See Where This is Going?

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

It looks like (to me) a federal judge is using a novel approach to attack the Bruen decision. His assertion that felons have 2A rights is stupid. But stupid decisions require stupid appeals and that puts laws/courts/enforcement on hold as the case crawls through the court system. And the masses start to believe that the 2A, maybe is not such a good thing.

 

To head off any wailing or gnashing of teeth, the Chicago Tribune link in the article is behind a pay wall.

 

Second City Cop: Chicago Federal Judge Did What?

[Gungadin]

It will take a while to sort out buy I fully expect that some objective evidence of violence based on 'History and Tradition' will disqualify one from having 2A Rights.

 

Having your wife red flag you as leverage for the upcoming divorce is not acceptable.

 

I am left wondering if that Federal judge is unqualified or if he is a liberal trying to make a point about Bruen.  Doesn't seem he did his homework on history and tradition.  I'm no legal guy but I guess the way Bruen is done it is not the judges job but the states job to put forth the history that justifies taking away 2A rights.

 

Law is odd, hopefully we are on the right track on this subject.  I've always liked the history/tradition argument including what the framers wrote at the time.  The text argument with the militia confusion and the significance of the comma and it being the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that was not a personal right was ridiculous.

[Subdeacon Joe]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2023

Chicago Federal Judge Did What?

 

This seems....unusual:

• As a five-time convicted felon, Glen Prince was facing a mandatory minimum 15 years behind bars when he was charged in federal court with being a felon in possession of a handgun stemming from an armed robbery on CTA train in 2021.

  Instead, Prince’s case was tossed out earlier this month by a federal judge who ruled the statute barring felons from possessing handguns is unconstitutional in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

  The ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman is the first of its kind to come down in Chicago’s federal court and joins a host of other similar cases that have thrown the decades-old law into a sort of legal limbo as the issue works its way back to the high court.

And what about pending cases?

• The implications are particularly large in Chicago, where there are hundreds of pending felon-with-firearm cases stemming largely from the U.S. attorney’s office efforts to throw federal law enforcement resources into the fight against the city’s relentless gun violence.

As many might recall, after the lack of comprehensive prosecution at the local level by Crimesha, the US Attorneys office stepped in and started prosecuting Federal Law violations. When applied ruthlessly in Virginia years ago, violent crime dropped by something like 40% overnight. Criminals heard about Operation Exile and didn't feel like doing 10 years in a Federal pen a thousand miles from home. It never went that far here, but it was the only game in town.

Now it's all on hold? We had a couple gun cases go through the US Attorney's Office here and the prosecutors were very thorough. VERY. Multiple prep sessions, intelligent questions, and they seemed to know their jobs as opposed to Crimesha's shit show. And although this was under a democrat administration in a democrat city/county/state, we did end up batting .500 with the cases and the bad guy did get sent away for quite a while.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Not a day goes by in Sonoma County where either the Sonoma County Sheriff Dept or the Santa Rosa Police Dept don't publish at least one arrest in which "Felon in possession" isn't one of the list of charges.  Often these are people out on our catch and release system or recently out of prison.  Laws prohibiting felons from owning, or being in possession of, firearms are just window dressing.  It's easier for a felon in CA to obtain a firearm than it is for an honest citizen to get one.

Wasn't it the GCA of 1968 that enacted a federal ban on felons possessing firearms? There are, of course, lots of examples of States banning possession, but that was before the GCA 1968, Heller, and Bruen.  

[Texas Joker]

Pre 1964 felons had 2a rights. You could also buy guns at the hardware store or through mail order. The same law that created ffl's also created the category of prohibited person. 

 

The judge is correct. If the person in question is a danger to the community why is he free? If he is rehabilitated why restrict his civil liberties?

[Ranger Dan]

On 11/22/2023 at 10:49 PM, Subdeacon Joe said:

Not a day goes by in Sonoma County where either the Sonoma County Sheriff Dept or the Santa Rosa Police Dept don't publish at least one arrest in which "Felon in possession" isn't one of the list of charges.  Often these are people out on our catch and release system or recently out of prison.  Laws prohibiting felons from owning, or being in possession of, firearms are just window dressing.  It's easier for a felon in CA to obtain a firearm than it is for an honest citizen to get one.

Wasn't it the GCA of 1968 that enacted a federal ban on felons possessing firearms? There are, of course, lots of examples of States banning possession, but that was before the GCA 1968, Heller, and Bruen.  

 

2 hours ago, Texas Joker said:

Pre 1964 felons had 2a rights. You could also buy guns at the hardware store or through mail order. The same law that created ffl's also created the category of prohibited person. 

 

The judge is correct. If the person in question is a danger to the community why is he free? If he is rehabilitated why restrict his civil liberties?

 

The only way to disarm criminals is to lock them up, and that only limits them to edged weapons to use on each other. I see no use in the banning of free people owning "arms". If you are not capable of peacefully owning arms, you should be locked up.

[Gungadin]

So are we saying 'Text and Tradition' did not rule out 2A Rights from Felons but it did allow for taking 2A rights from the dangerous?  I'm OK with that.  Now what did the 'Tradition' allow to define as 'dangerous'.  This is where the battle is because 'Red Flag Laws' typically to not meet the standard IMO.  My husband and I are getting a divorce and we are fighting over the kids and the house, he got mad and pushed me as I blocked him from leaving.....my attorney says it would be good leverage to.....

 

Then we have the recent NE 'mass shooting'.  Reservist was clearly dangerous but did he meet the high bar?  Nobody treated him like he did.

 

There are clearly non dangerous felonies.

[John Kloehr]

I would like a citation to the actual case, a link to the actual ruling. This report does not match anything I am following.

 

In a litigation "in the first instance," the law as written is applied, A challenge under violation of rights generally occurs later. There is also committing a crime using a weapon (this is an "aggravating" factor). The only times I have seen a charge tossed "in the first instance" is if there is already clearly applicable case law matching the current facts.

 

The report just does not match how I (as an engineer) understand how the legal system works.

 

I  smell a rat. Maybe there was a clearly illegal search and the reporter presented it in a different light?