Supreme Court case is putting gun lobby in a jam

Instead of assuming everyone knows what 18 USC 922g is..... Would you care to share what it means with the rest of us?

 

My suggestion wasn't limited to 18 USC 922g.

I still hold that given the non-firearm rates of homicide that this us about guns, not the lives of potential victims. Even red flag laws show that. A man could threaten his wife with a knife, and under a red flag law the government will take his guns with no authority under that red flag law to take his knife.

 

I don't think that you'll find many people who oppose the enforcement of existing gun laws so what is your argument?

 

He shoulda been put in prison when he shot at a passerby while obducting his girlfriend the first time. Letting people like that wander freely in public isnt 'the gun lobby's fault, and using people like that as a strawman to infinge on the rights of anyone who is merely accused of harassment or w/e isn't going to fix anything.

Breakups can be hard. My ex accused me of everything from theft to pedophelia when she was trying to get me to abandon my home to her. If all it took was her word to make me a criminal, they'd prolly have sent me to the electric chair.

 

This. No historical analog.

 

The state does not get to violate people's rights just people it is popular to do so.

 

If a person is too dangerous to have a gun, he should be in custody.

 

Funny how often that occurs on folks ranting about "common sense gun laws".

 

The fifth amendment grants to the government the power of depriving people life, liberty, and property when they follow the due process of law. I think that Rahimi's argument and the lower court's ruling are a stretch as long as there was a court hearing at some point on the restraining order.

 

Well, there ya go. In this country, unlike Australia, the legislature has to pass a law for an act to be a crime.

 

"In short, the 5th Circuit ruled that prohibiting abusers like Rahimi from possessing firearms is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. In doing so, the court sided with abusers.

"This decision, which applies in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, is just the latest alarming development in a new era of Second Amendment cases. The new test for such cases, established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, requires the government to show that modern gun violence prevention laws are relevantly similar to historical laws.

"While this standard may initially seem benign, the fact that domestic violence primarily affects women brings up troubling questions. What would analogizing to the past look like in the case of laws preventing domestic abusers from having firearms? The past is not a particularly charitable place for all but the privileged few. Women did not write the Constitution. They could not vote. Up until the late nineteenth century, a woman’s legal identity merged with her husband, who had the right to physically punish (meaning assault) her if she disobeyed him. It is only recently that society has evolved to be less oppressive.

"The effect of allowing such a dangerous and reckless ruling to stand would be devastating; it will allow known abusers to keep their guns, and acquire more, with no regard for whether they will use these weapons to coerce, injure, and kill their victims."
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/o...act-to-protect-survivors-of-domestic-violence

Gun activists will have to choose between hypocrisy or being unsympathetic towards innocent vicitms.

 

Gun activists had no say in the decision of this case.

 

It's always the most extremely sympathetic cases that are used to set precedents to overturn established law. In the situation, it was not a person people would feel sympathy towards.

Sometimes what courts decide (and what they should decide) can be extremely situational, and not so well captured in laws or overly simplified concepts of rights.

I think most gun rights supporting judges would choose to go along with the law and take away this man's gun rights. The only issue would be what legal justification they might use to do so.

 

Until it gets to SCOTUS, I'd go with Lautenburg.

 

One of those laws makes it illegal for a prohibited person to possess a gun, unless you're Hunter Biden, of course.

 

Yep, we learned that with Miranda.
If a child molester has rights, so does a scumbag.

 

Nyet. 2nd amendment removes from the feds the ability to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
See Bruen, they'll need a law in existence at the time of the founding that is basically the same. Spoiler alert: We didn't do that in those days, so you won't find one.
Ergo: They can't do that.

 

The part I've emphasized above is a grave misunderstanding of how court cases work. You don't get to look at the parties and decide based on consequentialism.
The law says what it says, even if you don't like it.

 

Well, when the Constitution arguably conflicts with the law, consequentialism very much does rule the day. Especially when it comes to the Supreme Court, they have very often sought legal or Constitutional excuses for the decision they want to make in that case. Sometimes this sets unintentional and unforeseen precedent.

In some theoretical sense, yes the courts are supposed to uphold legal principles. That is often not the reality in these type of cases however.

 

The possibilities...
One, he was awaiting trial for the 2019 incident, and therefore should not have had a gun. (Unlikely, but covid threw everything into chaos so it's possible.)
Two, the DA plead down to a misdemeanor, in which case the DA is at fault.
Three, he was guilty of a felony and thus ALREADY prohibited from having a gun.

 

Law's being repealed because they are repugnant to the constitution is called originalism.
Consequentialism is when you say "which practical outcome do I want/ which party do I like more?"
Please try to use proper terms properly.

Not in any theoretical sense: That's their only purpose or acceptable action. They have a right to use their power to override laws which do not conform to the constitution. They do not have a right to use their power to override laws which they think effect a party they like in a manner they don't approve of, despite the being constitutional.

 

The constitution is a pitfall if interpreted outside the context of the Declaration of Independence. That is the difference between originalism and consequentialism.

 

What SCOTUS decisions have been based on the Declaration of Independence?

 

I'd have to google it. But I can assure you the SCOTUS has considered the influence of the Declaration before.

 

As far as I am aware, the words, "everybody has the right to a gun," or "nobody may be restricted from owning a firearm," do not appear, in the Constitution. Instead, the 2nd Amendment speaks of "a well regulated militia." Could not a militia, regulate its own membership? If not, it would not be very "well regulated."