Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,002 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The recent Supreme court ruling being used to "restore right to a firearm". Thoughts? YES, he lied on the "4473". (with the hunter biden rule, does THAT matter?)


“The Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right,’” he ruled. “No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right.”
"he appealed, claiming the New York ruling invalidates the law he broke. Counts agreed".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,694 Posts
Methinks his ruling will not stand up to higher judicial tests. He could as well have said all gun laws are therefore null and void, and you can imagine how far that would have flown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,694 Posts
Just to play Devil's advocate, if one truly believes "innocent until proven guilty," do you argue against those being arrested for any/all felony crimes being released on low bail/no bail? After all, those individuals are "innocent until proven guilty" and should not be held under arrest, should they not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
Years ago, I knew a guy that was the #1 suspect for a murder: he had been arrested and indicted but never to trial for lack of evidence. It had been a number of years (five, I think) and I found out about his legal situation while we were in-processing the Army and he had to go over this many times with different clerks filling out employment and clearance paperwork. His life was just continuing on while the DA tried to figure out if they ever wanted to take his case to trial.

Legal issues aren't all solved in a hour like in TV shows so how long should someone lose their various rights when under felony indictment (supposedly, "you can indict a ham sandwich")?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,516 Posts
Judges used to be able to use some subjective reasoning when making rulings on bail and such.
The "guidelines" given now days take a lot of that away from the judges.
But that takes judges who just rule on the law and not a political agenda.
The whole Justice system needs a clean out from top to bottom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
Just to play Devil's advocate, if do you argue against those being arrested for any/all felony crimes being released on low bail/no bail? After all, those individuals are "innocent until proven guilty" and should not be held under arrest, should they not?
To play your game: If all other factors are equal (flight risk, severity of the crime, threat to society, etc), a judge should give different amounts of bail required based on the strength of the case presented by the DA in the indictment and argued by both sides in the bail hearing.

Since the harm in requiring bail is much lower than the harm of a criminal conviction, we set a different (and lower) level of proof required to set bail than required for a criminal conviction. Therefore, one can truly believe "innocent until proven guilty" and still believe in bail as long as they can believe in different levels of proof.


Judges used to be able to use some subjective reasoning when making rulings on bail and such.
The "guidelines" given now days take a lot of that away from the judges.
But that takes judges who just rule on the law and not a political agenda.
The whole Justice system needs a clean out from top to bottom.
Society needs to figure out the purpose of the whole Justice system and then (re)build that system to achieve that purpose. Right now, the goals of the justice system are confusing and often at odds so the system is all messed up- even before politics screw it up even more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,296 Posts
Just to play Devil's advocate, if one truly believes "innocent until proven guilty," do you argue against those being arrested for any/all felony crimes being released on low bail/no bail? After all, those individuals are "innocent until proven guilty" and should not be held under arrest, should they not?
Bail is not a punishment. You get it back, even if you are found guilty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,030 Posts
Just to play Devil's advocate, if one truly believes "innocent until proven guilty," do you argue against those being arrested for any/all felony crimes being released on low bail/no bail? After all, those individuals are "innocent until proven guilty" and should not be held under arrest, should they not?
Isn't the purpose of bail to help to guarantee that the defendant shows up for trial not whether someone is innocent or not? Any attorneys want to chime in on this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,634 Posts
Bail is not a punishment. You get it back, even if you are found guilty.
Does it really matter? Convicted felons on parole who are caught with firearms are routinely plea bargained down to misdemeanors until they get caught murdering someone again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,627 Posts
How many innocent people have been indicted for a felony? We have a government that is perfectly fine with using the judicial system to financially ruin people they don’t like but can’t convict.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,694 Posts
To play your game: If all other factors are equal (flight risk, severity of the crime, threat to society, etc), a judge should give different amounts of bail required based on the strength of the case presented by the DA in the indictment and argued by both sides in the bail hearing.

Since the harm in requiring bail is much lower than the harm of a criminal conviction, we set a different (and lower) level of proof required to set bail than required for a criminal conviction. Therefore, one can truly believe "innocent until proven guilty" and still believe in bail as long as they can believe in different levels of proof.
Judges do have leeway in setting bail, but that has little to do with proclaiming those arrested who commit crimes while out on bail--all while legally still innocent--should have been denied bail and then throwing out the "innocent until proven guilty line. Cannot have both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rock and Glock

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,694 Posts
Bail is not a punishment. You get it back, even if you are found guilty.
Didn't say that. My point was those who beat their chest shouting innocent until proven guilty yet point fingers at judges who let accused out on any amount of bail, or no bail at all, those released still being innocent and all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
Judges do have leeway in setting bail, but that has little to do with proclaiming those arrested who commit crimes while out on bail--all while legally still innocent--should have been denied bail and then throwing out the "innocent until proven guilty line. Cannot have both.
I don't follow- a person is not, 'out on bail' when 'denied bail' those two situations are mutually exclusive. Denying bail is a judicial decision to preclude pre-trial release for a defendant regardless of how much money (cash or bond) they have to secure that release as the defendant is deemed to high of a flight risk. In such a situation a defendant is not 'out on bail' but rather 'in jail' (unless they escaped or something- sorry I live with a pedantic tween and have to caveat everything less I'm wrong).

