Felon voting ban is racially motivated and unconstitutional, NC judges rule

[Drowning Man]

It might have to do with the fact that those frat boys aren't busy shooting up other frat houses?

People are arrested for drug use alone, aren't they? Drug possession, alone?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I’m aware of contradicting laws. As you know, no doubt, federal laws trump state laws wherever there is conflict.

That (bolded above) is very misleading. While it is true that a federal LEO can enforce a federal law (regardless of a conflicting state law), it is also true that a state LEO can enforce a state law (which conflicts with, or differs from, federal law), thus that state law is not “trumped” - you may still end up in jail or prison for having been convicted of violating that state law.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The federal law has been on the books for 50+ years. There’s no reason at all to believe it’s going away.

Hmm… what if it is discovered that some who supported its passage were racist and it has a racially disparate impact?

 

[Vadinho]

It might have to do with the fact that those frat boys aren't busy shooting up other frat houses?

Might be, are all drug busts about violence? Never occurred to me that the only criteria for busting drug users was tied to guns. Does every black kid doing drugs that got busted selling a dime bag on the corner also a rooting tooting shooter?

 

[Michael Cole]

That (bolded above) is very misleading. While it is true that a federal LEO can enforce a federal law (regardless of a conflicting state law), it is also true that a state LEO can enforce a state law (which conflicts with, or differs from, federal law), thus that state law is not “trumped” - you may still end up in jail or prison for having been convicted of violating that state law.

I think he's correct technically. The difference is in enforcement, which can be directed at the policy level. The federal government could, if it wanted to, shut down every marijuana dispensary in the country. On the state side, this is the practice behind so-called sanctuary cities. City policy doesn't trump federal immigration law. It simply does not notify the feds when illegal immigrants are arrested.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think he's correct technically. The difference is in enforcement, which can be directed at the policy level. The federal government could, if it wanted to, shut down every marijuana dispensary in the country. On the state side, this is the practice behind so-called sanctuary cities. City policy doesn't trump federal immigration law. It simply does not notify the feds when illegal immigrants are arrested.

My point was that having a gun with a ‘standard’ magazine legally bought from a FFL dealer can (and will) get you arrested if state law declares that to be an illegal ‘high capacity’ magazine.

 

[Michael Cole]

My point was that having a gun with a ‘standard’ magazine legally bought from a FFL dealer can (and will) get you arrested if state law declares that to be an illegal ‘high capacity’ magazine.

Agreed. I was adding to your point.

The whole "federal law trumps state law" is more of a farce than misleading, imo. Especially with regard to marijuana enforcement.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

People are arrested for drug use alone, aren't they? Drug possession, alone?

Also, look at sentencing for crack compared to coke. Basically the same drug, but one was largely a rich white people drug, and the other one affecting poor and african americans. The sentencing for crack was through the roof. plus, anybody with money typically gets off while the poor get insane sentences. only moronic.

Crack vs. Powder Cocaine: One Drug, Two Penalties

Although both are variations of the same drug, the two have historically different consequences with the law. Learn more about the legal history of these drugs.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

Anyway, only moronic racist right wingers ignore these facts and still try to pretend they are not being racist. They don't fool anybody

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

States with reasonable laws and that differentiate between violent and non-violent felonies, sure. The country is wising up on recreational marijuana, but even though Alabama legalized medical use, there are still felony possession laws on the books for recreational use.

No reason to keep guns from pot smokers.

Sure there is.
I'd support keeping guns from just about anyone that isnt in a Well Regulated Militia. (Army, Marines, Nattie Guard, Police, etc)

Its long past time to start following the Second Amendment Michael, imo.

BAN. THEM. ALL.

(crime will fall)

 

[Michael Cole]

Sure there is.
I'd support keeping guns from just about anyone that isnt in a Well Regulated Militia. (Army, Marines, Nattie Guard, Police, etc)

Its long past time to start following the Second Amendment Michael, imo.

BAN. THEM. ALL.

(crime will fall)

Okay. I'm opposed to banning them all. I support reasonable restrictions (decided locally) and I'm not gonna lose sleep over temporary "assault weapons" bans. We already did that and survived just fine.

Disarming Americans as was done to Australians isn't possible. I respect your opinion, but disagree.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I support reasonable restrictions (decided locally)

IMO, comprehensive bans and restrictions must be imposed at the Federal level.
It makes no sense at all to have reasonable and sane prohibitions in Indiana, for instance, when you can then simply drive to Ohio and easily acquire all the guns and ammunition that you can possibly wheelbarrow away.
Uniformity is key IMO.
Just look at these two poor dumb mentally ill fools below....do you want to see that strutting through the mall in Your Town, USA?
Of course not Michael. NOBODY wants that.

 

[jcgriff2]

North Carolina just got 55,000 new voters...

North Carolina’s law banning many people with felony records from voting after they get out of prison is unconstitutional, a state court ruled Monday.

Until now, state law allowed people with felony convictions to vote only once they finish their sentence. That didn’t only include their prison sentence; it also included probation or parole, which sometimes can last for years after someone is released from prison.

Monday’s ruling, first reported by Carolina Public Press, changes that. Now — pending a potential appeal of the ruling — people with criminal records can vote once they have rejoined society and are no longer behind bars. The judges wrote that “if a person otherwise eligible to vote is not in jail or prison for a felony conviction, they may lawfully register and vote in North Carolina.”

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article259878470.html

Wonderful for NC. They better hire a few hundred thousand non-felon auditors now.

One purpose of no-felon voting is so that felons don't elect themselves to every job in a city, take it over and 'do their thing' - fraud, embezzlement, etc...

Once a convict, always a convict.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

One purpose of no-felon voting is so that felons don't elect themselves to every job in a city, take it over and 'do their thing'

 

[vanceen]

Does it really matter since the decision was also based on ‘disparate impact’ which is statistically provable?

Obviously "disparate impact" is not evidence of a motiivation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Obviously "disparate impact" is not evidence of a motiivation.

True, but the standard used for intent was ridiculously low. See post #38.

 

[vanceen]

True, but the standard used for intent was ridiculously low. See post #38.

Yes, we agree.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Hmm… what if it is discovered that some who supported its passage were racist and it has a racially disparate impact?

A bit late to “discover” that the law was enacted by racially motivated politicians.

The simple fact that any minority group makes up a percentage higher than a majority group is not proof, in itself, of disparate treatment and therefore, racist.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A bit late to “discover” that the law was enacted by racially motivated politicians.

The simple fact that any minority group makes up a percentage higher than a majority group is not proof, in itself, of disparate treatment and therefore, racist.

I was addressing the intent part. See post #38.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That (bolded above) is very misleading.

It isn’t at all misleading. Example; States passing “recreational use” laws do not invalidate federal law against marijuana possession/use/sale.

If a federal agent arrested someone for possession of marijuana, any permissive state law would be irrelevant because federal law trumps state law.

While it is true that a federal LEO can enforce a federal law (regardless of a conflicting state law), it is also true that a state LEO can enforce a state law (which conflicts with, or differs from, federal law), thus that state law is not “trumped” - you may still end up in jail or prison for having been convicted of violating that state law.

Two LEO, one, state and the other, federal, come upon someone committing what qualifies as both a state and federal law, the federal LEO has superior jurisdiction.

No argument.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I was addressing the intent part. See post #38.

I was responding to your post.

 

[The Mark]

North Carolina just got 55,000 new voters...

North Carolina’s law banning many people with felony records from voting after they get out of prison is unconstitutional, a state court ruled Monday.

Until now, state law allowed people with felony convictions to vote only once they finish their sentence. That didn’t only include their prison sentence; it also included probation or parole, which sometimes can last for years after someone is released from prison.

Monday’s ruling, first reported by Carolina Public Press, changes that. Now — pending a potential appeal of the ruling — people with criminal records can vote once they have rejoined society and are no longer behind bars. The judges wrote that “if a person otherwise eligible to vote is not in jail or prison for a felony conviction, they may lawfully register and vote in North Carolina.”

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article259878470.html

IMO the right to vote should be universal and incapable of being removed, so long as you're a citizen.

No removal of voting rights for any reason, except if you stop being a citizen somehow.

So long as citizenship remains (to paraphrase) "if born in USA or to someone who is citizen, you are citizen", that blocks any attempt to seize power by limiting the right to vote.

 

[Craig234]

Here's a shock: "Judge John Dunlow, a Republican from Granville County, dissented. The two in the majority were Judge Keith Gregory, a Wake County Democrat, and Judge Lisa Bell of Mecklenburg County, who is unaffiliated."

 

[reflechissez]

One purpose of no-felon voting is so that felons don't elect themselves to every job in a city, take it over and 'do their thing' - fraud, embezzlement, etc...

IKR? This happens all the time.

 

[What if...?]

IMO, comprehensive bans and restrictions must be imposed at the Federal level.
It makes no sense at all to have reasonable and sane prohibitions in Indiana, for instance, when you can then simply drive to Ohio and easily acquire all the guns and ammunition that you can possibly wheelbarrow away.
Uniformity is key IMO.
Just look at these two poor dumb mentally ill fools below....do you want to see that strutting through the mall in Your Town, USA?
Of course not Michael. NOBODY wants that.

View attachment 67383045

Well, waddling and scampering maybe…

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

OK.
Just as long as they cant legally own guns.

Did you know that "Tax Evasion", "Anti-trust Violations", "Bond Default", "Bribery", "Computer Crime", "Concealing Person From Arrest", "Contempt of Court", "Damage to Religious Property", are all (or could be) felonies?

Did you know that all of these

(1) Drug abuse violations
(2) Driving while Intoxicated
(3) Property crime (includes burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.)
(4) Larceny-theft
(5) Assault
(6) Disorderly conduct
(7) Liquor laws violations
(8) Violent crime (including murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault.)
(9) Drunkenness
(10) Aggravated assault
(11) Burglary
(12) Vandalism
(13) Fraud
(14) Weapons violations (carrying or possession)
(15) Curfew and loitering
(16) Robbery
(17) Offenses against family and children
(18) Stolen property (buying, receiving, possession)
(19) Motor vehicle theft
(20) Forgery and counterfeiting
​

are (or can also be) felonies?

PS - Doesn't the law prohibiting them from owning guns "infringe" on their constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?

PPS - Which of

[1] Bob Bookkeeper who embezzled $100,000 from "MegaBank INC"

or

[2] Billy-Bob "Bubba" Redneck

​

who just loves to shoot at things (and he doesn't particularly care what) when he gets drunk (which he does at least four times per week)
​

would you prefer NOT be allowed access to firearms?