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

[mhayd93]

It is unlikely we will ever see a Supreme Court Justice like Clarence Thomas ever again; hopefully he has many more productive years left in the tank!

 

[bradsteen]

Some worthwhile info here...

View: https://youtu.be/Ih9sqbjTyIM?feature=shared


Short version (paraphrasing), some good came out of the Rahimi decision:

1. The court restates that the 2A applies to all bearable arms, not just those from the time of the founding. That's hugely important for other upcoming cases, such as AWBs, mag bans, etc.

2. The court makes clear that a person can be disarmed who a court finds presents a credible danger to self or others. They rejected the government's argument that a person can be disarmed for being irresponsible. This is a positive finding for cases against the marijuana prohibition on the 4473, and for cases where a person is not convicted of a violent felony.

Yes, I think the issue of lack of evidence being presented to justify disarmament from protection orders is a problem, but that gap can be addressed through separate legal challenges from persons who are hit with protection orders without evidence or where the PO is maliciously filed by the other party.

 

[3MTA3]

Yes, I think the issue of lack of evidence being presented to justify disarmament from protection orders is a problem, but that gap can be addressed through separate legal challenges from persons who are hit with protection orders without evidence or where the PO is maliciously filed by the other party.

Posted this in another thread, but it's germane here - protection must go both ways or the State can still use this to confiscate firearms:

And that's the real issue. A judge will typically err on the side of CYA when authorizing a restraining order, so there really is no due process nor is there there presumption of innocence. The following needs to apply to resolve this:

1. A false claim that results in a restraining order must result in a fine AND jail time.
   
   
2. If a false claim results in damage such as loss of employment, security, clearance, reputation, etc., then restitution must be made including, but not limited to monetary, written and public apologies, and notifications to concerned parties.
   
   
3. Any firearms removed as a result of a restraining order should be inventory and photographed to document condition. The firearms must be properly stored and then returned in original condition to the owner. "Lost" or misplaced firearms MUST be replaced without the burden of a background check. This applies to ammunition, magazines, or anything else taken as a result of the restraining order.

 

[Diamondback]

Posted this in another thread, but it's germane here - protection must go both ways or the State can still use this to confiscate firearms:

And that's the real issue. A judge will typically err on the side of CYA when authorizing a restraining order, so there really is no due process nor is there there presumption of innocence. The following needs to apply to resolve this:

1. A false claim that results in a restraining order must result in a fine AND jail time.
   
   
2. If a false claim results in damage such as loss of employment, security, clearance, reputation, etc., then restitution must be made including, but not limited to monetary, written and public apologies, and notifications to concerned parties.
   
   
3. Any firearms removed as a result of a restraining order should be inventory and photographed to document condition. The firearms must be properly stored and then returned in original condition to the owner. "Lost" or misplaced firearms MUST be replaced without the burden of a background check. This applies to ammunition, magazines, or anything else taken as a result of the restraining order.

2A. This also includes any monetary or property losses. If your false claim forces someone out of their home, YOU must pay all costs of getting their home back for them.

Not DV but similar, as Mike Flynn was forced to sell his home trying to fight off a malicious false prosecution, IMO everyone responsible should lose THEIR homes to Asset Forfeiture and the proceeds used to buy Flynn his home back.

 

[PiratePast40]

Kirk does a deeper dive into the decision and shows how it can be misconstrued by those that will restrict our rights. I'll let those with the legal scholarship give a breakdown. However, I think it's worthwhile to watch.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Kirk does a deeper dive into the decision and shows how it can be misconstrued by those that will restrict our rights.

Oh, they (the Statists, the anti2a, anti-liberty people) will absolutely misconstrue the decision

 

[bradsteen]

Oh, they (the Statists, the anti2a, anti-liberty people) will absolutely misconstrue the decision

View: https://youtu.be/sRGp0S7qZLw?feature=shared

 

[Diamondback]

You keep using that word "misconstrue." I do not think it means what YOU think it means...

IOW, those doors are being left open BY DESIGN by the Roberts Wing.

 

[CamoDeafie]

IOW, those doors are being left open BY DESIGN by the Roberts Wing.

Yep, no other way you could get all 3 known anti2A Justices to concur.

Or put simply, there was no other way they could get 4 of the 5 normally conservative Justices to sign on.

 

[RobMa]

Sad day.

"Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others," Roberts wrote.


I wonder what various governments might consider a credible threat to the physical safety of others.

Exactly!

"you looked at me wrong!" take his guns! take his guns!!!

The stasi problem is going to become even worse, mark my words there will be a new push in anti-gnn states to ramp up "SEE IT, REPORT IT!"

Big brother is watching

 

[shibbershabber]

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future"

Adolph Hitler, 1938

Thats not an actual quote.

But I get it.

 

[shibbershabber]

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.

Kind of on the same page... but

Constitutional rights are absolute. Or should be.


What pisses me off about these cases is that there are so many other abuses of the 2nd Amendment out there that this should be a back burner issue.

Until the law abiding citizen is 100% free in his gun ownership, I dont care what happens to criminals' gun rights.
I cant have a magazine over 10rnds... but my money donated to 2A orgs is going to press the issue of domestic abusers not losing their rights? Sorry, dont give a bubblegum right now.

Now they have forced an issue they knew was probably weak to begin with and not we have a SCOTUS ruling saying that the Gov can decide whether or not you can be armed based on a loose set of standards and potentially dubious accusations

 

[CamoDeafie]

Kind of on the same page... but

Constitutional rights are absolute. Or should be.


What pisses me off about these cases is that there are so many other abuses of the 2nd Amendment out there that this should be a back burner issue.

Until the law abiding citizen is 100% free in his gun ownership, I dont care what happens to criminals' gun rights.
I cant have a magazine over 10rnds... but my money donated to 2A orgs is going to press the issue of domestic abusers not losing their rights? Sorry, dont give a bubblegum right now.

Now they have forced an issue they knew was probably weak to begin with and not we have a SCOTUS ruling saying that the Gov can decide whether or not you can be armed based on a loose set of standards and potentially dubious accusations

Agreed. This case was pushed for political reasons (Garland), and decided for political reasons, easier to justify restricting rights by bringing a steaming pile of doodoo as plaintiff...

And like I've said before (thrice now?)

Miller, Heller, Bruen and now Rahimi; all depend on NFA 1934, GCA 1968, FOPA 1986 being "constitutional ...

All which could have easily been defeated simply by SCOTUS following Marbury v. Madison, as well as Murdock v Pennsylvania, and Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama,...

And then there's the Equal Protection Clause which should have either made state by state permit systems unconstitutional, or required all 50 States to recognize each other's carry laws with no penalties

 

[Alexx1401]

Kind of on the same page... but

Constitutional rights are absolute. Or should be.


What pisses me off about these cases is that there are so many other abuses of the 2nd Amendment out there that this should be a back burner issue.

Until the law abiding citizen is 100% free in his gun ownership, I dont care what happens to criminals' gun rights.
I cant have a magazine over 10rnds... but my money donated to 2A orgs is going to press the issue of domestic abusers not losing their rights? Sorry, dont give a bubblegum right now.

Now they have forced an issue they knew was probably weak to begin with and not we have a SCOTUS ruling saying that the Gov can decide whether or not you can be armed based on a loose set of standards and potentially dubious accusations

I have been saying for a LONG time this is a problem. A LOT of 2A people have LONG been fine with laws until one steps on them. I have long said 2A should be for ALL. If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, why are they allowed to do things like drive a car? Why are they not locked away from the rest? A LOT of gun owners are getting what they asked for and when it effects them they scream 2A,2A,2A,. Well those screaming this told lawmakers 2A was a privilege not a right and they got what they asked for.

 

[Spitpatch]

Thats not an actual quote.

But I get it.

Not proven as not coming from him (even by the fact-checking firm's historians consulted, and as they concluded). See above.

I would place such doubt accurately in a statement such as, "Though attributed to him for decades, a recorded or written account of him saying it has yet to be discovered."

 

[Diamondback]

I have been saying for a LONG time this is a problem. A LOT of 2A people have LONG been fine with laws until one steps on them. I have long said 2A should be for ALL. If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, why are they allowed to do things like drive a car? Why are they not locked away from the rest? A LOT of gun owners are getting what they asked for and when it effects them they scream 2A,2A,2A,. Well those screaming this told lawmakers 2A was a privilege not a right and they got what they asked for.

As I said elsewhere, in the Founders' day there were three places for those considered Danger To Society: the asylum, the jail or the grave.

 

[shibbershabber]

Not proven as not coming from him (even by the fact-checking firm's historians consulted, and as they concluded). See above.

I would place such doubt accurately in a statement such as, "Though attributed to him for decades, a recorded or written account of him saying it has yet to be discovered."

Its just a silly argument as most of the world had firearms restrictions, nazis enacting gun control wouldnt have been a stand out event. After all, no one else in the world has the right to own guns

Wouldnt make sense that he would say this in 1938 as the registration laws were put in place by the Weimar government before Hitler won power.
Of course he used those registrations to disarm jews and communists and other opposition.

So, yeah that's enough proof that he didnt say it.
Plus everything was pretty well documented back then, especially speeches... So it would be pretty easy to prove, but it cant be.

Its just hype, like everything else no one like.... Its all about mUh nAzIs DiD iT

Just like the lefties out there today... Everyone is hitler, everything like what nazis did

 

[Diamondback]

Here's a better comeback for Leftists...

"There's a place for people who prefer how the rest of the world does things. It's called EVERYWHERE ELSE. Don't let the door hit ya..."

 

[Spitpatch]

Of course he used those registrations to disarm jews and communists and other opposition.

You're right. If you're not a Jew or a Communist (or homosexual, or Gypsy, etc.etc.etc,) that's not a "stand out event" at all.

So, yeah that's enough proof that he didnt say it.

You're not joined by any of the historians that looked into it.

 

[shibbershabber]

You're right. If you're not a Jew or a Communist (or homosexual, or Gypsy, etc.etc.etc,) that's not a "stand out event" at all.

You're not joined by any of the historians that looked into it.

Show me the speech where he said it.

Should be pretty easy. Historians saying they think he said it means nothing. Just more 'experts' saying whatever they think sounds good... Right up there with the experts who pushed the jabbyjab...

So, Weimar's gun control was universal and Hitler relaxed the laws for those friendly to the regime.

Neither of these are acceptable or uncommon. However, there is enough fodder out there to counter the gun control argument that we dont need to do mental gymnastics to misattribute a qutoe on gun control by an authoritarian European dictator almost 100yrs ago.

We can easily prove all sorts of things nazis did and said. But this.
Why does this have to be the hill everyone wants to die on?
Its okay to admit this quote is BS, it doesnt make you a Nazi sympathizer or anything.

But the verifyable FACT that these laws were passed BEFORE Nazis were in power and then other verifiable FACT that he used those laws to target opposition proves this..
WHY would he make a speech in 1938 boasting of a law that was passed a decade earlier by the govt he got rid of?

Not even trying to say he was pro gun or that he was a swell guy... Just that quote is BS