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

[AGENT J]

Not worth going on with that conversation. It won't ever end.

100% correct its not, because facts will always win and ignorance and lies will always lose.

 

[AGENT J]

Just in case there is confusion lets review the exposed mistakes the mentioned posts made based on facts
here the conversation that was jumped int

CaughtInThe: 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.

I have to agree 100%, if rights cant be fully restored then why are they released

Then you jumped in with this mistake

I wonder what Fox News would say if a felon was released after serving time for 3rf degree murder...then allowed to buy a gun, in which he proceeded to use in a mass shooting...

You brought up murder when we were talking nonviolent, mistake ONE

then it was explained to you that non-violent =/= murder

and then you posted this awesome nugget

Yes it can

eg: poisoning

Mistake TWO
like you were told non-violent =/= murder

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/pnoesp.txt#:~:text=Nonviolent%20crimes%20are%20defined%20as,possession%2C%20burglary%2C%20and%20larceny.

Nonviolent crimes are defined as property, drug, and public order
offenses which do not involve a threat of harm or an actual attack upon a
victim. Typically, the most frequently identified nonviolent crimes
involve drug trafficking, drug possession, burglary, and larceny.

Non-Violent vs. Violent Crimes

Criminal charges are identified between violent and non-violent crimes. Know the nature, differences, and punishments in this article.

www.legalmatch.com

What are Non-Violent Crimes?​

Non-violent crimes may be defined as those crimes that do not involve the use of any force or injury to another person. This can include a whole range of different crimes, citations, and legal violations. With violent crimes, the penalties are usually based on the seriousness of the injuries to the victim. But with non-violent crimes, the seriousness is usually measured in terms of economic damage or loss to the victim.

34 U.S. Code § 10596 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

(2)Nonviolent offenseThe term “nonviolent offense” means an offense that—
(A)does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another; or
(B)is not a felony that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

Let me know if there's any other factual mistakes I can help you with. You're welcome!

 

[Rich2018]

Just in case there is confusion lets review the exposed mistakes the mentioned posts made based on facts
here the conversation that was jumped int




Then you jumped in with this mistake


You brought up murder when we were talking nonviolent, mistake ONE

then it was explained to you that non-violent =/= murder

and then you posted this awesome nugget



Mistake TWO
like you were told non-violent =/= murder

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/pnoesp.txt#:~:text=Nonviolent%20crimes%20are%20defined%20as,possession%2C%20burglary%2C%20and%20larceny.

Non-Violent vs. Violent Crimes

Criminal charges are identified between violent and non-violent crimes. Know the nature, differences, and punishments in this article.

www.legalmatch.com

34 U.S. Code § 10596 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

Let me know if there's any other factual mistakes I can help you with. You're welcome!

Total drivel fit only for the fire.

 

[AGENT J]

Total drivel fit only for the fire.

LMAO
Translation: Facts destroyed your posted lies/ignorance again and once again instead of your quoted post being based on honesty and integrity something else is picked LMAO So much fun!

 

[Rich2018]

LMAO
Translation: Facts destroyed your posted lies/ignorance again and once again instead of your quoted post being based on honesty and integrity something else is picked LMAO So much fun!

Yes posters here agree thats what your prove false claims are, drivel
You won't cause you cant, but if you disagree please prove otherwise. thanks!

 

[AGENT J]

You won't cause you cant, but if you disagree please prove otherwise. thanks!

Already did see post#127 LMAO
I can do this all day, exposing posed lies and false claims is pure entertainment. I love it.

 

[Rich2018]

Already did see post#127 LMAO
I can do this all day, exposing posed lies and false claims is pure entertainment. I love it.

So much fun when posted lies are beat into submission like this. So here we are in the same spot. its just your feelings, thanks!

 

[AGENT J]

So much fun when posted lies are beat into submission like this. So here we are in the same spot. its just your feelings, thanks!

LMAO I love it, now your failed posts have been beaten into impersonating peewee Herman.
You didnt even know what a non-violent crime was, this was bad even for YOUR posts

Non-violent =/= murder

 

[Rich2018]

LMAO I love it, now your failed posts have been beaten into impersonating peewee Herman.
You didnt even know what a non-violent crime was, this was bad even for YOUR posts

Non-violent =/= murder

Another failed and delicious dodge.

please tell us . . what lie?
please qoute and prove it in your next post

 

[AGENT J]

please tell us . . what lie?
please qoute and prove it in your next post

Sure
I stated this

non-violent =/= murder

you replied with this lie LMAO

Yes it can

eg: poisoning

BOOOM!!! easy peasy . . I mean . . unless you want to admit it wasnt a lie but simply topical ignorance? Ill accept that

 

[Rich2018]

Sure
I stated this

you replied with this lie LMAO



BOOOM!!! easy peasy . . I mean . . unless you want to admit it wasnt a lie but simply topical ignorance? Ill accept that

Thats what I thought LMAO
you cant point out any lie. The facts remains its NOT the USA and all you have stated is your feeligns and opinions about gun control not facts.

 

[natman]

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 agree that they should correct this. However, it's important to remember that for every case SCOTUS takes on, they reject 99, so a lot of worthy causes don't get heard.

While restoring gun rights to some felons is a worthy cause, it's more important that they take cases that prevent law abiding gun owners from becoming felons.

 

[Court Jester]

People need to understand that except for a very small number of the SCOTUS justices, most are elitists who have ZERO connection to what REAL people encounter in life. They live in a bubble basically. Even the so called "great" Antonin Scalia whom so many assume was a defender of liberty, basically believed in limits on your freedom as it applied to owning a gun. Basically you are free to defend your life inside your own house kind of deal, which is NOT what the founding fathers believed in.

