but don't hold yer breath
Thanks for posting this.
These justices are charlatans. They know how they’re voting. They ask questions to appear impartial. Except for Thomas, who I hold in the highest esteem. :-)
How did they get around this for the millions of law enforcement and military?
SCOTUS ping.
My hope for the just (and Constitutional) outcome is slim.
I'm gonna go with a "no" on some of those, but if the Wide Latina request a demo, she's on her own.
but don't hold yer breath
I thought United States v. Hayes desided the misdemeanor was sufficient.
Can someone tell me what’s different here?
Great. Another opportunity for the political hacks in black muumuus to decide what the Constitution says this week.
...The People’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”
This is another law where you are guilty until proven innocent. Just like orders of protection.
Wifey gets pissed at you during a divorce and you are finished. Look at your neighbor cross eyed and he files an OOP on you and the cops are at your door to take your guns and your neighbor doesn’t even have to show up in court. DUI, guns taken away.
Then try and get your guns back from the police.
But federal military gun issues aside, regulating guns for ordinary citizens is a 10th Amendment protected power, imo, such power now limited by 2nd Amendment applied to states via 14th Amendment.
In fact, since Congress has 14A power only to make laws which strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights, including 2A protected gun rights, Congress is arguably limited to making gun laws for ordinary citizens which strengthen their gun rights.
On the other hand, since federal gun laws are not an issue in this case, it's actually up to voters to spur their state lawmakers to make gun laws which reasonably limit gun rights with respect to the example of this case. Letting the Supreme Court decide this case just gives activist justices an opportunity to unconstitutonally expand federal government powers imo.
In fact, I find it disturbing that federal gun laws for ordinary citizens seem to have appeared in the books during the FDR era when socialist FDR and corrupt Congress blatantly ignored the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
Active Duty ping.
Domestic violence, that thing the state can bring charges against anyone on behalf of anyone even if no one has made a complaint.
What convenience for the nanny state agenda to hold others to standards the state itself would never follow...
They took an expectedly polluted case, when they should have heard the Emerson case instead (which they refused). People with restraining orders against them (no conviction required—only an allegation) are also subject to the mandatory 5-year federal prison sentence if found in possession of firearms.
Granted, there shouldn’t be any such law that violates the Second Amendment for only one kind of misdemeanor. And yes, the polluted case. They found a real bad guy to base their wrongful decisions on, when there are many with no priors who committed lesser misdeeds.
Ooops, bad example. LOL You would think "shall not be infringed" is SCOTUS' strict limitation, but the door was opened to overturning the 2nd Amendment long ago.
Um... I think context plays a lot into making that determination as a quick perusal of some of the more licentious corners of the Internet would appear to show...
“Domestic violence” is the liberal feminazi-inspired definition for what happens when a man hears a woman insult his income, manhood, parents, occupation, or all of the above one too many times and gives her a “shut up” slap that wouldn’t even kill a wasp. Or when he HITS HER BACK.
It’s also what a few men - who would have otherwise never harmed a fly - have committed in a minute of desperation when they’ve discovered that their wife is about to file a “no-fault divorce” *spit* and walk off with half his income, at least one car, the kids, the house, and most of his worldly possessions, and he will have absolutely no recourse...before he attempts to flee with his children and whatever he can grab. Few of them even make it out of their home state unless they live next to a border line.
The law exempts law enforcement, by the way, in that service weapons are exempt unless specifically prohibited by a local court restraining order.
Another aside: the law is part of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act)—quite a feminist political push in the ‘90s. Possession of ammunition is also illegal for affected individuals.