Millions of Americans Suddenly Get 2nd Amendment Rights Back
Epoch Times 25¢ Sale: https://ept.ms/RomanSale Claim your free Gold from American Hartford Gold: https://ept.ms/3biH9MN …
"Harmony in Every Heartbeat
December 3, 2024
Headlines
🧶Flash Sale👉https://ept.ms/3Df4yM6
Last time i checked a person arrested for a gun their not suppose to own, wasnt magically stopped by that that restriction. If they want to own a gun go ahead, if you use it in a crime you shouldnt see daylight again. Pretty simple solution
I used to think that felons lost their rights but historically once they have paid for their crimes their rights are restored to them. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means just that. Time to stop demonizing firearms when in fact firearms do not kill people, it is people who kill people, That applies to all even if the use a firearm, or a Bus, or a knife, or an airplane. Just my take as a law abiding citizen.
If the 2nd Amendment addresses a basic right then how was that it was able to be taken away? And if a court is restoring 2nd Amendment rights doesn't that mean that someone took them away? Shouldn't the people involved in taking away those rights be serving prison terms?
Doesn't matter what felony you have. Telling a person they don't have a 2nd Amendment right is unconstitutional. Especially for those who made one mistake and haven't committed a crime since.
When guns are outlawed…u know the thing.
Cant own a gun, cant vote because of a non-violent felony when i was 17 and got tried as an adult lol
Im one of the millions who got screwed. When i was eighteen i was charged with possession of a controller substance. I had never been charged with any violent offences btw. I plead no contest. I did not plead guiltily and was not found guilty but i still had to give up my right to own a gun.
Should a person who throws a gun out of a car window be able to own a gun? HELL NO!
How about reparations for this and domestic violence charges when no crime was committed? They must lose qualified immunity so individual oath breakers that violate people's rights can be held accountable and their unconstitutional actions be treated as the serious crime that it is.
Shall not be infringed.
The SECOND AMENSMENT is ABSOLUTE!!! Criminals (felons) by definition, DO NOT OBEY LAWS!!!
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. ONLY ONE THAT STATES THAT!
Great Development!
The problem is…all those "felons" will never be able to get their rights back, because they will have to SUE the government to get them back. Most people will just have to accept that they have lost their rights because they don't have a lawyer they pay 10's of thousands of dollars to get their rights back. And Many of those felons are forced to Plea guilty because our Legal system over charges everyone with the idea of making the "victim" plead guilty to lesser charges so the DA doesn't have to try the person.
PLEA BARGAINING takes lots of peoples rights they will never get back.
I believe that if you stay out of trouble for 20 years with no more arrests you should get full rights back regardless of the crime.
The government has lost this case if it ever gets to the supreme court. There's no way they can show a history or tradition of banning felons from owning firearms. Their failed attempts to argue with the word "virtuous" is not in the constitution. They use this word from the time england tried to rule the settlers of America when they issued a proclamation from the throne that only virtuous citizens could have firearms. This argument has failed every time it has been used in front of the supreme court. This proclamation was written in the 1600's not even close to the timeline set in the bruen decision. This makes their argument mute.
Aa a felon with a non violent felony that served only 6 month in jail 20 years ago. My rights were taken. This ruling is huge news. I don't love in those areas unfortunately. But I've always said the blanket gun ban was wrong. It should be a case by case situation.
The ninth circuit is as corrupt as the fifth
We need another measure to allow for responsibility. Being branded with a felony says little to nothing about who that person really is or their ability to learn from mistakes. And as a side note what about the millions of people we now have who we know nothing about.
The real question should be is someone responsible?
Freedom presupposes responsibility and accountability. Without it freedom cannot exist.
Lets make sure its not for arming people to push them in a trap to foster civil disruption given current trends.
Felons are never felonious one time.
Why? The government is trying to take ours away, so why give them back to the non-violent felons?? So, they can take them away, again? The government will let them go out and buy a gun, spend all of that money for accessories, then take them back. It's a win for the Biden regime. They make more money off of us. FJB
I believe anyone who has paid his debt to society should be granted the return of ALL her rights… otherwise dont return these people to society… that includes those framed by a spouse for domestic violence or other button pushing criminal activity… If ex convicts are safe enough to walk the streets then they are safe enough to own a gun… IMHO
Non-violent criminals should absolutely have 2A rights
First I would point out a simple fact. Criminals do not abide by laws. That is what criminals do, break the law.
Second, "shall not be infringed". There should not be to many laws on weapons if that is respected…… shall not be infringed.
Shall not be infringed. Once you serve your time you get your rights back.
Should a guy that’s convicted of vandalism, drugs and evading police be allowed to have a gun? I think it was reasonable that he shouldn’t be allowed to. When he was caught with the gun did he have it for good intentions? Probably noope. Maybe this is a further part of the war to get guns into the hands of thugs (and continues to try to remove them from the hands of those who would resist tyranny).
I have 4 felonies from being cohoarsed into selling small amounts of cannabis to informants. George Washington grew, and smoked cannabis flower. The controlled substances act is unconstitutional.
2ND AMENDMENT IS CUT AND DRY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE.
Considering that we non-violent felons have exponentially more moxie, and love this nation, in general, FAR more than the average citizenry (having lost our freedom for a time has brought this to bear), coupled with the fact that we would happily stand and fight for this idea of truly being free, I'd say with complete confidence, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Period. If anyone would like to debate any of my claims, I'd be happy to make a fool of you. Thank you for your time, please come again!
That cabin in Idaho drop…
If they're too dangerous to have weapons, they're too dangerous to be let out of prison.
There is a provision in the constitution against cruel and unusual punishment. I lost my second amendment rights 20 + years ago for a nonviolent crime. Why does it carry a life sentence?
Right to bare
Roman – I commented before about why the Second Amendment is not absolute, and I'll do so again. Let's start with the exact wording: "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."
The last word "infringed" is NOT an absolute word. Whether or not something is infringed is a judgment call. To prove this simply imagine if the last part of the sentence said: "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be absolute." See what I mean? That wording would be crystal clear about what authors intended, which reads to me like there isn't really any conceivable instance where depriving a citizen of a right to Arms is okay. The authors COULD have used that word, but did not. Why? Well, think about it for a second and it makes sense. I can think of legitimate reasons a government might want SOME ability to curtail a right to Arms which have nothing to do with a goal of working toward tyranny (like people being clinically insane). I think the Founders could as well, and that's why they used the word "infringed". As for what metric should the judgment call be based on we turn to the first part of the clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…" This means constitutional laws would NOT hinder the ability of a Militia (or several), capable of securing freedom for their State, to form.
Shall NOT infringe 👍
I need money
I own guns period
I own guns and i dont need a permit
Buy guns
Good to see something actually being done about this!!
CHILDREN were KILLED by ASSAULT WEAPONS at SANDY HOOK.
We NEED to BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS!
2nd is absolute, what people fail to realize here is that its not up for debate, the Government does not get to decide, it was already decided! Anyone no matter what their official position is who tries to take or block the 2nd is guilty of treason and should be immediately removed from their official position and or charged with treason or both! It says shall not be infringed! All of a sudden people can't read! This is very irritating! The ones who comply with this law are traitors guilty of treason as well! How much more We The people will take is the question!
I'm on the fence about this one. I don't believe that violent offenders ought to retain the right to bear and keep arms after committing a serious crime, esp. when a gun was used to do it. But I also see the danger in handing out lifetime prohibitions for any "crime" that is tenuously termed "serious", such as possessing an oz of marry jane with "intent to distrib.", which is impossible to prove unless one was caught in the act of selling it.
If you have served your time, you should be allowed to own a gun!
The 2nd amendment should apply, as is. Period!
The 2nd amendment is inalienable, so it cant be taken away from us.
😇😎😇
i feel like this is a ploy, get the absolutists to support it then blame all the violence on this and do a bigger widespread general ban in reaction or something. i agree far to many gun laws, and there are a ton of non violent felons out there, prob more than noviolent. however continueing to allow a murderer that spend 10 years in prison a gun the day he gets out probably isnt a great idea. but it probably is a self correcting problem anyway. thats the magic of the right to defend yourself.