Georgia judge not sure how to proceed on case involving a felon possessing a firearm

Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,415
Reaction score
35,157
Location
Western NY
If you’re not how to proceed then step down. If you’re not a historian have some one present evidence in court and evaluate that since that’s your job.
amp.cnn.com

Federal judge blasts the Supreme Court for its Second Amendment opinion

A federal judge based in Mississippi has released a scorching order expressing frustration with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment opinion issued last summer and ordered the Justice Department to brief him on whether he needs to appoint an historian to help him decipher the landmark opinion.
amp.cnn.com amp.cnn.com
 
GOPerfect

GOPerfect

.700 Nitro Express
LEO / LEA
Messages
28,619
Reaction score
64,146
Location
No longer Secret, thanks DR. Evil
I see this a bit different than some apparently do here. While I find some of his statements to be horrible, disgusting and racist; I agree with him a bit.

The Highest Court in the land needs to rule one way or another; shit or get off the pot as they say.

These laws and the court decisions are confusing and down right baffling at times. This is one of those times.

Clear all of this up, once and for all.
 
SomeSoldier

SomeSoldier

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
9,598
Reaction score
18,454
Location
Florida
GOPerfect said:
I see this a bit different than some apparently do here. While I find some of his statements to be horrible, disgusting and racist; I agree with him a bit.

The Highest Court in the land needs to rule one way or another; shit or get off the pot as they say.

These laws and the court decisions are confusing and down right baffling at times. This is one of those times.

Clear all of this up, once and for all.
Click to expand...

I think they did, "historical". The Constitution is historic, there is your answer.
 
SomeSoldier

SomeSoldier

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
9,598
Reaction score
18,454
Location
Florida
GOPerfect said:
I understand what many of these Judges are tasked with. This is not at all simple for them. Laws passed and upheld by the Courts make it impossible for many Judges to do what is expected from them.
Click to expand...

I agree it's not simple, if it was anyone could do it and judges would make $15/hr.
 
kev74

kev74

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
45,689
Reaction score
144,148
Location
Orange Co.
GOPerfect said:
I understand what many of these Judges are tasked with. This is not at all simple for them. Laws passed and upheld by the Courts make it impossible for many Judges to do what is expected from them.
Click to expand...
He's not looking for a historian to give him a morally pure history to base his decision on. He's looking for a historian to feed him the answer he already decided he wants to give, and who he can blame when his decision is overturned on appeal.

This judge studied law from Hammurabi, to the 10 Commandments, to Confucianism, to English Common Law, to the Federalist Papers, to modern law to pass the Bar exam. Even if he can't immediately recall specifics, he's got clerks on staff to look it up for him. This is nothing more than a dodge to avoid ruling that felons should get their rights back when their sentence is served, which would be consistent with Bruin, and which he knows would be consistent with the text and tradition, but would be inconsistent with dem ideology.
 
Shadow2

Shadow2

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,065
Location
Westchester
Felon possession was addressed in the decision. Its still one of only 2 reasons used historically to deny. Felony and Mentally unfit. And even felons are being allowed to get gun rights reinstated. If these judges want to play stupid then they should be considered unfit for duty. I would say it comes down to just one reason to deny ... Mentally unfit. If your felony used weapons and or violence to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property, you are clearly mentally unfit under the social contract. Historically any US crime that stands today that would have had you committed or put to death I'd say would mean you don't get your gun rights back. I see nothing wrong with Non violent felonies and a clean few years of parole to be good to go.
 
Last edited:
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

.950 JDJ
Messages
34,698
Reaction score
36,555
Location
Livingston
he was appointed by Ohbummer .. could it be that affirmative action .. he got that job but knows nothing ..

Shadow2 said:
Its still one of only 2 reasons used historically to deny. Felony and Mentally unfit.
Click to expand...

where is that in the 2A Text and history ???


seams like a lot of mentality ill and Felons still have guns Chicago killing there own ..
 
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
26,170
Reaction score
54,406
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Shadow2 said:
Felon possession was addressed in the decision. Its still one of only 2 reasons used historically to deny. Felony and Mentally unfit. And even felons are being allowed to get gun rights reinstated. If these judges want to play stupid then they should be considered unfit for duty. I would say it comes down to just one reason to deny ... Mentally unfit. If your felony used weapons and or violence to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property, you are clearly mentally unfit under the social contract. Historically any US crime that stands today that would have had you committed or put to death I'd say would mean you don't get your gun rights back. I see nothing wrong with Non violent felonies and a clean few years of parole to be good to go.
Click to expand...
Technically a conviction at trial is one of the few ways to legitimately deprive someone of their rights.

If the sentence resulting from that conviction includes "we're going to lock you in a box for 4 years, and no guns for 100 after that", it's just a question of whether that's "cruel and unusual" or not.

IMHO, if they release you to walk free, then they should let you carry whatever you want, but the concept of depriving a someone of a right after a criminal conviction is kinda unavoidable.

But you have to look at it that way, as part of the sentence, and not a blanket prohibition.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,753
Reaction score
12,837
Location
Rochester
Shadow2 said:
Felon possession was addressed in the decision. Its still one of only 2 reasons used historically to deny. Felony and Mentally unfit. And even felons are being allowed to get gun rights reinstated. If these judges want to play stupid then they should be considered unfit for duty. I would say it comes down to just one reason to deny ... Mentally unfit. If your felony used weapons and or violence to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property, you are clearly mentally unfit under the social contract. Historically any US crime that stands today that would have had you committed or put to death I'd say would mean you don't get your gun rights back. I see nothing wrong with Non violent felonies and a clean few years of parole to be good to go.
Click to expand...
Criminals are removed from society as a punishment, as well as for the safety of society. The intention is to rehabilitate these individuals so that they may, once again, rejoin society.
If you feel at some future point they are now safe to release into society then they MUST receive their Rights back. To do otherwise indicates you do NOT trust them in society, at which point I ask "why release them?".
 
Shadow2

Shadow2

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,065
Location
Westchester
Grimscale said:
Criminals are removed from society as a punishment, as well as for the safety of society. The intention is to rehabilitate these individuals so that they may, once again, rejoin society.
If you feel at some future point they are now safe to release into society then they MUST receive their Rights back. To do otherwise indicates you do NOT trust them in society, at which point I ask "why release them?".
Click to expand...
Who said we trust them? We don't trust them. That is why we have probation. Probation is actually part of every sentence. Its part of the incremental reintroduction into society. You screw up on probation you go back. NO GUNS until probation is over and fortunately probationary periods can vary based on the type of crime.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

.950 JDJ
Messages
34,698
Reaction score
36,555
Location
Livingston
Shadow2 said:
Who said we trust them? We don't trust them. That is why we have probation. Probation is actually part of every sentence. Its part of the incremental reintroduction into society. You screw up on probation you go back. NO GUNS until probation is over and fortunately probationary periods can vary based on the type of crime.
Click to expand...

problem is they are released on probation or parole and the fist thing they do is get a firearm off the streets by any means

but were all stuck to get more gun laws passed to have or get them because of a few bad apples
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top