What's new
By:
Filters

9th circuit

Weasel

Weasel

Red Skull Member
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
712
Messages
2,832
Loc
Black Hills, SoDak
Interesting ruling. yes it's a video and he gets the point quickly:



William Kirk, discusses the case of US v. Duarte, a successful challenge to 18 USC Sec. 922(g)(1), which precludes all felons, even age old non-violent felons, from possessing firearms. This challenge, brought by Mr Duarte's Federal Public Defenders has landed a huge 2-1 decision from a three judge panel. This sets up a huge circuit split on this issue and again begins to tee this issue up for Supreme Court review. So learn more and arm yourself with education today.

2 judges rules that the 2A applies to all us citizens and not a subclass. They also did not agree with the .gov that the 2a is a political right.
 
Third response, the language the judges wrote down, outlining that the 2A is a fundamental right, carrying a handgun in public for self defense falls squarely into the 2A's intent and well understood definition, and the fact that Mr. Duarte is an American citizen, he is therefore "part of the public". Yes, yes he his. Yes to all of that.

This is the first and best thing I have read all morning.
 
Pony_Driver said:
If you do the crime you do the time and you should get your rights restored.
Click to expand...

Pt_Ranger_v8 said:
What happens after you've done your time?

Are you still being punished/still a threat to society?
Click to expand...
I already covered the first part.


If you are still on probation you are in a transitional state, you probably won't have all of your rights restored. Everyone is a potential threat to society. If you are assigned a period of incarceration and that time is up, you get out. Behave or risk going back.
 
Pony_Driver said:
I already covered the first part.


If you are still on probation you are in a transitional state, you probably won't have all of your rights restored. Everyone is a potential threat to society. If you are assigned a period of incarceration and that time is up, you get out. Behave or risk going back.
Click to expand...




Mikel said:
Then we get into the realm of "pre-crime". Which to me is a heck of a lot more dangerous than any potential criminal.
Click to expand...


Got it. So once you've been convicted, done your time, completed your parole, and fulfilled all the conditions of your sentencing, you sill deserve to be punished? :confused:


I'm not trolling. I'm trying to understand your logic train. And I can't quite get there. If someone is a "threat to society" after they've completed their sentencing, then why are they still free?






It all comes down to this: We all have rights. They do NOT come from the government. Show me in the 2nd amendment where it says "except for convicted felons and spouse abusers".
 
If someone isn't dangerous enough to lock up but shouldn't have full rights then they should be on probation or parole.

Once a sentence is complete all rights should be restored.
 
Weasel said:
Interesting ruling. yes it's a video and he gets the point quickly:



William Kirk, discusses the case of US v. Duarte, a successful challenge to 18 USC Sec. 922(g)(1), which precludes all felons, even age old non-violent felons, from possessing firearms. This challenge, brought by Mr Duarte's Federal Public Defenders has landed a huge 2-1 decision from a three judge panel. This sets up a huge circuit split on this issue and again begins to tee this issue up for Supreme Court review. So learn more and arm yourself with education today.

2 judges rules that the 2A applies to all us citizens and not a subclass. They also did not agree with the .gov that the 2a is a political right.
Click to expand...

I saw that yesterday and was shocked it came out of the 9th Circus.
 
arse_sidewards said:
If someone isn't dangerous enough to lock up but shouldn't have full rights then they should be on probation or parole.

Once a sentence is complete all rights should be restored.
Click to expand...
If someone is that big of a threat to society, just stretch their neck and be done with it.

I agree however, once someone has paid their debt (including any probation as that is still part of the debt) for the crimes they have committed, all rights should be restored.
 
Mikel said:
Loss of rights should not be permanent. You are convicted, pay your debt to society and your rights should be restored.

When did government give itself the power to take people's rights for life? :mad3:
Click to expand...
When they sentence someone to life without parole?
 
Thumping said:
If someone is that big of a threat to society, just stretch their neck and be done with it.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people who act like jerks shape up once they've been to jail for a few years. Especially if you go in at 25 and come out in your mid 30s having lost that youthful energy and motivation.
 
Thumping said:
Maybe if punishments actually started fitting the crimes some wouldn't commit them in the first place.
Click to expand...

Sentences and sentencing guidelines are already chock fucking full of excessive, outdated and misinformed boomer dumbassery from the war on drugs era.

The problem is liberal and commie DAs and judges that just send too many people who need some form of punishment right back onto the streets.
 
DT75FLH said:
Recidivism on violent offenders is around 64%...per ussc.gov
Click to expand...
Kinda like how most divorces are from people who've been divorced before.

Considering the number of people who go around and around and around again I'm surprised it's that low. :laughing:
 
Selective Sharia law would reduce that recidivism. Rapists, molesters, thieves also. Cut off certain shit, body parts as punishment. Violent criminals requires better definition. A husband defending his face and balls from attack by an intoxicated enraged wife gets railroaded and fucked over by the system, and is a "violent" offender.

edit: did I read correctly that a public defender brought this argument to the court ?
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
Not quite, Rahimi isn't a "non-violent" felon.
Click to expand...
The outlook on this case is interesting. It looks like they will not rule in favor of Rahimi but could include non-violent felons in the opinion and then GVR Range v Garland back down to be considered like they did with cases after Bruen.
 
Clb said:
Potato potatto
We only need 1 of the 5-6 on docket for discussion tomorrow to stick....
Click to expand...
Hopefully they take more than one. Bianchi only deals with semi-auto bans, we want them to include a magazine ban case as well so we can knock both out at once.
 
Clb said:
Potato potatto
We only need 1 of the 5-6 on docket for discussion tomorrow to stick....
Click to expand...
In the video and others on this subject there has been a big distinction made between violent and non-violent felons, so yes, it may well matter.
 
violent you lose, but then the whole enchELADA could be ruled unconstitutional if we followed the founders writing.....I just want scotus to spank the inferior courts and make the follow McDonald, Heller and Buren.
that will cure 80ish % of the bs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh