New Texas federal decision: people under felony indictment have the right to purchase a firearm

[Fijimn]

Texas judge: Gun ban for felony defendants unconstitutional

”No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right," Counts wrote.

www.chron.com

Judge Counts applying the new "historical traditions" test to see if a law passes Constitutional muster. At least the judge acknowledged the real world problems the new standard creates....

The buyer was under indictment for felony burglary when he attempted to purchase a .22. Any "red flag" limitations placed on the ability to purchase a firearm (due to mental health, violence or other) will likely also be held to be unconstitutional under the historical traditions test.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

What a mess

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

The 2nd Amendment is quickly becoming the only constitutional amendment which there are no restrictions or regulations on.

 

[MitchLL]

The NRA approves of this message...

Pew/pew/pew.

 

[IACub]

I thought the GOP hated judges legislating from the bench?

 

[Fijimn]

The 2nd Amendment is quickly becoming the only constitutional amendment which there are no restrictions or regulations on.

We used to have scrutiny tests to apply to laws that abridged fundamental rights--with strict scrutiny being the highest test. But with this new "historical traditions" test, SCOTUS has decided that it will create an entire new area of law on its biased view of history.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

We used to have scrutiny tests to apply to laws that abridged fundamental rights--with strict scrutiny being the highest test. But with this new "historical traditions" test, SCOTUS has decided that it will create an entire new area of law on its biased view of history.

Almost like a judicial version of “Make America Great Again.”

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

But with this new "historical traditions" test, SCOTUS has decided that it will create an entire new area of law on its biased view of history.

Just because states restricted firearms over the last 200 years doesn’t mean states historically restricted firearms over the last 200 years.

 

[Fijimn]

Just because states restricted firearms over the last 200 years doesn’t mean states historically restricted firearms over the last 200 years.

Sure. Take it one step further, just because historically the 2A was not considered a fundamental right and not incorporated to the states through the 14A doesn't mean historically the 2A was not a fundamental right.

 

[Fijimn]

Almost like a judicial version of “Make America Great Again.”

The beauty or evilness of the historical traditions test is that our historical traditions can be whatever the author wants them to be.

 

[IACub]

Just because states restricted firearms over the last 200 years doesn’t mean states historically restricted firearms over the last 200 years.

Translation: We're just gonna do stuff like my grandpappy used to do.

 

[BelemNole]

The 2nd Amendment is quickly becoming the only constitutional amendment which there are no restrictions or regulations on.

It's the most important amendment if you're a republican. All others are lesser.

 

[Gimmered]

Just because states restricted firearms over the last 200 years doesn’t mean states historically restricted firearms over the last 200 years.

Example?

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Example?

Cherry-picked history and ideology-driven outcomes: Bruen’s originalist distortions - SCOTUSblog

This article is part of a symposium on the court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Saul Cornell is the Paul and Diane Guenther chair in American history at Fordham University and adjunct professor of law at Fordham Law School. The majority opinion in New York St

www.scotusblog.com

Breyer's dissent addresses the majority opinion twisting history and cherry picking facts:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Gun control history from actual historians:

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/08-1521_amicus%20Legal%20Historians.pdf

 

[BioHawk]

Interesting. In Illinois, Republicans are running scared about people accused of crimes being allowed to not be in jail.

 

[EasyHawk]

I believe in Iowa felons can vote now. Crazy times.

 

[NoleATL]

"In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."
A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not."

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

Gun control advocates fear, and gun rights proponents sometimes hope, the Second Amendment will transform our cities into modern-day versions of Dodge. This is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Jimmy McGill]

We used to have scrutiny tests to apply to laws that abridged fundamental rights--with strict scrutiny being the highest test. But with this new "historical traditions" test, SCOTUS has decided that it will create an entire new area of law on its biased view of history.

Nah, SCOTUS has decided to make up shit as they go now. I used to stick up for SCOTUS when folks from both sides ripped on them. As someone with a legal license, I wanted to believe the highest court in the land could be held to a high standard.

With our last 3 appointments lying under oath during their selection process, I can't do that anymore. Might as well have told my clients to perjure themselves.....what was I thinking.

 

[hawkbirch]

Isn't the issue that the defendant was charged but not convicted? I think following conviction would see a different result.

 

[mnole03]

Isn't the issue that the defendant was charged but not convicted? I think following conviction would see a different result.

The idea that the state can hold you pending trial but can’t restrict your ability to buy a gun is absurd.

 

[hawkbirch]

The idea that the state can hold you pending trial but can’t restrict your ability to buy a gun is absurd.

Limiting your ability to purchase a gun is punishment for something of which you've not been convicted. Bond is intended to ensure your appearance for trial.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

There are plenty of charges that require someone to turn over their firearms. Hell, even simple misdemeanor Domestic Assaults require you to turn over your firearms and ammunition to the Sheriff within 12 hours of the no-contact order being issues. That is with a charge, not a conviction

If you have been charged with any violent offense higher than that, I see no reason why they shouldn't turn over their firearms and be prevented from purchasing during the pendency of the matter.

 

[mnole03]

Limiting your ability to purchase a gun is punishment for something of which you've not been convicted. Bond is intended to ensure your appearance for trial.

The state can hold you pretrial with no bond to minimize danger. Preventing a gun purchase by someone awaiting trial for burglary seems inline with that.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Limiting your ability to purchase a gun is punishment for something of which you've not been convicted. Bond is intended to ensure your appearance for trial.

Well, if you want your guns back, appear for trial and prove your innocence.

 

[Gimmered]

Well, if you want your guns back, appear for trial and prove your innocence.

So guilty until proven innocent?

 

[Fijimn]

Isn't the issue that the defendant was charged but not convicted? I think following conviction would see a different result.

Under the new constitutional standard of “historical traditions” I do not believe the distinction between conviction and charge matters.

 

[Fijimn]

So guilty until proven innocent?

How do you arrive at that opinion.

 

[mnole03]

So guilty until proven innocent?

They can hold you in jail while you await trial. They can limit your travel. They can even limit your freedom of association.

Conservatives are only pro-defendant when it comes to guns. Because guns > everything else.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

So guilty until proven innocent?

Hell no, I worked for Defendants. But the practical reality is that if someone is alleged to have acted violently, there is an obligation to ensure the safety of the public until the matter is resolved. Don't try to contrive what I said in to what you wanted to read.

 

[Gimmered]

Hell no, I worked for Defendants. But the practical reality is that if someone is alleged to have acted violently, their is an obligation to ensure the safety of the public until the matter is resolved. Don't try to contrive what I said in to what you wanted to read.

I'm sorry, I thought when you said they should show up to court and prove their innocence, you meant that they should show up to court and prove their innocence. My bad.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I'm sorry, I thought when you said they should show up to court and prove their innocence, you meant that they should show up to court and prove their innocence. My bad.

Their burden is entirely difficult as the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

I can prove a reasonable doubt in most cases as long as my clients are not caught on camera committing the offense or admitting guilt