Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MechAg94 on September 21, 2022, 08:44:10 AM
-
Texas judge rules that people under felony indictment have the right to buy guns under the Second Amendment (Federal Judge)
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/19/second-amendment-texas-case-buy-guns-felony-indictment/
It is no longer constitutional to ban people under felony indictment from buying guns, a federal judge in Texas ruled Monday.
U.S. District Judge David Counts, appointed by former President Donald Trump to Texas’ western federal district, found that a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June invalidates federal law which prohibits those charged with a felony from obtaining a gun. It was not immediately clear if the ruling would be appealed.
Very nice to see this. I was reminded recently that we should not be treating people who have not been convicted as criminals. Probably not the part I would have predicted to fall first, but good to see judges putting the Bruen decision into action.
Credit to Guns and Gadgets for getting the story out:
HUGE 2A WIN! Part of 4473 Ruled Unconstitutional!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wre72v96qfE
-
2A WIN - Federal Gun Law Ruled Unconstitutional Under NYSRPA V. Bruen -- Armed Attorneys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34n355sZd1s
Said a lot of the same stuff, but also said the Govt is appealing. 5th Circuit I believe.
-
Meanwhile in Oregon.
-
It interesting right now. There is a strong push to reform the justice system by reducing the use of monetary bonds for pretrial incarceration and ensuring the rights of accused (but not convicted) people are protected. Meanwhile, judges who are doing exactly this are getting blasted on social media and in the press for putting the public in danger by not locking up people arrested/indicted for crimes.
-
It interesting right now. There is a strong push to reform the justice system by reducing the use of monetary bonds for pretrial incarceration and ensuring the rights of accused (but not convicted) people are protected. Meanwhile, judges who are doing exactly this are getting blasted on social media and in the press for putting the public in danger by not locking up people arrested/indicted for crimes.
I don't know if the public anger is necessarily at the right people. The idea that some prosecutors/judges have been soft balling repeat offenders has been happening for a while. Happens in my county. I remember one Houston guy talk about offenders getting plea deals over and over such that a criminal who has committed multiple felonies does NOT have a felony on their record and judges/prosecutors use that to justify a light sentence or plea deal for the next crime even though they have committed felonies before just never pled to that charge. That is only one facet and I don't really know if that falls on the DA's office, the elected judges, or the politicians.
I mentioned that first because the no-bail stuff comes on top of that. People are seeing far too many stories of criminals committing very serious crimes and they find out they were just released on bond or they were already on parole. Potentially some of these criminals could get several felony arrests and still not see trial for the first one. I don't know if criminal record is admissible in trial in my state, but I am beginning to think it should be a major factor. I feel like repeat offenders may be committing the majority of crimes.
And on top of all that is politicians have deliberately reduce penalties for petty crime/theft in some areas to the point that businesses are closing/moving as they can't deal with all the shoplifting.
I don't know that I have the answer, but it sure seems like the leftist judges and DA that are currently in office in Houston are not concerned about it at all. In some states, it sure seems like the politicians are doing their level best to promote chaos. A lot of that stuff isn't happening everywhere, but some of it is happening all over.
Overall, I like the idea of not treating people like convicted felons before trial. It would be a lot easier to deal with if the trial happened quickly and everything was resolved in a few months. Our justice system just isn't set up to handle things that fast (or so it seems). I think maybe repeat offenders should be treated differently, but I don't know if that is really fair either.
-
I am ready for 100% of people convicted of a serious violent crime (armed robbery and up) to be publicly executed shortly after their first conviction.
I don't know if it would deter crime, but it would certainly stop repeat offenses.
And hiring a lot more Judges, prosecutors, public defenders and executioners would be money well spent.
We have high violent crime because we tolerate it.
-
I am ready for 100% of people convicted of a serious violent crime (armed robbery and up) to be publicly executed shortly after their first conviction.
I don't know if it would deter crime, but it would certainly stop repeat offenses.
And hiring a lot more Judges, prosecutors, public defenders and executioners would be money well spent.
We have high violent crime because we tolerate it.
I don't have anywhere near the faith in the infallibility of the justice system to tolerate that.
-
I don't have anywhere near the faith in the infallibility of the justice system to tolerate that.
Agreed.
But, there are plenty of cases where the guilt of the violent offender is not in any way in doubt. I don't know if the prompt, public execution of those people would be a deterrent though.
How many duly convicted mass murderers do we have sitting in jail on the taxpayers dime? We know positively they are guilty. Ft Hood shooter, Aurora movie theater shooter, Parkland school shooter, Boston Marathon bomber... and many more.
-
I don't know if death penalty action is even necessary. Just addressing the repeat offender mess is an issue for me.
I have never been against the death penalty, but I do think that punishment should have a high bar for evidence and prosecution. I think we can all agree with that.
-
I am ready for 100% of people convicted of a serious violent crime (armed robbery and up) to be publicly executed shortly after their first conviction.
