DK Firearms

Colleyville TX swat deployment at the Beth Israel Synagogue.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,316
    96
    south of killeen
    Some of y'all need to brush up on Due Process - a felony conviction bars a person from a variety of things.

    Eli
    Which should all end at on the las day of Court mandated incarceration or State supervision. Just like any other "Right" that is restored after the same.
    If they have "paid their debt to society" and are free people, they should be exactly that, FREE. If they can't be trusted for life, then they need to be locked up for life.
    It has never stopped an ex-con from getting or using a gun if they wanted one. It never will.

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    Lynx Defense
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Some of y'all need to brush up on Due Process - a felony conviction bars a person from a variety of things.

    Eli
    5th and 14th Amendments address due process, and under what legal circumstances have to be met in order to deprive or bar a person their rights under the law.



    And when the length and terms of the imposed sentence have been fulfilled, those rights which were deprived, should be restored.

    I can see where under the confines and rules of the GCA of 1968 clearly violate the wording if not at least the spirit of the 5th and 14th Amendments when concerning a person being a felon for life in regards to their 2nd Amendment rights and that right being infringed.
     

    candcallen

    Crotchety, Snarky, Truthful. You'll get over it.
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 23, 2011
    21,358
    96
    Little Elm
    Some of y'all need to brush up on Due Process - a felony conviction bars a person from a variety of things.

    Eli
    My, how astute you must feel. Lol

    Everyone is aware of that. What is being discussed is should when and how those rights are restored. Should they be lost forever?
     
    Last edited:

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    My how astute you must feel. Lol

    Everyone is aware of that. What is being discussed is should when and how those rights are restored. Should they be lost forever?
    And why some rights are restored once the sentence has been completed while some are not.

    That implies that some rights are allowed to be infringed upon but others are not.
     

    mongoose

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    1,289
    96
    nm
    And why some rights are restored once the sentence has been completed while some are not.

    That implies that some rights are allowed to be infringed upon but others are not.
    Courts have ruled the withholding of a felons gun rights is Constitutional. There is an appeal process to regain the gun rights. Just because a person has fulfilled the incarceration portion does not mean they have paid there debt to society. I know 3 felons who have been aqaintences that I don’t want anywhere near a firearm. The law that was held Constructional was modeled from a Texas law by the way
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Eli

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,316
    96
    south of killeen
    Just because a court says it is so does not mean they are following the Constitution. In whole or in part.
    Not while the Chevron Rule applies. Not while Degrees of Scrutiny apply.
    Kind of, except for, unless a judge disagrees or feels it's needed are not mentioned in the Constitution as acceptable reasons to disregard it.
    Judges are supposed to be bound by what it says, not what they feel it should be or they think is needed. If they think it's wrong, they should be asking Congress to address the issue with an Proposed Amendment, not a Law that does not follow the Constitution. If the States feel it's wrong, then a Convention of States.
    There are NO exceptions or reasons not to follow the Constitution. Regardless of how many or how few are wronged.


    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
     

    mongoose

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    1,289
    96
    nm
    Just because a court says it is so does not mean they are following the Constitution. In whole or in part.
    Not while the Chevron Rule applies. Not while Degrees of Scrutiny apply.
    Kind of, except for, unless a judge disagrees or feels it's needed are not mentioned in the Constitution as acceptable reasons to disregard it.
    Judges are supposed to be bound by what it says, not what they feel it should be or they think is needed. If they think it's wrong, they should be asking Congress to address the issue with an Proposed Amendment, not a Law that does not follow the Constitution. If the States feel it's wrong, then a Convention of States.
    There are NO exceptions or reasons not to follow the Constitution. Regardless of how many or how few are wronged.


    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    Not sure how the Chevron rule would be applicable here. And since it would be a basic rights case I would Strict scrutiny would be used.
     

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,316
    96
    south of killeen
    Apparently you missed the point. Or you are trying to deflect.
    The only rule that should apply in a Constitutional case is Strict Scrutiny. Or in any case where a Law or Rule has it's basis in another Law that has questionable Constitutionality. Many Laws and Rules are assumed to be Constitutional under and because of the NFA Law of 1934 and the GCA of 1968. But because the SC has ignored cases or not handed down a valid decision, activist judges continue to make what should be decisions that should be un-Constitutional.
    IIRC, the SC was ready to hand down a decision that the NFA was NOT Constitutional when the plaintiff died rendering the decision moot. That would also mean that the GCA of 1968 would be to. As well as anything written with them as a basis.
    All in all, just because a Judge says it's so, does not mean it is. It just means they violated their oath and upheld an unjust Law.

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom