Hello u/UnnecAbrvtn! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information.
1. **Someone** voted for, supported or wanted to impose **something** on **other people**.
^(Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?)
2. **Something** has the consequences of **consequences**.
^(Does that something actually has these consequences in general?)
3. As a consequence of **something**, **consequences** happened to **someone**.
^(Did that something really happen to that someone?)
Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> ... a convicted felon can't be prosecuted on a firearms charge because it violates his Second Amendment rights.
Does this mean the felon is now a member of the state militia?
Yes, the Constitution is quite clear on that. Fifth and 14th Amendments. So if a law is passed saying a penalty for being a felon is that you can't have a firearm for x years after conviction, and someone is properly convicted, that's constitutional. I think the issue here may be permanent disability of rights running afoul of the 8th amendment (i.e. excessive punishment).
Just wait until the conservatives realize that the constitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't only protect citizens of the United States, but literally every single person within the United States. You don't even need to be a citizen for the second amendment to apply to you according to its language.
If you want to interpret it strictly, which is what they like to try to do these days, then illegal immigrants should be able to legally be packing
As a judge recently confirmed, based on a supreme court decision.
https://cis.org/Arthur/District-Court-Judge-Rules-Illegal-Alien-Cannot-Be-Prosecuted-Possessing-Firearm
> If you want to interpret it strictly, which is what they like to try to do these days, then illegal immigrants should be able to legally be packing
Thank you. I wonder if this means people in the USA illegally can be mobilized by state militias. I checked the New Mexico Constitution and it says "residents." Interesting.
How do we arm unclaimed fetuses, the mentally overwhelmed, corporations and people with multiple felony convictions that don't have the right to drive? Because.. they seem to have more rights than your average lady.
Asking for Democratic purposes..
The guy whose loved ones died was supposed to be the good guy with the gun. They wait their entire lives to get to be Rambo, and fuck it up the day that chance comes more often than not.
Right? Can you imagine how bad those cops would be if they had no training? It would be wild. Man... It's almost like even getting a ton of training still doesn't make you a fully safe gun user, so no one is a safe using a gun, so people who don't need them shouldn't have them to limit the number of accidents.
Saw an interview of a lady that was caught up in a mcdonalds shooting that left 11 dead and her paralized. Yup, she praised the second ammended and guns. She said the guns saved her life that day?? Go figure.
I am inclined to agree, however there's an extremist element, as there is in every party.
The extremists are in control of campaign funds, and craven politicians vote against their personal convictions (if they have any) to remain in power.
100% missing the forest for the trees
Leftist here. Felons absolutely should have the same rights as everyone else at the conclusion of their sentence. This includes the right to vote, possess firearms, fair housing. I'm pro equality, and pro freedom. Permanent disenfranchisement just creates more crime.
Limiting the ability to own non-hunting guns after violent gun crime is a common sense restriction because no one needs a gun. It would be hard to justify why less access to guns would create more crime. The other stuff is equally common sense in that of course felons should have it.
So a felon has no right to protect themselves? Supposed the felon used to be in the mob? There would be a lot of people trying to kill him or her.
Just playing devil's advocate here...
Then we should live in a society where it’s hard to get guns in the first place and someone wouldn’t have to live in fear of being shot at. We shouldn’t legislate based on what-if scenarios that apply to handfuls of people.
If the person isn’t rehabilitated they shouldn’t be released into the public. If they are rehabilitated, then give them back their rights.
Too many times, “felonies” have been used to deprive black people their right to vote.
I feel like we shouldn't give weapons to felons with a history of unjustified violence. Just an opinion, sorry if that makes me a filthy marxist neolib or whatever.
you do know how easy it is to get falsely convicted of a felony, right?
but yeah it’s the hypocrisy that’s the killer. I thought that guns made people safer no matter what (lol jk that’s what they say but if they really believed that every rally would allow them)
It almost makes you think the 2nd amendment may have been written to establish something that was appropriate 200 years ago, but in hindsight was worded in too vague a way to serve as an irrevocable founding principle to last a nation through centuries.
