Ninth Circuit: Felons can have firearms.

[DoubleDuty]

Basically says the same thing about the 1st ..no laws abridging freedom of speech but many laws and restrictions exists that do that very thing.

If you stood in the street and yelled to your neighbor you were going to kill him, you'd probably get arrested.

If you walked down the street naked..arrested

If you threatened a politician...you'd be arrested and charged.

Are these restrictions against the constitution?

Except it is the only one that says no infringements

 

[MountainGirl]

Basically says the same thing about the 1st ..no laws abridging freedom of speech but many laws and restrictions exists that do that very thing.

If you stood in the street and yelled to your neighbor you were going to kill him, you'd probably get arrested.

If you walked down the street naked..arrested

If you threatened a politician...you'd be arrested and charged.

Are these restrictions against the constitution?

If my poor memory serves, there have been many cases brought wherein a violation of a person's 1st amendment rights were argued; some prevailed, some did not. But in each case, it was resolved (limited) to the action of the individual...i.e., no law was changed.

In this case, and a growing handful of other 2A cases, the law itself is found to be unconstitutional. And that's why it's cause for celebration.

Perpetual IMO applied.

 

[popsgarland]

Three (3) Atlanta police officers shot responding to a call. If the shooter wasn't
a felon. he/she is now. But that's Ok he/she will always be able to get another
gun to shoot again.

@MountainGirl I'm not trying to argue with you, this is just my own opinion.
I agree with you that I'm tired of out rights being taking away from us.

 

[Younggun]

Three (3) Atlanta police officers shot responding to a call. If the shooter wasn't
a felon. he/she is now. But that's Ok he/she will always be able to get another
gun to shoot again.

@MountainGirl I'm not trying to argue with you, this is just my own opinion.
I agree with you that I'm tired of out rights being taking away from us.

It’s so much easier to argue when you completely ignore the fact that those people should just stay in prison.

But by all means, keep ignoring the fact that violent people are released from prison to continue causing harm so you can beat the drum of gun control.

 

[MountainGirl]

Three (3) Atlanta police officers shot responding to a call. If the shooter wasn't
a felon. he/she is now. But that's Ok he/she will always be able to get another
gun to shoot again.

@MountainGirl I'm not trying to argue with you, this is just my own opinion.
I agree with you that I'm tired of out rights being taking away from us.

Nor I with you, my friend.
And it's NOT okay, the violence that society tolerates, and perhaps some day those matters may be handled differently, by us, rather than by a broken system.

 

[popsgarland]

It’s so much easier to argue when you completely ignore the fact that those people should just stay in prison.

But by all means, keep ignoring the fact that violent people are released from prison to continue causing harm so you can beat the drum of gun control.

I never said that those people should not be kept in prison.

I do know that violent people keep bring released from prison to continue causing harm.

You just made my point and stop trying to take away my right to free speech. You know..
the 1st amendment.

 

[MountainGirl]

Doesn't it seem odd that the notoriously anti 2A Ninth circuit would make this ruling?

Yes, but after the Supreme Court June 2022 decision re Bruen they may have had little choice.

Add: For those not familiar, the Bruen case was about NY's concealed carry laws, but what the SC also established was that all (restrictive) gun laws must have (and show) a historical and contextual basis.The 'No firearms for felons' law has neither.

Here are some of the immediate (Aug 2022) affects of that ruling.

Tracking the Effects of the Supreme Court's Gun Ruling

The Bruen decision is reshaping gun laws across the U.S. — and propelling a series of court challenges to existing regulations.

www.thetrace.org

 

[TipBledsoe]

I never said that those people should not be kept in prison.

I do know that violent people keep bring released from prison to continue causing harm.

You just made my point and stop trying to take away my right to free speech. You know..
the 1st amendment.





View attachment 451666

Dirt bags are going to get guns no matter if they are “allowed” or not.

What I hear @Younggun saying, and what you seem to be dismissing, is that our society is failing on other ways which allowed those officers to be shot.

 

[popsgarland]

Dirt bags are going to get guns no matter if they are “allowed” or not.

What I hear @Younggun saying, and what you seem to be dismissing, is that our society is failing on other ways which allowed those officers to be shot.

When violent people are allowed to stay on the streets to continue committing crimes,
isn't this our society failing?

 

[vmax]

If my poor memory serves, there have been many cases brought wherein a violation of a person's 1st amendment rights were argued; some prevailed, some did not. But in each case, it was resolved (limited) to the action of the individual...i.e., no law was changed.

In this case, and a growing handful of other 2A cases, the law itself is found to be unconstitutional. And that's why it's cause for celebration.

Perpetual IMO applied.

It's just interesting that generally the two rights are not defended with the same passion.

A person may claim that all gun laws are unconstitutional in defense of 2A but be fine with the various laws restricting the 1st Amendment.

 

[etmo]

We have a god given right to freedom, yet we put violent people in prison.

That's because, as SCOTUS has often told us, no right is unlimited.
Many in this thread don't seem to understand that.

So, you agree it’s ok to restrict a god given right.

Yes, our Founding Fathers made it quite clear that it's OK to restrict God-given rights. If we don't like that fact, we can change our Constitution.

Well the 2nd says no gun control by government. The SCOTUS screwed up by not standing by what the 2nd Amendment clearly says.

