Writes Adam Liptak, in "Supreme Court Seems Likely to Uphold Law Disarming Domestic Abusers/The potential sweep of a decision could extend far beyond domestic abuse by clarifying the scope of the court’s ruling last year that vastly expanded gun rights" (NYT).
Mr. Wright said he would “want to know what ‘dangerous person’ means.”
Chief Justice Roberts supplied a definition. “It means someone who is shooting at people,” he said. “That’s a good start.”
Mr. Wright retreated. “That’s fair,” he said. ...
Chief Justice Roberts... said: “I understand your answer to say that there will be circumstances where someone could be shown to be sufficiently dangerous that the firearm can be taken from him. And why isn’t that the end of the case?”
पोस्ट्स
४३ टिप्पण्या:
Roberts has become a pawn in a game he thinks he controls. Now all they’ll have to do is broadly define domestic abuse.
Lawfare is not about upholding the law but using the legal system to undermine the Constitution.
The problem is man.
There is reason the 2cnd amendment exists. A reason for the Bill of Rights. Power will always be abused.
No one wants to talk about 1.4 million illegal 702 FISA searches on US citizens... and no punishment for those breaking the law?
SCOTUS should not be determining what is "reasonable" violation of the Constitution
This quickly devolves to people on the right screaming about elections need to be disarmed. Because.
There was never any debate that the government could disarm or imprison dangerous people (i.e., this case). The main concern is that anti-gun Red Flag laws and similar gun efforts may sidestep due process. There are legitimate ways to disarm people already on the books. The DOJ/Biden seem to want to broadly disarm non-violent people merely because they have guns. Never mind that these people also have kitchen knives, gasoline, matches, cars, ropes, baseball bats, and many other ways of causing mayhem. Never mind that they might buy an illegal stolen gun.
The real question: Are these laws a gun control shell-game or sincere safety efforts?
This is a post where we get to see how extreme and far from the mainstream are commenters here. The public is in favor of such restrictions by over 90%. So stop pretending you represent the typical normal person out there.
This is a post where we get to see how extreme and far from the mainstream are commenters here. The public is in favor of such restrictions by over 90%. So stop pretending you represent the typical normal person out there.
Shall not be infringed…within reason.
I'm surprised at how this is going. Given that there are virtually no procedural safeguards for domestic violence restraining orders (it's not an adversarial proceeding--the accused doesn't even have the right to know it's happening), finding that such an order is enough to take away someone's right to bear arms seems totally out of step with recent court posture on the 2nd Amendment.
Such a ruling would be interpreted and used by opponents of the 2A to destroy it. Give them millimeters and they'll take kilometers.
Nonetheless it's not like people would comply anyway. Compliance with this gangster government is over.
It was a terrible test case for the gun-rights side. The guy had a history of shooting at stuff he didn't like, and so there was a genuine evidentiary basis for concern.
We prefer not to "represent the typical normal person". Better to be thoughtful.
The public is in favor of such restrictions by over 90%. So stop pretending you represent the typical normal person out there.
Two immediate thoughts:
1. How was the question asked? We all know polls can be and often are designed to elicit a particular answer. For instance - you could ask, "Should an abusive husband who has threatened to kill his wife be allowed to have a gun?" or "Should a man who has been accused by his wife of abuse be allowed to buy a gun?" or "Should a man whose wife sought a restraining order during divorce proceedings have his potentially dangerous possessions, such as a car or a gun, confiscated by the government?" Each of these is going to skew the answer.
2. What gives you the idea that representing the "typical normal person" is the proper standard, either for pro-2A comments here or for the Supreme Court?
And one more thought, this time about the NYT framing: "the court's ruling last year that vastly expanded gun rights." How do you "vastly expand" "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"? That's pretty darn expansive right there.
A well-regulated militia...
Just wait, once the libs pack the court, they will regulate the dog piss out of the militia, which is everybody. First, they came for the Black panther party and I said nothing. Next they came for the wife beaters and I did nothing to support them. Soon they will come after the crazy people and I will be silent...
domestic abusers >> many political leaders fit that description wrt their constituents
jim5301 said...
"This is a post where we get to see how extreme and far from the mainstream are commenters here. The public is in favor of such restrictions by over 90%. So stop pretending you represent the typical normal person out there."
You seem to be laboring under the impression that this is a democracy and the majority gets to regulate,(one definition), everyones rights. Sorry. No. Our right exist 'sine imperio'. They are individual rights. Not collective rights.
"A well regulated militia" In 1780 the word "regulated" meant more than it does today. In this instance it means more like qualified or ready to it's job. Much like in old movies when you saw a clock on the wall and it said "regulated". Which meant it was qualified to give the correct time. That's what it means.
The National Guard is not the militia. The National Guard was created by an act of congress in 1905. The milia predates the National Guard by more than a hundred years.
