[Nemo]

I generally agree. But if a person unjustly and physically harmed another with any weapon to the extent of needing professional medical care, then I'm okay with a lifetime ban. They forfeited their right to keep and bear arms.

So if I open hand slap you (no weapon, only hand) in the face and bruise up a lip I am ok but if I hit you with a short broom handle type stick and bruise your thigh I get a 2A ban?

Rethink that assessment.

Nemo

 

[Phil1979]

Well, maybe we can look at it on a case by case basis. But a bruised thigh likely would not need professional medical care.

So if I open hand slap you (no weapon, only hand) in the face and bruise up a lip I am ok but if I hit you with a short broom handle type stick and bruise your thigh I get a 2A ban?

Rethink that assessment.

Nemo

 

[Craftsman]

I've said it before. I believe once you have "paid your debt to society" you should be debt free. A free society has no place for "less-free" people. If you are too dangerous to live without restrictions, you are too dangerous to live outside a cage.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Does anybody know from what sort of "felony" the plaintiff suffers under a conviction?

Unless it is a violent one involving a weapon, all of this talk is just hypothetical.

 

[Nemo]

Well, maybe we can look at it on a case by case basis. But a bruised thigh likely would not need professional medical care.

Yeah doc, this guy hit my thigh with a stick and it bruised up and its sore and I'm hemophiliac. You better check it out Doc.

Or

This guy slapped me and started the whole side of my face is sore and hot and bruised down my neck and real sore and I'm hemophiliac and you better look at it Doc.

Or

He really slapped me hard and its all bruised and sore. You better check it out Doc.

So a case by case basis depends on the thoughts of the person assessing it. I submit a standard, objective, level would be a better method.

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

Of course it violates the 2a. The prohibition on felons possessing arms is new and not a long-standing prohibition since what 1968.

Yeps. When you got out of the Yuma prison they gave you your gun belt back.

Nemo

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Your preferences are one thing, but what do you think within the topic of this thread, the consequences of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision?

 

[Nemo]

Remember Barrett's discussion of loss of gun rights in a decision regarding a tax violation as improper in a dissent in her CoA days?

I suspect there could be some fair trimming of the felony equals gun rights gone idea. That did not come into existence until the Gun Control Act of 1968. Reinforced by FOPA in 1986.

It may go so far as to any rescinding the prohibition for misdemeanor conviction of domestic assault.

Nemo

Felony Gun Laws - FelonyGuide

Felony Gun Laws - Can felons carry guns? Do guns laws for felons vary by state? Are any states, such as Texas, particularly harsh on felons carrying guns? When is a felon eligible for a gun permit again?

felonyguide.com

Felony Gun Laws

Can felons carry guns? Do guns laws for felons vary by state? Are any states, such as Texas, particularly harsh on felons carrying guns? When is a felon eligible for a gun permit again?

Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act, passed in 1986, reinforced the ban on felons carrying guns, and also banned people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from possessing guns.
Congress later expanded federal gun control laws by passing what is commonly known as the Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits persons who are subject to protective or restraining orders as a result of domestic violence, or who have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes involving domestic violence. Incidentally, these federal laws not only ban felons from possessing guns, but also from possessing any type or amount of ammunition.

continued

 

[Phil1979]

I predict no misdemeanor crime will abridge Second Amendment Rights, at least after the sentence is served.

Non-violent felonies the same.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Most Important Story of 2022: Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision - Liberty Park Press

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 6-3 opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen back on June 23, it set in motion a flurry

www.libertyparkpress.com

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Foster Parent Second Amendment Case Sent Back to District Court in Light of Bruen

From yesterday's Seventh Circuit decision in Miller v. Smith, by Judges Joel Flaum, Ilana Rovner, and Michael Brennan: Appellants Darin and...

reason.com

Volokh, so you know it is worth clicking to read.

Second Amendment challenge to DFCS's antigun policies. About damn time.

 

[OWM]

Illinois overstepping just a bit there don't you think.

 

[Craftsman]

Not just Illinois. Gun bans are standard practice for prospective Foster or Adoptive parents. Most "child advocates" are either deeply leftist or hopelessly corrupt or both. They reflexively use any power they have to enforce their agenda. They are the very definition of "petty tyrant". Don't believe me? Go read Megan Fox's series on Townhall about the St. Louis MO family courts.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I have a friend here in Georgia who foolishly let DFCS into his home. They were demanding to know where guns were and how they were secured and so on. It is absolutely an issue here.

In addition, the Caregiver Child Safety Agreement requires not only the disclosure of firearms and their location, but that they be locked up and unloaded.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

And this is nothing new: DFCS Firearm Rules

 

[Nemo]

And it still wrong.

Nemo

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Yep.

I just thought it should be mentioned here, as another longstanding government rule that Bruen is probably going to affect.