No, that's not what it says. You are mis-understand the meaning of the word "infringed" in 1792, and the context in which the Constitution was written. The proof is in the pudding -- there were gun control laws written in the era of our Founding Fathers, by the same people who attended the Constitutional Convention.

If you are untrustworthy to the degree your rights must be restricted, you should still be in prison.

Yes, but this is not a Constitutional question. Also, every human walking the Earth has their rights restricted, as we know that no right is unlimited. You have freedom of speech, but you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded building, etc, etc.

I agree. He should never get out of prison.

The point I was trying to make is that certain felons should not be able to buy a fire arm as some people want any felon to be able to buy them.

Again, not a Constitutional question. Sentencing is too light and sentences are commuted and reduced too easily. Prisoner rights are too big a concern. People not in jail must have their full rights, there is no tiered system of rights for people not in jail.

Doesn't it seem odd that the notoriously anti 2A Ninth circuit would make this ruling?

No, it's showing you that Republican Presidents are important. Both the judges who voted in favor of this ruling were appointed by Bush.
But for anyone who is unhappy with this ruling, relax. It has a decent chance of getting overturned en banc.

 

[vmax]

Except it is the only one that says no infringements

Congress shall make no law..abridging the Freedom of speech...

 

[Younggun]

That's because, as SCOTUS has often told us, no right is unlimited.
Many in this thread don't seem to understand that.



Yes, our Founding Fathers made it quite clear that it's OK to restrict God-given rights. If we don't like that fact, we can change our Constitution.



No, that's not what it says. You are mis-understand the meaning of the word "infringed" in 1792, and the context in which the Constitution was written. The proof is in the pudding -- there were gun control laws written in the era of our Founding Fathers, by the same people who attended the Constitutional Convention.



Yes, but this is not a Constitutional question. Also, every human walking the Earth has their rights restricted, as we know that no right is unlimited. You have freedom of speech, but you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded building, etc, etc.



Again, not a Constitutional question. Sentencing is too light and sentences are commuted and reduced too easily. Prisoner rights are too big a concern. People not in jail must have their full rights, there is no tiered system of rights for people not in jail.



No, it's showing you that Republican Presidents are important. Both the judges who voted in favor of this ruling were appointed by Bush.
But for anyone who is unhappy with this ruling, relax. It has a decent chance of getting overturned en banc.

The posts of mine you quoted were intended to be taken specifically in the context of the posts they were replying to in order to fully understand the reasoning and logic behind the opinion of the user they were replying to.

Your responses to them don’t fit the context of the conversation in which they were made.

 

[Younggun]

I never said that those people should not be kept in prison.

I do know that violent people keep bring released from prison to continue causing harm.

You just made my point and stop trying to take away my right to free speech. You know..
the 1st amendment.





View attachment 451666

Heed the advice of the meme you posted.

 

[Maverick44]

No, it's showing you that Republican Presidents are important. Both the judges who voted in favor of this ruling were appointed by Bush.

Not necessarily. Nixon signed off on the 1968 GCA and wanted all handguns banned. Regan signed off on the Hughes Amendment and supported the Brady Bill. Bush Sr. is responsible for the import ban on semi auto rifles and was against people carrying guns in public. Bush Jr. wanted to extend the AWB. Trump banned bump stocks and entertained the idea of having suppressors banned too.

Just because they have an R next to their name, doesn't mean they won't strip you of your gun rights. Never forget that for even a second. We are incredibly lucky that enough of the judges they appointed care about the Constitution, that our rights are still somewhat protected.

 

[Big Dipper]

It's just interesting that generally the two rights are not defended with the same passion.

A person may claim that all gun laws are unconstitutional in defense of 2A but be fine with the various laws restricting the 1st Amendment.

The difference as I see it is that the infringements of 2A are “prior” restraints (what you can have, who can have it, where you can have it).

The laws regarding free speech are about misusing your free speech rights. Yes you can cry “fire” in a crowded theater, yes you can slander someone— there are consequences for that misuse!

That is very significant difference!

 

[vmax]

The difference as I see it is that the infringements of 2A are “prior” restraints (what you can have, who can have it, where you can have it).

The laws regarding free speech are about misusing your free speech rights. Yes you can cry “fire” in a crowded theater, yes you can slander someone— there are consequences for that misuse!

That is very significant difference!

Who defines "misuse"?

Obviously a crime or hurting another person not in self defense.

Driving through a state like NJ with a gun while traveling shouldn't be a crime but you get caught there and they charge you. But that's not misuse in my book.

But how about when a punk burns an American flag on the courthouse steps?
If he bought the flag with his money and burns it in a metal can he bought and leaves no mess or damage..is that misuse?
I certainly don't like and it's un-American but is that misuse?

 

[etmo]

Not necessarily. Nixon signed off on ...

Of course you are correct. Republican Presidents are not without their many warts, but they are important, because you're not going to get any help from the left.

 

[Bozz10mm]

You have freedom of speech, but you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded building, etc, etc.

What do you yell if there actually is a fire?

 

[vmax]

Just to clarify I don't want a convicted violent convict being able to legally possess a gun for any other purpose than his own self defense.
So maybe that means kill the sonofabitch for the crime he did or don't turn him loose ever.
That's just me.


I know making it illegal means nothing to a criminal.