Posted on 07/01/2024 4:40:09 AM PDT by marktwain
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a wonderful dissent in the Rahimi case, released on June 21, 2024, almost exactly two years after the clear and well-written Bruen opinion.
The Supreme Court opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, is narrow, as applied to the Rahimi case. It is extremely limited. From the opinion, page 1:
Held: When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Pp. 5–17.
(a) Since the Founding, the Nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts here, Section 922(g)(8) fits within this tradition.
The dissent makes clear that no historical tradition of firearms regulation is consistent with U. S. C. §922(g)(8). From the Dissent, page 1:
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
We need 7 of him on the Court.
L
“We need 7 of him on the Court.”
Of course, but the NeverTrumpers crack me up as they claim to want the same, but play dumb when you tell them it’s not possible to even go in that direction when Trump is the ONLY Republican on the ticket (in November), yet they are going to vote against him.
Which leads to the obvious question: Do they REALLY want conservative judges, or are they REALLY that dumb?
No, Yes.
LOL,
That’s a fun thought.
Property should never be confiscated…period! First off, what’s considered “a danger”? Reading a Bible? Yelling at a child? Losing your cool while driving?
Should we pass a law that getting an abortion can be taken away if you’re found “a danger to society”? I guess we should confiscate bats, hammers, crowbars and fists if someone is deemed a “danger”.
Thomas is right in his dissent.
The regulatory argument has been \purposefully\ narrowed from the Constitutional phrase “arms” to the modern phrase (hardly is ever used by the Founders), “firearms”.
Bats, cars and swimming pools are allowed, although these kill more US citizens, collectively, than any one NRA member.
The Second Amendment denies government any authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
I do agree with Thomas. If there’s enough of a concern to take away guns regarding alleged domestic violence, then file charges and prosecute. And jail those found guilty.
And please, no crying about how the courts are stacked against men. Keep your affairs regular and that possibility is minimized.
The fact that there are so many concurring opinions shows how the remaining "conservative" justices weaseled out from the only rational conclusion following Bruen.
They know what the 2nd Amendment means, but simply refuse to enforce it like the rest of the Bill of Rights, so they still treat it as a stepchild, which does not bode well for the AW and magazine ban cases.
LOL!!!
“we should confiscate” ‘Rat voices....
LOL,
U may have too much time on your hands and too much access to AI like digital tools.
Anyone who seeks an elective abortion is a danger to herself and others.
1) Danger to self: both surgical and chemical abortions carry much greater risk of harm than completed pregnancy.
2) Danger to others: the abortion-minded woman has a clear, stated intent to kill another person.
Such women should be remanded to custodial psychiatric care until the danger has passed.
If we're going to clone him, might as well do it 9 times. His dissents are always worth reading, even on those rare occasions where I disagree with him.
Let's Red Flag every politician out there. Take their driver's license away so they don't use the car to harm someone. Take their silverware, shoe laces, string, rope, extension chords, candlestick holders, hammers, wrenches, cleansers, the drain plug on the bath tub, their toasters, scissors, pencils, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.