US cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from owning guns-appeals court

V

volsrock

Verified User
June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The 11-4 ruling from the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest defeat for gun control laws in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...Reuters) - The,appeals court ruled on Tuesday.


NON-VIOLENT FELONS can now have a gun!
 
Thats the way I read this ruling ....get a sentence of 3 yrs for a non-violent felony ...u now can own a gun
 
Last edited:
I can't read the posts, but the title makes sense to me.

If firearms ownership is a constitutional right,
it shouldn't be taken away because you cheated on your taxes.
 
volsrock said:
June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The 11-4 ruling from the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest defeat for gun control laws in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...Reuters) - The,appeals court ruled on Tuesday.


NON-VIOLENT FELONS can now have a gun!
Click to expand...

Makes sense. If you're not violent why can't you have a gun?
 
Once you are no longer serving a prison sentence, your right to vote is restored in Washington.
This is true for quite a few States.

This is a 2nd question, and has nothing to do with guns or the topic of this thread.
 
Flash said:
If you commit a felony should you still be able to vote?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with an ex-felon voting--once you have done all of your sentence, to include parole and paying off any fines or restitution you owe, if given that.

The radical Left would like to see felons voting. By extension, a felon in prison by their standards should get to vote since they want ones on parole to be able to vote.
 
Yakuda said:
If you have served your time and not currently in any legal trouble, yes.
Click to expand...

But you can own a gun without having to serve your time first?

Seems like both rights should be treated equally (although technically voting is not a constitutional right).
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I have no problem with an ex-felon voting--once you have done all of your sentence, to include parole and paying off any fines or restitution you owe, if given that.

The radical Left would like to see felons voting. By extension, a felon in prison by their standards should get to vote since they want ones on parole to be able to vote.
Click to expand...

In some states felons can vote while incarcerated. I'm not convinced the left would benefit from felons voting. All those guys in white prison gangs are not very liberal.
 
Don’t really care about the decision, but as an extension of the Thomas idiocy these cases are based upon;

“Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote for the majority on Tuesday that the government had failed to point to any laws from the United States' founding establishing a tradition of disarming non-violent criminals..”

So if there are no laws barring your neighbor from owning a tank, which obviously there weren’t in 1776, I guess it is legal for anyone to own a fully operational Abrams Main Battle Tank.

And this is the ludicrous precedent these cases are based upon
 
volsrock said:
NON-VIOLENT FELONS can now have a gun!
Click to expand...

It is not binding even in PA, NJ, and Delaware, and is not binding at all in the rest of the country, but yes, we are one step closer to any non-violent felon having a gun. It is amazing the number of violence related crimes are technically non-violent. It is a dark day for America.

But at least we see Republicans for who they are. They want armed criminals in our streets.
 
archives said:
Don’t really care about the decision, but as an extension of the Thomas idiocy these cases are based upon;

“Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote for the majority on Tuesday that the government had failed to point to any laws from the United States' founding establishing a tradition of disarming non-violent criminals..”

So if there are no laws barring your neighbor from owning a tank, which obviously there weren’t in 1776, I guess it is legal for anyone to own a fully operational Abrams Main Battle Tank.

And this is the ludicrous precedent these cases are based upon
Click to expand...

only a braindead anti constitutional moron would think that the government is supposed to have the monopoly on violence, especially given the reasons why the revolution was fought to begin with. People could, and did, own cannons and ships of war back then. It would only seem to reason that tanks, RPGs, automatic weapons, and even aircraft could be owned by civilians.
 
Walt said:
It is not binding even in PA, NJ, and Delaware, and is not binding at all in the rest of the country, but yes, we are one step closer to any non-violent felon having a gun. It is amazing the number of violence related crimes are technically non-violent. It is a dark day for America.

But at least we see Republicans for who they are. They want armed criminals in our streets.
Click to expand...

you are greatly confused and are talking about Democrats. That is proven by their catch and release no cash bail programs.
 
volsrock said:
June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The 11-4 ruling from the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest defeat for gun control laws in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...Reuters) - The,appeals court ruled on Tuesday.


NON-VIOLENT FELONS can now have a gun!
Click to expand...

Good. I believe all convicted criminals, upon completion of their sentence, should have a full restitution of rights.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I can't read the posts, but the title makes sense to me.

If firearms ownership is a constitutional right,
it shouldn't be taken away because you cheated on your taxes.
Click to expand...



Suppose you have convictions for possessing Methamphetamine. But the courts didn't know you were an addict at the time you were convicted. Taking a Class I drug like Meth is illegal, but it is not a violent crime. Methamphetamine, however, can trigger bouts of extreme paranoia and /or agitated psychosis. It not a good idea for a person with Meth-induced paranoia to have access to a firearm; ditto a person who is in a Meth-induced psychotic rage to own a firearm.

Same thing goes for heroin, fentanyl, PCP, LSD-25, etc. These drugs (and amphetamines like Meth) are all potent, mind-altering drugs that cause user to lose their capacity for rational thought, sound judgement, emotional-regulation, self-control etc; while they are intoxicated (or in a stage of acute withdrawal).

Another example is people who have undiagnosed psychiatric disorders like: Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia; Paranoid Personality Disorder; severe adult ADHD a chronic/severe anxiety disorder or, say, moderate mental retardation. These people may only have a criminal history of , say, property crime, like:shoplifting, vandalism, theft or disorderly conduct, etc. But allowing them apply for a firearms licence that will them purchase and possess a firearm is foolishness. Because, once again, their capacity for rational/logical thought, self-control. competent judgement and problem-solving, etc; will be materially impaired. And that means people could end up being shot.


One more quick one. Suppose someone has been bused four DUI a couple of times. DUI is not a violent crime. But it could be that the person has a serious drinking problem and is a regular heavy drinker or maybe even an alcoholic. He may have claimed in court when he was brought in to account for his DUI charges that they were "one off" incidents due him having attending an office party earlier on those evenings, and losing track of how much he had had to drink. And furthermore he might state that he only ever drank very modest amount of alcohol as a rule. So, allowing such a person to be able to legally purchase and possess a firearm, would be to allow a problem drinker access to a gun - and everyone knows that guns and alcohol are a very bad mixture (!)




Dachshund - the WONDER HOUND

DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!
 
Last edited:
Dachshund said:
... Suppose someone has been bused four DUI a couple of times. DUI is not a violent crime. But it could be that the person has a serious drinking problem and is a regular heavy drinker or maybe even an alcoholic. He may have claimed in court when he was brought in to account for his DUI charges that they were "one off" incidents due him having attending an office party earlier on those evenings, and losing track of how much he had had to drink. And furthermore he might state that he only ever drank very modest amount of alcohol as a rule. So, allowing such a person to be able to legally purchase and possess a firearm, would be to allow a problem drinker access to a gun - and everyone knows that guns and alcohol are a very bad mixture (!)

Dachshund - the WONDER HOUND

DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!
Click to expand...
No doubt, as Down Under dumbasses, both you and Uncensored have a lot of experience with both DUIs and wife-beating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top