The U.S. attorney’s office said the law to prohibit those under felony indictment from obtaining guns does not interfere with the Second Amendment “because it does not disarm felony indictees who already had guns and does not prohibit possession or public carry.”
Jolie McCullough
September 19, 2022
Texas judge rules that people under felony indictment have the right to buy guns under the Second Amendment
[As I understand it, this Federal Prosecutor is making the argument that the law prohibiting the purchase of a firearm by someone with a felony indictment is constitutional because the person can continue to possess and carry any existing firearms they own. But can’t the defense attorney also claim because their client is allowed to keep and use any firearm they already own the law against purchase is nonsensical, serves no purpose, and the client has harmed no one despite breaking a law? Or is this one of those cases where you just have to say, “It’s just a law. It doesn’t have to make sense?”—Joe]
“It’s just a law. It doesn’t have to make sense?” If that was the only one we would be in good shape.
Ham sandwiches don’t get constitutional rights.
#Law&Order
#ToughOnCrime
It’s just a judicial ruling. It doesn’t have to make sense.
Hopefully later–It’s just an impeachment and removal from the bench of a judge who’s demonstrated loss of his faculties. It makes perfect sense.
I’m always suspicious of this crap. As NO ONE makes it through a day or two without committing some crime or another. Many times a felony. You just haven’t been caught and charged. Or had shit just outright made up about you?
So what happens after the government charges you with a bunch of crap. Raids your house, steals all your guns?
Your left with no way to protect yourself?
We should stick to the constitution. 2A no infringement. Any abuse under freedom could never match up to the abuse the government will do with the extra power. Unlike the person charged. Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it will commit crime with that power.
If the feds wish to defend a law, they need to say something. It doesn’t have to make sense, really; but something has to be said, or they’ll cede the point to their opposition.
If they like the law, therefore, they will say anything that even remotely might stick.