VakAttack

Related case: SCOTUS just overturned a ban on the sale of bump stocks, the ban put in place during the Trump administration.

A lot of debate about this, I'm typically more persuaded by arguments like this one, which cites to some of the Federalist Papers (specifically #29 from Hamilton) as well as Federalist #46 by Madison to define the phrase. Essentially, I feel that the purpose was basically a bulwark against a pure federal military by allowing for states to have their own militaries to protect the separation of powers between the individual states and the federal government. I do not believe it was intended to confer an individual right without infringement to individual citizens but to "the people" more generally. I am just one humble lawyer, though, and there's a lot of debate on that issue.

So, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." After the Heller case, the legal analysis of the amendment became much looser, and essentially said the phrase "well regulated militia" didn't hold sway over the rest of the text. Using that reading, there should be no infringement in any way on anybody's right to bear firearms. However, the country still does have some. I mentioned in another thread that obviously most felons lose their rights to a firearm. Courts can remove firearms, sometimes. However, under the reading SCOTUS promulgated in Heller, it seems to me that these restrictions run counter to that logic. If the right can't be infringed, it can't be infringed. What do you guys think of that reading? Should gun rights be completely unfettered under SCOTUS' logic? ETA: I want to be clear, I'm not trying to trick anybody. I personally believe we should have more restrictions on gun access than we do, I'm just having a thought experiment with current legal interpretations.

The two choices suck, but not for these reasons. I don't think people over 65 should be eligible for this position. JMO.

LOL. It's the same people shifting their view to match what they wish to believe.

...I don't care if Hunter faces trials. I hope he gets convicted of whatever he's guilty of. None that has anything to do with my post that you're quoting.

We've gone from "he will be acquitted to appease the Biden Crime Family" to "actually, he will be convicted as part of an effort to the even DEEPER conspiracy." Yeesh.

Also, if you haven't watched it, Gillis' special on Netflix is awesome.

Fair warning, Morrill is darker humor and works blue.

Seen Bargatze live twice, incredibly funny. Probably my favorite touring stand up right now, but I'll let you know how Shane Gillis is after I see him in September. Also awesome, fwiw, were John Mulaney, Jim Jeffries and (shockingly) Daniel Tosh. Not that I didn't know he was funny, I just wasn't expecting him to be that consistently funny for 2 hours. I saw Tom Segura and he didn't impress me as much. Sam Morrill has a great special on Netflix, I'd love to see him live soon, he's more of an up and comer.

One of my personal top 5 shows of all time. Should have included Boyd and Olyphant as Raylan. Also Vic Mackey on the Shield.

Ok buddy. Trump does this shot all the time. So does Biden. They're old ***ducking** men, this is what happens to old men. Neither of then should be president, but one of them will be.

Dude, any time Biden stumbles over anything you act like he's a dementia-ridden invalid, but excuse away the other side of that coin constantly. Hilarious.

You could have read what came after the word "appeal" in the second quote. Interesting. Based on a pure 2A "right shall not be infringed...." argument? I've often wondered after Heller whether felons would be able to challenge the loss of thwir gun rights.

No idea. You'd have to really be in the courtroom to know if there are real grounds for an appeal; even if there aren't, though, an appeal will almost invariably be filed. The most commonly successful appeals tend to be based on pre-trial rulings in my experience.

Names that spring to mind: Live action TV: Tony Soprano, Michael Scott, Walter White, Mr. Spock, George Costanza, Tyrion Lannister, Chandler Bing, Archie Bunker, Sam Malone, Frasier Crane, Barney Stinson, Saul Goodman, Cokumbo, Maxwell Smart, Hawkeye Pierce Animated TV: Bugs Bunny, Homer Simpson, Stewie Griffin, Scooby Doo, Harley Quinn from the original Batman: The Animates Series, Batman played by Kevin Conroy, Eric Cartman, Sterling Archer

And now the appeals process begins.

Great news!

I'm sorry this hurts your feelings. Feel free to support substantial.criminal justice reform, I'll stand with you. As it is, this exact type of thing happens to your fellow citizens all the time and has been deemed legal. I just had a judge sentence a guy to 6 years in prison for a violation of probation where the violation was a new misdemeanor charge...where the State dropped the new charge that triggered the violation.

Is that what you're hung up on? That he wasn't charged elsewhere? That's not a requirement of the statute. Each agency is independent and make their own charging decisions. This happens every day to defendants throughout the country.

....I did. I told you exactly what he was convicted of. 34 counts of first degree falsification of business records. He was convicted of falsifying business records to conceal multiple other crimes, namely falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.

There are many crimes that can be either misdemeanors or felonies depending on prosecutorial charging decisions. I know exactly what charges he faced, what are you talking about?

34 counts of first degree Falsifying Business Records. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/final-verdict-form-donald-trump-hush-money-trial-nyc/5462717/%3famp=1

Apparently sentencing is scheduled for July 11. As to his penalty, I've never dealt with NY sentencing directly, but I would guess he'll get a term of probation, but no incarceration. In Florida, I would guess most people would pay a trial tax for going to trial (not supposed to be a thing, but it is) and do some jail on the front end, but I think his political position would shield him from jail. The judge has been letting him get away with stuff that would have had most defendants in jail for contempt of court, and I think that's because of who he is. As to what I personally believe, I think we lock up too many nonviolent offenders as is, and I think probation is fine.

Now the appeals process begins.