“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/opini...ctions-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, Scalia, and the other Justices 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

 

Laws do nothing to protect the innocent. Why would someone willing to risk the penalty for committing murder have an issue violating a gun law? Just like the crackhead will always find crack, violent people will always find a way to harm others. This guy committed assault and fired a weapon in the air. He should be separated from society.

At the same time, if a woman is in fear of a violent ex, she can go to a gun store and wait 10 days. Gun laws favor criminals.

 

Highlighted in red: At the risk of sounding overly critical, this logic is stupid. How could anyone come to such a conclusion? OR, we could say that the fire arm at the time of framing was a muzzle loader, so all other guns would not fall under the 2nd amendment.

 

That ^ is very confusing. I always thought criminal law was at least designed to protect the innocent, certainly not the guilty, and those prone to violence may find a way to harm others but we don’t have to make it easy for them, especially easier to hurt lots of people

 

That was the center logic to Thomas’s majority opinion in the Bruen ruling, follows according to the Scalia’s theory of Originalism. I agree it is inane, but so are many of the Judges’ opinions, how corporations are people still baffles me

 

Unfortunately, human life is delicate and ending life will always be easy. Gun laws make it easier for killers, rapists, and terrorists.

 

No, guns do, and providing hurdles to accessing guns makes it less likely, the same reason crack isn’t done by more people other than crackheads

 

that logic fails unless you think the first amendment only protects handwritten letters, speeches made without the aid of microphones or texts printed on hand operated presses.

 

who is more likely to be disarmed by one of those obstacles

1) those who obey the laws
2) those who already violate laws by possessing and using firearms

 

look up the difference between laws punishing Malum per se offenses versus malum prohibitum statutes

 

Idk what the solution is and a lot of people on the right are going to get mad at this but we have way too many guns and way too many crazies. Not a good combination.

 

That is my point exactly. The constitution cannot be applied only in the time it was written. Even the 2nd amendment isn't really clear, as it only says "arms", not "fire arms", so I could argue it means to allow someone to be armed, as with a sword. The constitution was written at a different time, which means we have to interpret it in contemporary times. What I thought was ridiculous was applying the language in it's original intent. Obviously the constitution can't be applied that way.

 

Where do those "who already violate laws by possessing and using firearms" get them?

 

Exactly! The Bruen ruling, so loved and often touted by the unlimited gun rights bunch, was lousy law, pure & simple. How ridiculous a notion, that laws need not change, over centuries, to keep up with changing times.

There is a decent chance that the Court will go the other way, and affirm the existing law, in this case. The question is, as you ask, will the staunchest conservatives go along with that, or do they end up in the minority, for this one? And if they join the majority, how do they possibly rectify this, with the preposterous standard they'd postulated, in Bruen?

 

there is a different between the state of the art and the right. the federal government was never given ANY power to regulate privately owned arms owned by private citizens acting in their private capacity

 

doesn't matter and that is not an answer to my question

I suspect you didn't answer it because the answer is obvious and harmful to the anti gun position

 

don't like it-AMEND THE CONSTITUTION

 

and we have yet to see any "solutions" that actually are both constitutional and will disarm "crazies"

 

I don't think so.

Setting aside the question why Rahimi isn't in jail instead of free under a protective order (???), the fact remains that the 2A applies to law abiding citizens, so I wouldn't be surprised if the SCOTUS ruled against Rahimi. I don't think his argument has any merit or relevance to the Bruen case which involved requiring people to show a specific need to obtain a license to carry a gun in public. Apples and accordions....

 

one of the pro gun rights think tank that I get briefings from stated up front that Rhahimi is a piss poor representative of gun rights and shouldn't have a gun but they oppose the law as written because it disarms lots of far better people-often without due process rights. It's ridiculous easy for a pissed of spouse-usually female but not always-to get a RO against their estranged mate.

 

I definitely can see how due process issues could present a problem, so I wonder if we'll see a very narrow ruling in this case.

What do you think the Court is likely to rule here?

 

I have always thought that when the Founders wrote the 2A, “the right of the people …” meant law abiding people.

So yes. If a person is not peaceful and law abiding, guns may be taken away to protect society.

 

Well said. One wonders why people think criminals will obey laws. The purpose of laws is to provide reaction and punishment fo and for crimes.

 

Where is that the law? Certainly not in my state or many others. Just curious how many states have such a ridiculous law.

 

• California – 10 days15
• Colorado – 3 days (Effective October 1, 2023)16
• District of Columbia – 10 days17
• Florida – 3 days or the time it takes to complete required background checks, whichever occurs later18
• Hawaii – 14 days19
• Illinois – 72 hours20
• Rhode Island – 7 days21
• Vermont – 72 hours22
• Washington – 10 business days23

These states require a waiting period for all firearm purchases. MN, MD and NJ have a waiting period for some firearms.