SCOTUs has another gun case, and it should be interesting

[archives]

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.

Of course it isn’t, not saying it is, but if the SCOTUS rules here that those threatening violence can be denied a gun aren’t they confirm that the right to own a gun is not absolute, that it can be regulated?

 

[archives]

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??

Appears the whole issue at hand went right over “stone’s” head, let’s try it again

In Bruen, Thomas, authoring the majority opinion, wrote that NY could not make a person show proof of why he needed to carry because going back to the Founders there was no example of anyone being barred from carrying guns, pure Originalism, telling us what the Founders thought, kinda like you do often

And now they have a case infront of them where one with a history of domestic violence is being denied a gun due to the safety of his female companion. So if the Founders never even considered women as full citizens, and the thought at the time was that husbands owned their wives, meaning domestic violence wasn’t considered threatening, wouldn’t they have to rule that this dimwit can not be denied a gun?

If they don’t, aren’t they flat out contradicting themselves? Admitting gun rights are not absolute and can be regulated? And your supposed perspective into the Founders thinking of two hundred dred years ago is sketchy at best?

 

[archives]

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.

So what happens to the auto you have that you registered for, and took obtained a license to use, if you let your auto insurance expire? Especially if you are out driving it and get into an accident where a person in the other car is physically injured?

And that is how it will work

 

[archives]

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.

Bet you anything they won’t, being 100% political, after their decision on abortion the last thing Roberts wants is his Court being seen as inconsiderate of women, turning the Court back to the time of the Founders and their views on women

 

[archives]

why do you hate freedom?

Here we go with the “freedom” crap again, how many times have I told you freedom is an abstract concept, not a bumper sticker cliche, rights are based on reason not desire, didn’t you ever notice you gave up the freedom to drive on the left handed side of the road for a reason

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Of course it isn’t, not saying it is, but if the SCOTUS rules here that those threatening violence can be denied a gun aren’t they confirm that the right to own a gun is not absolute, that it can be regulated?

Perhaps and possibly so, but they would not be conservative constitutional literalist literalists in doing so;
"shall not be abridged" is really easy to understand.

The founders were clearly amused at the idea of us capping one another's asses,
sane and crazy people alike. It must have been routine behavior back then,
and it certainly is now.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

 

[archives]

Maybe not, but there isn't doubt someone in the community regarded a threat to public safety would have had his firearm taken away. The Court didn't bind itself to exact precedent from Colonial era case law.

But the “Colonial era case” set the precedent regarding who can possess guns, and it is the argument you see gun advocates professing endlessly. If they decide in favor of public safety, which is the common sense solution, they somewhat contradicted themselves, and verified that it is not an absolute right, public safety would be a consideration

 

[Uncensored2008]

”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

Arachnid, isn't firing a gun and violently attacking a person a felonious act?

Isn't the real issue the refusal of prosecutors to apply laws on the book that would see Zackey Rahimi in prison as a felon and thus prohibited from owning a gun? As always, the arguments of you of the anti-liberty left are spurious and designed to attack the law abiding.

 

[Uncensored2008]

...

Oh look, the lizard is telling slanderous lies again..

If you were ever to be truthful, would you burst into flames or something?

 

[archives]

Arachnid, isn't firing a gun and violently attacking a person a felonious act?

Isn't the real issue the refusal of prosecutors to apply laws on the book that would see Zackey Rahimi in prison as a felon and thus prohibited from owning a gun? As always, the arguments of you of the anti-liberty left are spurious and designed to attack the law abiding.

Ah, no, the case infront of the Robert’s Court is about denying a person with a history of threats of domestic violence from possessing a gun

If you are going to exchange at least know what the issue under discussion is

 

[martin]

But the “Colonial era case” set the precedent regarding who can possess guns, and it is the argument you see gun advocates professing endlessly. If they decide in favor of public safety, which is the common sense solution, they somewhat contradicted themselves, and verified that it is not an absolute right, public safety would be a consideration

The justices acknowledged more flexibility than is coming from many of the commentators. But, yeah, I agree, the law badly needs clarification. Hopefully this case causes the Court to give it that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ah, no, the case infront of the Robert’s Court is about denying a person with a history of threats of domestic violence from possessing a gun

Yet you brought up Rahimi who doesn't have a history of threats, but instead actual acts of violence and public endangerment using a firearm.

If you are going to exchange at least know what the issue under discussion is

I'm well aware of the case.

What the Biden DOI is arguing is that anyone the state or federal government deems "irresponsible" can be denied constitutional rights. Garland's thugs are trying to leverage the openly felonious acts or Rahimi to deny civil rights to those who have committed no crimes.

Should SCOTUS rule the way you want, it could be bad news for Hunter Biden, BTW.

 

[Into the Night]

”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

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun.
This is not 'originalism'. It is the Constitution of the United States as it stands today. It is the constitutions of the various States as they stand today.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

SCOTUS has no authority to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

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".

No such limitation is specified anywhere in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment has no such limitation.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Bingo.

 

[Into the Night]

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

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit guns. It doesn't matter if your limitations are 'regulations'. It is unconstitutional to require insurance for them. The right of self defense is absolute. The right of weapons is absolute.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

There is no such limitation in the 2nd amendment or anywhere in the Constitution.
WHO decides 'direct threat of violence'?? You?? Me?? And on what basis? Gut reaction??

 

[Into the Night]

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/

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution.