Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,738
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0

    Major 2A Legal Win Today

    Long story short this is the start of the end for things like Red Flag Laws.

    Summary: Some guy tried to buy a .22LR pistol and on the 4473 it asked if he was under indictment blah blah blah. He checked no and eventually got his pistol. As far as I know he was never convicted of ANY of the original stuff the government said he did. BUT they tried to put him on trial for violation of Federal gun laws by attempting to purchase (and actually purchasing) a .22LR pistol while he was technically under indictment.

    Judge today ruled that ENTIRE scheme as unconstitutional because you cannot be denied Constitutional Rights based on an indictment only.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,738
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Newyorkistan
    Posts
    656
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Just waiting for governor Hochol *unelected* to throw another hissy fit and enact more laws here in NY now

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,738
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrannosaur View Post
    Just waiting for governor Hochol *unelected* to throw another hissy fit and enact more laws here in NY now
    That seems pretty standard fare these days. Same thing on the left coast.

    What I am waiting for is some impassioned speech on the Senate floor talking about 'how potential felons' can now buy guns 'because of this ruling'.

    I've long thought stuff like this was 'legally' questionable. A really long time I worked at a DA's office (I was office help). I saw how 'indictments' really work. In my work at the time nobody abused it as far as I know, but for a system where you can't even show up (or even know if it's going on or not) it seems pretty insane to consider that as binding. And in other instances how do you know if you are 'un-indicted'?

    Regardless of that I look for the left to start talking about how the right is soft on crime. Again.
    Last edited by alamo5000; 21 September 2022 at 08:21.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    1,179
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    An indictment is a formal accusation of a crime based on probable cause. If this ruling holds up, the far lower evidentiary threshold of a Red Flag accusation should be no bar to buying another gun post confiscation. We will see.
    “What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" -Antonin Scalia

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,738
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Uffdaphil View Post
    An indictment is a formal accusation of a crime based on probable cause. If this ruling holds up, the far lower evidentiary threshold of a Red Flag accusation should be no bar to buying another gun post confiscation. We will see.
    "Formal" in the sense that they get the right paperwork in place...and "Probable Cause" that has very little if any evidence to back it up. I am not sure which one has a lower bar--- Being indicted or having someone call in a red flag.

    Just like others have said in discussing this--If they want this to have merit, anyone under indictment should be barred from voting as well and let's just see if that holds up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •