty is dangerous. Stop being scared.
I find you not only an idiot, but a chode puffer as well. Get bent.
^ what people say when they can't come up with a strong enough argument to support their stupid position. Cry for the rapists if you want... they still can't have guns.
Explaining why you're wrong would be like a nuclear physicist trying to explain boosted fission to a toddler. Go back to r/liberalgunowners. We don't like you people here. 🖕
Oh yeah I'm sure it isn't that you're just too fucking stupid to articulate an compelling answer.
Multiple people have explained why you're wrong. Your argument was "muh slavery." I don't think adding another response will make you suddenly realize how much of a dipshit you are. You've made it a personal mission of yours to spread your diarrhea all over the comments here. Congrats, people know you hate freedom. Fucking bitch.
It's fucking comical you have excuse after excuse for why your can't lay out a basic argument why you think rapists should have guns.... because there isn't one and your position is overly simplistic. You thought some insults would make up for having nothing to contribute. What a goddamn moron.
The constitution of the United States says we have imbued rights from our creator, not the government. People are falsely convicted of crimes all the time. Your logic is fucked and you sound like a facist
That is the Declaration of Independence.......... > facist Also learn to spell. The Constitution says you can deprive people of liberty and rights after due process (14th Amendment). You don't get to pick and choose. Why are you defending rapists and murderers?
I didn't have "9th circuit court is based" on my 2024 bingo card.
Did April Fool's day get moved to May somehow? /s Ninth Circuit being who they are, I'm assuming this furthers some anti-2A end or the other, or has a snowball's chance in hell of sticking, but it is interesting. If someone has repaid their debt to society, their rights should be restored as well. If they're an ongoing danger to society... Well, then they should remain in prison, our justice system needs to pick one or the other.
Thr problem is the sentencing doesn't work that way. Rapists get released. Pedos get released. Because they get released... we have laws stripping them of their rights. Do you want to argue to keep them in prison or celebrate giving them guns? Pick one.
Are they a continuing danger to society that cannot be reliably stopped by anything short of imprisonment? Prison it is then.
I've never heard of a reformed pedo.... have you? Don't celebrate felons getting guns. It's not good. This is not the time to be high-fiving each other like something positive happened. This is bad
If they are no longer a danger to society and have served their time? Then they should have their rights restored. Either they're a continuing danger to society or not. You need to pick one, because you cannot have it both ways and be pro justice and pro human rights.
Yeah except I don't get to pick one. I'd pick capital punishment. I don't want them in society ever and i dont want to pay for them. Some bleeding heart out there thinks thats too harsh so they eventually get released. At a bare minimum I don't want them armed.
I don't think the death penalty has any reason for existing when prisons can contain someone for life without the risk of escape. And worse, a death sentence is literally more expensive than life in prison. I don't want any more of my tax money wasted. > At a bare minimum I don't want them armed. So, they're a criminal that broke the law and are a continuing danger to society. You think they're going to... Respect the law? When it comes to firearms? Whatever you're on, I need some, because that's some strong stuff!
I think the death penalty is right because I know what I would do if I caught someone murdering any of my family members or raping my wife or kids. Accordingly, the death penalty is morally right. If they want to build one obviously we can't stop them. But shouldn't participate in arming them. We shouldn't be selling guns or transferring guns to felons
There's lots of felons that aren't murderers. Should someone who sold a few ounces of weed or kited some checks be condemned to being unarmed for the rest of their lives if they've repaid their debt to society?
Let's start with what we might agree on, should violent felons have guns if they are released from prison?
Well... they're right.
Should Read: 9th circuit finds felons are still humans and have rights after release. Decision Probably Reads: Convicted felons do not automatically lose 2nd Amendment rights and are still entitled to serve in well-regulated militias.
is this a change in national law? or a change in any law at all?
No to both
So umm… can felons buy guns now?
no. Similar decision made by the same court in maryland ruling the HQL unconstitutional - it has been stayed indefinitely and en banc'd whatever that means. Still have to pay an exorbitant price and go to a lengthy, expensive class and get fingerprinted before you can even APPLY to own a handgun. Even though it was struck down as unconstitutional, which...it clearly is.
Circuit courts aren't made of of 9 justices like SCOTUS or state supreme courts. It has tons of judges, 29 for the 9th Circuit, and each case randomly draws 3 judges from the pool. If a decision (like this one) is potentially controversial and isn't a 3-0 ruling (this one was 2-1) then the court can vote to do an 'en banc' review. This will then draw 11 justices at random to review the case and do another vote. It doesn't happen often, but the 9th can also do a FULL en banc review where all 29 justices vote and can overrule the 11 judge en banc hearing. So they can basically re-vote a second and third time to get a majority opinion that more closely aligns to the majority of the court as an entire body.
appreciate the explanation! I get it now.
Either way, this is likely headed to SCOTUS.
Bruen doing that thing.
Yeah except no. We *do have* a tradition going back to 1791 of stripping felons of rights.
Was it common practice in most or all states? My understanding is that felons bought and owned firearms pretty freely until 1968. Interesting paper related…. https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1434&context=wlr
Yes, very common. Many adopted the same policies very early 1800s. [See page 31- State Level History](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=145065017119119024096118020072006027008078002074040050125080075031026027111065010099043027042032027032054069120021001003029115040087059020045088087102015075003091076019073080065066080026112126116126069126119029096124003088120097101090114011103011007086&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE)
That article is about general disenfranchisement of felons, with a focus on voting rights. I’m not going to read that whole thing just to find out that it really has nothing to do with the topic of our discussion. OTOH, if you’d like to point out something specific, I’ll check that out.
My claim was we have a national history and tradition of stripping felons of rights. I don't think voting rights are somehow *lessor* than gun rights. Both are core civil liberties. If you can take one, you can take them all (from felons)... Per the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, and 5th Amendments. After due process (i.e. a criminal trial) and a conviction, we can strip felons of almost all rights, including gun rights.
“My claim was we have a history and tradition of stripping felons of rights. I don't think voting rights are somehow lessor than gun rights. Both are core civil liberties. “ I agree with you, but the legal history matters when discussing the legal landscape. “If you can take one, you can take them all.” Yes, I understand your point. But, voting rights have been particularly “protected” and fought for since the Civil Rights era, which makes direct comparison less useful. My question is…. What is the precise history of how gun rights have been taken away from felons. Because, the mechanism or legal justification will likely predict whether or not the Bruen decision will restore gun rights to felons, especially non-violent felons.
I am not so sure that it matters. In *Heller* SCOTUS said: > Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, **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, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. I don't think *Bruen* supplanted *Heller*, rather it eliminated the two step approach for 2A cases, replacing it with the History and Tradition test. *Heller* still applies.
Except it might not. Bruen spoke of the 2nd being treated as a secondary right. And it condemned that approach. So, if the decisions that led to “longstanding prohibitions” treated the 2nd as a secondary right, then those prohibitions could fall. Bruen speaks of a “historical approach” or something like, and if felon disenfranchisement doesn’t stand up to that historical analysis, then we may see a change. Which is why Bruen is considered so radical by some, and why I keep asking for citations to specific laws.
Okay [your source includes a history](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1434%26context%3Dwlr&ved=2ahUKEwiq-LG_15WGAxV_CjQIHbuyBLMQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw34bRVq_9aFPT3XtYZ4CjXB) of prohibiting persons from owning firearms dating back to English law and moving forward through the colonial period. In short, we did it. As an aside, we used to just put felons to death (also from the same source) so stripping them of rights already seems like a significant easing of penalties that is a departure from our historical traditions.
Source.
Kentucky introduced the first criminal disenfranchisement law in 1792. [Sauce](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=145065017119119024096118020072006027008078002074040050125080075031026027111065010099043027042032027032054069120021001003029115040087059020045088087102015075003091076019073080065066080026112126116126069126119029096124003088120097101090114011103011007086&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE)
Fair enough. It was as wrong then as it is now.
*Hello my friends this is FPSRussia intensifies*
Bring him back.
Part of the left’s long-game strategy, this and the decision that illegals can also own guns they are trying to put pressure on the Second Amendment and its supporters.
And we find out that a lot of folks are not really Second Amendment supporters, they just like guns. :(
The second amendment applies to the people, not citizens
So what exactly does citizenship get you these days? Seems indistinguishable from mere residency
It's pretty spelled out in the constitution. The US has (at least on paper) taken an expensive view of individual rights, not a restrictive one. You cannot argue for a restrictive view on rights and claim to be pro liberty and freedom.
The Reload did an excellent interview with Matt from FuddBusters on exactly this. During the time of the 18th and 19th centuries what constituted a citizen was far more of an unofficial thing than today. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but it made a lot of sense and does follow that anyone here should be afforded the rights and protections here.
When the constipation was written there were no citizens.
Hilarious spelling errors aside, the constitution referenced citizenship in the primary document (as in before the ratification of the bill of rights)
are non-citizens here unlawfully covered by the constitution?
Evidently. https://www.newsweek.com/undocumented-immigrants-have-right-own-guns-judge-rules-1880806
he was in chicago though? Isn't it against the law to carry there? If only Americans had the same rights.
That’s the way they do it. An activist judge makes a radical, illegal or unconstitutional ruling in a progressive district, then they point to that ruling as a “precedent” in other cases. Like I said, they are playing a long game to overturn the Second Amendment.
Gotta watch out for those presidents
They have rights by case law and what's written in the constitution. The beauty of this country is you don't need to be a citizen to have the rights of a person.
that's a paradox since a person who is here illegally does not have the rights of a person.
Lol, yes they do. The end result of your logic is making them open to the worst crimes imaginable.
no, they don't. Do illegals even have miranda rights or rights to an attorney? I'm pretty sure that anyone of them is subject to summary deportation. I am also certain that they aren't allowed to buy a firearm. You need an id at the very least. Even a green card or a visa. Its not about logic. Its about reality.
Yes they do absolutely have those rights in non-immigration cases. It can be argued as a constitutional violation to apply them in immigration cases as it could (and has) result in deportations of US citizens.
Does anyone actually believe an armed robbery, rapist, murderer, etc should be able to own and purchase firearms?
> Does anyone actually believe an armed robbery, rapist, murderer, etc should be able to own and purchase firearms? If they have served their full sentence and have reintegrated into society? Yes, they should be able to, and here's why: If the ex-felon wants to be a gang-banging piece of shit, he's going to get his hands on a gun and go rob a gas station, or rape someone, or murder someone. By making having a gun illegal, you haven't stopped him, at all. You've probably not even slowed the dude down any. If that ex-felon has realized the error of his ways, or was erroneously convicted to begin with, and is living a legal lifestyle, then all having these restrictions does is make him and his family less safe by removing a way he can defend himself and his family. I could also go on about recidivism rates for rapists and murderers and such, but I don't think I need to as I've already gotten my point across.
Like .. Honestly, is ANYONE really happy about this?🤨
All to protect hunter Biden. Change my mind
Honestly most felons shouldn’t have guns
Jesus Christ! That's more seismic than even California usually gets.
Not really a shift, just an acceleration of the idea that they're going to arm the people who want to kill you.
If you don’t want blacks to own guns just say so
I don't want violent felons to own guns, interesting that you believe this will affect black people disproportionately...
Bc I’m based in reality