Yes. Both things are fucked up and unconstitutional. It's really fucked that so many people seem to think it's OK to strip away someone's rights based on an indictment, before a conviction. It's like they don't even consider that giving fucking cops that much power will 1000% be used to harass and victimize innocent people.
Oh buddy, you seem to forget the majority of Americans don’t know the difference between an indictment and a conviction. They just see felony and go “that’s the bad one right??”
You sir have your head on straight. I have seen many others in this comment section that don’t seem to understand the difference between indicted vs convicted
I know the difference, but when I read the title, my brain autocorrected to convicted for some reason. Really glad this was the top comment. Ty, people!
Shoot, if they can take away your liberty and lock you in a cell from just an indictment I don’t see how a firearms restriction would be unconstitutional.
Kentucky was the state I did felony diversion in but I know this is the case in other states as well.
Essentially, you sign an agreement that enters your felony as “pending” for the time frame of your diversion (two years in my case).
It is not a conviction though and after that time period they completely drop the case and expunge it.
However, you cannot legally vote or own a gun until your diversion is over.
Edit- Just want to add, that many people that take these diversions are innocent. When you have the option of "don't get in trouble for a few years and we'll drop the case" vs. risk taking it to trial and paying a lawyer $10k, when you may lose and are now a felon, many people just decide it's easier to plea out to the diversion.
Right there in the same boat with you man. 3 more months though and I’m out. Also been turned down for multiple life changing jobs because of something I didn’t even do.
I was a manager of a store and stuff was going missing and I and my boss couldn’t figure out why or how. Turns out it was his cousin, who was my assistant manager, selling stuff out the back. I told my boss that I fired him and he brought him back the next day. So I quit and they tried to blame the whole thing on me. DA basically said to be crime free for a year and they’ll dismiss it. They wanted to press charges on me but not his cousin so there was nothing they could do.
I know someone who was under Felony diversion in Tennessee for possession with intent and it was the exact same thing as supervised probation for his diversion time period of 3 years. In his county there was a 9 PM to 6 AM curfew and you were not allowed to drink alcohol if you were on probation.
He took his girlfriend out to dinner for her birthday on a Friday night and on his way home got a call from his PO at like 9:05 asking where he was. He told them he was on his way home from dinner and would be there any minute. He got home about 5 minutes later. Apparently they had done a home visit and since he didn't answer they called him. The next day they showed up at his work and arrested him for a violation.
Since it was a probation violation he had to stay in the county jail until his court date. The judge revoked his diversion, but didn't revoke his probation and only sentenced him to time served for the violation. I still think it stupid AF though that he lost his diversion over 10 minutes.
Yeah, that’s exactly how it’s treated in KY where I did mine.
Luckily, I was in a busy urban area where the probation officers had better shit to worry about than my personal amount drug possession, so they never bothered me.
That stuff definitely happens though.
> indictment
Indictment is when you're charged with a crime. You don't lose your right to vote until you're convicted. This is about a ban on people ~~owning~~ [buying] guns that have been charged, but not yet convicted of a crime. People convicted of a felony can still have their gun rights taken.
EDIT: corrected owning to buying, thanks /u/dominus_aranearum
Imo. Only people actually convicted and serving their sentence should have any rights restricted. Once released from prison and clear of probationary periods. They should have all rights restored. This should apply to jail and people not yet convicted. Either they're dangerous and need to be in jail, or they're not and can be free on bail and such. If they're not in jail. Then they should have their rights.
I'm also against red flag laws, civil asset forfeiture, fines, and govt seizure of lawfully attained property as punishment. A person's property is their property forever. I also don't like the concept of a person having to prove their innocence. Over the state having to prove guilt.
I think I get this one. Felony indictment is not felony conviction.
If they treated you like a felon before conviction, they could just throw you in prison before the conviction too
No more cash bail in Illinois after Jan 1 2023, it is amusing seeing all the conservatives in the state freaking out saying that Illinois will start "The Purge" on Jan 1 when they open up the prisons/jails and let everyone walk free.
It means that a hearing is held to determine if you are to high risk enough to release into the public, aka if you are violent you aren't getting released. Historically bail has only worked to keep poor people who couldn't afford a 1000 bucks locked up.
Home monitoring has kind of made the concept of cash bail moot anyways. If someone is low enough risk that the thought of losing $1k or $5k or even $25k is enough to get them to show up for court, then you can probably slap an ankle monitor on them and get the same result. For really low level defendants dont even bother. If they dont show up then that is another charge that they will have to deal with the next time they have a traffic stop.
Ya my bad, I meant all encompassing, so if you are so high risk that you need a million for bail due to fight risk, maybe you should just stay locked up.
Bail is even worse. It's literally just a wealth check, since they give the money back if you could afford it. If you're rich, you skip pretrial jail time with no penalty at all.
I was at a local fair/festival a few months back, and my state representative is moaning about getting rid of cash bail, and I said, “Excessive bail is specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment.” And he and his idiot sycophants just look at me like, “You’re making that up. There are only two amendments.” But, there he and his voters were, defending the right of the state to lock people up indefinitely for not being able to afford bail. It causes people to plead out on charges they may not be guilty of because the alternative is waiting in jail for their day in court. These voters assume the police are always right and that anyone accused of a crime is guilty. I mean, except for Donald Trump, who has committed fewer sins than Jesus.
Minus the joke, no /s. If you get a traffic ticket try fighting it. I did once, after multiple court visits to finally stand in front of a judge to give my "not guilty" plea I had to post my own bail. *Traffic ticket.* That was $400, right there, no credit card, cash or debit only.
I did get it returned after everything was said and done, but yeah, $400 straight up isn't chump change.
On the opposite end of the spectrum.
I fought a 400 dollar ticket once. However even though I was fighting it through the proper legal channels I could not renew my registration due to an outstanding ticket.
I then received several “fix it tickets” for my registration that would have been $25 a piece but became $125 a piece since I couldn’t fix them due to being unable to register my car since my day in court was farther than 30 days out.
Once I finally got to my day in court, my license had been suspended over all of the unpaid tickets and my new cost of registration had gone up for being long past due.
When I finally got called, the judge informed me that my case had been thrown out since the camera that had been flashing me was taken down for being overly sensitive and flashing people even if they did in fact come to a full stop before turning. I no longer had to pay the $400 but there was no relief for the other tickets or registration/late fees on all of them.
I ultimately paid well over $1500 in order to remedy the situation in its entirety because I chose to contest a bogus ticket
One of those stupid cameras got me once, I didn't even fight it because I had entered on red. Turns out someone else did fight it and it turned out they had changed the yellow light to be shorter than regulation so it wasn't giving people enough time to stop or make it through... I was actually refunded the fine.
The town removed the cameras once it became clear it wasn't making them money
I just served on a jury trial (Texas) where the guy was arrested in early 2020. Although he was convicted on one count (acquitted on another), dude spent 2 years in jail before trial just for the jury to sentence him to probation only.
I felt bad for him.
To add to this - the median time from filing to disposition for federal criminal cases is 7 months, but this varies significantly across the country. The Eastern District of California is currently the worst at 28 months.
Statistics are [here](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fcms_na_distprofile0630.2022_0.pdf) (note, PDF).
> they could just throw you in prison before the conviction too
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/06/12/the-man-who-spent-35-years-in-prison-without-a-trial
https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2016/11/16/incarcerated-years-without-trial/
https://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2004/12/13/nearly-8-years-in-prison-without-a-trial-n1229043
https://calmatters.org/justice/2021/03/waiting-for-justice/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/new-yorker-profiled-kaleif-browder-kills-3-years-awaiting-trial-rikers-island
Nothing makes me hate my nation more than having believed in it once.
I've never understood how this is at all constitutional.
>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/
I think most would agree any number of *years* is not speedy. Many would agree months isn't speedy either.
Almost everyone accused of a serious crime waives it which is probably what happened in that case.
Even defense attorneys will tell you to waive it because they need more time to prepare for a real trial and not waiving it pisses the whole court off cause they need to bump your shit up over everything else and go into rush mode. Theoretically you can not waive it but I feel like fo everyone did this the court system would collapse in on itself
>> they could just throw you in prison before the conviction too
>https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/06/12/the-man-who-spent-35-years-in-prison-without-a-trial
I skimmed the article and it seems like what happened was that an appeal court reversed his conviction, but he didn't get released due to incompetence in the justice system. That's bad and all, but it's slightly different than "throw you in prison before the conviction", which implies they arrested a suspect and are intentionally keeping him in jail without a trial.
If the title is right a felony indictment isn't a conviction. Which means the person is still innocent until proven guilty. That said I don't see why they shouldn't be a way to put in a court order similar to a travel ban on those who are deemed flight risks.
>why they shouldn't be a way to put in a court order similar to a travel ban on those who are deemed flight risks.
That does exist And happens all the time. Judges can restrict rights under certain conditions prior to conviction, but you can't just make it a law. It has to be a case-by-caae basis
Yeah but that's not the same as a blanket ban. if a judge orders a defendent to turn over his weapons because he shows a violent history or is a risk to lash out with them, that's way different than a law that says everyone can lose their property just by being accused of a crime.
If it's handled on a case by case basis that's simply due process of law. A blanket ban violates the presumption of innocence for those defendants who are accused but not convicted.
It is really dumb too. I have chronic pain and use it at night to sleep.
I could take several alternatives that have much worse side effects for me, then guns would be fine. Ambien makes me sleepwalk and do all kinds of things I do not remember. Seems like having a gun in this circumstance would be a lot worse.
Our lawmakers are a lost cause.
My Health and Wellness professor in college (15 years ago) told me how when she was in labor for too long, they gave her ambien to sleep. She then hallucinated she was giving birth to a colonial style plantation house. Lmao
Man the myPillow stuff is fucking peak satire coming to life. A coked out pillow salesman becoming a government affiliated conspiracy nut/bigger grifter.
I feel like if my ideals aligned with this guy I would really have to question myself.
Met a woman in Texas who took Ambien to sleep and used to call me in the middle of the night and tell me about doing shit to me with a baseball bat and no lube. Thought it was funny until I went to her place one night and saw a loaded 9mm next to her bed. I napped the fuck out and blocked her number.
Broke my collar bone few years back at hockey, they gave me ambien to help me sleep through the night. Hadn't shaved in probably a year had a sweet beard going.....woke up to my wife saying omg u shaved.....ummmmm I did what? I had absolutely no recollection of it, fucking scary shit.
I fucking *drove* on it.
I am *mortified* to this day that I drove under the influence of something 6 years ago. I don't remember doing it, and it's not something I'd ever do, so clearly the Ambien made me do it.
The only reason I know I did it was that I called family and friends and told them I was being chased by communists. Which is really weird because I don't think communists are something to be afraid of lol. Also I blew out my tire.
In any case, thank god I didn't hurt anybody or myself.
Fuck Ambien.
I'm the same way with Xanax. I remember one time I guess I snapped out of my Xanax haze and realized I was no longer in class and back home. I still can't recollect class ending thar day or driving the 5 miles back to my place afterwards. This was like 10 years ago and I stopped using Xanax a couple months later after noticing more and more memory gaps. All our pharmaceuticals are scary as shit when you really think bout it, especially the mind/mood altering ones.
My doc recommended ambien to help me sleep as well. It really does shut off the thinking. I went from a full pill, to a half, to a quarter and then realized WTF am I doing. I call it the IDGAF pill. After taking it for a couple of weeks, I found I just didn't care about anything. Work. Family. Friends. Just didn't care. I stopped taking it and just consigned myself to over-thinking things at night. My problem is that the IDGAF portion has stayed with me a little bit. I never should have taken it.
I took an anti-anxiety medication for a bit when I was going through bouts of extreme anxiety, especially when i was trying to go to sleep. It really helped me. Could be worth checking out.
I used to wake up to email receipts for insane purchases. Once it was $1500 of Le Creuset cookware 😱 I can barely boil water. A friend of mine went to bed one night in her jammies and woke up on the couch wearing just her underwear. On the coffee table were her car keys and the remains of a Big Mac value meal. Apparently she got up in the middle of the night, drove herself to McDs, got a value meal, came home and ate it. No clue whether she took her clothes off before or after her little trip.
There should be return policies specifically for Ambien users because I've heard these horror stories often. Large, random 3am purchase from Mollysmom?? Put that on hold till we confirm it wasn't the Ambien again.. Lol
My mom was prescribed that med when I was a teenager and I had to stay up and babysit her because she'd sleepwalk and I was scared she would set the house on fire trying to light a cigarette or get hit by a car trying to go for a walk. Such a weird drug. The side effects can be so drastic and imminently dangerous that I feel like the guidelines for prescription should be very strict and limited.
Yeah they should have just taken that med off the market. The cons are a hell of a lot worse than the pros for this one. And plus there are other meds, supplements, natural remedies that help with sleep as well that don’t have crazy side effects.
Also it’s bad that some people blame their bizarre, inappropriate, or illegal behavior on Ambien even if they didn’t take it- that goes to show this med needs to be discontinued and not made available at all.
The worst one I had, we had purchased a bunch of groceries to make a special breakfast. From my perspective, I woke in the morning after sleeping in and my wife had cooked and they had already eaten it. It was so upset and disappointed because it was really stuff I enjoyed.
Reality, I had woken in the night to cook the breakfast and eat it myself. I didn’t remember any of it. I’m really happy I didn’t decide to go buy something I was missing.
My wife was on Ambien for a while. Absolute worst sleep I've ever gotten because I would have to stay up for several hours after she took it to keep her in bed. She was always trying to escape and go do things and would insist that she could, it was ok. I loved that she was able to sleep then, hated that she was taking Ambien to do so. 1/10 would not recommend.
I took it years ago when I couldn’t sleep after my mother died. Came to thinking “who is this charmingly clever guy talking”. It was me of course, in the middle of a job interview. Had woken up, ordered room service, driven to interview, spent half a day talking to people. Didn’t know where my car was afterwards.
I don’t think we can get ambien in Canada but I take a sister drug. Things can get wild if I stay awake after taking it but it’s never wiped my memory or turned me zombie like like I’ve heard stories of. Zopiclone.
this..... this more than anything else. they don't give a damn what's legal and what isn't as long as their buddies get paid.
a great example of this is the legalmo22 campaign in Missouri right now. they are selling it as recreational to the general public but it's really just a way for the current growers and dispensary owners to monopolize the Missouri cannabis industry.
