Judge holds gun ban for felony defendants unconstitutional (msn.com)

If this leads to removing the restriction for felons on buying guns, there could be a big backlash.  

12 minutes ago, ESB said:

Judge holds gun ban for felony defendants unconstitutional (msn.com)

If this leads to removing the restriction for felons on buying guns, there could be a big backlash.  

They're not felons until after a verdict is reached.

Quote

he ruled the ban unconstitutional as the “Second Amendment is not a 'second class right,” as noted in a 2008 Supreme Court ruling. ”No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right," Counts wrote. 

If we can ban/restrict felons from voting, then we can restrict their 2a rights.

Click-bait titles drive me insane.  There's just a wee bit of context left out here...
 

Quote

Judge holds gun ban for felony defendants unconstitutional (msn.com)

DEFENDANTS, as in, INDICTED but NOT CONVICTED.  They're not FELONS.

We're still, at least on paper, innocent until found guilty in a court of law here in the US.

26 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Click-bait titles drive me insane.  There's just a wee bit of context left out here...
 

DEFENDANTS, as in, INDICTED but NOT CONVICTED.  They're not FELONS.

We're still, at least on paper, innocent until found guilty in a court of law here in the US.

I had no issue reading the title it says felony "defendants". 

I dont see how this would lead to anything considered "backlash", if anything we should be arguing with the judge that until due process is completed the individual retains their rights... they can still vote under indictment after all.

This is clearly a positive as no one can now CHARGE a felony in order to take away guns.

My point was that this could lead to another case trying to get rid of the ban on felons having guns.  If that were to happen there would be backlash.  

 

I found this video to be helpful...

 

The whole felon banned from voting and weapons rights is kind of BS anyway. I'm not saying karen  isn't gonna cry like the good NPC  simply because chucky shummer told her, like they were told to over roe. Either way the whole felony being a blanket exclusion is total crap.

And before someone loses their crap over my statement think about everything that could land you a felony and the loss of your rights. When you think felon you think some crack dealer beating his girlfriend and shooting someone innocent kid in cross fire but  in reality it could be the NJ gun owner who went to the range with hollow points last week and one rolled out of his ammo bag under his seat and a week later when he was pulled over and the police saw it.

 

15 minutes ago, Ferris said:

The whole felon banned from voting and weapons rights is kind of BS anyway. I'm not saying karen  isn't gonna cry like the good NPC  simply because chucky shummer told her, like they were told to over roe. Either way the whole felony being a blanket exclusion is total crap.

And before someone loses their crap over my statement think about everything that could land you a felony and the loss of your rights. When you think felon you think some crack dealer beating his girlfriend and shooting someone innocent kid in cross fire but  in reality it could be the NJ gun owner who went to the range with hollow points last week and one rolled out of his ammo bag under his seat and a week later when he was pulled over and the police saw it.

 

The fix for that isn’t to allow felons to vote and own guns, it’s to properly classify certain bullshit transgressions like possession of hollow points as non-felonies 

I know, in NJ it’s ‘crimes/disorderly persons offenses’ but I prefer the language the rest of the country uses.

12 minutes ago, 10X said:

The fix for that isn’t to allow felons to vote and own guns, it’s to properly classify certain bullshit transgressions like possession of hollow points as non-felonies 

I know, in NJ it’s ‘crimes/disorderly persons offenses’ but I prefer the language the rest of the country uses.

I agree with you, I think a better approach is violent felonies vs non violent.  I can't help but think about Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and how any one of us can lose our rights over basically nothing.

I'd suggest reading "3 Felonies a day" basic premise the average citizens commits felonies and doesn't even realize it and an over aggressive government can and does prosecute people. Not saying I have any answers but I definitely no longer support any blanket right revocations.

6 hours ago, Ferris said:

The whole felon banned from voting and weapons rights is kind of BS anyway.

 

Yep, if they've served their time and not on parole they shouldn't be denied their 2nd rights.

As for voting, if we were a serious country there would be a long list of people ineligible to vote but thats another subject.

***DELETED***

35 minutes ago, samiam said:

That's fine, unless and until TPTB redefine "violence" to include causing someone to "feel threatened" merely by looking or acting in some way they have been brainwashed to fear.  

LOL you have a point there, they're trying to redefine domestic terrorism as not wanting your 1st grader learning about boi vaginas and women penises. We live in some serious scary times, not agreeing with a regime  is violence and  family values are white supremacy and domestic terrorism. What a time to be alive.