Messages
18,709
Reactions
28,723
Presumed innocent until...

For some reason, that first part gets left out a lot.
;)

But yes, indictment shouldn't be enough. If there's that much of a concern for public safety, deny bail.
I served on a grand jury for a month back in the 90s. I felt like there was a pretty low bar for getting an indictment. It seemed like more of a rubber stamp operation than anything else.
 
Messages
6,298
Reactions
10,437
Watching that extremely annoying four boxes attorney video guy, he said the judge in this case stated the date for historical precedent is 1791. That is huge if other judges continue to do that. 1791 is a lot earlier than 1934 if you get my drift. That's why I've been saying since the day of Bruen, that the date for what defines historical precedent is the most critical part. If it ends up being 1791 I don't see how the NFA or any other recent laws will stand. And it sounds like this judge just started to define it, 1791.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
2,932
Reactions
5,707
Merged from duplicate thread. My bad! Thanks @Camelfilter

Here's a new twist for Bruen.

Form 4473 line 21.b question has been found unconstitutional grounds to bar someone from purchasing or taking possession of a firearm by a Texas judge.

A man under indictment for a burglary lied on his 4473. His purchase was initially delayed, but the fed's failed to respond so the purchase went forward. He was THEN indicted for illegal purchase and found guilty. [Actually, it wasn't clear what he was charged with. Lying on a federal form(?) Illegal possession(?) Whatever, 21.b was the foundation of the charge against him.] He challenged the law as unconstitutional since he had not been convicted of any crime... and won! The judge finding it unconstitutional to deny a person their 2A rights without having been proven to have committed any crime.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about the overall scenario of someone, who in likelihood, "may be" a bad actor yet convicted being able to purchase a firearm, however, he certainly has a valid point.. and it has been upheld by a judge. Wrongfully indicted, obviously, it's a clear 2A violation. How do we tell the difference(?)

Makes you think, doesn't it.

1663736158784.png
 
Last Edited:
Messages
9,659
Reactions
19,842
There's also the Militia Act of 1792 which Federally defined, and provided standards for the Militias. Including the ages of 18-45[/i]. This is not insignificant. The fact Bruen and now Texas defines as 1791.... I wonder if they're using the Militia Act as the starting point? Edit. Might be interesting if someone in Congress decides to do a giant FU to the Party of Gun Control by introducing a new Militias bill of updated Federal Standards that unequivocally states NFA to be abolished and the citizen Militia members to be authorized to be as well equipped and armed as those of the current serving military personnel.
 
Messages
27
Reactions
34
Great new! Another 2A win.

Section 21. b. of the ATF Form 4473 (18 U.S. Code § 922(n)) was found unconstitutional by Texas Judge:

"Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?"

This is an amazing step in the right direction. We have to keep it up!

 
…I'm not quite sure how I feel about the overall scenario of someone, who in liklihood, "may be" a bad actor yet convicted being able to purchase a firearm, however, he certainly has a valid point.. and it has been upheld by a judge.

Makes you think, doesn't it.

View attachment 1279787
If our judicial system worked as it should. Swift and sure. There wouldn’t be multi tiered rights systems.

Folks whom couldn’t be trusted with there rights wouldn’t be out amongst citizens…

Folks whom could be trusted & were convicted of crimes, and served there sentences would be just like anyone else in normal society.

Instead, free citizens are just about held hostage by a minute fraction of society. Multi- repeat offenders whom get free passes by the judicial system. Plee bargains. No bail release. etc ad nauseam.

Law enforcement does a fantastic job (IMO), then the pols, suits & robes bubblegum it all up.

Intentionally.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
2,932
Reactions
5,707
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the overall scenario of someone, who in likelihood, "may be" a bad actor yet convicted being able to purchase a firearm, however, he certainly has a valid point.. and it has been upheld by a judge. Wrongfully indicted, obviously, it's a clear 2A violation. How do we tell the difference(?)
Thinking about it more than a second, and to answer my own question... it doesn't matter, does it. A right is a right, unconstitutional is unconstitutional and everyone is entitled to due process. Period.
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors November Gun Show
Portland, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Redmond, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top