US appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent offenses shouldn't face lifetime gun ban

[CMJeepster 2,676]

"US appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent offenses shouldn't face lifetime gun ban"

US appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent offenses shouldn't face lifetime gun ban (msn.com)

------

I'm torn on this.  While I firmly believe that violent criminals, domestic abusers, etc. shouldn't be allowed to own / possess firearms, I'm not so sure that I agree with this ruling IN GENERAL.  While this specific case involves "misstating his income to receive about $2,500 in food stamps," I counter with ideas like drug dealers, tax fraud, etc.  To me, those would be cases that would justify a ban.

Thoughts?

[Scorpio64 4,900]

So, lemme get this straight.  The political party that promotes the social theory that "silence is violence", believes non physical predatory crime is not violent. 

 

 

[CMJeepster 2,676]

For example:  DOJ Prosecuting Pot-Using Gun Owners Despite State Legalization (msn.com)

[voyager9 3,364]

With the over classification of non-violent crimes as felonies this ruling is absolutely necessary.   

[b47356 16]

5 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

For example:  DOJ Prosecuting Pot-Using Gun Owners Despite State Legalization (msn.com)

So it is still illegal to possess schedule 1 drugs? Imagine that.

I've long wondered how democrats square the idea of sanctuary cities/states and state legalization of pot with their fight against things like 2nd amendment sanctuary states.

How does ignoring federal immigration and drug law go untouched in court?

[maintenanceguy 491]

I believe this ruling is limited to the individual who filed the law suit.  That one person gets his rights back.  Other law suits would need to be filed for this to extend to anyone else but it certainly opens the door.

 

[JackDaWack 2,877]

On 6/7/2023 at 6:06 PM, b47356 said:

So it is still illegal to possess schedule 1 drugs? Imagine that.

I've long wondered how democrats square the idea of sanctuary cities/states and state legalization of pot with their fight against things like 2nd amendment sanctuary states.

How does ignoring federal immigration and drug law go untouched in court?

States are not required to enforce federal law, that's how. 

[Vdep217 57]

37 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

States are not required to enforce federal law, that's how. 

Actually they are.  They can be more restrictive but not less.  But the administration won't do anything about the states not following it.

 They would have to go through preemption wich has only been attempted unsuccessfully 3 times since tge constitutions inception.  And if memory serves ne 1832 was the last time

[JackDaWack 2,877]

6 hours ago, Vdep217 said:

Actually they are.  They can be more restrictive but not less.  But the administration won't do anything about the states not following it.

 They would have to go through preemption wich has only been attempted unsuccessfully 3 times since tge constitutions inception.  And if memory serves ne 1832 was the last time

A state like NJ, it's officers do not enforce federal law. A state level police officer  lacks the power to arrest someone on federal charges. 

The supremacy clause is why they can walk into any state and arrest anyone for having broken federal law. 

[NickySantoro 208]

I agree. There are some people who shouldn't be allowed to own a sharp stick. I have no issues with an accountant who's "felony" was cooking the books having a gun.

[b47356 16]

On 6/10/2023 at 3:01 PM, JackDaWack said:

States are not required to enforce federal law, that's how. 

Of course not.

Does that make it legal for a state to harbor illegal immigrants? How about making sure said illegals don't run into those fed officers by the front door by taking them out a back door?

Now we have states declaring that schedule 1 drugs are ok to possess and use. And the admin stands around doing nothing.. (well, they did add a note to the 4473.. I guess that is something)

But a state passes something that says that they will no longer cooperate on 2A related things? Well that ends up in court really quick.. and we all know how it ends up going for that state. Maybe they should of stuck with illegals and pot.

   

[Mr.Stu 1,694]

On 6/10/2023 at 3:01 PM, JackDaWack said:

States are not required to enforce federal law, that's how. 

Not required, but federal money is awfully tempting. There are numerous NJ LEO that are dual sworn as federal LEO too so they can have arrest powers when working with the Feds.

The NJ change that now allows off duty LEO to use marijuana does not apply to those dual sworn officers. The federal schedule 1 status for dope supersedes the state 'legalization'.

[JackDaWack 2,877]

17 hours ago, b47356 said:

Of course not.

Does that make it legal for a state to harbor illegal immigrants? How about making sure said illegals don't run into those fed officers by the front door by taking them out a back door?

Now we have states declaring that schedule 1 drugs are ok to possess and use. And the admin stands around doing nothing.. (well, they did add a note to the 4473.. I guess that is something)

But a state passes something that says that they will no longer cooperate on 2A related things? Well that ends up in court really quick.. and we all know how it ends up going for that state. Maybe they should of stuck with illegals and pot.

   

Well, you can't pass a law the would inhibit the feds from doing their job. A state is free to tell the Feds if they want to enforce THEIR federal law, they are on their own. A state is not required to communicate if a federal law is broken. More so, there are no federal laws against harboring illegals, unless of course if they are know fugitives. 

 

There has been nothing done to a state that simply said they would not cooperate or communicate with the ATF. 

[b47356 16]

On 6/13/2023 at 2:34 PM, JackDaWack said:

There has been nothing done to a state that simply said they would not cooperate or communicate with the ATF.

The 9th circuit held in 2013 that a firearm made in a state and that never leaves that state, it still has an effect on the national market for firearms - so the BATFE could continue doing whatever they wish, and preempting the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

Now you can say "well its the 9th" - but SCOTUS didn't take the case.

On 6/13/2023 at 2:34 PM, JackDaWack said:

there are no federal laws against harboring illegals

Unlawful entry into the US is a felony. Not a crime to harbor a felon?

[JackDaWack 2,877]

On 6/15/2023 at 8:43 PM, b47356 said:

The 9th circuit held in 2013 that a firearm made in a state and that never leaves that state, it still has an effect on the national market for firearms - so the BATFE could continue doing whatever they wish, and preempting the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

Now you can say "well its the 9th" - but SCOTUS didn't take the case.

Unlawful entry into the US is a felony. Not a crime to harbor a felon?

Committing a felony and being a felon are 2 distinct differences, even more so when they have to be classified a fugitive.

 

It is illegal to harbor illegal aliens, so I would have to say I was wrong with that statement. Even DJTs admin didn't pursue that level of enforcement, which makes you wonder.