The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims

[Indy62]

I get your point, but at the same time I'm pretty sure that Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union all had some guns, so . . .

I'm not getting your point..could you clarify? Those countries may have had guns...but who exactly was allowed to have guns? Military? Police? Citizens?


Jews?

 

[Certaindeaf]

I'm safe because I don't have a redheaded stepchile.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I'm not getting your point..could you clarify? Those countries may have had guns...but who exactly was allowed to have guns? Military? Police? Citizens?


Jews?

Having firearms is no guarantee of success against an aggressor. Sure, it does move the needle in your favor but to say "if only the Jews had guns" they would have defeated the nazies isn't realistic

 

[Indy62]

Excluding the possibility of a full on nuclear strike..'total war'...

Having an armed population does provide deterrence against invasion, occupation, and dictatorial rule from an aggressor..whether foreign or domestic.

Many years ago, a high ranking Soviet defector to the US..I believe he was KGB or GRU, was asked during interrogation/processing, whether the Soviet Union had ever had plans to conventionally invade and occupy the US. He answered, to the effect, no way. You have too many guns.

Call me naive, but yes I believe that had the Jews been granted rights to own a firearm prior to the NAZI's taking control of the country, the Holocaust would never have happened.

 

[Spitpatch]

Call me naive, but yes I believe that had the Jews been granted rights to own a firearm prior to the NAZI's taking control of the country, the Holocaust would never have happened.

Okay. you're naive.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Excluding the possibility of a full on nuclear strike..'total war'...

Having an armed population does provide deterrence against invasion, occupation, and dictatorial rule from an aggressor..whether foreign or domestic.

Many years ago, a high ranking Soviet defector to the US..I believe he was KGB or GRU, was asked during interrogation/processing, whether the Soviet Union had ever had plans to conventionally invade and occupy the US. He answered, to the effect, no way. You have too many guns.

Call me naive, but yes I believe that had the Jews been granted rights to own a firearm prior to the NAZI's taking control of the country, the Holocaust would never have happened.

Pretty sure the first time I heard that story it was a Japanese general, so maybe vet your sources?

 

[Indy62]

Pretty sure the first time I heard that story it was a Japanese general, so maybe vet your sources?

It was 25 years ago I read about that. But since you don't believe me, I'll look it up.

 

[duldej]

I think any human could be a credible threat to any other human given the right..or wrong circumstance..depending on how you look at it.

It's the worst when legislators, judges introduce yet another gray area. Example, getting a chl in OR you can't be a danger to yourself/others. But how's that substantiated. The ORS on that particular section is lengthy & abstruse.

Whomever's in favor of red flag laws, this case law in the OP is cause for you to re examine your position. The net is wide and too easy to abuse.

It's appeal to emotion that it came about like this. Nobody wants a helpless waif of a woman get pommelled by a big hairy brute. But like the vegan protestors trying to outlaw ranching beef in OR, it's an "Animal Abuse" petition. Geez. Red flag laws are far less good than they are bad. Proponents for red flag laws are just looking at the headline, and not reading the article.

Also red flag laws throw you into the psych rabbit hole where you are obeisant to the Psychiatrist. Some like it like that. They probably also liked covid, too.

 

[PiratePast40]

 

[CamoDeafie]

Kirk provides an alternate analysis than some of the opinions here. It seems to hinge on demonstrated violence in the past. He's also quick to point out that there is too much to sort out to make a final opinion right now.

Your link goes to Oregon Court of Appeals calendar?

 

[PiratePast40]

Your link goes to Oregon Court of Appeals calendar?

Oops - fixed.

Both Kirk and Smith seem to say this isn't as bad as some are saying. A loss, but not one that is really bad and hinges on the persons actions, verified by a court, that make them dangerous.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

It was 25 years ago I read about that. But since you don't believe me, I'll look it up.

This one maybe? It's not that I don't believe YOU, it's that I don't believe the quote

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org

Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a...

www.factcheck.org

 

[mariocrd]

If a guy beats his wife/girlfriend he does not have the mental capacity to control his temper or violent actions. I say F him, he does not deserve to have a gun to use in his uncontrollable fits of rage. What he does deserve is a good old fashioned ars whopping.

for sure.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Aelito has been absent the last 2 days and no one knows why.

 

[Indy62]

This one maybe? It's not that I don't believe YOU, it's that I don't believe the quote

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org

Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a...

www.factcheck.org

Yeah, that could be. Rusty 25 year memory. There was a few defectors, Yuri Bresmekov being one, that spoke at length about communist ideological subversion and defeat tactics of the soviets back then. Anatoly Golytsyn was another, "New Lies For Old". Regardless, the Japanese Admirals quote seems to be debated.

Which begs the question.

Do you think million's of armed citizens have played a part in keeping the country invasion/occupation free from an external enemy past or present?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Which begs the question.

Ugh, way to bring out the pedantic me

Begging the Question

Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Do you think million's of armed citizens have played a part in keeping the country invasion/occupation free from an external enemy past or present?

I would say probably not. JMHO but I would say the logistics of a huge ocean supply chain, our large population to draw on for the military, the ability of the US to keep manufacturing and production far from the coast and our vast resources that allow us to resupply with very little to no sourcing from other continents far outweighed the advantages of an armed civilian population as a deterrent

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

With how wildly weaponized the judicial system is in terms of charging first and asking questions later, a lot of innocent men have their rights stripped from them with baseless, false accusations and it's up to them to spend their life savings proving their innocence. This law did nothing to sort out false allegations made (let's be real, against mostly men).

Now, if a domestic abuser had damning evidence and of course was through and through guilty of abuse, I fully support charging them and disarming them.. as time and time it's been proven said abuser gets off, goes too far and winds up shooting the victim(s). However, on the flip side of this MANY men are falsely accused and have to fight their way in court to get their property back and regain their rights.. and the worst part is, the false accuser 9/10 times only gets a slap on the wrist, facing nearly zero repercussions for said false accusation.
That part of the law needs to change.. anyone proven to falsely accuse someone should face harsh punishment and a mandatory garnishment to pay back the person that they accused (without a separate civil case).. it should all be settled then and there. But it never is.. and this abuse of and within the judicial system makes an accused (mostly men) guilty until proven innocent.. and that's dangerous and needs to change.

 

[Diamondback]

This is more like SCOTUS approving the Camel Nose strategy of "you can't ban guns but you CAN prohibit entire classes of people from owning them without Due Process."

Next stop: Every been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition? BOOM, no guns for you, crazy prole... *Veterans Administration has entered the chat*

 

[CamoDeafie]

*Veterans Administration has entered the chat*

Not service related, take 2 Motrin, drink more water, change your socks, and don't forget your PT belt!

 

[L84Cabo]

There are positives here and this decision was probably the best we could get

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqoPl-BT2Ik

Make sure you watch this.

The case does not overturn Bruen nor does it resolve the due process element of red flag laws...meaning it does not green light red flag laws. Red flag laws, as yet, are still unchallenged at the SCOTUS level.

The leftwing media is going to play this up as a huge win and it isn't. Garland was taking his best shot to overturn the Bruen methodology and he failed. That is, effectively, a pretty big win for us given how bad this case could have gone.