Quote:A Chicago judge recently ruled, in the case of a felon convicted multiple times, that the statute barring felons from possessing handguns is unconstitutional.

The federal case was thrown out by U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman earlier this month. The felon was facing a mandatory minimum 15 year sentence if convicted of being in possession of a firearm.


Bill Kushner, ABC7's police affairs consultant, called the ruling a letdown and said it ignores a decades-long practice.

The ruling goes beyond even the Illinois State Rifle Association. A stanch defender of the Second Amendment, even the ISRA believe there are exceptions to those rights.



"I'm opposed to criminals who have been charged with violent crimes and convicted of those violent crimes from getting a handgun or an FOID card or concealed carry permit of any kind," said Richard Pearson, executive director of ISRA.


The potential consequences of the case are significant, especially in Chicago where there are a huge number of "felon-in-possession" cases.
"If these statutes are struck down both at the federal level, and then obviously, they wouldn't be struck down at the state level, what you're going to see is you're going to see another uptick in crime," Kushner said.

The U.S. Attorney's office filed an appeal immediately after the ruling, which will be heard by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

(11-17-2023, 02:53 AM)Ninurta Wrote: The judge isn't wrong - it IS unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment doesn't say "except for..." it just plainly says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Barring a felon from having a gun amounts to a life sentence for them, just like banning them from voting does. If they are too dangerous to posses firearms, they are too dangerous to be allowed to roam the streets freely with the rest of us. Just keep them locked up or kill them if they're that dangerous. There aren't any percentages in allowing them to roam freely, whether they roam with a gun, a knife, a crowbar, or a brick.

Maybe see to not unleashing violent people on the rest of us instead of worrying over what sort of implement they're going to get violent on us with? Because if they are violent, and want to do us violence, they'll find an implement to do it with, whether a gun or a claw hammer. Just ask Paul Pelosi!



.

(11-17-2023, 02:53 AM)Ninurta Wrote: The judge isn't wrong - it IS unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment doesn't say "except for..." it just plainly says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Barring a felon from having a gun amounts to a life sentence for them, just like banning them from voting does. If they are too dangerous to posses firearms, they are too dangerous to be allowed to roam the streets freely with the rest of us. Just keep them locked up or kill them if they're that dangerous. There aren't any percentages in allowing them to roam freely, whether they roam with a gun, a knife, a crowbar, or a brick.

Maybe see to not unleashing violent people on the rest of us instead of worrying over what sort of implement they're going to get violent on us with? Because if they are violent, and want to do us violence, they'll find an implement to do it with, whether a gun or a claw hammer. Just ask Paul Pelosi!



.

(11-17-2023, 06:06 AM)Grace Wrote:

(11-17-2023, 02:53 AM)Ninurta Wrote: The judge isn't wrong - it IS unconstitutional.

Amen to that!

(11-18-2023, 01:04 AM)p358 Wrote: The only way to solve this issue, and it needs to be solved, is to have a Constitutional Convention and re-write the Second Amendment.

The powers that be would never want that to happen because We The People will tighten the Second Amendment up so there is no wriggle room at all for the WEF agents.  NO licences required, no registration etc etc.

No, they would not like that one bit.

The cities with armed citizens roaming around minding their own business are the safest cities in the US of A.

It stands to reason why!

P