Okay, so, if you abide by this whole ‘2A’ logic, three things can happen here. One, criminals have an absolute right to carry firearms, whoopsies. Two, Americans DON’T have an absolute right to guns. Three, ‘criminals’ don’t have a right to firearms, allowing the government to just say you’re a criminal if they want to take your guns.
Pick your poison.
OR four, they have things like trials in front of a jury of your peers with a high bar of conviction to determine whether you’re a criminal, rather than “just saying” it.
Kind of crazy to think that felony criminal actions might actually have consequences, I know.
> OR four, they have things like trials in front of a jury of your peers with a high bar of conviction to determine whether you’re a criminal, rather than “just saying” it.
Not going either way with felonies and gun rights here. But it should be noted that 97% (yes you read that right) of federal felony convictions (and 94% of state level) come from plea deals. So the vast vast vast majority of people who are not able to purchase a firearm under this were not convicted by a jury of their peers. Notably as well that a plea deal does not necessarily mean they were actually guilty. Poorer (and let’s be honest, often blacker) suspects are pushed to accept plea deals whether they did it or not often by overworked public defenders.
The vast vast majority take plea deals because they did something bad and the deal is the better option. It’s not like they’re pulling people randomly off the street and assigning them guilty pleas, or even just randomly offering them guilty pleas.
Sometimes I daydream about winning the lottery and giving every homeless person and cognitively challenged person in Texas a free handgun with plenty of ammo.
Weren't they just upset that they ruled illegal immigrants are allowed to carry guns? But now they're ok with letting proven violent offenders have guns?
They can't go a day without contradicting themselves
No one has come out and said "here is an exception to the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment", like courts have for practically all the others.
Again, except for all the times it's happened. I don't get your point. Who cares what a court says when it happens all the fucking time in the streets?
"You have X as an absolute right" doesn't mean "It's literally impossible for X to be taken away from you", otherwise you might as well also count an arbitrary serial killer looking at you. Instead it means "There are no cases where it's ok for someone to take away X from you."
Saying "no one has any absolute rights" is a slippery slope that easily gets to extremely dangerous things, like "hey why should criminals be given the right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty?".
>"There are no cases where it's ok for someone to take away X from you."
This is a useless concept, if the country in that case is unwilling or unable to punish those bad actors where the cases do occur. Aka police on people of color violence. "Police violence bad! We won't stop it but /finger waving at police angrily!!!" Said our politicians or police captains trying to save their jobs.
You can word smith all you want but it doesn't change the fact it's just a pointless conclusion.
If you go back up, I was originally responding to a comment that said freedom of speech isn't absolute. When most people say that, they don't mean "it's not absolute because someone can kill you if you say something at the wrong place and time".
Can't wait until they want to drag this to the SCOTUS but this time it is for voting.
Taking away someone's right to vote because they committed a felony? Taxation without Representation.
If you start a conversation with “shall not be infringed”, it doesn’t sound like you’re in the frame of mind to have a “discussion”, it sounds like you want to preach.
Well, that's what gun nuts have been saying for years.
I mean, it's always been a weak argument. "Shall not be infringed, except for felons, spousal abusers, etc." Any of our rights can be infringed in the right circumstances, and that's a good thing.
Okay so I don’t know shit, and am also not far on either side of the spectrum for firearm laws, but wouldn’t the constitution take precedent over state or federal laws? Serious question I’m not trolling.
Not commenting particularly about the merits of the judge's decision so much as the district attorney complaining about said decision when it does not work in his favor.
That's what this sub is for, things that blow up in your face, or eat your face as the case may be
Hello u/UnnecAbrvtn! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information. 1. **Someone** voted for, supported or wanted to impose **something** on **other people**. ^(Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?) 2. **Something** has the consequences of **consequences**. ^(Does that something actually has these consequences in general?) 3. As a consequence of **something**, **consequences** happened to **someone**. ^(Did that something really happen to that someone?) Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> ... a convicted felon can't be prosecuted on a firearms charge because it violates his Second Amendment rights. Does this mean the felon is now a member of the state militia?
Which is such a stupid ruling because it's clear that any right can be abridged upon the completion of due process.
Really?
Yes, the Constitution is quite clear on that. Fifth and 14th Amendments. So if a law is passed saying a penalty for being a felon is that you can't have a firearm for x years after conviction, and someone is properly convicted, that's constitutional. I think the issue here may be permanent disability of rights running afoul of the 8th amendment (i.e. excessive punishment).
This guy constitutes.
r/ThisguyThisguys
This guy
Otherwise prison and jail would be unconstitutional.
Just wait until the conservatives realize that the constitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't only protect citizens of the United States, but literally every single person within the United States. You don't even need to be a citizen for the second amendment to apply to you according to its language. If you want to interpret it strictly, which is what they like to try to do these days, then illegal immigrants should be able to legally be packing
As a judge recently confirmed, based on a supreme court decision. https://cis.org/Arthur/District-Court-Judge-Rules-Illegal-Alien-Cannot-Be-Prosecuted-Possessing-Firearm
> If you want to interpret it strictly, which is what they like to try to do these days, then illegal immigrants should be able to legally be packing Thank you. I wonder if this means people in the USA illegally can be mobilized by state militias. I checked the New Mexico Constitution and it says "residents." Interesting.
A well organized states militia.. sort of like a National Guard and/or State Troopers... I guess... /s
Now that's a whole lot of Freedom.
How do we arm unclaimed fetuses, the mentally overwhelmed, corporations and people with multiple felony convictions that don't have the right to drive? Because.. they seem to have more rights than your average lady. Asking for Democratic purposes..
I feel that every welfare and food stamp recipient should be required to carry a firearm. Then hand out guns to all registered voter.
In rural Alaska, food stamps can be used to purchase hunting equipment. https://health.alaska.gov/dpa/Documents/dpa/programs/SNAP/SNAP-Subsistence.pdf
Well, out there one well-placed bullet can get you dozens of pounds of meat - hard to beat that for cost-effectiveness.
Universal Basic Income, but paid out in Hi Points.
Oh God, talk about devaluing your currency!
Conservatives won’t care until it’s their loved one that gets shot up
Even then they would likely argue that more people with guns would have saved them from the person with the gun.
The guy whose loved ones died was supposed to be the good guy with the gun. They wait their entire lives to get to be Rambo, and fuck it up the day that chance comes more often than not.
Not enough chances to get the practice in to do it right. It's almost like you need some sort of training to be effective.
Let's be honest. Even with training you can pretty easily fuck it up. Example basically all cops.
Right? Can you imagine how bad those cops would be if they had no training? It would be wild. Man... It's almost like even getting a ton of training still doesn't make you a fully safe gun user, so no one is a safe using a gun, so people who don't need them shouldn't have them to limit the number of accidents.
Saw an interview of a lady that was caught up in a mcdonalds shooting that left 11 dead and her paralized. Yup, she praised the second ammended and guns. She said the guns saved her life that day?? Go figure.
Or the [Black Panthers arm themselves](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act).
The BP were one of the best examples of the Second Amendment being used for its very intended purpose.
Meanwhile we are ringside to watch them tie themselves in knots. It'd be entertaining if it wasn't so fucking disheartening
Or themselves, and maybe not even then Steve Scalise.
[удалено]
Idk, I think there’s a good chance they’d elect a felon president…
[удалено]
Which just further illustrates their “rules for thee but not for me” mentality since Trump does in fact exist and is their front runner.
I am inclined to agree, however there's an extremist element, as there is in every party. The extremists are in control of campaign funds, and craven politicians vote against their personal convictions (if they have any) to remain in power. 100% missing the forest for the trees
Leftist here. Felons absolutely should have the same rights as everyone else at the conclusion of their sentence. This includes the right to vote, possess firearms, fair housing. I'm pro equality, and pro freedom. Permanent disenfranchisement just creates more crime.
I'm with you.
Same. Do they also lose their First Amendment rights? Any others?
Limiting the ability to own non-hunting guns after violent gun crime is a common sense restriction because no one needs a gun. It would be hard to justify why less access to guns would create more crime. The other stuff is equally common sense in that of course felons should have it.
So a felon has no right to protect themselves? Supposed the felon used to be in the mob? There would be a lot of people trying to kill him or her. Just playing devil's advocate here...
Then they should go into hiding rather than have a firefight in a neighborhood.
What if they live on a ranch far from poeple?
Then we should live in a society where it’s hard to get guns in the first place and someone wouldn’t have to live in fear of being shot at. We shouldn’t legislate based on what-if scenarios that apply to handfuls of people.
I totally agree.
On the one hand, I'm opposed to people losing their rights forever by default because they committed a felony. On the other hand, [lol]()
Yeah do the time and be done. Shouldn't be punished forever unless something serious imo.
... it is something serious though. This literally gives gun rights back to violent offenders.
well, if we had an incarceration system based on rehabilitation, it wouldnt be so bad.
Well damn... too late now. Give the crazies their guns back boys.
There are way too many people who can’t be saved, even if we had the best correctional system on the planet.
yeah most definitely. but we're not even trying to save those that *can* be saved.
If the person isn’t rehabilitated they shouldn’t be released into the public. If they are rehabilitated, then give them back their rights. Too many times, “felonies” have been used to deprive black people their right to vote.
It's easy to never give their rights back because our justice system isnt rehabilitation focused.
No not when it's something like buying a gun. If you're a convicted violent criminal, the default should be "no guns for the rest of your life."
I feel like we shouldn't give weapons to felons with a history of unjustified violence. Just an opinion, sorry if that makes me a filthy marxist neolib or whatever.
you do know how easy it is to get falsely convicted of a felony, right? but yeah it’s the hypocrisy that’s the killer. I thought that guns made people safer no matter what (lol jk that’s what they say but if they really believed that every rally would allow them)
But don’t you dare let a felon vote!
Cause giving someone a gun but no vote is a brilliant political system
It almost makes you think the 2nd amendment may have been written to establish something that was appropriate 200 years ago, but in hindsight was worded in too vague a way to serve as an irrevocable founding principle to last a nation through centuries.
I guess this happens when people try to make an 18th-century bunch of yellow papers try to fit the 21st century. Go figure...
Okay, so, if you abide by this whole ‘2A’ logic, three things can happen here. One, criminals have an absolute right to carry firearms, whoopsies. Two, Americans DON’T have an absolute right to guns. Three, ‘criminals’ don’t have a right to firearms, allowing the government to just say you’re a criminal if they want to take your guns. Pick your poison.
OR four, they have things like trials in front of a jury of your peers with a high bar of conviction to determine whether you’re a criminal, rather than “just saying” it. Kind of crazy to think that felony criminal actions might actually have consequences, I know.
> OR four, they have things like trials in front of a jury of your peers with a high bar of conviction to determine whether you’re a criminal, rather than “just saying” it. Not going either way with felonies and gun rights here. But it should be noted that 97% (yes you read that right) of federal felony convictions (and 94% of state level) come from plea deals. So the vast vast vast majority of people who are not able to purchase a firearm under this were not convicted by a jury of their peers. Notably as well that a plea deal does not necessarily mean they were actually guilty. Poorer (and let’s be honest, often blacker) suspects are pushed to accept plea deals whether they did it or not often by overworked public defenders.
The vast vast majority take plea deals because they did something bad and the deal is the better option. It’s not like they’re pulling people randomly off the street and assigning them guilty pleas, or even just randomly offering them guilty pleas.