Everyone has a NATURAL RIGHT to self defense. Denying anyone the right to own a gun for life because they had a 20 year old DUI offense, or had lied on their IRS form, or any other non violent offense, is telling us we really don't have a natural God given right to our self defense.

There is no immorality attached to ignoring any gun laws which unreasonably infringe on your natural right to self defense. What bothers these eletists justices---same as so many elected officials the most, is the possibility that the people will not agree to these petty exercises in submission, and will think and act for themselves.

All the court is saying in this side step is that your gun rights are only "privileges" and not natural rights. Screw them!

 

[Rich2018]

People need to understand that except for a very small number of the SCOTUS justices, most are elitists who have ZERO connection to what REAL people encounter in life. They live in a bubble basically. Even the so called "great" Antonin Scalia whom so many assume was a defender of liberty, basically believed in limits on your freedom as it applied to owning a gun. Basically you are free to defend your life inside your own house kind of deal, which is NOT what the founding fathers believed in.

Everyone has a NATURAL RIGHT to self defense. Denying anyone the right to own a gun for life because they had a 20 year old DUI offense, or had lied on their IRS form, or any other non violent offense, is telling us we really don't have a natural God given right to our self defense.

There is no immorality attached to ignoring any gun laws which unreasonably infringe on your natural right to self defense. What bothers these eletists justices---same as so many elected officials the most, is the possibility that the people will not agree to these petty exercises in submission, and will think and act for themselves.

All the court is saying in this side step is that your gun rights are only "privileges" and not natural rights. Screw them!

Do released felons, who've served their sentence in full, deserve the right to self defense ?

 

[Glitch]

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.

I'm staunchly pro-Second Amendment, but I can't fault the Supreme Court in this matter.

It has long been customary to strip convicted felons of their right to keep and bear arms and their right to vote permanently. That is a decision each State has made centuries ago, and only the individual States can change it. Nor do I see any reason why it should be changed.

It is a simple matter really. If you do not wish to be stripped of your constitutionally protected rights, do not get convicted of a felony.

There is no constitutional issue involved, which is why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

 

[Rich2018]

I'm staunchly pro-Second Amendment, but I can't fault the Supreme Court in this matter.

It has long been customary to strip convicted felons of their right to keep and bear arms and their right to vote permanently. That is a decision each State has made centuries ago, and only the individual States can change it. Nor do I see any reason why it should be changed.

It is a simple matter really. If you do not wish to be stripped of your constitutionally protected rights, do not get convicted of a felony.

There is no constitutional issue involved, which is why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

IMO, the sentence passed down to a convicted felon is like a collection of a debt they owe

If a felon completes his/her sentence, they've "paid their debt" to society.

 

[Fishking]

I'm staunchly pro-Second Amendment, but I can't fault the Supreme Court in this matter.

It has long been customary to strip convicted felons of their right to keep and bear arms and their right to vote permanently. That is a decision each State has made centuries ago, and only the individual States can change it. Nor do I see any reason why it should be changed.

It is a simple matter really. If you do not wish to be stripped of your constitutionally protected rights, do not get convicted of a felony.

There is no constitutional issue involved, which is why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

If a government can permanently strip away your rights for certain violations then all they need to do is figure out new laws to catch you on, or that you feel is unjust/oppressive and, boom, there go your rights forever.

We have so many laws these days, it's ridiculous.

 

[The AntiDonald]

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.

To many variables. Each case needs to be studied, so leave it up to the governors. I agree with their decision to stay out of it.

 

[Rich2018]

To many variables. Each case needs to be studied, so leave it up to the governors. I agree with their decision to stay out of it.

But governors of "Red" states have a vested interest in not restoring citizen rights to released felons who've completed their sentence.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Good news.

Criminals and ex cons shouldn't have guns.

I'd be willing to possibly make some exceptions for non violent and minor property crimes. Possibly.

Lets be honest: far too may people have guns as it is. I dont mind when Uncle Sam steps in and regulates. Left to their own devices too many individuals get it WRONG.

A lil nudge in the right direction never hurts.

 

[Crosscheck]

More than 650,000 ex-offenders are released from prison every year, and studies show that approximately two-thirds will likely be rearrested within three years of release.

I wonder what law enforcement's opinion on this is?

 

[Rich2018]

More than 650,000 ex-offenders are released from prison every year, and studies show that approximately two-thirds will likely be rearrested within three years of release.

I wonder what law enforcement's opinion on this is?

Lack of rehabilitation

Long sentences making the all but unemployable.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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

Yeah that’s the biggest problem. The left openly makes their judicial nominees pass litmus tests and they never get a surprise ruling from their judges.

 

[Glitch]

If a government can permanently strip away your rights for certain violations then all they need to do is figure out new laws to catch you on, or that you feel is unjust/oppressive and, boom, there go your rights forever.

We have so many laws these days, it's ridiculous.

Government has always had the ability to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, and property. Providing they give the individual their right to due process of law first. Is not the death penalty the permanent stripping away of your right to life?

Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty. I don't think any government can be trusted with the power to kill its own citizens and not abuse it. However, I am certainly not opposed to government stripping someone of their right to keep and bear arms or vote permanently if the crime they commit - and is convicted of - is serious enough. Felonies are considered high crimes, and are very serious indeed. As the adage goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[Fishking]

Government has always had the ability to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, and property. Providing they give the individual their right to due process of law first. Is not the death penalty the permanent stripping away of your right to life?

Sure, but you want the government to have full reign over that type of power? I personally prefer to have it much more limited.