A ruling in favor of disarming people will only give one more tool to the left to falsly claim that they are being harrassed and need to have their alleged harrasser disarmed. Much like they do with SWATTING.
Blogger jim5301 said...
This is a post where we get to see how extreme and far from the mainstream are commenters here. The public is in favor of such restrictions by over 90%. So stop pretending you represent the typical normal person out there.
jim 1234 has his finger on the pulse of the public, at least he thinks so. jim1234 has never been accused by an ex-wife of something that never happened. Reading about the St Louis family court scandals would be good for you.
"A well regulated militia" In 1780 the word "regulated" meant more than it does today. In this instance it means more like qualified or ready to it's job.
Be very careful what you wish for in terms of regulated. Ready could include your PT qualifications, BMI and vaccination status. Readiness would definitely include your mental state. Readiness would definitely include inspecting your weapons maintenance, cleanliness and annual range qualification.
I'm sure you are intimately familiar and directly experienced with all of these readiness standards required of personnel in the United States military, Rusty.
The federal government has barely scratched the surface regulating the ready to serve status of the militia, which is everybody, in the manner in which you alluded. It is quite a bit of work to ensure that a human collective such as an armed militia is ready to function like a Swiss watch.
I had a tenant move into our cottage because of marital problems. Spouse claimed abuse. They took his guns away. He was a firearms instructor. Impeded his earning capacity. She was lying. How do I know? She said so. They are now a loving couple. Did I mention that she was cheating on him during this adventure.
im5301 said...
"This is a post where we get to see how extreme and far from the mainstream are commenters here. The public is in favor of such restrictions by over 90%. So stop pretending you represent the typical normal person out there."
**********
This is also a post where we get to see how some stupid people forget the Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document.
That's one reason why we are not governed nationally by a mere show of hands of the citizenry.
You must be a milk-whiskered kid.
(and btw: where did you get that 90% bullshit?)
Howard said...
"A well regulated militia" In 1780 the word "regulated" meant more than it does today. In this instance it means more like qualified or ready to it's job.
Be very careful what you wish for in terms of regulated.
Facts aren't wishes.
You're thinking of the Minute Men. It has nothing to do with readiness. What it has to do with is that, when called upon, you have the equipment needed to do the job and are capable of handling the equipment.
A well regulated militia will always have their pronouns in order.
This is a dream case for the gun-grabbers, isn't it? On the one hand we have the glorious abstraction of the Second Amendment to support a claim that one may keep and bear arms. On the other hand we have an urgent! claim! of imminent harm! by a certified nutcase! with a history of shooting at people for no good reason!
To hell with due process.
History and tradition decidedly (and unjustly) favor the domestic violence perpetrator, so it was only fair the 5th Circuit handed the Supreme Court this case. Now we’ll see how far the bad behavior goes. My prediction is that the Five or Six will find some way to rule that some domestic violence perpetrators get to keep their guns. If the standard they adopt is credible threat, then the prosecution of Hunter Biden for possessing a gun while being a drug abuser will also become untenable, right?
How it came to pass in the last 50 or 60 years that some gun owners feel they have to carry their guns with them at all times is worthy of study, as there certainly was no widespread history or tradition of that. Extreme 2A has become an identity. Extreme 2As need their guns to complete their identify, and the possibility that they might be deprived of that part of their identify by a court order is psychologically troubling to them.
Normalizing domestic violence orders for “lawful” gun owners is only the next step on the Extreme 2A agenda. How solid is the history and tradition for depriving convicted felons of gun rights? Poor G. Gordon Liddy, he lost his gun rights for conspiracy, burglary, and illegal wiretapping - without a showing of a credible threat of doing violent harm to other people.
Looks to me that the federal law in question has somewhat reasonable allowances for due process despite claims that it doesn't. The language below describes the person who would lose gun rights:
"(8) who is subject to a court order that-
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury"
To paraphrase Obama: we're all "complicit' in domestic violence.
@Tim Maguire wrote, “there are virtually no procedural safeguards for domestic violence restraining orders (it's not an adversarial proceeding--the accused doesn't even have the right to know it's happening)”— This is highly misleading. Yes, a judge might issue an ex parte temporary restraining order or order of protection, but the respondent always has the right to challenge that. He can contest the order and ask for a hearing at which he would have the right to present evidence and challenge the petitioner’s evidence. That hearing usually must be held within 30 days. In that hearing, the petitioner would bear the burden of proof. So for a short period, the respondent might be subject to an order of protection that was entered without his knowledge or participation, but he can contest that, if he wants. Often, the respondent does not contest the order, as in the Rahimi case, because he knows he has no case. In any case, it’s false to say that defendants don’t get due process in this context.
>>The federal government has barely scratched the surface regulating the ready to serve status of the militia
The historical meaning of well regulated was orderly and efficient, not "subject to hundreds of federal regulations."