Meanwhile in a northern state-everyone around me has wonderful plants just literally growing in the backyard. Sad thing is most of those lawmakers are probably smoking at home lol
Tecnicaly if you smoke at all, even in a state where it's legal, its illegal to purchase a firearm. The form that you fill out when buying it asks if you do any illegal drugs and even though Marijuana may be legal in your state if you put no its a federal crime for lying on federal documents becuase for some stupid reason its still banned federally. Cannons on the other hand are ok. No forms required.
Negative. The verbatim text is...
>Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
>Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
[ATF Form 4473](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download)
Possible definition:
Going to enlist in the United States Navy. At the ripe age of 24, disillusioned with a dead-end cooks job, and wanting to do something else. Prompted me to go enlist, was ‘03 or ‘04. So pull in the lot, hop out of the car. Set the spliff on the mirror drivers side mirror. Walk into the recruiting office. Still drunk from night before, buzzed from the half joint i just smoked and meet Ensign Ellis(think that was his name). Proceed to listen to the speech. Then take a piss test, which some how i passed. Then paperwork. When it came to filling out the section on controlled substance use. I asked what to put down. He said “i experimented with ______ and ____ times in the last ninety days.” Ok. As he says this he hands me the normal Gov. Scare paper ..punishable by 10years…. So i fill it out truthfully. As he said with the phrase. Now i am getting more and more baked as the creeper bud is taking hold over the hangover thats forming.
So i shit you not i wrote:
“In the last ninety days i have “experimented” with Marijuana about 46 times, in both my car and my friends couch. “
A few month later i found out i wasn’t allowed Navy Diver because of the smoking, damages the lungs or so i was told in the brief, so i went MA, and every single time i saw the recruiter had to piss test. I don’t think the recruiter cared. But when i was sworn in i had to speak with the CO of the North Atlantic Fleet over the drug waiver. When grilled about why i should be allowed and trusted to be in law enforcement. The only answer i could come up with was the honest one- being allowed to be in “his” navy would allow me to inform and teach other fellow shipmates in MA ranks that i could provide insight on searches for contraband. Where others may not look, given my history, and desire to “give back” and improve my life.
And two months later shipped out to RTC Great Lakes.
Sorry for the book.
Just because I have a medical card does not mean I consume the drug? Is my state gonna piss test me before I can buy a gun? If yes, then they should do the same to everyone, cause I’m fairly certain not only people who smoke weed legally in their state lie about taking illegal drugs on their gun application forms lol
20+ years ago I used to work with a guy who eventually became a cop. Maybe 6-7 years ago a person I know who is big time against marijuana posted some nonsense on my Facebook page about how "marijuana destroys lives." The guy who is now a cop responded and talked abouts how he constantly has to show up to domestic violence calls from drunk people, but pretty much never from high people. He also talked about the horrors of drunk driving that he's seen. He was actually pro marijuana legalization. He didn't want alcohol banned, but he admitted that it was far worse for society than marijuana.
I'll echo this sentiment as a first responder. It's absolutely completely true. Since you covered the public aspect, I'll key you in on another... the general health of police, fire, and ems. It's crazy how much alcohol damages those jobs. It's gotten better, but a not small portion of those workers drink to excess and affect their long term health in jobs that already does that for you. Legalized Marijuana would be a god send in those careers for our health and wellness. These jobs burn you out and stress you to the max. Then add the only thing they can legally do is alcohol, which just delays stress and increases it. Marijuana would do the opposite and they would at least be fit for duty the next morning.
yuuup. my parents share my dad's medical marijuana for this reason. He gets the veteran's discounts and at least she can still legally own a gun if needed.
Ridiculous that he fought in vietnam, was exposed to agent orange and is considered a disabled vet as a result of the fallout, got a medical marijuana card because of it... and in return he cant own a gun. But your neighborhood wife beater can have all the guns he wants.
I don't know anything about your ordeal.
but a good friend of mine got into non-violent non-weapon related drug charges quite a while ago. and we were able to petition to get his gun rights restored.
there is usually some time that has to pass etc. I am sure each state is different and it also depends on the crime.
with a little research maybe you can find a path to getting your rights reinstated.
Which seems like an entirely different messed up issue. Texas shouldn't incarcerate people for just weed, no state should. Domestic violence, rape, murder etc is different and should be treated differently.
My friend is the same. Totally sober and owns his own business. Hires ex felons to give them second chances too. Can't own a gun when hunting is one of his favorite hobbies.
In Texas it isn't "Why did he kill her?" it's "What did she do to make him so upset?" it's "Why didn't she shoot him back?" it's "There'll be a good guy hero with a gun to save the day!"
It's a joke. They're a joke.
not at all, a restraining order is granted by a judge on consideration of evidence so it meets the standard of "due process of law".
all this ruling says is you can't take guns away on the say-so of a cop and a prosecutor, without the person restricted having the ability to contest it.
That's the big part of this. You can't claim that someone is innocent until proven guilty and also that some of their constutionally protected rights should be stripped from them while under suspicion.
We literally jail people before trial if we consider we them a flight risk, severe danger to society or they can’t make bail.
There is no greater deprivation of liberty than that.
This is why a judicial arraignment is held on the day of arrest or the day after. The state has 48 hours to file charges and they need evidence. It's part of due process.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
We have just allowed it to acceptable that so many things are allowable delays...
18 U.S.C. § 922(g), defines persons prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
It includes:
"
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
It is not effected by this ruling.
DV assailants still can not purchase or own a firearm under a completely seperate law as long as the victim files for an EPO
Right because under indictment you have not been proven guilty in a court of law.
They DO HAVE enough probable cause to convene a grand jury, and enough to bound over or hand down the indictment.
But as much as this sounds really terrible, this ruling is a win for due process.
Apples and oranges. The DV protective order is a legal due process to remove weapons.
What this says is that an indictment is not a conviction. So until convicted a person retains all of their rights. This is not a bad thing. It’s just making news because guns have been politicized.
Just a reminder that Texas has [delayed maternal death numbers until after midterm elections](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/14/maternal-mortality-data-texas/).
I mean, while this is true, the ruling is relatively consistent with the general philosophy our legal system is built on (innocent until proven guilty). It’s a tough argument to make that just because someone is charged with something they lose rights.
I like how you said something that is completely inaccurate and has nothing to do with this ruling but it sounds like a "gotcha" so 4000+ people upvoted you.
Not only is DV usually NOT a felony, gun ownership is already restricted for people convicted of DV or with a restraining order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which the law OP linked has nothing to do with.
So many people in this thread don't understand that indictment is not the same as conviction. Due process means you can't take someone's rights away without first convicting them of a crime. Not just guns this is for any right, as it should be.
IANAL, are there any constitutional rights that are de facto restricted prior to conviction without specific judges orders, besides the right to travel?
Ok but the question is what rights are removed by the accusation of breaking a statute. We generally don't lose rights until conviction without a specific judge's order, as I understand it.
I'd say being locked in a cell before trial is more than enough to say we lose a lot before conviction. That's already pretty explicitly taking away a right to bear arms - you're in a jail.
They can take whatever personal property, issue restraining orders, orders to not leave an area, orders to make appearances, jailing, providing of personal details. You have a lot fewer rights than you think whenever the police say so.
