SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Federal judge in TX says U.S. can’t ban gun sales to people indicted on felony charges
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Federal judge in TX says U.S. can’t ban gun sales to people indicted on felony charges Login/Join 
would not care
to elaborate
Picture of sse
posted Hide Post
If there is a bond...!!!


********************
 
Posts: 2085 | Location: USA | Registered: June 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ignored facts
still exist
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by V-Tail:
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:
quote:
Originally posted by tigereye313:

Indicted != convicted.
You mean, Indicted ≠ convicted, right?
Either one is fine, they mean the same thing.

If you are writing computer code you use !=


Unless you programmed a long time ago, then use <>


----------------------
Let's Go Brandon!
 
Posts: 10001 | Location: Salem. No, not that Salem.  | Registered: February 28, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peripheral Visionary
posted Hide Post
I learned C++ many moons ago...

I would say if they are indicted on a violent felony then no gun purchases as a condition of their bond is reasonable, but if they are indicted on a nonviolent felony but not yet convicted their rights should remain intact.




 
Posts: 10960 | Location: Texas | Registered: January 29, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sse:
A common condition of bond is no guns.


That is different than that an indictment making you a person prohibited from possessing a gun. Bond conditions include all sorts of things you couldn't impose on someone outside of the criminal system. Don't want to go to jail - wear the monitor, don't drink, don't hang around with felons, etc. . . .




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 51791 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
would not care
to elaborate
Picture of sse
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by sse:
A common condition of bond is no guns.


That is different than that an indictment making you a person prohibited from possessing a gun. Bond conditions include all sorts of things you couldn't impose on someone outside of the criminal system. Don't want to go to jail - wear the monitor, don't drink, don't hang around with felons, etc. . . .

It may be applied for different legal reasons, but the from the standpoint of the accused the restriction is the same.


********************
 
Posts: 2085 | Location: USA | Registered: June 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
drop and give me
20 pushups
posted Hide Post
Being "Indicted" does not not mean guility .... Only means that there is possible probable cause to bring someone to trial to face the possible charges. ... And if a overly aggressive prosecuter is so inclined he could indicte a "ham Sandwich' but does that make the "sammich" guility... Maybe a condition for release on bond might be no gun possession but once free from the bond restriction and released of any charges then possession should be allowed. ..................... drill sgt.
 
Posts: 1348 | Location: denham springs , la | Registered: October 19, 2019Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Just because you can,
doesn't mean you should
posted Hide Post
Not a lawyer so just asking the question.
How far do you take the concept of enumerated rights in the Constitution?
If you are charged with any crime, you are technically just facing an accusation until found guilty by the court.
You commit a robbery or a murder, they take away your freedom, not just gun rights, and lock you up.
If this is just a constitutional rights issue and absolute, how is this any different?

This guy was charged with lying, making a false statement on the form, not possession by a convicted felon. Also an accusation until adjudicated in a court.


___________________________
Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible.
 
Posts: 8195 | Location: NE GA | Registered: August 22, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Really, It seems the old adage of innocent until proven guilty is not so.

But it's not just this... I know a guy who was arrested for DUI in Florida and got the case dismissed and then found out he still had to take some course to keep his auto insurance because he was arrested... the logic goes way beyond me.

I see where the guy technically broke the law by lying on the 4473 but the question should not even be on there... just like most of the questions... hell most of those questions can't even be asked if you are applying for a job.
 
Posts: 3147 | Location: Greenville, SC | Registered: January 30, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 220-9er:
Not a lawyer so just asking the question.

What you pointed out are the reasons why I predict that this judge's ruling will ultimately be overturned. If we can be locked up and then subjected to bond conditions that are significant restraints on our freedoms on the bases of legal rulings that involve less findings of guilt than an indictment, why not on the basis of an indictment? I believe that if the ruling were upheld by the Supreme Court, for example, it would turn our criminal justice system on its head, and I don't see that happening. We may not like the principles involved, but I would bet a nickel that they won't be changed.




7/93
 
Posts: 45893 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sse:
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by sse:
A common condition of bond is no guns.


That is different than that an indictment making you a person prohibited from possessing a gun. Bond conditions include all sorts of things you couldn't impose on someone outside of the criminal system. Don't want to go to jail - wear the monitor, don't drink, don't hang around with felons, etc. . . .

It may be applied for different legal reasons, but the from the standpoint of the accused the restriction is the same.


What is your point? The difference in the reasoning is the important thing.

The difference in process between me locking you in my basement because I am crazy and the state locking you up after a conviction is why one is permissible. But it is all the same result to you.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 51791 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
quote:
Originally posted by 220-9er:
Not a lawyer so just asking the question.

What you pointed out are the reasons why I predict that this judge's ruling will ultimately be overturned. If we can be locked up and then subjected to bond conditions that are significant restraints on our freedoms on the bases of legal rulings that involve less findings of guilt than an indictment, why not on the basis of an indictment? I believe that if the ruling were upheld by the Supreme Court, for example, it would turn our criminal justice system on its head, and I don't see that happening. We may not like the principles involved, but I would bet a nickel that they won't be changed.


I don't know a lot about this topic - and especially the law around bail and bonds - but I do see significant differences in granting bond on certain conditions and in denying you the right to possess a firearm because of an indictment generally.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 51791 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
would not care
to elaborate
Picture of sse
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by sse:
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by sse:
A common condition of bond is no guns.


That is different than that an indictment making you a person prohibited from possessing a gun. Bond conditions include all sorts of things you couldn't impose on someone outside of the criminal system. Don't want to go to jail - wear the monitor, don't drink, don't hang around with felons, etc. . . .

It may be applied for different legal reasons, but the from the standpoint of the accused the restriction is the same.


What is your point? The difference in the reasoning is the important thing.

The difference in process between me locking you in my basement because I am crazy and the state locking you up after a conviction is why one is permissible. But it is all the same result to you.

My comment is clear. You're argumentative over nothing, congrats.


********************
 
Posts: 2085 | Location: USA | Registered: June 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
I wouldn't mind seeing some changes, especially what effect a ruling like this might have on the outrageous (IMO, of course) "red flag" law that Colorado has on the books. I will be watching with much interest.




7/93
 
Posts: 45893 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
quote:
but I do see significant differences in granting bond on certain conditions and in denying you the right to possess a firearm because of an indictment generally.



I would agree, a bond is something granted with stipulations by the court, to accept the terms of a bond and then be out on one, the person is contracting for this, and as such, that contract can have stipulations, no driving, stay away from schools, no alcohol, no guns, etc..

An indictment is the government saying they are charging you with something, doesn't mean you are at that point proven guilty.

Until the court decision is done, either by jury or agreement of the one indicted and the government, you are not convicted of anything, and you may never be....



 
Posts: 19773 | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
10mm is The
Boom of Doom
Picture of Fenris
posted Hide Post
A few random thoughts, and not necessarily well thought out...

1. There seems to me to be a difference between bond requirements which are individualized for each defendant, and a blanket prohibition against all defendants.

2. My limited understanding is that indictments can hang around for quite some time with no simple way to clear your name. Does an indictment necessarily start the clock on the right to a speedy trial?

3. If it is found constitutional to restrict purchases for any and all persons with a felony indictment, would it follow that is also constitutional to confiscate all the guns of everyone indicted as well?




The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People again must learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. ~ Cicero 55 BC

The Dhimocrats love America like ticks love a hound.
 
Posts: 17269 | Location: Northern Virginia | Registered: November 08, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sse:

My comment is clear. You're argumentative over nothing, congrats.


Your comment was far from clear. What is the point you are trying to make with the observation?




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 51791 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fenris:


2. My limited understanding is that indictments can hang around for quite some time with no simple way to clear your name. Does an indictment necessarily start the clock on the right to a speedy trial?



Yes, but "speedy" is relative. Your point is valid.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 51791 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Just because you can,
doesn't mean you should
posted Hide Post
To an interested bystander like me, I'll be watching to see the arguments made on both sides and the courts determination.
As someone not in that business, this seems like a question that would have been asked and answered long ago. Hard to believe it hasn't happened before but maybe that shows how little attention is paid to those forms by the legal system unless something pops up in the computer check.


___________________________
Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible.
 
Posts: 8195 | Location: NE GA | Registered: August 22, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 220-9er:
To an interested bystander like me, I'll be watching to see the arguments made on both sides and the courts determination.
As someone not in that business, this seems like a question that would have been asked and answered long ago. Hard to believe it hasn't happened before but maybe that shows how little attention is paid to those forms by the legal system unless something pops up in the computer check.


It is more probable that recent firearms decisions by the Supremes have encouraged people to challenge laws that they didn't think they could overturn previously.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 51791 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 220-9er:
To an interested bystander like me, I'll be watching to see the arguments made on both sides and the courts determination.
As someone not in that business, this seems like a question that would have been asked and answered long ago. Hard to believe it hasn't happened before but maybe that shows how little attention is paid to those forms by the legal system unless something pops up in the computer check.


The left is looking for any and all ways they can attack things they want changed or eliminated.

Legally they can't get rid of guns because of 2A and a now more conservative court. So you will see less and less laws and more pushing of their idealism through corporations who are sympathetic to their idealism...

Read DeSantis presser on this, it's clear what the game plan is, find non governmental, non legislative methods to inflict their plans on people that circumvent the rules of the constitution be it guns, societal idealism, Gay, Non Binary agendas..



 
Posts: 19773 | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Federal judge in TX says U.S. can’t ban gun sales to people indicted on felony charges

© SIGforum 2022