• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court fails: Declines to take up lifetime gun rights ban

Fishking

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
43,134
Reaction score
16,115
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Supreme Court has failed to do it's duty to restore the rights of our citizens after they have served their time. In this case, it's non-violent felony charges that have caused a lifetime ban on gun ownership. I'm against the permanent disenfranchisement of our citizenry. This also will disproportionately effect minorities. I personally feel that no matter what the time was, if you get released for "serving your time" then you should have everything restored back to you. There shouldn't even be a felony status, imo, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

The SCOTUS failed here. Just to get a taste of the things that could result in your permanent loss of 2A rights, see below:

Supreme Court passes on Second Amendment cases challenging lifetime gun ownership ban

The Supreme Court declined to hear three Second Amendment cases challenging a federal ban on gun ownership for people convicted of nonviolent crimes.
www.usatoday.com

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up three challenges to a federal ban on gun ownership for people convicted of nonviolent crimes, disappointing Second Amendment advocates who hoped a more conservative court would begin to chip away at the restriction.

By not taking the appeals, the nation's highest court let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns and selling counterfeit cassette tapes from owning a gun.
 
So far the Conservative Court is doing an excellent job of ruling across the aisle and should be a good example for all of us.

Too bad it's going to get stacked and slapped with term limits.
 
if we're gonna have the 2nd, and people do their time for non-violent stuff, then i don't see why they can't own a gun like virtually all other Americans.
 
Exquisitor said:
So far the Conservative Court is doing an excellent job of ruling across the aisle and should be a good example for all of us.

Too bad it's going to get stacked and slapped with term limits.
Click to expand...

For a supposed uber imbalanced conservative court, they sure have rule very moderately, maybe even a tad liberally, imo.
 

I agree with your sentiment. I have advocated all my life for the principle of commit a crime, do the time, return to full citizenship status.

IMO if a person convicted of a crime has no hope of return to full citizenship without stigma after release, then they have a motive (if not a compulsion) for continued criminality.

To break the cycle there must be a road to complete redemption. It does not have to be an easy road, but it should be one that commitment can achieve.

As for their avoidance of cases on gun rights? IMO the radical Democrats have them truly fearful of possible Court packing, especially in this volatile, nearly lawless social landscape we see playing out around the nation.
 
Last edited:
With the dictators threatening to pack the court that's got them on the run. FDR threatened the same thing to bully them into submission.

That power needs to be limited
 
Fishking said:
For a supposed uber imbalanced conservative court, they sure have rule very moderately, maybe even a tad liberally, imo.
Click to expand...
It's the Lord's grace, the Christian God likes its Conservative Court so it is interested in making it behave.
 
Exquisitor said:
It means the SCOTUS is going to get creamed whether they do right or not.

I just can't afford any more bull****.
Click to expand...
What, exactly, can't you afford? And what, exactly, is the "bullshit" you're talking about? Or is this just empty vomiting being shared with everyone based on an impression imprinted into your brain by the media but you just don't know why?
 
Fishking said:
What, exactly, can't you afford? And what, exactly, is the "bullshit" you're talking about? Or is this just empty vomiting being shared with everyone based on an impression imprinted into your brain by the media but you just don't know why?
Click to expand...
I think it's about a conservative president appointing justices they don't like that.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I think it's about a conservative president appointing justices they don't like that.
Click to expand...
Because they don't want SCOTUS that rules more impartially based on the principles of the Constitution. They believe it's their job to update the Constitution with activist rulings to keep up with the times. Sorry, no, that's Congress' job to update the Constitution via amendment.
 
They want a totalitarian dictatorship.
 
Well, at least some states make their own decisions and enable it. Maybe thru positive reinforcement (no re-offenses) more states will get on board.

Does anyone know if a felon, after serving his/her sentence denied restoration of 2A rights then moves to another state that allows it...can/would that state reinstate their 2A rights?
 
Fishking said:
What, exactly, can't you afford? And what, exactly, is the "bullshit" you're talking about? Or is this just empty vomiting being shared with everyone based on an impression imprinted into your brain by the media but you just don't know why?
Click to expand...
I mean the Court is doing well, because I can't afford any more bull****.

Trumps tax cuts are bull****, Bush's, 9-11, 2008, the partizan divide, obstruction, Benghazi, Trump, covid, 30T, 1T per year, Syria.
 
Exquisitor said:
I mean the Court is doing well, because I can't afford any more bull****.

Trumps tax cuts are bull****, Bush's, 9-11, 2008, the partizan divide, obstruction, Benghazi, Trump, covid, 30T, 1T per year, Syria.
Click to expand...
You know none of that had anything to do with the court right?
 
CLAX1911 said:
What mistakes?
Click to expand...
The mistake of not choosing Al Gore in 2000, mistakes that added to Hillary's loss, not going with Sanders, letting Mitch keep his Seat, losing Texas and Florida.
Exquisitor said:
I mean the Court is doing well, because I can't afford any more bull****.

Trumps tax cuts are bull****, Bush's, 9-11, 2008, the partizan divide, obstruction, Benghazi, Trump, covid, 30T, 1T per year, Syria.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
You know none of that had anything to do with the court right?
Click to expand...
I'm being facetious.

You're right, and nothing of it had to do with the Democrats either.

Let us hope they both continue to rule well as we sideline the legislative Republicans.
 
Exquisitor said:
I mean the Court is doing well, because I can't afford any more bull****.

Trumps tax cuts are bull****, Bush's, 9-11, 2008, the partizan divide, obstruction, Benghazi, Trump, covid, 30T, 1T per year, Syria.
Click to expand...
Ah...you're just rambling nonsense. I see I was pretty close to the mark with my previous statement.
 
One can hope that some states can figure out a system that makes it work, and show improvements, which maybe other states can then copy. So far as moving to another state, I'm not sure, at least with this case because they went to court and a ruling was made already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…