Trump appointed judge decides felons can buy guns.

Lol. Is it any wonder why their states are the most crime ridden and violent?

So, there we have it, folks. A trump appointed judge hailing from the armpit of the nation, Texas, has decided that preventing felons from owning a gun is unconditional. It's ok to prevent them from voting, though.

These people are a sick and dangerous threat to the United States. 🤦‍♂️

https://www.yahoo.com/news/americans-under-felony-indictment-buy-145918441.html

If you're indicted, you're not a felon. It means you've been charged. lol

Facts are not important to certain people, Steve. Shape up.

Reading the first paragraph it seems there was a federal law against this.

A federal law prohibiting people under felony indictment from buying firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Texas has concluded, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.

So a law was in place. Not sure why you're confused on this. It was according to the article a decades old ban.

@LJS9502_basic: you answered it in your post.

A Federal law was ruled unconstitutional. Can't absolve someone of their 2A rights when they haven't been proven to be guilty of a felony yet.

So you agree a judge overturned a law. What's the conflict then?

@LJS9502_basic: yeah the law was unconstitutional

Which isn't the topic. Also laws in the US change depending on who is on the bench.

/ thread

The o.p. is the one who isn't clear on the definition of a felon as evidenced by his words.

That's exactly the topic. Wtf are you even talking about saying it isn't?

My point

Your head

lol, I am definitely*not* confused between the difference of what constitutes an indictment and what constitutes a felon.

IDK, if someone has served their time and is released from prison it seems like they should be granted access to a constitutional right. The same thing applies to voting.

You actually have to make a coherent point before you can claim that.

It would seem this issue isn't about people having served their time, but people who haven't even been convicted.

However, it was a law in place. You implied he was wrong about that.

Yes we need to move past continually punishing people that have served their time. It's a good way for repeat offenders to happen.

Evidently the law wasn't legal.

Then why are you whining about a judge tossing out a law that punishes people who haven't even been convicted? Are you consistent about ANYTHING?

lol, there was no implying anything, I *clearly* stated there was a difference. You're trying way too hard.

I can see some rationale that people indicted SHOULD be barred from certain purchases or activities. i.e. flight risks should have their passport and ability to travel limited. In this instance I'm kind of on the fence depending on the crime. A violent offender, murder, assault, etc., prob OK to restrict a gun since it's a weapon. They would immediately receive that right back once their trial is over or they serve their time.

Picking an extreme example: Let's say an 18 year old kid shoots up a school and is released on bond. Should he be able to go purchase another gun? I'd wager everyone would say no.

I can see the rationale to not restricting it pending results of charges, but at same time depending on what the crime is there might be a need to put restrictions on some people depending on the crime they are accused of. Curious though how a court would impose whatever would be required to flag a purchase on a case by case basis.

You're wrong Steve. His topic wasn't about the difference. But you do you. Must be a slow news day hey.

I'm not whining. Trying to keep some of you honest. Hard to do I know. Why are you whining about that?

Wowsa, okay I'll hold your hand and walk you through this since apparently this was confusing for you.

My initial reply was in response to the following quote in the original post: "A trump appointed judge hailing from the armpit of the nation, Texas, has decided that preventing felons from owning a gun is unconditional."

Note that the article does not mention felon. TC conflated the two. You'll be okay. lol

The judge did change a law which is what I responded to you. Not sure why I care about the OP.

I'm done holding your hand now steve. You'll be okay.

I mean you cared enough to know what he was suggesting, and making some great predictions of what was being implied. lol

I corrected your mistaken belief is all. Have a nice day Steve.

Indeed!

@Stevo_the_gamer: You amuse me.

It's another radical, unqualified Trump judge that no one takes seriously and the DOJ will easily win an appeal.

What makes you say this? The 5th Circuit is definitely one of the most progressive court of appeals, right? Way more progressive than the 9th circuit, I bet.

What is your expert analysis? Did you Google what an indictment is yet?