I don't know if it would deter crime, but it would certainly stop repeat offenses.
And hiring a lot more Judges, prosecutors, public defenders and executioners would be money well spent.
We have high violent crime because we tolerate it.
Respectfully, this seems like swapping a culture of lawless violence with one of lawful violence.
-
I am ready for 100% of people convicted of a serious violent crime (armed robbery and up) to be publicly executed shortly after their first conviction.
I don't know if it would deter crime, but it would certainly stop repeat offenses.
And hiring a lot more Judges, prosecutors, public defenders and executioners would be money well spent.
We have high violent crime because we tolerate it.
Pretty much. I would limit capital punishment to murder cases, but yeah.
We tolerate this level of crime, or it wouldn't happen.
We tolerate rule by foreigners who hate our country, or they wouldn't be in charge right now.
-
Respectfully, this seems like swapping a culture of lawless violence with one of lawful violence.
Yeah, that's the idea. Violence should be swiftly imposed on violent people. Get rid of them all.
It is utterly unworkable in the USA now, I know.
The USA tolerates violent, evil people instead of taking out the trash.
-
Respectfully, this seems like swapping a culture of lawless violence with one of lawful violence.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
-
I don't have anywhere near the faith in the infallibility of the justice system to tolerate that.
I see that, and respect your opinion.
From my point of view, our "legal" system right now is failing to incapacitate violent people even once they get them in custody.
-
I don't have anywhere near the faith in the infallibility of the justice system to tolerate that.
That's the whole point. No one will have faith in the justice system while it coddles the violent, but then comes down like the hammer of God on the innocent.
I don't know if death penalty action is even necessary. Just addressing the repeat offender mess is an issue for me.
I agree. Even if every violent offender got a suitably long sentence (possibly with hard labor) we'd be much better off.
-
I agree. Even if every violent offender got a suitably long sentence (possibly with hard labor) we'd be much better off.
Without writing yet another essay regarding my feelings on the subject, the synopsis: I used to be very pro death penalty. DNA evidence changed that. Now I'm only pro death penalty if there is very incontrovertible evidence, like Joel Rifkin filming himself killing and cooking his victims. Then kill them quickly.
I would be for hard labor, especially if it was something like Cool Hand Luke roadwork, where they are somewhat covering the expense to keep them behind bars with something other than makework. There certainly shouldn't be movies and gyms fancier than what I would pay for.
-
Without writing yet another essay regarding my feelings on the subject, the synopsis: I used to be very pro death penalty. DNA evidence changed that. Now I'm only pro death penalty if there is very incontrovertible evidence, like Joel Rifkin filming himself killing and cooking his victims. Then kill them quickly.
I would be for hard labor, especially if it was something like Cool Hand Luke roadwork, where they are somewhat covering the expense to keep them behind bars with something other than makework. There certainly shouldn't be movies and gyms fancier than what I would pay for.
I think what got my attention about all the people set free with DNA evidence was how often juries were willing to convict people on very little evidence or on the word of a single witness. I am not sure how to write a legal requirement for a higher standard of evidence. Then I ask myself why that wouldn't be required to put someone in prison for 5 years also. Something to remember next time I am on a jury.
-
Then I ask myself why that wouldn't be required to put someone in prison for 5 years also. Something to remember next time I am on a jury.
This is true. Or even less. I wouldn't be surprised if there were exponentially more false convictions for minor crimes than for major ones. I would guess that a lot of people without unlimited resources weigh the costs/benefits of copping plea deals for something they didn't do, just to not go bankrupt or be otherwise destroyed by the government. A misdemeanor record might be the preferred option for some people.
One has only to look at the 06JAN convictions to familiarize themselves with the term "railroaded".
-
From my point of view, our "legal" system right now is failing to incapacitant violent people even once they get them in custody.
???
Did you mean to say "incapacitate" or "incarcerate"?
-
Without writing yet another essay regarding my feelings on the subject, the synopsis: I used to be very pro death penalty. DNA evidence changed that. Now I'm only pro death penalty if there is very incontrovertible evidence, like Joel Rifkin filming himself killing and cooking his victims. Then kill them quickly.
Without writing yet another essay of my own, your mistake is in thinking the death penalty is optional.
-
Without writing yet another essay of my own, your mistake is in thinking the death penalty is optional.
Are you referring to the commandments given to Noah right after the Flood?
-
???
Did you mean to say "incapacitate" or "incarcerate"?
Incapacitate; thank you. I am a poor speller, and autocorrect has made me worse at it.
-
Until sometime in the 1950's, if I remember correctly, England had a mandatory death penalty for murder (of all types, not just "first degree" murder!). Executions occurred a few months after conviction.
It could be done if we have the will to destroy the violent. But we don't. People feel sorry for garbage human beings. Think of all the whining every time cops kill some murderous piece of filth.