- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/29/23 at 4:43 am to RealDawg
quote:
They take away your ability to vote as well. Which is worse?
All rights restored, or prison. You can be on parole and be watched carefully - but even on parole - full rights restored. I've been speaking that for a few years now.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 6:08 am to BengalOnTheBay
In Louisiana, convicted felons are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm for a 10 year period after completion of their sentence, as long as they have no other convictions.
It is very rare that the feds will charge someone with felon in possession of a firearm beyond the proscriptions in the state where the crime occurred.
I’d be in favor of repealing the federal statute entirely. It should be a matter for the states.
It is very rare that the feds will charge someone with felon in possession of a firearm beyond the proscriptions in the state where the crime occurred.
I’d be in favor of repealing the federal statute entirely. It should be a matter for the states.
quote:
C. The provisions of this Section prohibiting the possession of firearms and carrying concealed weapons by persons who have been convicted of, or who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity for, certain felonies shall not apply to any person who has not been convicted of, or who has not been found not guilty by reason of insanity for, any felony for a period of ten years from the date of completion of sentence, probation, parole, suspension of sentence, or discharge from a mental institution by a court of competent jurisdiction.
This post was edited on 6/29/23 at 6:10 am
Posted on 6/29/23 at 6:34 am to boosiebadazz
It’s up to the states, not the Feds
Posted on 6/29/23 at 6:50 am to boosiebadazz
I concur. Anyone who doesn’t better realize how many felonies they commit and all it takes is being charged and taking a plea deal for the govt to take away your God given rights.
This post was edited on 6/29/23 at 7:11 am
Posted on 6/29/23 at 6:57 am to Dex Morgan
quote:
So, you want to base punishment on a potential future crime? frick off with your liberal thought-crime bull shite
I want to generally agree here, but the same would then have to go with child molesters too. Making it hard to agree with.
I'm assuming that sex offender registrations and living rules extend past all penalties being fulfilled, therefore under this mindset, a child molester should not have to register or matter if they live near schools, etc. once all penalties are fulfilled.
Breaking trust comes with the consequence of never fully getting it back. Breaking those known societal rules come with known consequences too.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 7:11 am to C
quote:
You can lose your rights. I’m ok with laws that restrict people as punishment beyond a jail sentence.
SHALL NOT
Posted on 6/29/23 at 7:14 am to KAGTASTIC
quote:
I'm assuming that sex offender registrations and living rules extend past all penalties being fulfilled, therefore under this mindset, a child molester should not have to register or matter if they live near schools, etc. once all penalties are fulfilled.
There's a constitutional right to owning a firearm. There isn't a constitutional right to privacy, to live wherever you want to, to be able to message 10 year olds on twitter, etc.
Fundamental rights should not be restricted.
Besides which, child molesters should get the death penalty and then it would be a moot point.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 7:15 am to KAGTASTIC
quote:
I want to generally agree here, but the same would then have to go with child molesters too. Making it hard to agree with. I'm assuming that sex offender registrations and living rules extend past all penalties being fulfilled, therefore under this mindset, a child molester should not have to register or matter if they live near schools, etc. once all penalties are fulfilled. Breaking trust comes with the consequence of never fully getting it back. Breaking those known societal rules come with known consequences too.
Because there is no cure to pedophilia. Most agree they should never be released.
Having to register as a sex offender is not the same as the govt taking away your God given right to self defense. A sex offender who has served their time has a God given right to defend themselves.
No one should be a defenseless sitting duck.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 7:38 am to BengalOnTheBay
The Fifth Amendment provides: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Is this an absolute bona fide guarantee to life, liberty, or property? No, it’s not. All three can be taken away, which includes rights to vote and to possess a firearm. You can be jailed, you can even be executed, you can lose rights, but not without due process of law—you can be deprived of those via procedural processes (procedural due process).
Posted on 6/29/23 at 7:51 am to BrohanDavey
I’m still waiting for the Cliff’s-note version of the 77 page opinion!
Posted on 6/29/23 at 7:57 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
That’s a perfectly reasonable position to take.
LOL
Posted on 6/29/23 at 7:59 am to boosiebadazz
quote:Boozie, be fair.
I understand your aversion to reading actual opinions
Someone saying "this is interesting" with no synopsis isn't going to get anyone interested in spending an hour or more slogging through a 77-page judicial opinion.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 8:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Carve out some time to read it. It’s solid. He analogizes Scalia’s past criticisms of legislative history to this current emphasis on historical analogues really well.
There’s a decent debate to be had on whether lower court judges should engage in this type of performative opinion, but it’s hard to criticize his scholarship.
This post was edited on 6/29/23 at 8:21 am
Posted on 6/29/23 at 8:05 am to BengalOnTheBay
quote:Meh. A State's authority in criminal cases is not limited to incarceration. The QUESTION is whether it extends to sanctions that ARGUABLY have 2nd Amendment implications.
A felon should not permanently lose his/her 2nd amendment rights, even if a "violent" crime is committed. If the individual remains so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a gun, then they should remain incarcerated.
Personally, I think that the 2nd Amendment was intended to apply ONLY to the federal government, so the States would retain the absolute right to impose such restrictions.
But SCOTUS seems intent upon (erroneously) applying the Incorporation Doctrine to the 2nd Amendment. If we accept that (erroneous) premise as valid, I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Bengal.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 8:08 am to BengalOnTheBay
quote:I knew that agreement couldn't last.quote:How? Rights come from God, not the government.
You can lose your rights.
The question is not the SOURCE of the rights. The question is whether the citizenry voluntarily agreed that government would have the authority to restrict those rights.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 8:08 am to AggieHank86
Eh, you’re either going to read it or you’re not.
For that particular poster, he was never going to read it. It needed a few more haikus and numerology to 17 to grab his attention.
For that particular poster, he was never going to read it. It needed a few more haikus and numerology to 17 to grab his attention.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 8:11 am to idlewatcher
quote:
Do you even high recidivism bro?
Posted on 6/29/23 at 8:14 am to KAGTASTIC
quote:The distinction is that the offender registry does not raise concerns under the 2nd Amendment.quote:I want to generally agree here, but the same would then have to go with child molesters too. Making it hard to agree with.
So, you want to base punishment on a potential future crime? frick off with your liberal thought-crime bull shite
I'm assuming that sex offender registrations and living rules extend past all penalties being fulfilled, therefore under this mindset, a child molester should not have to register or matter if they live near schools, etc. once all penalties are fulfilled.
Of course, the registry might well raise DIFFERENT Constitutional concerns. I've never really analyzed that question.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 8:20 am to boosiebadazz
quote:It sounds like an interesting opinion.
that particular poster ... was never going to read it. It needed a few more haikus and numerology to 17 to grab his attention.
Candidly, when I saw "Mississippi District Court Judge," my first response was "what do I care about the opinion of some Bubba on the state bench in some rural town in Mississippi." I did click the link and see that it is a FEDERAL judge, making it much more likely that I will take some time and read it.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News