- 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
re: SCOTUS (9-0): You can now own firearms and weed without reprecussions...
Posted on 6/18/26 at 12:55 pm to finchmeister08
Posted on 6/18/26 at 12:55 pm to finchmeister08
So will the question on the background check be removed now?
0
Posted on 6/18/26 at 1:17 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:Right. My claim was that it's an ancillary charge primarily used as a beef up sentences
Criminals don't obey laws by definition. However, felony possession of a firearm laws guarantee that when the criminal breaks the law and is prosecuted, he is removed from society for a much longer time.
quote:That's what sentencing is for.
Laws aren't solely intended to prevent crime; they are also used to remove offenders from society.,
Posted on 6/18/26 at 1:22 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
So I can now protect my weed field with an AR or two?
Not in commiefornia.
I applaud SCOTUS for these recent 2A rulings. I just don't understand why absolutely unconstitutional state restrictions are allowed to persist.
how is not being able to have weed and guns anti 2A when not being able to have the guns at all, is not?
Posted on 6/18/26 at 1:24 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
My claim was that it's an ancillary charge primarily used as a beef up sentences
It's not always an ancillary charge. I will grant that it is in the majority of cases, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the reasonableness of the restriction of the right.
quote:
That's what sentencing is for.
And felony possession helps better ensure that violent criminals who illegally arm themselves are isolated from society for much longer.
I go back to one of your earlier comments:
quote:
Charge them with breaking those laws then. We don't need to create additional laws that apply only to them.
This is an unreasonable position given the violent history of the offender.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 1:34 pm to Antonio Moss
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
Not in my experience. Many still get probation.
This should be taken into consideration at sentencing for the convictions that resulted in their violent histories. If someone is so violent that they can't be trusted with their rights, then they need to be separated from society.
The justification for this law seems to be that it will help ensure violent offenders are imprisoned for longer periods of time. Carrying a gun is not violent. If the concern is that violent convictions get light prison sentences, the light prison sentences need to be addressed directly.
quote:
And felony possession helps better ensure that violent criminals who illegally arm themselves are isolated from society for much longer.
Not in my experience. Many still get probation.
quote:
This is an unreasonable position given the violent history of the offender.
This should be taken into consideration at sentencing for the convictions that resulted in their violent histories. If someone is so violent that they can't be trusted with their rights, then they need to be separated from society.
The justification for this law seems to be that it will help ensure violent offenders are imprisoned for longer periods of time. Carrying a gun is not violent. If the concern is that violent convictions get light prison sentences, the light prison sentences need to be addressed directly.
This post was edited on 6/18/26 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 6/18/26 at 1:42 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
And felony possession helps better ensure that violent criminals who illegally arm themselves are isolated from society for much longer.
Not in my experience. Many still get probation.
Your perception based on limited interactions is not reality. According the to the Bureau of Justice, violent offenders who illegally possess a weapon receive 50% longer sentences than their unarmed counterparts across all convictions (12 years to 18 years on average).
quote:
This should be taken into consideration at sentencing for the convictions that resulted in their violent histories. If someone is so violent that they can't be trusted with their rights, then they need to be separated from society.
The justification for this law seems to be that it will help ensure violent offenders are imprisoned for longer periods of time. Carrying a gun is not violent.
Correct, but illegally possessing a gun AFTER already being convicted of a violent crime displays a reckless disregard for society.
quote:
If the concern is that violent convictions get light prison sentences, the light prison sentences need to be addressed directly.
How do you think legislatures directly address issues with judicial sentencing? They enact laws that require longer sentences.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 1:47 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Do you think there should be any restrictions on the 2A?
This isn't a gotcha or anything. I am working out what my take is and right now I think there shouldn't be any restrictions.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 2:09 pm to stuntman
Watching the guy below help explain the ruling...
1) It's a very NARROW ruling... meaning it only applies to this particular case and does NOT get rid of the statute in question but rather just gives guidance on how to apply it in the future
2) Apparently Biden's DEI Justice KBJ submitted an idiotic concurring opinion that may be worth discussing b/c of how idiotic it is
1) It's a very NARROW ruling... meaning it only applies to this particular case and does NOT get rid of the statute in question but rather just gives guidance on how to apply it in the future
2) Apparently Biden's DEI Justice KBJ submitted an idiotic concurring opinion that may be worth discussing b/c of how idiotic it is
Posted on 6/18/26 at 2:12 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I am working out what my take is and right now I think there shouldn't be any restrictions.
So a 4 year old can own a gun?
Posted on 6/18/26 at 2:17 pm to finchmeister08
quote:
SCOTUS (9-0)
Affirmative Action Jackson had to be told it was going to help lots of blacks, including women (with and without dicks), before she would agree with the majority.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 2:18 pm to tgerb8
quote:
Not in commiefornia.
I applaud SCOTUS for these recent 2A rulings. I just don't understand why absolutely unconstitutional state restrictions are allowed to persist.
how is not being able to have weed and guns anti 2A when not being able to have the guns at all, is not?
Is there not a few assault weapons cases just ready for SCOTUS to take on now.
AR-15s should absolutely be allowed in every state.
No more common a gun than that and Heller said common guns are protected.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 2:22 pm to Smeg
quote:
I mean, it would be ridiculous to say "anyone who drinks any alcohol ever should not be allowed to own a firearm", right?
Indeed. And even harder to wrap your head around since alcohol is far, far more dangerous than weed.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News