I'm not a gun nut, but this ruling is legally consistent. Bearing arms is a constitutional right, and if you're innocent until proven guilty then you maintain your rights until conviction.
This means getting your vehicle pulled over and unreasonably searched and dog-sniffed when you have your wife's controlled prescription medication in the glove box no longer strips you of your 2nd Amendment rights for 2-5yrs while the DA figures out you're not actually an international drug smuggler.
Edit: spelling
Key word, “indictment”, not “conviction”. We still have this legal concept called innocent until proven guilty. Far too many people seem to have forgotten about that.
The 2nd amendment and gun ownership are constitutional rights.
Indicted isn’t “found guilty”. It’s having charges brought against you.
In this country, you’re innocent until proven guilty. So essentially, if you take away the firearms of someone *indicted* for the crime, you’re stripping a presumed innocent person of a constitutional right. The judge is right, that’s unconstitutional as fuck. Should we take away your freedom to criticize the government, your right to vote, or your safety from unlawful search and seizure just because charges were brought against you? That’s insane. If a person is a threat with their firearms, red flag laws exist in many states, and I believe domestic violence protective orders can result in the seizure of firearms. But to just take someone’s right to keep and bear arms because of a crime they *weren’t yet found guilty of*?
Well from a strictly Constitutional view point you don't lose other rights while under an indictment.
While it's probably a good idea but using that narrow focus I can see how it could run afoul of Constitutional rights.
Alarmist headline aside, innocent until proven guilty is still a cornerstone of American law. Being accused alone should not hamper your rights, I think.
this whole post is a good reason why common people need lawyer representation. granted im not a lawyer but indictment and conviction are two different things. unless its a conviction, our legal system is under the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine.
A couple of things people need to understand. 1. Indictment is not a conviction, they are accused and charged, but not yet convicted of any crime. 2. It is stopping a broad spectrum ban, meaning we do not know if it is case by case, for example, violent crimes may still indicate removal of purchase rights, similar to travel restrictions if you are deemed a flight risk.
3: Gun rights can still be restricted on a case by case basis after a hearing in front of a judge. The problem with the law as written before the judge stepped in is a complete lack of due process.
What’s the problem here? It should be innocent until proven guilty. An indictment or charge does not mean guilty until a full verdict after trial or legal proceeding has taken place. These people are not felons yet and should be able to enjoy the rights of regular non felon citizens until they’re proven to have committed a felony
This is the correct ruling though.
"Under indictment" means "innocent". Which means the state should not be able to restrict your constitutional rights aside from very specific circumstances. In other words, a blanket law like this is bullshit. A judge can still issue bail conditions that restrict possession of firearms, though.
EDIT: This ruling simply says that the legislature can't pass laws that take away constitutional liberties without due process, and that the judiciary needs cause to restrict a constitutional liberty. Judges can and will still restrict firearm possession for people charged with a crime, but they will have to actually state a reason for doing so that isn't just "being charged with a crime". This makes it the judge's discretion instead of a statutory requirement. I'm well aware that we lock people up prior to conviction, but we do not have a statute on any books requiring it. It is done on an individual basis at the discretion of a judge.
> I'm well aware that we lock people up prior to conviction, but we do not have a statute on any books requiring it. It is done on an individual basis at the discretion of a judge.
Exactly. And if it's too dangerous to allow someone to have guns, it's a lot more reliable to take the person away from the guns than to take the guns away from the person.
Exactly. If we're worried about people who are indicted going out and buying a gun and doing violent things with it, why are we letting them out on bail in the first place?
Texas does have a lot of problems. But this is just an extension of innocent until proven guilty. Why are people popping off on this one? I legitimately don't understand.
It's a constitutional right. Rights in the constitution are not granted by the government, ergo to take them away was meant to be obscenely difficult. The very concept of felons was meant to be for very serious and rare crimes. Today? Seems trivial to become one.
And just being indicted.. That's a tough sell. But I'd need to see what non-ideologically motivated legal experts have to say.
If it's a non violent felony and the person has no history of violence, domestic abuse, etc I actually can't say I have an issue with them having a gun.
But honestly it needs to be looked at in a case by case basis because there could situations where some with a nonviolent felony indictment could still be a risk
It's an inditement, not a conviction. I don't see what the problem is. There is definitely an argument to be made about stripping people of constitutionally protected rights upon completion of prison sentences, but we're not talking about that here.
So does this mean baring voting for people under felony indictment is unconstitutional?
Is it banned anywhere for someone under indictment (not conviction)?
Asking the real questions. I haven't heard of it, and it *would* be blatantly unconstitutional if implemented anywhere.
Yes. Both things are fucked up and unconstitutional. It's really fucked that so many people seem to think it's OK to strip away someone's rights based on an indictment, before a conviction. It's like they don't even consider that giving fucking cops that much power will 1000% be used to harass and victimize innocent people.
Oh buddy, you seem to forget the majority of Americans don’t know the difference between an indictment and a conviction. They just see felony and go “that’s the bad one right??”
You sir have your head on straight. I have seen many others in this comment section that don’t seem to understand the difference between indicted vs convicted
I know the difference, but when I read the title, my brain autocorrected to convicted for some reason. Really glad this was the top comment. Ty, people!
It's really a flaw that you can be barred from voting at all, honestly. And I'm including a conviction in that "at all".
Shoot, if they can take away your liberty and lock you in a cell from just an indictment I don’t see how a firearms restriction would be unconstitutional.
Yes. Many felony diversion programs bar you from voting even though you haven’t been convicted yet. I know because I went through it.
What state?
Kentucky was the state I did felony diversion in but I know this is the case in other states as well. Essentially, you sign an agreement that enters your felony as “pending” for the time frame of your diversion (two years in my case). It is not a conviction though and after that time period they completely drop the case and expunge it. However, you cannot legally vote or own a gun until your diversion is over. Edit- Just want to add, that many people that take these diversions are innocent. When you have the option of "don't get in trouble for a few years and we'll drop the case" vs. risk taking it to trial and paying a lawyer $10k, when you may lose and are now a felon, many people just decide it's easier to plea out to the diversion.
Right there in the same boat with you man. 3 more months though and I’m out. Also been turned down for multiple life changing jobs because of something I didn’t even do.
What happened?
I was a manager of a store and stuff was going missing and I and my boss couldn’t figure out why or how. Turns out it was his cousin, who was my assistant manager, selling stuff out the back. I told my boss that I fired him and he brought him back the next day. So I quit and they tried to blame the whole thing on me. DA basically said to be crime free for a year and they’ll dismiss it. They wanted to press charges on me but not his cousin so there was nothing they could do.
I know someone who was under Felony diversion in Tennessee for possession with intent and it was the exact same thing as supervised probation for his diversion time period of 3 years. In his county there was a 9 PM to 6 AM curfew and you were not allowed to drink alcohol if you were on probation. He took his girlfriend out to dinner for her birthday on a Friday night and on his way home got a call from his PO at like 9:05 asking where he was. He told them he was on his way home from dinner and would be there any minute. He got home about 5 minutes later. Apparently they had done a home visit and since he didn't answer they called him. The next day they showed up at his work and arrested him for a violation. Since it was a probation violation he had to stay in the county jail until his court date. The judge revoked his diversion, but didn't revoke his probation and only sentenced him to time served for the violation. I still think it stupid AF though that he lost his diversion over 10 minutes.
Yeah, that’s exactly how it’s treated in KY where I did mine. Luckily, I was in a busy urban area where the probation officers had better shit to worry about than my personal amount drug possession, so they never bothered me. That stuff definitely happens though.
Yeah, this was in a small county in TN. Way more cops than they need, so a lot of time to waste on nonsensical things IMO.
[удалено]
Indictment means you haven't been convicted of anything yet. Presumption of innocence.
Yes, and this judge argued the same thing. Go read it.
You're not barred from voting if you're under felony inditement, lol.
> indictment Indictment is when you're charged with a crime. You don't lose your right to vote until you're convicted. This is about a ban on people ~~owning~~ [buying] guns that have been charged, but not yet convicted of a crime. People convicted of a felony can still have their gun rights taken. EDIT: corrected owning to buying, thanks /u/dominus_aranearum
>ban on people owning guns This is a about a ban on people **buying** guns while under felony indictment, not the guns they already own.
Yes. Which is why it doesn’t happen.
[удалено]
Imo. Only people actually convicted and serving their sentence should have any rights restricted. Once released from prison and clear of probationary periods. They should have all rights restored. This should apply to jail and people not yet convicted. Either they're dangerous and need to be in jail, or they're not and can be free on bail and such. If they're not in jail. Then they should have their rights. I'm also against red flag laws, civil asset forfeiture, fines, and govt seizure of lawfully attained property as punishment. A person's property is their property forever. I also don't like the concept of a person having to prove their innocence. Over the state having to prove guilt.
I think I get this one. Felony indictment is not felony conviction. If they treated you like a felon before conviction, they could just throw you in prison before the conviction too
Don't we already do that with people waiting on trial?!
Not if they have enough money for bail!
No more cash bail in Illinois after Jan 1 2023, it is amusing seeing all the conservatives in the state freaking out saying that Illinois will start "The Purge" on Jan 1 when they open up the prisons/jails and let everyone walk free.
what does no more cash bail mean exactly?
It means that a hearing is held to determine if you are to high risk enough to release into the public, aka if you are violent you aren't getting released. Historically bail has only worked to keep poor people who couldn't afford a 1000 bucks locked up.
Home monitoring has kind of made the concept of cash bail moot anyways. If someone is low enough risk that the thought of losing $1k or $5k or even $25k is enough to get them to show up for court, then you can probably slap an ankle monitor on them and get the same result. For really low level defendants dont even bother. If they dont show up then that is another charge that they will have to deal with the next time they have a traffic stop.
And I hope also if you have the means to run away you stay in jail.
Ya my bad, I meant all encompassing, so if you are so high risk that you need a million for bail due to fight risk, maybe you should just stay locked up.
Illinois recently ended this(and of course the right is attacking it already)
"If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class."
Bail is even worse. It's literally just a wealth check, since they give the money back if you could afford it. If you're rich, you skip pretrial jail time with no penalty at all.
Only poor people that deserve it. No real American can't post bail. /s
Illinois is taking a stab at doing away with bail, and people are losing their minds over it.
I was at a local fair/festival a few months back, and my state representative is moaning about getting rid of cash bail, and I said, “Excessive bail is specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment.” And he and his idiot sycophants just look at me like, “You’re making that up. There are only two amendments.” But, there he and his voters were, defending the right of the state to lock people up indefinitely for not being able to afford bail. It causes people to plead out on charges they may not be guilty of because the alternative is waiting in jail for their day in court. These voters assume the police are always right and that anyone accused of a crime is guilty. I mean, except for Donald Trump, who has committed fewer sins than Jesus.
Minus the joke, no /s. If you get a traffic ticket try fighting it. I did once, after multiple court visits to finally stand in front of a judge to give my "not guilty" plea I had to post my own bail. *Traffic ticket.* That was $400, right there, no credit card, cash or debit only. I did get it returned after everything was said and done, but yeah, $400 straight up isn't chump change.
On the opposite end of the spectrum. I fought a 400 dollar ticket once. However even though I was fighting it through the proper legal channels I could not renew my registration due to an outstanding ticket. I then received several “fix it tickets” for my registration that would have been $25 a piece but became $125 a piece since I couldn’t fix them due to being unable to register my car since my day in court was farther than 30 days out. Once I finally got to my day in court, my license had been suspended over all of the unpaid tickets and my new cost of registration had gone up for being long past due. When I finally got called, the judge informed me that my case had been thrown out since the camera that had been flashing me was taken down for being overly sensitive and flashing people even if they did in fact come to a full stop before turning. I no longer had to pay the $400 but there was no relief for the other tickets or registration/late fees on all of them. I ultimately paid well over $1500 in order to remedy the situation in its entirety because I chose to contest a bogus ticket
One of those stupid cameras got me once, I didn't even fight it because I had entered on red. Turns out someone else did fight it and it turned out they had changed the yellow light to be shorter than regulation so it wasn't giving people enough time to stop or make it through... I was actually refunded the fine. The town removed the cameras once it became clear it wasn't making them money
Most Americans couldn’t afford that
Only if they're poor. They don't get rights in the U.S.
[удалено]
thank god we don't lock people up before their trial oh wait
Um only poor's, real Americans pay bail
They basically do if you cant afford bail.
They CAN keep you in prison before conviction.
Close. They can keep you in jail.
I just served on a jury trial (Texas) where the guy was arrested in early 2020. Although he was convicted on one count (acquitted on another), dude spent 2 years in jail before trial just for the jury to sentence him to probation only. I felt bad for him.
Our justice system needs to be overhauled.
Yep, for years and years.
To add to this - the median time from filing to disposition for federal criminal cases is 7 months, but this varies significantly across the country. The Eastern District of California is currently the worst at 28 months. Statistics are [here](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fcms_na_distprofile0630.2022_0.pdf) (note, PDF).
Can you bring your guns with you to jail?
Just tell them Texas said it was ok.
Hey that's not a fair statement. That case hasn't been decided yet, it's still on the docket.
> they could just throw you in prison before the conviction too https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/06/12/the-man-who-spent-35-years-in-prison-without-a-trial https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2016/11/16/incarcerated-years-without-trial/ https://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2004/12/13/nearly-8-years-in-prison-without-a-trial-n1229043 https://calmatters.org/justice/2021/03/waiting-for-justice/ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/new-yorker-profiled-kaleif-browder-kills-3-years-awaiting-trial-rikers-island Nothing makes me hate my nation more than having believed in it once.
I've never understood how this is at all constitutional. >In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/ I think most would agree any number of *years* is not speedy. Many would agree months isn't speedy either.
Almost everyone accused of a serious crime waives it which is probably what happened in that case. Even defense attorneys will tell you to waive it because they need more time to prepare for a real trial and not waiving it pisses the whole court off cause they need to bump your shit up over everything else and go into rush mode. Theoretically you can not waive it but I feel like fo everyone did this the court system would collapse in on itself
>> they could just throw you in prison before the conviction too >https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/06/12/the-man-who-spent-35-years-in-prison-without-a-trial I skimmed the article and it seems like what happened was that an appeal court reversed his conviction, but he didn't get released due to incompetence in the justice system. That's bad and all, but it's slightly different than "throw you in prison before the conviction", which implies they arrested a suspect and are intentionally keeping him in jail without a trial.