And, as the USSC has made clear, there is an individual right to own firearms.
I'm sure you are intimately familiar and directly experienced with all of these readiness standards required of personnel in the United States military, Rusty.
The federal government has barely scratched the surface regulating the ready to serve status of the militia, which is everybody, in the manner in which you alluded. It is quite a bit of work to ensure that a human collective such as an armed militia is ready to function like a Swiss watch.
What part of 'milia' are you failing to grasp?
It isn't designed to function like a swiss watch. Not even the famous Swiss militia is designed work like a swiss watch. A milia is there to provide bodies to take the brunt of an initial onslaught until the regular army can be deployed. Just like in our revolutionary war.
One more time:
Watch these people reverse themselves if they are met with the punishments they want to mete out if they are found to be falsely accusing.
Same in divorce court. You falsely claim he abused his kids and you're found to be lying: Bam! Momma loses all custody and does time.
If you don't punish bearing false witness, you cripple if not negate all preceding laws.
One of Heinlein's interesting ideas was the professional witness. "This side of the house is white."
More of that level of factual presentation.
The public is in favor of such restrictions by over 90%.
Good thing we live in a Constitutional Republic, rather than, a Democracy.
If your made up number was real, the 2cnd amendment would have been overturned by amendment.
Such a "burden"... uh, burden. Disarm them with plausible or probable cause? Wrong thread.
Presumed guilty until contested and demonstrated otherwise. Meanwhile, no scalpels, no vacuums, and other weapons of domestic abuse perchance abortion.
How it came to pass in the last 50 or 60 years that some gun owners feel they have to carry their guns with them at all times is worthy of study, as there certainly was no widespread history or tradition of that.
Good lord. The history and tradition of carrying guns was widespread until the last 50 or 60 years.
"This is a post where we get to see how extreme and far from the mainstream are commenters here. The public is in favor of such restrictions by over 90%. So stop pretending you represent the typical normal person out there."
The public supports it because it sounds good. Who wouldn't want to take guns away from dangerous people? I like red flags laws in theory, but the devil is in the details. I see too much potential for abuse.
Before we pass laws, we should always ask, "How could this be abused? What could a dictator do with this law?"
Well, Rusty you were the one who brought up regulate in terms of the functioning of a clock.
In any event, the point is that any future Court can use the word regulate in the second amendment to do whatever they want to do politically.
With my luck, any (unjust) action brought against me would be adjudicated by Judge Engoron. Someone tell me that Engoron is an outlier in the American judicial community! Anyone?
That's wish casting by the Left.
SCOTUS may be willing to find this particular guy is a douchenozle
But having read the transcripts, they're not going to be willing to find that an ex-parte hearing is an appropriate place to take away peoples Constitutional rights
Rabel said...
Looks to me that the federal law in question has somewhat reasonable allowances for due process despite claims that it doesn't. The language below describes the person who would lose gun rights:
"(8) who is subject to a court order that-
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury"
Either you're a moron or a scum bag.
Because NOTHING in that law requires that the plaintiff to have made ANY sort of case that the individual receiving the order has actually done anything such that (s)he NEEDS to be ordered not to do those things.
No "proof that teh recipient of the order has stalked", not "proof that the recipient of the order has threatened", simply that after a "he said, she said" hearing, the judge issued an order.
Not good enough, and no one sane would think it was good enough
This is a post where we get to see how extreme and far from the mainstream are commenters here. The public is in favor of such restrictions by over 90%. So stop pretending you represent the typical normal person out there."
The normal person has no idea how abused DV orders are. They are issued in a single sided process where the subject has no right to defend themselves and are routinely issued as a matter of course in marital disputes. Unless you're going to significantly alter the process for which they are issued, they are a very poor basis for stripping people of their constitutional rights.
The neat thing about laws that violate fundamental, enumerated constitutional rights is that they can be passed in a moment, at absolutely zero cost to the legislators voting for them. Then it takes years or decades of litigation and millions of dollars in lawyer fees to overturn them.
Rinse and repeat, and gun control (or speech control, or press censorship, or government favoring one race over others, and so on) is easy to enact into law and keep going, despite blatant unconstitutional infringements of individual rights.
Stop acting like the Supreme Court is a legislative body. It is a court that adjudicates the application and constitutionality of laws. If the domestic violence loss of gun rights is upheld, many other misdemeanor legal violations will be proposed to also remove gun rights. Why not voting Republican as a disqualifier for gun ownership? And if the law is overturned, six different variants of it will be enacted in New York, New Jersey and California before the ink is dry on the decision.
Howard said...
"Well, Rusty you were the one who brought up regulate in terms of the functioning of a clock."
And I qualified that by stating, "equiped to do the job." Not trained to do the job.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा