SCOTUs has another gun case, and it should be interesting

[archives]

”The U.S. is seeking a double standard on guns“

“Should the government be able to deny the right to own a gun to someone under a protective order because a judge has found that he poses a direct threat of violence to his domestic partner? The Supreme Court will take up that question on Tuesday, reviewing a lower-court decision”

“
The case concerns Zackey Rahimi, a man who should not be permitted anywhere near a gun. Rahimi was subjected to a protective order after dragging his partner across a parking lot, violently throwing her into his car and then firing a gun in the air when he saw that a bystander had witnessed his actions. He later called his partner and threatened to shoot her. After a protective order was issued, he violated the order multiple times, threatened another woman with a gun and fired his gun in public on five separate occasions over a two-month period”

“New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2022 case in which the Supreme Court held that laws restricting gun rights today are unconstitutional unless they closely match laws in place at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. In Bruen, the court invalidated a 100-year-old New York law requiring people to show a specific need to obtain a license to carry a gun in public.”

“Rahimi’s defense reasoned that because there were no laws denying guns to people under domestic-violence protective orders at the time of the framing, they are unconstitutional today”

“There are no direct precedents for denying guns to people under domestic-violence protective orders from the founding era”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/06/us-government-gun-rights-restrictions-rahimi/

In the Founders era women were considered second class citizens, wives were husbands’ property, marital rape was a husband’s privilege, and women did not have the right to vote, serve on juries, or other civic duties.

So how does Thomas and Scalia decide given there is no historical evidence of barring people from owning guns due to the possibility domestic violence against women?

The legitimacy of the entire Originalism theory could be put to a test

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It's my fear that a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,
even by a qualified SCOTUS
as opposed to the current psychotic one,
would suggest that everybody without exception,
including insane asylum patients,
has unrestricted access to firearms.

What's more, the process to amend the constitution
is totally useless
as it requires more consensus
than this polarized nation will ever have again.

Consequently, there is no solution to perpetual gun violence
short of dissolving the republic
and doing a better job
with the multiple new nations that replace it.

 

[Yakuda]

”The U.S. is seeking a double standard on guns“

“Should the government be able to deny the right to own a gun to someone under a protective order because a judge has found that he poses a direct threat of violence to his domestic partner? The Supreme Court will take up that question on Tuesday, reviewing a lower-court decision”

“
The case concerns Zackey Rahimi, a man who should not be permitted anywhere near a gun. Rahimi was subjected to a protective order after dragging his partner across a parking lot, violently throwing her into his car and then firing a gun in the air when he saw that a bystander had witnessed his actions. He later called his partner and threatened to shoot her. After a protective order was issued, he violated the order multiple times, threatened another woman with a gun and fired his gun in public on five separate occasions over a two-month period”

“New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2022 case in which the Supreme Court held that laws restricting gun rights today are unconstitutional unless they closely match laws in place at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. In Bruen, the court invalidated a 100-year-old New York law requiring people to show a specific need to obtain a license to carry a gun in public.”

“Rahimi’s defense reasoned that because there were no laws denying guns to people under domestic-violence protective orders at the time of the framing, they are unconstitutional today”

“There are no direct precedents for denying guns to people under domestic-violence protective orders from the founding era”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/06/us-government-gun-rights-restrictions-rahimi/

In the Founders era women were considered second class citizens, wives were husbands’ property, marital rape was a husband’s privilege, and women did not have the right to vote, serve on juries, or other civic duties.

So how does Thomas and Scalia decide given there is no historical evidence of barring people from owning guns due to the possibility domestic violence against women?

The legitimacy of the entire Originalism theory could be put to a test

None of that means you could murder a woman. The only real problem here is how and who decides what is a "direct threat of violence".

 

[SmarterthanYou]

if one can't be trusted in public with a weapon, then one can't be trusted in public. Therefore, this asshole should have been kept in a cell until his trial, convicted, and served a sentence, and THEN a complete psych eval to ensure that he's no longer a threat, or he can stay in a cell the rest of his life.

 

[archives]

It's my fear that a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,
even by a qualified SCOTUS
as opposed to the current psychotic one,
would suggest that everybody without exception,
including insane asylum patients,
has unrestricted access to firearms.

What's more, the process to amend the constitution
is totally useless
as it requires more consensus
than this polarized nation will ever have again.

Consequently, there is no solution to perpetual gun violence
short of dissolving the republic
and doing a better job
with the multiple new nations that replace it.

Not the way Supreme Courts prior to this one decided on gun cases, for the most part, they never accepted them given no one had ever definitively defined what the prefatory clause meant, Scalia felt because they couldn’t that gave him to just ignore it and move on to the second part of the Amendment

And you don’t have to ban guns or confiscate guns, rather regulate them, at least treat them like we do vehicles to include liability insurance, doable, no Constitutional right is absolute, they are all regulated

 

[archives]

None of that means you could murder a woman. The only real problem here is how and who decides what is a "direct threat of violence".

Interesting, you are arguing the consideration of safety, which puts you in direct conflict with the gun huggers who claim the right is absolute regardless

 

[archives]

if one can't be trusted in public with a weapon, then one can't be trusted in public. Therefore, this asshole should have been kept in a cell until his trial, convicted, and served a sentence, and THEN a complete psych eval to ensure that he's no longer a threat, or he can stay in a cell the rest of his life.

You going to jail everyone who makes a threat? And just like your comrade above you are arguing the consideration of public safety argument that runs counter to everything else you echo regarding gun rights

 

[Yakuda]

Interesting, you are arguing the consideration of safety, which puts you in direct conflict with the gun huggers who claim the right is absolute regardless

Well since I own 6 weapons I guess I'm a "gun hugger" but the real problem of how and who decides what constitutes a "direct threat of violence" remains unanswered.

 

[archives]

Well since I own 6 weapons I guess I'm a "gun hugger" but the real problem of how and who decides what constitutes a "direct threat of violence" remains unanswered.

Not according to Thomas’s Originalism logic, if the Founders didn’t consider threats to women serious, it doesn’t matter what you or anyone thinks is a “direct threat of violence” toward women

 

[archives]

above are a couple of unintelligent arguments from two unintelligent Righties. The Court heard arguments today and seems poised to issue a sensible ruling



"The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared inclined to uphold a federal statute that forbids people who are the subject of domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.

"Justices on both sides of the court’s ideological divide seemed to think the Second Amendment does not keep legislatures from restricting firearm possession after some sort of court finding that a person is dangerous. During oral arguments Tuesday morning, some of the justices suggested they did not have to go much further than that to decide the case at hand."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/07/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence-rahimi/

Have to wait and see the majority opinion, to see how they rule that the right to a gun isn’t absolute, especially since there is no historical evidence to show the Founders banned weapons from those threatening women. Going to be interesting

 

[Yakuda]

Not according to Thomas’s Originalism logic, if the Founders didn’t consider threats to women serious, it doesn’t matter what you or anyone thinks is a “direct threat of violence” toward women

I didn't mention threats. Try reading with comprehension

 

[archives]

Well,”who decides what constitutes a "direct threat of violence” sure looks like you said threats

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Not the way Supreme Courts prior to this one decided on gun cases, for the most part, they never accepted them given no one had ever definitively defined what the prefatory clause meant, Scalia felt because they couldn’t that gave him to just ignore it and move on to the second part of the Amendment

And you don’t have to ban guns or confiscate guns, rather regulate them, at least treat them like we do vehicles to include liability insurance, doable, no Constitutional right is absolute, they are all regulated

That makes sense to me, but there are many you won't convince.

They'll tell you that the right to drive a motor vehicle isn't constitutionally guaranteed,
so the comparison is invalid.

 

[RB 60]

Well since I own 6 weapons I guess I'm a "gun hugger" but the real problem of how and who decides what constitutes a "direct threat of violence" remains unanswered.

OMG! I own a couple dozen, but I did sell a few (bathroom is next project). Yes, what would a "direct threat of violence" be and who, or what will enforce it?
We have a squealing coward screaming red flag about a few members on this forum, none of whom pose a threat of violence. He should be sued for slander.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You going to jail everyone who makes a threat? And just like your comrade above you are arguing the consideration of public safety argument that runs counter to everything else you echo regarding gun rights

breaking this down in to its most simplistic terms does not make your argument. This guy already assaulted the woman, recklessly endangered people by firing in the air, DIRECTLY threatening a good samaritan who tried to intervene, and repeatedly violated a court order while repeatedly threatening the girl in question...........how many laws were broken and this guy was still free? the government failed everyone here.

your attempt at reversing the argument on me was lame and pathetic as well. would this individual, who isn't my 'comrade' BTW, have reacted more civilly if he had to face another person with a weapon?????? would the woman in question have been able to effectively defend herself with her own firearm, or at least avoided the conflict altogether??

 

[RB 60]

That makes sense to me, but there are many you won't convince.

They'll tell you that the right to drive a motor vehicle isn't constitutionally guaranteed,
so the comparison is invalid.

I am one she won't convince. I have no intent on paying insurance on the guns I don't use, especially when they are locked up.

Yep. she keeps throwing that automobile insurance shit out, but it ain't gonna stick.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Have to wait and see the majority opinion, to see how they rule that the right to a gun isn’t absolute, especially since there is no historical evidence to show the Founders banned weapons from those threatening women. Going to be interesting

If this court has any Constitutional integrity, they will opine that there is an absolute right, up to and including machine guns, because there is no historical evidence to show 'weapons of war' shouldn't be in civilian hands. This whole 'govt is supposed to protect us' bullshit needs to be tossed aside and force people to take responsibility for their own safety again.

 

[domer76]

”The U.S. is seeking a double standard on guns“

“Should the government be able to deny the right to own a gun to someone under a protective order because a judge has found that he poses a direct threat of violence to his domestic partner? The Supreme Court will take up that question on Tuesday, reviewing a lower-court decision”

“
The case concerns Zackey Rahimi, a man who should not be permitted anywhere near a gun. Rahimi was subjected to a protective order after dragging his partner across a parking lot, violently throwing her into his car and then firing a gun in the air when he saw that a bystander had witnessed his actions. He later called his partner and threatened to shoot her. After a protective order was issued, he violated the order multiple times, threatened another woman with a gun and fired his gun in public on five separate occasions over a two-month period”

“New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2022 case in which the Supreme Court held that laws restricting gun rights today are unconstitutional unless they closely match laws in place at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. In Bruen, the court invalidated a 100-year-old New York law requiring people to show a specific need to obtain a license to carry a gun in public.”

“Rahimi’s defense reasoned that because there were no laws denying guns to people under domestic-violence protective orders at the time of the framing, they are unconstitutional today”

“There are no direct precedents for denying guns to people under domestic-violence protective orders from the founding era”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/06/us-government-gun-rights-restrictions-rahimi/

In the Founders era women were considered second class citizens, wives were husbands’ property, marital rape was a husband’s privilege, and women did not have the right to vote, serve on juries, or other civic duties.

So how does Thomas and Scalia decide given there is no historical evidence of barring people from owning guns due to the possibility domestic violence against women?

The legitimacy of the entire Originalism theory could be put to a test

Our Supreme Court. Heads still stuck in the 18th century.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Our Supreme Court. Heads still stuck in the 18th century.

why do you hate freedom?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I am one she won't convince. I have no intent on paying insurance on the guns I don't use, especially when they are locked up.

Yep. she keeps throwing that automobile insurance shit out, but it ain't gonna stick.

Even if it did, you wouldn't be paying insurance on unused cars that were locked up.

Whether or not I agree with the 2nd Amendment, it pretty much gives a carte blanche for any Americans
to have unfettered access to purchasing firearms.

"Shall not be abridged" doesn't have a lot of possible meanings.