Reading between the lines, I think you are, like many people, are either actually confused on the intent of the bail system and believe that bail should be used for penal purposes rather than procedural reasons or you are still playing devils advocate.

The common law intent of bail (as codified in the COTUS in the 8A) is simply to allow defendants to continue their lives while the prosecution builds their case while not putting taxpayers on the hook for feeding and housing defendants who are still legally innocent. As such, the higher the flight risk and the stronger the evidence that the defendant committed the crime, the higher the bail will be set.

The 8th Amendment has not been incorporated to the states so states have expanded the use of bail in other ways (ie to keep criminals off the streets) but they have done so in violation of the principal of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,694 Posts
I don't follow- a person is not, 'out on bail' when 'denied bail' those two situations are mutually exclusive. Denying bail is a judicial decision to preclude pre-trial release for a defendant regardless of how much money (cash or bond) they have to secure that release as the defendant is deemed to high of a flight risk. In such a situation a defendant is not 'out on bail' but rather 'in jail' (unless they escaped or something- sorry I live with a pedantic tween and have to caveat everything less I'm wrong).

Reading between the lines, I think you are, like many people, are either actually confused on the intent of the bail system and believe that bail should be used for penal purposes rather than procedural reasons or you are still playing devils advocate.

The common law intent of bail (as codified in the COTUS in the 8A) is simply to allow defendants to continue their lives while the prosecution builds their case while not putting taxpayers on the hook for feeding and housing defendants who are still legally innocent. As such, the higher the flight risk and the stronger the evidence that the defendant committed the crime, the higher the bail will be set.

The 8th Amendment has not been incorporated to the states so states have expanded the use of bail in other ways (ie to keep criminals off the streets) but they have done so in violation of the principal of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Allow me to rephrase: Do you ever complain about the revolving door of justice--the arrest and quick release of those arrested, either on little or no bail, when those same "innocent until proven guilty" individuals commit further crimes against civility? Blame the judges on releases for all those criminals and the judges should be held responsible?

If one is a true believer in "innocent until proven guilty," then releasing those poor, innocent arrestees should be the right thing to do, unless you're a hypocrite and believe innocent until proven guilty works only when convenient to your beliefs. To believe it is wrong to deny firearms possession to "indicted" persons is a violation of their 2A rights but believe those same charged individuals should be jailed until "proven guilty" is hypocrisy. That is the very "picking and choosing" of supporting all the rights that Justice Thomas speaks of.

I am not debating the right or wrong of the bail system, after all, it is a constitutional right--is it not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
You're not playing devil's advocate. You're tossing a turd in the punch bowl and giving it a stir.
Just to play Devil's advocate, if one truly believes "innocent until proven guilty," do you argue against those being arrested for any/all felony crimes being released on low bail/no bail? After all, those individuals are "innocent until proven guilty" and should not be held under arrest, should they not?
That's arguing in bad faith and using absolutes. You can't expect truly nuanced responses when using absolutes like "any/all felony crimes". Surely you can differentiate between say a white collar financial felony and a violent felony with a high probability to harm again. Can't you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,698 Posts
Texas has revamped the bail system......now we are able to look as past criminal history of an individual, and also see if they are currently out on bail and those current bail amounts. Its all a part of determining the potential threat of continued criminal activity/danger to the community, or flight risk in determining the amount......along with being able to set various bond conditions immediately to remain out on bail. If a bond hearing is conducted and reasonable grounds are found that the bond conditions have been violated, the judge can have the bond revoked, re-arrested, set a higher bond, or order the subject to remain in custody until trial.....or a higher judge steps in and takes control of the case....usually after indictment.

the State mandated software even tells us if a pr bond is forbidden for various charges.......or if its allowed along with the options of a cash only bond or a surety bond. A whole new database is slowly being built revolving around bonds and bond conditions.

given time, and enough democrats in office......i am sure the software will practically replace judges in making determinations on bonds and bond types.....and it will not be for the better......unless you are the alleged criminal and democrat supporter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,694 Posts
You're not playing devil's advocate. You're tossing a turd in the punch bowl and giving it a stir.

That's arguing in bad faith and using absolutes. You can't expect truly nuanced responses when using absolutes like "any/all felony crimes". Surely you can differentiate between say a white collar financial felony and a violent felony with a high probability to harm again. Can't you?
I can, but the OP was about allowing purchase of firearms while under felony indictment. It didn't state under indictment for financial felonies only. And my question was about the use of "innocent until proven guilty," not whether bail should or should not be allowed, but the picking and choosing of rights, especially for those not "guilty" until proven so.

Stir on that.
 
  • Like
  • Helpful
Reactions: oneshot and Pete63
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top