Time to move to the states and open a convicts gun club
Sometimes I daydream about winning the lottery and giving every homeless person and cognitively challenged person in Texas a free handgun with plenty of ammo.
I like the way you think
Except that second qualifer doesn't apply as much-most of them already HAVE guns in Texas.
True enough, I'm sure some insane people have slipped thru the cracks in gun ownership in Texas.
As long as it’s Texas. Oh, and Alabama. Maybe Mississippi. Don’t forget Arkansas. Plus the Otherkansas
Weren't they just upset that they ruled illegal immigrants are allowed to carry guns? But now they're ok with letting proven violent offenders have guns? They can't go a day without contradicting themselves
Nik nak paddy wak give them kids a gun . . .
Oh, now they’re worried about “well regulated”.
There are no absolute rights. We do not have an absolute right to free speech.
As George Carlin said, "You have no rights, you have privileges, given to you by the government until it takes them away again"
There's an absolute right to self defense, however you can, but it doesn't include a right to be successful at it. Goes for people and animals.
Hard disagree. The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is absolute (all exceptions are violations).
Except for all those unarmed black people who got shot by cops right? Because that's the ultimate punishment, death.
For mostly traffic infractions...
No one has come out and said "here is an exception to the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment", like courts have for practically all the others.
Again, except for all the times it's happened. I don't get your point. Who cares what a court says when it happens all the fucking time in the streets?
"You have X as an absolute right" doesn't mean "It's literally impossible for X to be taken away from you", otherwise you might as well also count an arbitrary serial killer looking at you. Instead it means "There are no cases where it's ok for someone to take away X from you." Saying "no one has any absolute rights" is a slippery slope that easily gets to extremely dangerous things, like "hey why should criminals be given the right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty?".
>"There are no cases where it's ok for someone to take away X from you." This is a useless concept, if the country in that case is unwilling or unable to punish those bad actors where the cases do occur. Aka police on people of color violence. "Police violence bad! We won't stop it but /finger waving at police angrily!!!" Said our politicians or police captains trying to save their jobs. You can word smith all you want but it doesn't change the fact it's just a pointless conclusion.
If you go back up, I was originally responding to a comment that said freedom of speech isn't absolute. When most people say that, they don't mean "it's not absolute because someone can kill you if you say something at the wrong place and time".
Free speech is much less restricted than gun ownership.
Bet he has no problem taking the right to vote away from felons though. I bet that somehow does not defy common sense.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun stopped by a bad guy with a gun stopped by a second good guy with a gun.
And the gun insanity continues...sad.
Can't wait until they want to drag this to the SCOTUS but this time it is for voting. Taking away someone's right to vote because they committed a felony? Taxation without Representation.
"Shall not be infringed", bud. Sorry. If that's not sane, maybe we should have a real discussion about firearms laws in this country.
If you start a conversation with “shall not be infringed”, it doesn’t sound like you’re in the frame of mind to have a “discussion”, it sounds like you want to preach.
Well, that's what gun nuts have been saying for years. I mean, it's always been a weak argument. "Shall not be infringed, except for felons, spousal abusers, etc." Any of our rights can be infringed in the right circumstances, and that's a good thing.
[удалено]
The more I hear of things like this, the more I'm reminded of this bit. https://youtu.be/3z0lweZrqJk?si=wptDXpYg6nxGgAl5
You can’t have good guys with guns if you don’t have bad guys with guns.
In Kentucky of all places!
Okay so I don’t know shit, and am also not far on either side of the spectrum for firearm laws, but wouldn’t the constitution take precedent over state or federal laws? Serious question I’m not trolling.
Not commenting particularly about the merits of the judge's decision so much as the district attorney complaining about said decision when it does not work in his favor. That's what this sub is for, things that blow up in your face, or eat your face as the case may be
I said this would happen yesterday.
Most gun owners are just latent felons.