I'm glad you're okay.

There's plenty of people who have been charged but not convicted in the county jail. So it's okay to take their all their freedoms before conviction just don't take their guns?

I mean, I would be impressed if they're in jail and they're buying themselves a firearm online on gunbroker.

Just like Aileen Cannon's unqualified ruling, this too will be struck down because it is completely unreasonable and there is plenty of historic precedent for the restriction.

The guy was already indicted. Federal prosecutors have a better than 99% conviction rate. He's a felon already, whether you want to admit it or not.

49 out of 50 of the most dangerous cities in the US are run by Democrats please stfu about Democrats knowing what to do with crime.

First, what do you think Democrats can do when the Supreme Court opines on the 2nd Amendment and Congress doesn't pass any restrictions/regulations which Democrats would like? The Republicans are standing in the way of that.

Second, crime is usually higher where population is greatest. IE cities which tend to be more Democratic leaning.

Third, many of these Democratic cities are in states that are Republican.

Critical thinking is your friend.

That red herring is stupid. It's probably the stupidest talking point I have ever read. Sometimes I wonder if people like you actually think before you share your little nuggets of wisdom. Your reply is so mind numbingly stupid that I almost didn't reply because my reply should be obvious to everyone. I'm seriously amazed that you actually thought you were making some "gotcha" point. lmao.

Any so-called "blue" cities that reside in backwards red states are required to follow backwards red state laws, and that includes all backwards red state laws on guns, crime, etc, as state laws supersede all local laws.

Except some of the most dangerous cities are in blue states 🤣🤣.

Please stfu you have no clue what your talking about and your argument is mind numbingly stupid. Do a little research about Demographics and look who commits the most violent crime then look at the states that have large numbers of that Demographic. Chicago is a perfect example of why strict gun control doesn't work.

Chicago isn't even in the top 10. I see you're doubling down on your stupid talking point.

The 10 most crime ridden cities in the U.S. See a pattern, my guy? ha ha.

1. St. Louis, Missouri
2. Jackson, Mississippi
3. Detroit, Michigan
4. New Orleans, Louisiana
5. Baltimore, Maryland
6. Memphis, Tennessee
7. Cleveland, Ohio
8. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
9. Kansas City, Missouri
10. Shreveport, Louisiana

What is the precedent, exactly? Again, since the DOJ will easily roll with this appeal.

He's a felon already? Are you saying he's convicted before he is n actually convicted? How's that Google search coming for you? Lol

Look at the Demographics in those cities and get back to me 🤣.

Oh I definitely see a pattern 🤣🤣

Also check your sources Chicago right at number 10. Cities in blue states make up half the top 10. Better luck next time 🤡.

The law that was in place sounded like a good one. After being charged, arrested, and released pending trial there are often some limitations placed upon a subject until their court date. Preventing people under felony indictment from purchasing a firearm is perfectly reasonable.

I see this judge, like other conservative judges recently, is using the tradition excuse - even though this law, like others recently overturned, were on the books and working just fine for over fifty years - so spanning the lives of people from multiple generations.

Ah well. Elections have consequences and all. Remember to vote, Americans who still care about law and order.

Exactly.

Especially if a person is being charged with violent crime. Even if charges are pending and they aren't technically "convicted", seems reasonable to bar them from possessing firearms' while their case pertaining to violent crime is being adjudicated, that's if you let them out on bail at all. What are you going to do, send them home and let keep the tools try to kill the witnesses? It's insane.

I can see it being unnecessary to temporarily bar them from owning firearms if it's a "white collar" crime or non-violent offense.

@tjandmia: You used Forbes for your source? That top 10 is for cost of crime. Much better sources out there that show crime per Capita.

The question is about removal of freedoms before a conviction. Stop wiggling.

Lol I knew he would post something completely irrelevent to the argument 🤣🤣

@silentchief: demographics has nothing to do with cities being forced to follow backwards red state laws. Man, you're so bad at this. 😆