yes i expect to see more and do hope its for the better for all our sakes
1 Like
Hello everyone. I just got an update on the Supreme Court Case on NYC. And here is the link to the update.
4 Likes
If felons were adjudicated properly, and the punishment fit the crime, AND lawers were NOT allowed to plea-bargain assault with a deadly weapon down to simple battery then there would be no reason to disarm felons after they exit the penal system. Justice should be swift… how many convicted felons have been sitting on death row for DECADES??? TOO MANY. In the 1800’s before and after the War Between the States… horse thieves and murderers were HUNG, IN PUBLIC shortly after conviction. We now have tens of thousands of laws on the books… WHY? EVERY Law should have a “sunset” provision after which it is REMOVED from the US Code unless it was renewed. Politicians (almost ALL are lawyers) are the BIGGEST problem in America Today. Swift Justice AND getting Lawyers OUT of politics could solve a myriad of problems in short order.
Look into Frangible ammo… disintegrates on contact… Full energy transfer into your target. It’s not cheap but there is little chance of overpenetration.
1 Like
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here, @Edvard. Why would you allow felons to have a firearm after they got out of prison?
1 Like
There are myriad forms of felonius activity… Lying To Congress comes to mind, Perjury, IF properly adjudicated violent felons won’t get out until they are fossils at which point thay are just as vulnerable to attack as other OLD people. The ones who have proven to be extremely dangerous WON’T get out at all, because every additional incident will increase their time served. Our biggest problem is Pansy judges and courts who DON’T provide appropriate sentences. Look at Jussie Smollet, Hate crime FRAUD and the DA drops all charges, 16 of them? because someone with political connections was able to interfere in the system. The DA was amenable to being influenced, but we have heard nothing about the “influencer” facing charges, although Smollet is not going to get off scott free. Point is? Not all felons are violent but all people deserve to be able to defend themselves. Why disarm an 80 year old embezzler? They’re going to be poor until the end so why make it worse? Violent felons? Keep’em locked up forever… they’ll make it easy for ya with multiple offenses, 3 strikes, etc. Seriously.
2 Likes
Nonviolent felons, especially so called “white collar” criminals, can have their rights restored. It is a drawn out, and expensive process, but, if you break the law, expect the punishment. The lawyers plea bargaining the charges down, is on them if that person commits another violent crime, morally at least.
2 Likes
Thanks for explaining, @Edvard! While I agree that there are varying degrees of felony, IMO any violent felon should not get their firearm rights back. They knew what they were getting into when they committed the felony. Maybe if they proved they were rehabilitated? Not sure how that would happen.
2 Likes
I did look into it and bought some. Thanks.
1 Like
I am not a Constitutional scholar, nor do I play one on TV. 
So my thoughts are just my opinion. In answer to your questions. The best rationale for 2A rights to be removed from the classes that you listed is that through actions they were responsible for they removed themselves from the status of Citizenry, are not of an age required to be a member of the Citizenry, or they are not competent or responsible for their conduct and thus are not counted as members of the Citizenry.
-
Felons, through their criminal actions, remove themselves from the 2A protections afforded to the Citizenry.
-
Minors, well they are just that. To young at that time to be considered protected members of the Citizenry that the 2A protects.
-
The mentally incompetent, by definition are not competent and thus not responsible for their acts. Which removes them from the Citizenry that the 2A protects.
Now the hard question, for me anyways, is do I agree with my thoughts on the why’s of this.
To be perfectly honest I don’t. At least not completely. I dislike any, one size fits all, removal of Constitutionanal protections.
2 Likes
I like how you explained your points, @Zavier_D, and I agree that one size fits all isn’t always the best way to handle things.
One of my biggest questions (in general, not necessarily of you, @Zavier_D) is who declares someone mentally incompetent? 
1 Like
That is the one size fits all standard that I disagree on. I believe mental illness is a disease. One that is treatable and can eventually be cured. But I not aware of a mechanism that is in place to remove a diagnosed mental incapacity and restore the Civil Rights of someone who has lost their rights due to an involuntary commitment due to mental disease or disorder.