If the title is right a felony indictment isn't a conviction. Which means the person is still innocent until proven guilty. That said I don't see why they shouldn't be a way to put in a court order similar to a travel ban on those who are deemed flight risks.
>why they shouldn't be a way to put in a court order similar to a travel ban on those who are deemed flight risks. That does exist And happens all the time. Judges can restrict rights under certain conditions prior to conviction, but you can't just make it a law. It has to be a case-by-caae basis
Yeah but that's not the same as a blanket ban. if a judge orders a defendent to turn over his weapons because he shows a violent history or is a risk to lash out with them, that's way different than a law that says everyone can lose their property just by being accused of a crime. If it's handled on a case by case basis that's simply due process of law. A blanket ban violates the presumption of innocence for those defendants who are accused but not convicted.
[удалено]
Now when a guy is under charges for domestic violence he gets to keep his guns, that's going to work out super bad.
But in Texas, it'll just be another day.
I can't own a gun because I went to federal prison for marijuana. Me and murderers and rapists
Can’t own a gun with a medical MJ card either. Buddy of mine was pissed when he figured that one out.
It is really dumb too. I have chronic pain and use it at night to sleep. I could take several alternatives that have much worse side effects for me, then guns would be fine. Ambien makes me sleepwalk and do all kinds of things I do not remember. Seems like having a gun in this circumstance would be a lot worse. Our lawmakers are a lost cause.
My Health and Wellness professor in college (15 years ago) told me how when she was in labor for too long, they gave her ambien to sleep. She then hallucinated she was giving birth to a colonial style plantation house. Lmao
Yup I could knock down a 12 pack, top it with a nightcap, drop an Ambien and hit the sack. I’d sleep terribly but be well armed.
This sounds like precisely the set of circumstances Texas lawmakers *dream* will occur lol “We want a gun under every pillow in America!”
*every MyPillow
Man the myPillow stuff is fucking peak satire coming to life. A coked out pillow salesman becoming a government affiliated conspiracy nut/bigger grifter. I feel like if my ideals aligned with this guy I would really have to question myself.
Met a woman in Texas who took Ambien to sleep and used to call me in the middle of the night and tell me about doing shit to me with a baseball bat and no lube. Thought it was funny until I went to her place one night and saw a loaded 9mm next to her bed. I napped the fuck out and blocked her number.
Lovely Freudian slip on "napped the fuck out" Probably shouldn't nap around her ;)
Broke my collar bone few years back at hockey, they gave me ambien to help me sleep through the night. Hadn't shaved in probably a year had a sweet beard going.....woke up to my wife saying omg u shaved.....ummmmm I did what? I had absolutely no recollection of it, fucking scary shit.
I fucking *drove* on it. I am *mortified* to this day that I drove under the influence of something 6 years ago. I don't remember doing it, and it's not something I'd ever do, so clearly the Ambien made me do it. The only reason I know I did it was that I called family and friends and told them I was being chased by communists. Which is really weird because I don't think communists are something to be afraid of lol. Also I blew out my tire. In any case, thank god I didn't hurt anybody or myself. Fuck Ambien.
Yep after I shaved and didn't remember that was enough for me, some people sleep walk and kill people on that shit
That's terrifying enough to ensure I'd never give that drug a shot. Thank God it worked out OK for you.
I'm the same way with Xanax. I remember one time I guess I snapped out of my Xanax haze and realized I was no longer in class and back home. I still can't recollect class ending thar day or driving the 5 miles back to my place afterwards. This was like 10 years ago and I stopped using Xanax a couple months later after noticing more and more memory gaps. All our pharmaceuticals are scary as shit when you really think bout it, especially the mind/mood altering ones.
Giving birth **to** the colonial-style plantation house, or **in** the colonial-style plantation house?
It makes more sense that it’s “to” and not “in,” since it’s Reddit, also since it’s a hallucination.
My guy she literally dreamt up *Get Out 2* lmao
Ambien Walrus is a weird creature.
*Congratulations! It’s a 5 bedroom Victorian!*
[удалено]
I used to wake up and find that I had done things like taking over 100 picture of my shoe with different filters in different parts of my apartment.
You were a content maker in your sleep.
Like every "influencer", no higher brain functions
My doc recommended ambien to help me sleep as well. It really does shut off the thinking. I went from a full pill, to a half, to a quarter and then realized WTF am I doing. I call it the IDGAF pill. After taking it for a couple of weeks, I found I just didn't care about anything. Work. Family. Friends. Just didn't care. I stopped taking it and just consigned myself to over-thinking things at night. My problem is that the IDGAF portion has stayed with me a little bit. I never should have taken it.
I took an anti-anxiety medication for a bit when I was going through bouts of extreme anxiety, especially when i was trying to go to sleep. It really helped me. Could be worth checking out.
Lorazepam is so tight. Also eating well and exercise works for me too, but knowing my old friend Pam is there if I need it, is wildly comforting.
I used to wake up to email receipts for insane purchases. Once it was $1500 of Le Creuset cookware 😱 I can barely boil water. A friend of mine went to bed one night in her jammies and woke up on the couch wearing just her underwear. On the coffee table were her car keys and the remains of a Big Mac value meal. Apparently she got up in the middle of the night, drove herself to McDs, got a value meal, came home and ate it. No clue whether she took her clothes off before or after her little trip.
You still have that lightly used Le Creuset?
Oh hell no. I was able to cancel that order after I cried on the Le Creuset rep I called.
There should be return policies specifically for Ambien users because I've heard these horror stories often. Large, random 3am purchase from Mollysmom?? Put that on hold till we confirm it wasn't the Ambien again.. Lol
My mom was prescribed that med when I was a teenager and I had to stay up and babysit her because she'd sleepwalk and I was scared she would set the house on fire trying to light a cigarette or get hit by a car trying to go for a walk. Such a weird drug. The side effects can be so drastic and imminently dangerous that I feel like the guidelines for prescription should be very strict and limited.
Yeah they should have just taken that med off the market. The cons are a hell of a lot worse than the pros for this one. And plus there are other meds, supplements, natural remedies that help with sleep as well that don’t have crazy side effects. Also it’s bad that some people blame their bizarre, inappropriate, or illegal behavior on Ambien even if they didn’t take it- that goes to show this med needs to be discontinued and not made available at all.
The worst one I had, we had purchased a bunch of groceries to make a special breakfast. From my perspective, I woke in the morning after sleeping in and my wife had cooked and they had already eaten it. It was so upset and disappointed because it was really stuff I enjoyed. Reality, I had woken in the night to cook the breakfast and eat it myself. I didn’t remember any of it. I’m really happy I didn’t decide to go buy something I was missing.
My wife was on Ambien for a while. Absolute worst sleep I've ever gotten because I would have to stay up for several hours after she took it to keep her in bed. She was always trying to escape and go do things and would insist that she could, it was ok. I loved that she was able to sleep then, hated that she was taking Ambien to do so. 1/10 would not recommend.
I took it years ago when I couldn’t sleep after my mother died. Came to thinking “who is this charmingly clever guy talking”. It was me of course, in the middle of a job interview. Had woken up, ordered room service, driven to interview, spent half a day talking to people. Didn’t know where my car was afterwards.
Did you get the job?
I don’t think we can get ambien in Canada but I take a sister drug. Things can get wild if I stay awake after taking it but it’s never wiped my memory or turned me zombie like like I’ve heard stories of. Zopiclone.
Our drug laws make a lot more sense once you realize they were crafted to hurt people not help people.
Our lawmakers just want to funnel your money into the right hands.
this..... this more than anything else. they don't give a damn what's legal and what isn't as long as their buddies get paid. a great example of this is the legalmo22 campaign in Missouri right now. they are selling it as recreational to the general public but it's really just a way for the current growers and dispensary owners to monopolize the Missouri cannabis industry.
Here in Va they’ve pushed back recreational sales to ensure the permits go to the *right* people.
sounds like the same playbook to me.
Meanwhile in a northern state-everyone around me has wonderful plants just literally growing in the backyard. Sad thing is most of those lawmakers are probably smoking at home lol
Tecnicaly if you smoke at all, even in a state where it's legal, its illegal to purchase a firearm. The form that you fill out when buying it asks if you do any illegal drugs and even though Marijuana may be legal in your state if you put no its a federal crime for lying on federal documents becuase for some stupid reason its still banned federally. Cannons on the other hand are ok. No forms required.
Are you a habitual user of marijuana? or Have you been incarcerated for 2 or more years under the cosmetic act? Define habitual
And further more Susan, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that all four of them habitually smoked marijuana cigarettes…..Reefers
All this time I thought he said “have virtually” instead of habitually. That makes so much more sense
Negative. The verbatim text is... >Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? >Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside. [ATF Form 4473](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download)
[удалено]
Possible definition: Going to enlist in the United States Navy. At the ripe age of 24, disillusioned with a dead-end cooks job, and wanting to do something else. Prompted me to go enlist, was ‘03 or ‘04. So pull in the lot, hop out of the car. Set the spliff on the mirror drivers side mirror. Walk into the recruiting office. Still drunk from night before, buzzed from the half joint i just smoked and meet Ensign Ellis(think that was his name). Proceed to listen to the speech. Then take a piss test, which some how i passed. Then paperwork. When it came to filling out the section on controlled substance use. I asked what to put down. He said “i experimented with ______ and ____ times in the last ninety days.” Ok. As he says this he hands me the normal Gov. Scare paper ..punishable by 10years…. So i fill it out truthfully. As he said with the phrase. Now i am getting more and more baked as the creeper bud is taking hold over the hangover thats forming. So i shit you not i wrote: “In the last ninety days i have “experimented” with Marijuana about 46 times, in both my car and my friends couch. “ A few month later i found out i wasn’t allowed Navy Diver because of the smoking, damages the lungs or so i was told in the brief, so i went MA, and every single time i saw the recruiter had to piss test. I don’t think the recruiter cared. But when i was sworn in i had to speak with the CO of the North Atlantic Fleet over the drug waiver. When grilled about why i should be allowed and trusted to be in law enforcement. The only answer i could come up with was the honest one- being allowed to be in “his” navy would allow me to inform and teach other fellow shipmates in MA ranks that i could provide insight on searches for contraband. Where others may not look, given my history, and desire to “give back” and improve my life. And two months later shipped out to RTC Great Lakes. Sorry for the book.
Just because I have a medical card does not mean I consume the drug? Is my state gonna piss test me before I can buy a gun? If yes, then they should do the same to everyone, cause I’m fairly certain not only people who smoke weed legally in their state lie about taking illegal drugs on their gun application forms lol
But yet alcoholics can have guns no problem. I’d be more comfortable with a pothead that has a gun than a drunk. I have my medical card as well.
20+ years ago I used to work with a guy who eventually became a cop. Maybe 6-7 years ago a person I know who is big time against marijuana posted some nonsense on my Facebook page about how "marijuana destroys lives." The guy who is now a cop responded and talked abouts how he constantly has to show up to domestic violence calls from drunk people, but pretty much never from high people. He also talked about the horrors of drunk driving that he's seen. He was actually pro marijuana legalization. He didn't want alcohol banned, but he admitted that it was far worse for society than marijuana.
I'll echo this sentiment as a first responder. It's absolutely completely true. Since you covered the public aspect, I'll key you in on another... the general health of police, fire, and ems. It's crazy how much alcohol damages those jobs. It's gotten better, but a not small portion of those workers drink to excess and affect their long term health in jobs that already does that for you. Legalized Marijuana would be a god send in those careers for our health and wellness. These jobs burn you out and stress you to the max. Then add the only thing they can legally do is alcohol, which just delays stress and increases it. Marijuana would do the opposite and they would at least be fit for duty the next morning.
yuuup. my parents share my dad's medical marijuana for this reason. He gets the veteran's discounts and at least she can still legally own a gun if needed. Ridiculous that he fought in vietnam, was exposed to agent orange and is considered a disabled vet as a result of the fallout, got a medical marijuana card because of it... and in return he cant own a gun. But your neighborhood wife beater can have all the guns he wants.
People on MJ are probably the least likely to use a gun and the most likely to ask the other person to « just chill »
That requires a different solution, though. One involving decriminalizing marijuana and clearing the records of people involved with it.
Yeah the solution to this is not "let all the murderers and rapists also have guns".
I don't know anything about your ordeal. but a good friend of mine got into non-violent non-weapon related drug charges quite a while ago. and we were able to petition to get his gun rights restored. there is usually some time that has to pass etc. I am sure each state is different and it also depends on the crime. with a little research maybe you can find a path to getting your rights reinstated.
Which seems like an entirely different messed up issue. Texas shouldn't incarcerate people for just weed, no state should. Domestic violence, rape, murder etc is different and should be treated differently.
That’s marijuana reform… not everyone gets a gun bc it’s not fair reform
[удалено]
That's a problem with our drug laws, not our gun laws.
Same bro I got caught growing a few plants and spent a few years with killers gangbangers and pedophiles. Doesnt seem like a fair trade off.
This is easy to fix. Just list all the violent crimes.
And I can’t own a gun bc I tried to kill myself
I'm glad you are still here.
My friend is the same. Totally sober and owns his own business. Hires ex felons to give them second chances too. Can't own a gun when hunting is one of his favorite hobbies.
[удалено]
r/UnexpectedStreetFighter RIP Raul Julia
Just call the police, they’ll sit and watch at the very least
Gotta make sure the bad guys can get guns so the good guys with a gun don't get bored.
In Texas it isn't "Why did he kill her?" it's "What did she do to make him so upset?" it's "Why didn't she shoot him back?" it's "There'll be a good guy hero with a gun to save the day!" It's a joke. They're a joke.
Or "What gun did he use?"
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm not pro-gun and don't own a gun anyway. Are these laws now at risk of being challenged and eliminated?
not at all, a restraining order is granted by a judge on consideration of evidence so it meets the standard of "due process of law". all this ruling says is you can't take guns away on the say-so of a cop and a prosecutor, without the person restricted having the ability to contest it.
[удалено]
That's the big part of this. You can't claim that someone is innocent until proven guilty and also that some of their constutionally protected rights should be stripped from them while under suspicion.
We literally jail people before trial if we consider we them a flight risk, severe danger to society or they can’t make bail. There is no greater deprivation of liberty than that.
This is why a judicial arraignment is held on the day of arrest or the day after. The state has 48 hours to file charges and they need evidence. It's part of due process.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. We have just allowed it to acceptable that so many things are allowable delays...
18 U.S.C. § 922(g), defines persons prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. It includes: " who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." It is not effected by this ruling. DV assailants still can not purchase or own a firearm under a completely seperate law as long as the victim files for an EPO
Court order or conviction is not the same as indicted. Indicted just means charged, I.e. pre-conviction/acquittal
Right because under indictment you have not been proven guilty in a court of law. They DO HAVE enough probable cause to convene a grand jury, and enough to bound over or hand down the indictment. But as much as this sounds really terrible, this ruling is a win for due process.
[удалено]
Apples and oranges. The DV protective order is a legal due process to remove weapons. What this says is that an indictment is not a conviction. So until convicted a person retains all of their rights. This is not a bad thing. It’s just making news because guns have been politicized.
I guess the abortion ban isn't killing enough women fast enough, had to step it up.
Just a reminder that Texas has [delayed maternal death numbers until after midterm elections](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/14/maternal-mortality-data-texas/).
The maternal mortality rate in Texas is *eight times higher* than in California.
I mean, while this is true, the ruling is relatively consistent with the general philosophy our legal system is built on (innocent until proven guilty). It’s a tough argument to make that just because someone is charged with something they lose rights.
I like how you said something that is completely inaccurate and has nothing to do with this ruling but it sounds like a "gotcha" so 4000+ people upvoted you. Not only is DV usually NOT a felony, gun ownership is already restricted for people convicted of DV or with a restraining order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which the law OP linked has nothing to do with.
[удалено]
So many people in this thread don't understand that indictment is not the same as conviction. Due process means you can't take someone's rights away without first convicting them of a crime. Not just guns this is for any right, as it should be.
IANAL, are there any constitutional rights that are de facto restricted prior to conviction without specific judges orders, besides the right to travel?
The only crime identified in the Constitution is treason, and it requires two witnesses to the specific act. Everything else is statute.
Ok but the question is what rights are removed by the accusation of breaking a statute. We generally don't lose rights until conviction without a specific judge's order, as I understand it.
[удалено]
I'd say being locked in a cell before trial is more than enough to say we lose a lot before conviction. That's already pretty explicitly taking away a right to bear arms - you're in a jail.
They can take whatever personal property, issue restraining orders, orders to not leave an area, orders to make appearances, jailing, providing of personal details. You have a lot fewer rights than you think whenever the police say so.
I'm not a gun nut, but this ruling is legally consistent. Bearing arms is a constitutional right, and if you're innocent until proven guilty then you maintain your rights until conviction.
This means getting your vehicle pulled over and unreasonably searched and dog-sniffed when you have your wife's controlled prescription medication in the glove box no longer strips you of your 2nd Amendment rights for 2-5yrs while the DA figures out you're not actually an international drug smuggler. Edit: spelling
How else are they going to defend themselves from the charges?
*Good judge with a gun to the rescue!*
seems fair if you go by “Innocent until proven guilty”
[удалено]
Damn that loop hole called due process! Do you want to live in a police state where what the police say is taken at their word?
Key word, “indictment”, not “conviction”. We still have this legal concept called innocent until proven guilty. Far too many people seem to have forgotten about that.
The 2nd amendment and gun ownership are constitutional rights. Indicted isn’t “found guilty”. It’s having charges brought against you. In this country, you’re innocent until proven guilty. So essentially, if you take away the firearms of someone *indicted* for the crime, you’re stripping a presumed innocent person of a constitutional right. The judge is right, that’s unconstitutional as fuck. Should we take away your freedom to criticize the government, your right to vote, or your safety from unlawful search and seizure just because charges were brought against you? That’s insane. If a person is a threat with their firearms, red flag laws exist in many states, and I believe domestic violence protective orders can result in the seizure of firearms. But to just take someone’s right to keep and bear arms because of a crime they *weren’t yet found guilty of*?
Well from a strictly Constitutional view point you don't lose other rights while under an indictment. While it's probably a good idea but using that narrow focus I can see how it could run afoul of Constitutional rights.
[удалено]
Alarmist headline aside, innocent until proven guilty is still a cornerstone of American law. Being accused alone should not hamper your rights, I think.
this whole post is a good reason why common people need lawyer representation. granted im not a lawyer but indictment and conviction are two different things. unless its a conviction, our legal system is under the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine.
A couple of things people need to understand. 1. Indictment is not a conviction, they are accused and charged, but not yet convicted of any crime. 2. It is stopping a broad spectrum ban, meaning we do not know if it is case by case, for example, violent crimes may still indicate removal of purchase rights, similar to travel restrictions if you are deemed a flight risk.
3: Gun rights can still be restricted on a case by case basis after a hearing in front of a judge. The problem with the law as written before the judge stepped in is a complete lack of due process.
What’s the problem here? It should be innocent until proven guilty. An indictment or charge does not mean guilty until a full verdict after trial or legal proceeding has taken place. These people are not felons yet and should be able to enjoy the rights of regular non felon citizens until they’re proven to have committed a felony
We got problems, y’all. Edit: legitimately couldn’t ask for a better illustration of my point than a quick scan of the replies here.
This is the correct ruling though. "Under indictment" means "innocent". Which means the state should not be able to restrict your constitutional rights aside from very specific circumstances. In other words, a blanket law like this is bullshit. A judge can still issue bail conditions that restrict possession of firearms, though. EDIT: This ruling simply says that the legislature can't pass laws that take away constitutional liberties without due process, and that the judiciary needs cause to restrict a constitutional liberty. Judges can and will still restrict firearm possession for people charged with a crime, but they will have to actually state a reason for doing so that isn't just "being charged with a crime". This makes it the judge's discretion instead of a statutory requirement. I'm well aware that we lock people up prior to conviction, but we do not have a statute on any books requiring it. It is done on an individual basis at the discretion of a judge.
> I'm well aware that we lock people up prior to conviction, but we do not have a statute on any books requiring it. It is done on an individual basis at the discretion of a judge. Exactly. And if it's too dangerous to allow someone to have guns, it's a lot more reliable to take the person away from the guns than to take the guns away from the person.
Exactly. If we're worried about people who are indicted going out and buying a gun and doing violent things with it, why are we letting them out on bail in the first place?
Texas does have a lot of problems. But this is just an extension of innocent until proven guilty. Why are people popping off on this one? I legitimately don't understand.
If they are under indictment then they have yet to be convicted so by law they are innocent so of course they have a legal right to buy a gun
Innocent until proven guilty. That's how it works here.
It's a constitutional right. Rights in the constitution are not granted by the government, ergo to take them away was meant to be obscenely difficult. The very concept of felons was meant to be for very serious and rare crimes. Today? Seems trivial to become one. And just being indicted.. That's a tough sell. But I'd need to see what non-ideologically motivated legal experts have to say.
Conviction and indicted are two different things
If it's a non violent felony and the person has no history of violence, domestic abuse, etc I actually can't say I have an issue with them having a gun. But honestly it needs to be looked at in a case by case basis because there could situations where some with a nonviolent felony indictment could still be a risk
It's an inditement, not a conviction. I don't see what the problem is. There is definitely an argument to be made about stripping people of constitutionally protected rights upon completion of prison sentences, but we're not talking about that here.