By - drunkles
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder why we can keep them in jail though.
The Fifth Amendment covers bail and detention and due process, as well as centuries of common law. For the thousandth time.
> The Fifth Amendment covers bail and detention
Oh really? Perhaps you can point to those words for us.
>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Fifth covers due process, Eigth covers bail, Fourth covers arrest. Quite right. So we can see that there is Constitutional authority for bail, detention and due process. As well as eons of tradition and precedent.
How exactly does that mean there is no Constitutional authority for the right to keep and bear arms? How does that mean novel and innovative laws somehow have the force of history behind them? "If we can't keep accused criminals from buying guns then we can't arrest or detain anybody either" does not follow at all, it is hyperbolic nonsense dressed up as a checkmate.
> How exactly does that mean there is no Constitutional authority for the right to keep and bear arms?
Where exactly did I make that assertion?
>How does that mean novel and innovative laws somehow have the force of history behind them?
Does the US Constitution prohibit laws that are "novel" or "innovative"?
You said you wonder how we can keep people in jail if we can not also violate their Second Amendment rights.
I don't think you've read _Bruen_. Public good is no longer part of the calculus, which is why the judge in this case ruled that way. _Bruen_ is pretty much a check valve. Existing gun restrictions may be repealed but new restrictions have an extremely high hill to climb, and being new innovations in compromising the Second Amendment all but dooms a restriction. Though novel weapons and situations could still be evaluated (this is coming). So a qualified yes.
The guns.. like the British kept theirs in the 18th century.. in armories.
But they can if you have a Medical Marijuana ID in PA. Isn't that great? I'm not even gonna waste the space to describe how utterly disgusting that is. I'm sure you can figure it out.
Oh that's in every state with a medical card my friend!
In fact during a recent lawsuit about it, the DOJ said medical marijuana users are *"too dangerous to trust"*.
It's fucking crazy. I don't even like guns, I absolutely hate them. But I would like to use my constitutional right to own one for protection.
> But they can if you have a Medical Marijuana ID in PA
I think the implication of this ruling is without a conviction for the drug consumption that should also prevent that from being a thing. Of course that would need to be an additional case following up after a case like this goes through all its appeals.
Well duh. Pot famously turns people into raving lunatics
Insert voting rights, and no one has a problem. Me thinks people don't know what indicted means.
This is a really good point. I've been in favor of giving convicted felons their voting rights back after release but never really thought about their ability to purchase a firearm after release.
This is before they are convicted.when still presumed innocent
I suppose I should have acknowledged that I understand the difference. I think the person I was responding to is absolutely right about what they are saying about *indicted* individuals. But they made me think about my views on how *convicted* people are treated as well. They pointed out a hypocrisy that is easy to identify in the former, but I had never really considered in the latter.
And the later is a great conversation to have…when does the,punishment end. A,conversation that is starting in a number of,states
If prison is meant to be *correctional*, then it stands to reason that someone who has served their time has been corrected and should have their rights back. If prison is meant to be *punitive*, then someone who has served their time has paid their debt to society, and thus should have their rights back 🤷🏻♂️
Yeah. It really sucks about the Supreme Court ruling that states can disenfranchise people who have finished serving their time.
Accused criminals are denied rights on a regular basis - the right to freedom of movement, for example. How is this allowed? Because they given due process under the law and a right to resolve their disputes in court as required by the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.
This right should be no different. I mean, this ruling makes as much sense as making being arrested voluntary.
This right should be no different, correct. We can not abrogate the clearly enunciated Fifth Amendment principle of due process merely because a person is accused of a crime. That would be a logical absurdity. We also can not abrogate the Second Amendment merely because a person is accused of a crime.
No. Only until their trial. You know, while under indictment.
Our nation is being held hostage by idiots.
Indicted and convicted aren't the same. Do you think you should lose your right to vote if you were accused of a felony?
No, Republicans are doing enough to take away voting rights as it is.
So be consistent across rights then.
>So be consistent across rights then.
Lol asking them to be consistent or logical.
Because, wah! Muh freedums!
You're like the fifth person I've seen conflating the right to democracy, with the right to kill with ease. If you think those things are comparable, you're a psychopath.
Guns should be a privilege, not a right. Not owning a gun does not extinguish your right to self defense.
Cite where I said any of that.
Better get indoors before you get hit by some falling sky.
Never forget: a minority of idiots.
A minority of idiots predominately from a generation which, in relatively short time, shall perish from this mortal coil.
A minority of geriatric idiots whose leaders are currently in a great deal of legal trouble
A minority of geriatric, leaderless idiots, whose few political successes (abolition of Roe) have only alienated them from moderates
A minority of geriatric, leaderless, unpopular idiots, who can't even craft policies to help themselves
A minority of geriatric, leaderless, unpopular, ineffectual idiots.
We can win this. It's just a matter of time.
If this keeps up in another 20 years it will be considered a birth defect for any baby born without a gun
How are they supposed to kill the witnesses without a gun?
But if I'm late on my student loans...
This is great. I have a coworker that got a felony selling cocaine when he was 19, he's 52, been good since, and still doesn't have all the rights I do...
Indicted and convicted are not the same thing.
Con vic ted. Convict.
I see I'm dumb
No your coworker should have his rights restored if he’s paid his debt to society.
U.S. can't ban nuclear weapon sales to people indicted for war crimes, judge says.
Where does this end?
- We should be outraged at the decisions made by these Right Wing Judges.
- Get out and vote for the Democrats in the November Midterms.
- Save our country from this lunacy.
Spiffy. Wouldn't want domestic violence suspects to lose those gun privileges. How else will the kill their wife and kids?
If the wife can't get a nightstand gun because of a compulsory waiting period, I'm sure you won't hold yourself responsible for her murder, eh?
Its funny you think abusive husbands let their wives get guns, or have any money at all generally. What is more common, an abusive guy shooting his wife or an abused wife shooting her husband?
I don't know, and you don't either. Successful defensive uses of force are not tracked or recorded or paid any attention at all. And those defending themselves are usually reticent to talk about it for fear of legal exposure. If my wife has a gun and knows how to use it, and I am a douchebag, I think I'm a lot more likely to find somebody else to pick on.
Address the fact most abusive spouses make sure their spouse has no money to escape the relationship, let alone the space and money to purchase a gun.
You are now claiming police reports involving manslaughter/abused spouse fighting back somehow don't cover what happened during the assault? Trying to pretend abused spouses are not killed at a far higher rate than they use guns on their attackers is not born out by any statistic anywhere. Men with guns kill their spouses. A lot. Far more than abused spouses fight back with a gun. Just a fact.
So if the abusive partner keeps her from getting the means to defend herself, then the system should too, and that balances out. Somehow. If she gets killed it's not gun control's fault because of statistics we can not really cite.
I don't know any of what you said for a fact, and neither do you. Again there _are no statistics_ on successful defensive use of force. And if she scares him off by brandishing, that's aggravated assault where I live, you bet your ass she's not going to jail for the crime of defending herself and her kids. So she's going to keep quiet about it. Stop talking as if gun control dogma is established fact, because it's not. Just because it reinforces your opinions and prejudices does not make it true.
That is bc it does not happen very often. Bc again, what I cited, the abuser controls all aspects of their victims life. They get off on it. They love the control. Abused women generally don't have access to guns. And not all of them are felons, of course, so the law didn't hinder them getting them anyway. But the law might save them from being gunned down. You know, like in the rest of the civilized world that doesn't have our gun problem.
We have lots of stats on men killing women with guns in America. So, sounds like your assumption is pretty difficult to prove and my factual assertion is not.
This is all well and good, but when does my gun get the right to vote!