Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Moderator |
"Hunter Biden possessing an unloaded gun for 11 day [sic] was not a threat to public safety, but a prosecutor, with all the power imaginable, bending to political pressure presents a grave threat to our system of justice," Lowell continued. "We believe these charges are barred by the agreement the prosecutors made with Mr. Biden, the recent rulings by several federal courts that this statute is unconstitutional, and the facts that he did not violate that law, and we plan to demonstrate all of that in court." God Speed, little crackhead opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | ||
|
one of us |
Hunter lied on a federal form when he said he was drug-free at the time that he purchased a Colt revolver in 2018. The first thing I thought of was, how many Hunter haters have been guilty of the exact same lie? With the number of recreational drug users in this country, there have got to be a ton. Persons over the age of 12 using illicit drugs in the U.S. is 13%+ 50% of people over 12 have used illicit drugs at least once. https://drugabusestatistics.org/ Americans spend $150 billion annually on illicit drugs. https://www.rand.org/news/press/2019/08/20.html Do you really believe all those people told the truth on the forms when they purchased firearms? I don't have a problem with Hunter being indicted. I think we need a lot more indictments. Enforce the laws. | |||
|
Moderator |
"Reason" magazine did what I thought was a pretty well rounded and well researched article on this topic: https://reason.com/2023/09/18/...-the-right-to-trial/ for every hour in front of the computer you should have 3 hours outside | |||
|
One of Us |
It’s a waste of time and resources to prosecute him for something like that It’s stupid no matter what Half the country is probably guilty of that, hell, just about half the people I know ( younger ) who hunt smoke weed so technically they could all be prosecuted So again, it’s stupid Nothing like standing over your own kill | |||
|
One of Us |
This play is happening all across the US in State and Federal Courts. Every gun charge is reviving this challenge. Felon in possession Illegal possession on school property The user of drugs and purchase Are the big 3 | |||
|
One of Us |
Link to a Reuters article about the recent Federal ruling: https://www.reuters.com/legal/...rt-rules-2023-08-10/ | |||
|
One of Us |
Another area under pressure is the prohibition on gold under Domestic Violence Order and Assault misdemeanor with Domestic Violence component. | |||
|
one of us |
Gold? TomP Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right. Carl Schurz (1829 - 1906) | |||
|
One of Us |
Guns | |||
|
One of Us |
The criminal rights crowd is opening this, frankly. Why are some civil rights more sacrosanct than others? If you have a felony conviction, why should your voting rights be restored at a lower bar than others, including gun/self defense? My position is and has been that while there should be a pathway to get your rights back, it should be all or nothing. If you can’t be trusted with a gun, or a license to work in certain fields, then maybe you shouldn’t be voting either. To me none of the bill of rights is less important than another. If you want to say an incompetent individual should own a gun and vote, let’s have that discussion. But AFAIC, there is a huge line between felony and lesser charges, and I’ve thought that lesser charge loss of rights was wrong. If they deserve to lose gun rights, they had better be convicted of a felony. | |||
|
One of Us |
It is trying to find the logical limit to the New York decision. No Federal Right is absolute. However, we no longer no where the line is, it how to analyze the line. We did in the aftermath of NcDonald. These cases were relitigated. Justice Scalia’s majority rejected them. I do you one better. No Supreme Court case has said the Right to Vote is a Fundamental Right requiring Strict Scrutiny. Now, using the rest established my the Court to determine a Fundamental Right, I would so do. Most states restoring voting rights is very difficult. Until recently, only the Gov could in KY. The new expungement process restores both. It is a legislative pardon. | |||
|
One of Us |
There has always been a pathway to restore gun rights, Congress won't pass a single nickel to fund it. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
One of Us |
And that’s in my mind how it should operate. You want your civil rights restored, here is the process. It shouldn’t be a situation for gun rights is this, voting rights is that. If you don’t feel that just serving your prison time is adequate to restore gun rights, it shouldn’t give voting that way. I suspect (but don’t know) that part of why the court decided to place gun rights at strict scrutiny was that it is the one right that has been consistently treated as lesser by courts and legislatures. I’m ok with treating other rights as strict scrutiny as well. If it’s a right, it’s a right, and it should be difficult for government to restrict it. | |||
|
One of Us |
However, to restrict a right depends on whether the right being restricted. Fully incorporated rights and fundamental rights require a higher level of scrutiny to survive restriction. Possession of firearms has been held to be a fully incorporated right requiring a higher level of scrutiny then intermediate Scrutiny that allowed these restrictions in the past (Cir Courts) or the prior NY analysis by the S. Ct. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: