Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Range vs Garland-En Banc "our Nation's THT" do not support disarming Range(plaintiff)

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • okkleiner
    Junior Member
    • Jun 2017
    • 38

    Range vs Garland-En Banc "our Nation's THT" do not support disarming Range(plaintiff)

    En Banc Third Circuit rules "that our Nation's history and tradition of firearm regulation" do not support disarming a plaintiff who was convicted of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in 1995.



    The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case of Bryan Range v. Att’y General of the U.S.


    ================

    Supreme Court Docket 2023

    Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of US, Supremecourt, United State Supreme Court, US Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, Search, Document
    Last edited by Librarian; 11-24-2023, 12:47 PM.
    https://t.me/pump_upp
  • #2
    AlmostHeaven
    Veteran Member
    • Apr 2023
    • 3808

    Two Democratic-appointed judges ruled in favor of Second Amendment rights. This is the real surprise.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The Second Amendment makes us citizens, not subjects. All other enumerated rights are meaningless without gun rights.

    Comment

    • #3
      CCWFacts
      Calguns Addict
      • May 2007
      • 6168

      I'm very surprised. The news article says this allows "non-violent" felons to possess guns. Many plea bargains result in violent individuals having convictions of non-violent crimes but that doesn't mean these are non-violent people.

      This does not sound like a good ruling to me.
      "Weakness is provocative."
      Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

      Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.

      Comment

      • #4
        AlmostHeaven
        Veteran Member
        • Apr 2023
        • 3808

        You would rather the Third Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that a man who fraudulently obtained SNAP benefits, commonly known as food stamps, was rightfully deprived of the right to keep and bear arms for life?

        The man had been convicted of no other offense before or since. The government should have no ability to strip Second Amendment rights from people not convicted of serious felonies. What is next, skip out on paying a few thousand dollars of taxes and become prohibited for life from possessing firearms?
        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        The Second Amendment makes us citizens, not subjects. All other enumerated rights are meaningless without gun rights.

        Comment

        • #5
          okkleiner
          Junior Member
          • Jun 2017
          • 38

          Mark W Smith - The Four Boxes Diner:
          https://t.me/pump_upp

          Comment

          • #6
            abinsinia
            Veteran Member
            • Feb 2015
            • 4015

            Here's the case docket,

            Comment

            • #7
              darkwater34
              Senior Member
              • Feb 2016
              • 772

              Don't know but I think he'll just got air conditioning pending PI if the defendants chooses to seek relief through a PI and it gets granted.

              Comment

              • #8
                darkwater34
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2016
                • 772

                This one is for CCWFACTS

                You are probably one of those people that would oppress and cheer tryany than one that would oppose either.

                Comment

                • #9
                  AlmostHeaven
                  Veteran Member
                  • Apr 2023
                  • 3808

                  This 11-4 en banc ruling with multiple Democratic-appointed judges crossing the ideological aisle to affirm gun rights has spooked the living daylights out of the anti-gun left.

                  I am witnessing more panicked frenzy from gun control organizations now than ever before at any previous point in my life.
                  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                  The Second Amendment makes us citizens, not subjects. All other enumerated rights are meaningless without gun rights.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    darkwater34
                    Senior Member
                    • Feb 2016
                    • 772

                    Shaken in their boots

                    Gavin Newscum proposing to go as far as to change the Constitution by adding 28th Amendment he is h:s own st#$ show
                    Last edited by darkwater34; 06-09-2023, 2:28 AM.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Chewy65
                      Calguns Addict
                      • Dec 2013
                      • 5024

                      Originally posted by AlmostHeaven
                      This 11-4 en banc ruling with multiple Democratic-appointed judges crossing the ideological aisle to affirm gun rights has spooked the living daylights out of the anti-gun left.

                      I am witnessing more panicked frenzy from gun control organizations now than ever before at any previous point in my life.
                      Well it should spook the antis. This is the circuit supervising Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware (pous the Virgin Islands). Read the decision, concurring and dissenting opininons.

