2nd Amendment

Changes like two identical charges with the same mitigations? One is from a rich influential family? The other is from a poor family? And a judge lets the former off RoR because "he is from a GOOD FAMILY" and the latter gets bail. That is the crap that needs to stop. And concepts like people should have to pay thousands in bail for Misdemeanor charges at all. Charge THAT DAY. Go to trial within 48 hours. Keep them in a HOLDING CELL or AREA for non violent offenders for 2 days. Trial. I support, again, efficiency in the system. If you are bringing a shoplifting charge without enough to CONVICT that day? Or the next? You were not ready to arrest them at all.

 

There is no need to collect $500,000 in taxes to pay a $200,000 salary.

 

You described two mitigating factors, a rich family and poor family. The economic status plays a role on flight risk. And flight risk is used to determine where bail is set.

Both defendants can go to trial in the same time period. It may not be fair, but a rich family can prepare for the trial faster than a poor one. So if the poor family goes to trial in the same time period as the rich one, they won't get best defense that is possible for them. The saying "Time is Money" can be applied to both.

 

You are correct. The rich kid that gets RoR is usually MORE likely to be able to flee to a place we cant get them back.

 

Or when it VIOLATES standing law. They dont uphold bail on something statute states does not have it because 'that judge grew some BALLS!".

 

The USSC got the decision right-ish btw. Right-ish because I am iffy if the Founders meant everyone walk around with a small arm in a holster at all times. That said, as written, the 2nd upholds CC. Now, folks. The decision did not, repeat not, once again not, rule that you can carry without a license. Just that the heightened need clause is not valid. The ruling likely means that anyone who qualifies to buy a weapon with BG checks can get a CC too. So, in effect, as I have a great example. My managers, who do large cash deposits? Can keep it if they retire/move on. As they dont "need" the heightened need (Large cash in hand to deposit).

 

The problem is there is clear evidence otherwise on that. The real matter is this. Did they mean "each man is his own militia" or "an OFFICIAL FORMED MILITIA"

 

Second Amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is simple and straight forward. Reading the sentence, I see two parts.
Part one: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This is just a statement expressing a fact. It does not express a right or give any intent for the amendment.

Part two: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is also straight forward. It does not say Militia, it say the people. No reference or inference to the first part is made in any way. It is just describing the Right in question. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. And finally the action of the amendment. shall not be infringed.

It makes no reference to Self Defense. No mention of Hunting. Makes no condition under which the Right does not apply. It just says shall not be infringed.