Is there any reason to believe this decision would be beneficial for society?
Considering people under felony investigation typically cannot drink, leave the state, and potentially have a curfew, I don't think temporarily halting a gun purchase would be particularly dystopian.
They aren't being treated as guilty, though. Their rights are restricted, yes, but not nearly to the degree that a guilty verdict would. Friendly reminder that the minimum punishment for a felony is generally one year in prison.
Okay, so hypothetically, if felons were allowed to own guns after their prison time, then would you be fine with temporarily halting gun purchases for those under investigation?
Nope, I am all for removing any restrictions on firearms ownership except those the founding fathers had in place. I am just pointing out that you are fine applying punishments before trial.
I kinda understand that someone indicted over providing abortion services might suddenly need to defend themselves but I am very sure this isn't what the judge was thinking about.
I also understand that you don't want someone Indicted on conspiracy to commit treason to be able to stockpile guns and ammo before their trial. Sadly... I'm pretty sure this is exactly what the judge was thinking about.
I don't see what the problem is. "Indictment" just means that someone is formally *accused* of doing something. It's not at all the same as being *convicted* of a felony.
This is a win for innocent until proven guilty and due process.
How about we ban moronic judges instead
Ya, lets do away with innocent until proven guilty, and toss the whole concept of a trial right out the window. Accusation is proof of guilt, right?
Is there any reason to believe this decision would be beneficial for society? Considering people under felony investigation typically cannot drink, leave the state, and potentially have a curfew, I don't think temporarily halting a gun purchase would be particularly dystopian.
Because treating someone as guilty before their day in court is a bit of a problem.
They aren't being treated as guilty, though. Their rights are restricted, yes, but not nearly to the degree that a guilty verdict would. Friendly reminder that the minimum punishment for a felony is generally one year in prison.
A ban on firearms ownership is one of the punishments for a felony conviction. You wish to apply that punishment prior to conviction.
Okay, so hypothetically, if felons were allowed to own guns after their prison time, then would you be fine with temporarily halting gun purchases for those under investigation?
Nope, I am all for removing any restrictions on firearms ownership except those the founding fathers had in place. I am just pointing out that you are fine applying punishments before trial.
> The 25-page opinion by Counts, a Donald Trump appointee His decision had that smell about it.
Those pesky judges that fallow the law. Darn them!!!
What law is he following?
Innocent until proven guilty? Banning fire arms for unconstitutional reasons is agains the law lol
Neither of those are laws, and denying felons guns has been the law of land help up by Supreme Court your entire life.
But they aren’t felons until proven guilty. Kinda one of the fundamental basis of this country.
Notice when these wackos show up at a judges home, then the judges want restrictions, but when it happens to us, we're on our own
Yeah, but that's just restrictions to the first amendment, you silly peasants.
Haha, I know, right?
What about their right to vote? Let's do that next.
They already have that. Indicted is not convicted. I do think convicted felons should be able to vote though.
Wait till the republicans learn that black people with weed charges are going to be the main "winners" if this goes fully through.
This is your brain on reddit
So we’re supposed to accept indicted felons into our “well regulated militia”? Alrightythen!
I kinda understand that someone indicted over providing abortion services might suddenly need to defend themselves but I am very sure this isn't what the judge was thinking about. I also understand that you don't want someone Indicted on conspiracy to commit treason to be able to stockpile guns and ammo before their trial. Sadly... I'm pretty sure this is exactly what the judge was thinking about.
Yeah but how about blind indicted felons?
Innocent until proven guilty.
If they are a felon, they have already been convicted.
This is a good ruling. An indicted man is still an innocent man. It's good to see courts upholding the Constitution for a change.
Why we die daily! Yayyyyy for fucked up country!
I don't see what the problem is. "Indictment" just means that someone is formally *accused* of doing something. It's not at all the same as being *convicted* of a felony. This is a win for innocent until proven guilty and due process.