                      One little nugget speaks to the anti's claim to finding a historical analogue to groups of people. The majority didn't think much of the argument, but could well have said more.

                      That Founding-era governments
                      disarmed groups they distrusted like Loyalists, Native
                      Americans, Quakers, Catholics, and Blacks does nothing to
                      prove that Range is part of a similar group today. And any such
                      analogy would be ?far too broad[ ].
                      Slip at 19
                      Last edited by Chewy65; 06-09-2023, 12:00 PM.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        rational_behavior
                        Member
                        • Jan 2021
                        • 152

                        All welfare frauds (including those in DC, and their corporate masters) should be stripped of 2A rights, or none of them should be.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Offwidth
                          Senior Member
                          • May 2018
                          • 1225

                          Originally posted by CCWFacts
                          I'm very surprised. The news article says this allows "non-violent" felons to possess guns. Many plea bargains result in violent individuals having convictions of non-violent crimes but that doesn't mean these are non-violent people.

                          This does not sound like a good ruling to me.
                          Are you advocating for the repeal of the 5th amendment?

                          Would fit your ideology.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            sbo80
                            Senior Member
                            • Apr 2014
                            • 2259

                            Originally posted by CCWFacts
                            The news article says this allows "non-violent" felons to possess guns. Many plea bargains result in violent individuals having convictions of non-violent crimes but that doesn't mean these are non-violent people. This does not sound like a good ruling to me.
                            Except what you are describing is the old way. Prosecutors know that pleading down, if still a felony, is still prohibiting, so that goes into their decision. If this sticks, then they'll know that and a lot of people are not going to be offered the same plea deal as before. A lot.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              bigstick61
                              Veteran Member
                              • May 2008
                              • 3193

                              Originally posted by CCWFacts
                              I'm very surprised. The news article says this allows "non-violent" felons to possess guns. Many plea bargains result in violent individuals having convictions of non-violent crimes but that doesn't mean these are non-violent people.

                              This does not sound like a good ruling to me.
                              Then they should not offer to let them plea to petty stuff, only, if they are so concerned about it.

                              I'm not entirely opposed to prohibitions as a result of convictions, but the punishment should fit the crime of which the person was actually convicted. It can be justified if the person comments a serious offense that is violent, has the potential for or indicates a willingness to commit violence, aids others in the same, etc. and which involves acts that are malum in se (probably redundant, but I suppose there may be some exception somewhere). I also am not a fan of modern prohibited persons doctrine and question some of its constitutionality outside of 2A grounds, such as Federal prohibitions for non-Federal convictions or State prohibitions for crimes committed in other jurisdictions.

                              Felonies used to be exclusively very serious crimes, mostly violent, although not exclusively so, and also used to be far fewer in number. Most acts which are felonies today historically would only have been misdemeanors, infractions, or not offenses at all. Such broadening requires less blanket approaches, IMO. Ideally we'd go back to limiting what we consider to be felonies and maybe go back to some being misdemeanors that are more seriously punished.

                              IMO, to be prohibited you should have to commit an act of the type mentioned above (either civil or martial), or be adjudicated mentally incompetent/defective/insane, by a competent court in the jurisdiction in which you are being prohibited, ideally with that aspect of the sentence (in criminal cases) being waivable on an individual basis if the facts of the case justify it. I could also see it for aliens not part of the community where there is sufficient cause for doing so (such as illegals, aliens who are citizens of a hostile country, etc.), but there should be some way for non-resident or temporary resident aliens to keep and bear arms if there is no threat, danger, or other reason to restrict them. Beyond that I can't justify any kind of prohibition on the keeping and bearing of arms by any adult or any minor otherwise permitted to keep and bear arms under the law, where applicable.

                              Certainly, something like the act in question in this case does not fit the criteria.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1