Federal Judge Ruled It Unconstitutional To Bar Criminals From Owning Guns

Zappa

Road Warrior
NES Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
62,408
Likes
49,662
Location
Living Free In The 603
Feedback: 28 / 0 / 0
Know your place, you peasants.
Not sure I understand your response here.

That story makes no sense. The judge let him go on the gun charge. Fine. What happened to charges for trying to rob people on the triain, which is why they found the gun on him in the first place?

Agreed. Was wondering that myself. Currently back in jail on new charges. Go figure!
 
Last edited:

Headline:

Chicago armed robber allowed to walk free after judge rules it unconstitutional to ban felons from owning guns​


From the story:
He is now being held without bond in the Cook County Jail, as federal prosecutors appeal the judge’s ruling, the Tribune reported.

As someone else pointed out, there's no reason he shouldn't be held for the robbery itself.
 
So a person with a DUI should be allowed to own firearms then, hopefully this case ruling gets some traction and they do away with that moronic DUI no gun process

Are you daft? Young urban yoofs should get their rights but your suburban dingbat DUI'ing is receiving none of the same consideration. LOL

(Note: If you DUI, you should be PITF (punched in the face)).
 
(Note: If you DUI, you should be PITF (punched in the face)).
Somewhere north of 35 years ago, my wife and I were passed at the start of a blind S-curve by someone easily doing 70 in a 35 zone. I made the comment that the guy was "an accident going someplace to happen".

The someplace arrived a few seconds later, just around the blind portion of the curve. He had hit a car head-on, cutting it nearly in half. The 25-year-old kid driving the car coming towards us bled to death a pint at a time with every exhale from the internal injuries before the FD got there. The guy who had passed us was drunk and uninjured. PITF would have been far too good for the bastard.

10 years or so later, the state straightened out that stretch of road (Rt 9 just west of Worcester).
 
The PP for a DUI makes zero sense. It’s really just another route to disarming people hidden in ‘we’ll take care of you’ nanny poltics.

So, you got a DUI, and you can never own a gun again but you can drive your car again in like 90 days or whatever.

This is like if you went outside drunk shooting at clouds and then being told you can never drive a car again.
 
That story makes no sense. The judge let him go on the gun charge. Fine. What happened to charges for trying to rob people on the triain, which is why they found the gun on him in the first place?
RTFA


Prince was ordered released from prison following the ruling but was rearrested by Chicago police on separate charges accusing him of being an armed habitual criminal.

He is being held without bond in the Cook County Jail, as federal prosecutors appeal the judge’s ruling, the Tribune reported.


The federal judge ruled on the federal charges, which don’t include robbery.
 
So a person with a DUI should be allowed to own firearms then, hopefully this case ruling gets some traction and they do away with that moronic DUI no gun process
It is not a DUI problem, but the MA misdafelony problem.

An AD* in your home with no injuries is a misdafelony if there are any other occupied buildings within 500ft or your house or if you are within 150ft of a road way and is, per SJC decision, a per-se offence not requiring any scienter or criminal intent on the part of the person having the AD. The SJC thusly ruled in part because "the penalty is so minor".

* - All expected sanctimonious comments about "There is no such thing as an AD, only NDs" incorporated by reference and need not be submitted as they contribute nothing to the misdafelony discussion.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did. What part of "allowed to walk free" do you think comports with your quote of "is being held without bond in the Cook County Jail, as federal prosecutors appeal the judge’s ruling"?
The answer to your question was in the article, not the clickbait outrage headline.
 
I don’t care if he hates Bruen. He followed it.
so, at least bruen applies specifically to chicago inner city black felons. it is indeed some progress.
let`s see when and if it will be ever extended to anyone else.
 
With Uber and similar car services available, nobody should ever get a DUI again. Young people today don't get hammered at bars, anyway. They pass pipes in circles while playing online games

Yeah. Drunks don't think like that. They just get in their car or on their bike and head out on their merry way.

It is not a DUI problem, but the MA misdafelony problem.

An AD* in your home with no injuries is a misdafelony if there are any other occupied buildings within 500ft or your house or if you are within 150ft of a road way and is, per SJC decision, a per-se offence not requiring any scienter or criminal intent on the part of the person having the AD. The SJC thusly ruled in part because "the penalty is so minor".

* - All expected sanctimonious comments about "There is no such thing as an AD, only NDs" incorporated by reference and need not be submitted as they contribute nothing to the misdafelony discussion.

It's both. We need to fix this law and we STILL need a PITF statute. First offense - officer at teh scene. Second offense, biggest dude on that town's force. Third offense, voluntary MMA and boxing guys get a crack. There won't be a 4th offense.

I've got zero tolerance for drunk drivers.
 
The answer to your question was in the article, not the clickbait outrage headline.
From the body of the article, not the clickbait headline:
"A five-time convicted felon facing a mandatory 15-year prison sentence for his latest weapons offense in Chicago was instead allowed to walk free — because a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional to bar criminals from owning guns."​

So, to repeat, what part of "allowed to walk free" do you think comports with your quote of "is being held without bond in the Cook County Jail, as federal prosecutors appeal the judge’s ruling"?
 
That story makes no sense. The judge let him go on the gun charge. Fine. What happened to charges for trying to rob people on the triain, which is why they found the gun on him in the first place?
Seems very easy to make a distinction

Felons can own guns but a felon using a weapon in comission of a crime should be a more severe punishment
 
Back
Top Bottom