AOC backs Hunter Biden verdict and says its proof Dems are ‘willing to accept when our justice system works’
AOC backs Hunter Biden verdict and says its proof Dems are ‘willing to accept when our justice system works’
The New York congresswoman, who is known for her liberal stance and activism, blasted previous accusations of a ‘two-tiered justice system’ from the GOP
You're viewing a single thread.
Okay, yes, under the law that currently exists, Hunter Biden was absolutely guilty.
On the other hand...
Doesn't it strike people as just a little bit fucked up that you can lose a fundamental constitutional right that easily? Should you lose the right to, say, vote if you smoke pot (which is still illegal under federal law!)? Should you lose the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, with legal representation, if you're addicted to Oxy? Should you be forced to go to an evangelical, Christian nationalist church if you're an alcoholic? There's a pretty decent argument that conviction of a violent crime--including misdemeanor domestic battery--should cause you to lose your 2A rights. But this isn't a case of someone being convicted of anything.
Shout it from the mountains:
Republicans are coming after your guns!
More specifically, Republicans are coming after the guns of people that aren't white christian nationalists.
They're fine with Republicans being armed.
They're not fine with their intended victims being armed.
Counterpoint, no rights are absolute. There are conditions and restrictions on every "fundamental constitutional right." Freedom of speech does not include slander or inciting violence. Freedom of religion does not protect abuse or acts of violence. Freedom to bear arms does not include weapons of war or negligent behavior.
Addiction is a medical condition, and should not be treated by criminal courts. On the other hand, addiction does undermine an individual's rational thinking. Should addicts be permitted to carry firearms? I don't think that is an unreasonable restriction.
The problem with my argument is that I don't think our restrictions on gun ownership go nearly far enough. Addiction is a problem, but it's not the most pressing problem we have related to gun violence.
Freedom of speech does include slander; slander (and all other defamation) is not a criminal matter, it's purely tort.
Freedom of religion does not protect abuse
Oh buddy... Have I got some really, really bad news for you. SCOTUS has been continually carving out exceptions for both criminal and civil law for religions for decades.
Should addicts be permitted to carry firearms?
I think that it's a very, very slippery slope to try and traverse. I've known people that were entirely functional alcoholics; they were entirely sober all day, but started drinking the second they got home, and all weekend. I know a guy that holds a solid six figure job at a major US company that has spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on drugs, and tanked multiple marriages because he couldn't straighten his shit out in his personal life, but he is solid for his rationality as long as he's sober. Which is pretty much only when he's on the clock. I know people that are straightedge that are less able to think rationally than either of those people. So, should we have a rationality survey prior to someone purchasing a firearm, voting, getting legal representation, refusing to talk to cops, and so on?
But here's an even bigger problem for you: barring addicts from owning firearms--or people that have been committed to a mental institution for any reason--is actively dissuading people from getting help. If you are, for instance, a cop, you will lose your job if you can't own a firearm. The result is that cops don't get help when they need it. Many gun owners feel the same way, and there are grass-roots organization that will hold parts of guns for you (non-serialized but essential parts) for people that are having a hard time but can't seek help without losing their rights.
The problem with my argument is that I don’t think our restrictions on gun ownership go nearly far enough.
No, the problem is that you're treating a symptom--violence--as though it was caused by the tool used to commit it. The problems are things like systemic racism, chronic underfunding of essential services, shitty public education (that's been made intentionally shitty to try and steer the "right" people into charter and private schools), lack of economic empowerment, wealth inequality, lack of reasonable access to healthcare, and so on. It's treating pneumonia with cough syrup, and then wondering why shit doesn't get better. (And, BTW, despite the massive uptick in firearm ownership that happened in 2020/2021, violent crime, including gun crime, continues to decline.)
Counterpoint, no rights are absolute. There are conditions and restrictions on every "fundamental constitutional right."
Further to that point, rights come with responsibilities. If you are going to forfeit those responsibilities to society then you are going to also forfeit some of the associated rights granted by society.
Counter-counterpoint: restricting rights after completion of a judicial sentence prevents convicts from reintegrating into society, which increases the odds of recidivism. If you want people to choose to act responsibly, they need to have the opportunity to do so.
Counter counterpoint. Some rights absolutely should be. The fact that a person's vote can be taken away. Is the entire reason we have such sentencing disparity. It along with speech are two fundamental rights that shouldn't.
Your first argument is the phrase: my freedom ends where yours begins. That's perfectly good and acceptable. However, someone using drugs (which almost everyone uses, though some the government decided to target) does not interfere with anyone else's rights. A person who uses alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, Marijuana, cocaine, or whatever else does not necessarily effect anyone else. They should lose rights if it does, not matter the drug, but not for the use of whatever drug alone.
Should addicts be permitted to carry firearms? I don't think that is an unreasonable restriction.
A majority of Americans are addicted to caffeine, alcohol, and/or nicotine. Sure, addiction can be an issue. Addiction is not the issue though. Many people live perfectly healthy lives while addicted to drugs. It's an issue when it interferes with someone else and should be addressed then. Not every caffeine addict should lose their right to firearms (assuming it's a right, which I would posit the 2nd amendment does not actually say).
I think that Hunter was only prosecuted for this crime because of who his father is. A real witch hunt. But at the same time, I'm not losing any sleep over it. He broke the law, and he's someone with a lot of resources at his disposal and should have known better.
As for the law itself, I think the law should exist, but the potential punishment of 25 years is absurd.
I do think that keeping guns out of easy, legal, access of active drug abusers is appropriate. But as you say, without a conviction, the scope of those restrictions should be narrow and appeal-able.
And the punishment for being untruthful on a checkbox of an application should be a slap on the wrist. Confiscation of the firearm(s), and maybe community service. It should be the governments job to do proper screening, not the applicants job to screen themselves out.
But like I said before, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this, even if I do think it's an unfair punishment for an arbitrarily enforced law, on someone targeted by a cult simply because of his family.
I do think that keeping guns out of easy, legal, access of active drug abusers is appropriate. But as you say, without a conviction, the scope of those restrictions should be narrow and appeal-able.
Considering that the form 4473 that you have to sign to purchase a firearm makes no mention of alcohol, I think this is hypocritical, at best. What's the difference between alcoholics owning a firearm, and heroin addicts owning a firearm? All I know is that I would be way less worried about the junkie gun owner than a raging alcoholic gun owner.
Its a dumb law, that was probably spawned from racism. Nobody should have their gun rights removed if they did not do or threaten anything violent.
I mean, I'd like guns to be inaccessible (legally) to raging alcoholics too. You're right that a crackhead and alcoholic can both be very destructive. But that doesn't mean I want crackheads to have guns just because an alcoholic without a felony can own one.
That's fair and reasonable. I just think that the fact that alcohol use is so common, it makes it very unfair to pick on other drug users as if they are somehow worse or more prone to violence than alcoholics are.
I don't think drug use by itself should be enough to take away your gun rights, personally. I do believe mental health reasons are acceptable, though, and if the drug a person is using is making them mentally unstable, then that should be the main reason their gun rights are removed.
I absolutely disagree with keeping guns away from drug users (edit: for using drugs alone). Almost every American has a drug addiction, to caffeine at a minimum. Drugs can be safely handled as well as firearms. I believe that courses should be required that include training on proper safety and storage of firearms before purchase though, which should include warning about handling a firearm while intoxicated.
I was drinking with friends one time a while ago and one of my close friends, who's in the navy, had his handgun with him. He didn't see an issue with getting drunk with his gun on him. Luckily we all convinced him to put it aside somewhere safe until he's sober, which he argued about but conceded. Why is it legal to use alcohol and have a firearm (and be in the military even) but not something like pot?
You should be considered for losing access to a firearm upon abusing that right by endangering someone or mishandling one. You shouldn't lose it because the government decided to target a certain segment of society to disarm.
Doesn’t it strike people as just a little bit fucked up that you can lose a fundamental constitutional right that easily?
Google "the Mulford Act". Republicans loved chasing poc around for owning or displaying guns, all up and down California, back in the 60s and 70s when the Civil Rights Movement was at its peak.
Its definitely fucked up. But its all part of the grand kabuki theater of criminal justice in our country. Build up a hysterical fear of Other People so you can give the police something to do. Then use the parade of prosecutions as proof that (a) crime is out of control and (b) we absolutely need to gut more public services so we can put a bigger and more heavily armed police force on the street.
Should you lose the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, with legal representation, if you’re addicted to Oxy? Should you be forced to go to an evangelical, Christian nationalist church if you’re an alcoholic? There’s a pretty decent argument that conviction of a violent crime–including misdemeanor domestic battery–should cause you to lose your 2A rights. But this isn’t a case of someone being convicted of anything.
You can find instances of all of the above tried by various state and local courts in the US.
Oh, I'm very, very familiar with what Reagan did as the governor of California. The Black Panthers were absolutely in the right to resist the abuses of power by the white establishment cops, and banning the open carrying of firearms was expressly intended to prevent their oversight of the police. Even the idea that drug abusers would be banned from owning firearms directly stems from trying to prevent minority groups from being armed.
But its all part of the grand kabuki theater of criminal justice in our country.
Indeed. If we really cared about criminal justice, we'd focus on prevention by correcting root causes, and using proven methods to reduce recidivism. But we do none of those things.
You can find instances of all of the above tried by various state and local courts in the US.
I'm definitely aware of cases of convicted felons having their parole conditioned on attending Christian religious services, and the FFRF sues the shit out of states--and wins!--when state do shit like that. But yes, states can and do use every tool at their disposal, legal or otherwise, to remove constitutionally guaranteed rights. And I think that's a huge problem regardless of which right it is.
While some of the posters are tackling the loss of constitutional rights through judicial limitations of those rights... Which is part of the design of those rights... I would like to highlight that you are correct in pointing out some unique flaws in the American system. Utilizing non-violent drug convictions to deny voting rights targets vulnerable populations and make your voting base generally comprised of wealthier individuals and exaggerates the power of racialized police targeting. Both the US and the UK have this... But not all democracies practice this. Many countries have zero restrictions based on felony conviction or imprisonment. The intersection of drug use, rights and the churches involvement in 12 step programs are also not living up to a lot of modern discussions of ethics or the separation of church and state implied in the design of the US.
Practice and design are two different things. Canada does not have a specific division of Church and state anywhere in the body of law. On paper its got an official religion. In practice however it is incredibly secular and most of the citizens believe whole heartedly that religion has no business in government which is backed by a constitutional freedom of religion. The use of 12 step programs is being challenged and dismantled as a breech of these rights. ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5391650 )
The 2A rights particularly are more difficult to engage with using international comparison because there are only four democratic countries that have a specific constitutional right to bear arms and two impose further restrictions and deference to law inside the body of right itself. The only countries with so broad a written constitutional right to bear arms is the US and Guatemala. Other countries that guarantee those rights do so inside their body of regular law which means that right is not elevated. It can be more easily ammended and changed by sitting bodies and it interacts with criminal law and licencing programs more fluidly.
This structural difference is important. It is supposed to provide additional protections. However the cultural nature of guns is under public challenge. The US isn't nessisarily playing by it's intended design because in part from a written standpoint the 2A is a mess. The issue with old democracies is that they were kind of in Beta and the wording of those laws do not match the modern standardized code that comprises the body of active civil and criminal law and that leaves more than normal room for personal interpretation. The cultural nature to hold the constitution as a holy document that cannot be updated for function sake for mostly sentimental reasons means that you basically don't get the last word on these things or a solid grasp of whether something is constitutional until a Supreme Court majority interprets the archaic document in basically whichever way they please. There are logistical issues with treating law like a precious artwork instead of a practical tool.
I do not think that we should tolerate any slavery, including those convicted of a crime. Nor should we remove the rights of those convicted of crimes. Incarceration as a profit mechanism only leads to exploitation.
Agree on all points. I'll go farther and say that we need to be working towards rehabilitating people, rather than just warehousing them. The way we handle felons now encourages recidivism.
But of a tangent, but the biggest news story right now here in Australia is the discussion about the possibility of the government making childcare free for everyone.
Americans have their priorities fucked up.
IMO the criteria should be if you are too dangerous to own a gun you are too dangerous to be free in society. You should be locked in whatever institution is most appropriate for your particular situation until it is resolved.