I also feel that some (edited to add some) convicted felons can be rehabilitated, fortunately there is a mechanism in place to restore Civil Rights. An expensive and arduous one, but it is there.
This is an extreme example, but I am sure that some demographic of our population, would find that members of this forum, to be paranoid and/or delusional, due to our belief that we train for self defense. Which many say and some experts would state that are statistically remote, thus an argument for 2A proponents being paranoid. I think many of us are aware of the narrative that MSM was pushing during the run up to the VCDL lobby day. I found it to be disgusting and abhorrent, but there are many who bought into the characterizations being pushed.
The same goes for those of us who Prep for a statistically remote chance of a societal interruption in services. To many of us, here on this forum it’s just plain good sense, for those of us who accept that possibilty. But to someone outside of our community, who expects that power, water, shopping and other convenience of modern day life to always be available, we, as a community may be viewed as paranoid.
So it wouldn’t be that far of a leap to find a medical professional who would diagnose our behavior as irrational or paranoid.
2 Likes
I’d add the word some in there - some convicted felons can be rehabilitated.
While I expect that power, water, etc. will always be available - I know that there’s a chance it won’t. My philosophy is hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
1 Like
SCOTUS has decided to not go any further with this case as it has been declared “moot” since the offending laws were removed by the city and the state passed another law that wouldn’t allow it coming back. Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas, and Neil M. Gorsuch were dissenting. It appears Kavanaugh went with the majority because of mootness.
Full opinion → https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Write up from the Washington Post:
I pulled a few quotes from the article so you dont have to mess with their paywall.
“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.
But the setback for gun rights activists may only be temporary. It was clear from the decision that four justices — the minimum number needed to take a case — want to examine whether lower courts have been too quick to uphold gun control measures that might violate the Second Amendment.
Although Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote that he agreed the New York case was moot, he added, “I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying” the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing an individual’s right to gun ownership. “The court should address the issue soon,” he wrote.
After the Supreme Court took the case to decide whether those restrictions violated the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the city got rid of them. Then the state of New York passed a law that would keep them from being reenacted.
The unstated purpose of both the city and state actions might have been to make the case moot and deny conservatives on the court a chance to explore whether there is a right to carry a gun outside the home.
The majority opinion said only that the case was moot, and that arguments made by plaintiffs to try to keep it alive were too late.
Gun safety groups celebrated the decision.
“This ruling should come as a relief to every American worried about keeping their family safe from gun violence,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. “The NRA and its allies are losing everywhere from state legislatures to boardrooms, which means the courts are their last hope. But they’ll keep losing there too, because the courts have ruled time and again that common-sense gun laws are constitutional.”
Jason Ouimet, executive director for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement: “Now that the Supreme Court has accepted New York’s surrender, perhaps the city will finally repay all legal fees incurred by their deceit … The justices’ concerns about Second Amendment infringements are real, and our membership is excited to have their rights formally vindicated before the nation’s highest court.”
Alito said that if the court had reached the merits of the decision, it would have been clear the New York law would not pass muster.
“History provides no support for a restriction of this type,” Alito wrote. “The city’s public safety arguments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing.”
One up you:
1 Like
SIGH…
Why didn’t the Supreme Court take a single one of these cases, given the fact that we know there were four justices in favor of hearing a Second Amendment-related challenge? The most obvious answer is that the four justices were unconvinced that they would have a fifth and deciding vote to uphold the right to keep and bear arms.
…
We don’t know for sure, because the Supreme Court is one of the last remaining leak-proof institutions in Washington, D.C., but I’d say that for now, the theory that Roberts is a question mark or has indicated opposition to these 2A cases is the most likely theory.
1 Like
I have been thinking about a politician, not going to name, who said cops should learn to shoot for the legs instead of the heart. Anyone out there ever seen a man shot in the leg? I have, three touts in Vietnam. Ever hear of the femoral artery? It is in the leg. If a bullet severs that artery you have about 30 seconds of life. Not much chance to survive. Getting a bullet through the heart might be a better chance to live.
1 Like
why can states like NY reject concealed carry under HR-218? Strange that a state can over ride a federal law.
I don’t understand this either.