That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a “clear and present danger” to our democracy.
“I do want to be clear that we think there are different principles that apply with those who are not law-abiding.”
Then prove they are not law abiding in a court of law. Then you won’t need to circumvent due process protections.
Gun Rights are NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. Gun rights are a STATES’ ISSUE!!!
Nowhere does the Constitution give the feds power to regulate individual ownership of guns. Period. That is a STATE ISSUE!!!
Again, Patriots, stand against the unconstitutional, now totalitarian, portion of the federal government, the GREATEST threat to our lives, liberties, and well being.
i.e. the Supreme Court has NO constitutional authority in this matter and must NOT accept this case but remand to the state from which it derived.
This was a really bad case to bring regarding 2A protection.
The accused is a deeply unsympathetic character with a history of violence.
If the Supremes allow states to deny firearms to those they deem dangerous, then the left-wing states will start figuring out ways to deem all conservatives dangerous.
Domestic abuse restraining orders are not a good judge of whether someone is dangerous because there is no hearing or right of the accused abuser to contest the order. They are granted willy-nilly to anyone who applies for them with no practical judicial review and with no hearing.
This case could effectively remove most 2A protections from all of us.
That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a “clear and present danger” to our democracy.
“The only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun in the hands of the battered woman,” Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices.”
ther fixed it.
This should depend on if someone can prove that the accused has a history of violence. Just because someone makes a claim that another is an abuser when there is no evidence to back it up does not mean that someone should lose their constitutional rights.
Bad facts make bad law.
Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the mid to late 1700’s, in the third definition down under “noun n.s.”, defines a right as a “just claim”, a definition that seems most relevant here. This may be found here: https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=right
Noah Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, in the tenth definition down, Noun, (which again seems most relevant here), says this: “10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.”. This may be found here: https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/right
Defining a right as a just claim makes sense to me in the absence of something better.
I have a right/just claim to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by virtue of birth. These are natural or unalienable rights/just claims.
I have the right/just claim to vote by virtue of meeting the requirements of age, residency and so forth. This is a civic right/just claim.
Folks concentrate on "shall not be infringed" without expanding on what it is that "shall not be infringed": the right/just claim.
We need to be ready for our opponents argument that whatever they want to restrict is not or is no longer part of the right/just claim, therefore the restriction they want is not an infringement.
The government gets to decide who is dangerous, huh? All us “right-wing extremists” will soon have our heads on the chopping blocks. 🤬
Our esteemed legislators have gotten used to passing senatus consultum ultimum to authorize magistrates to break the law, which was one of the main reasons the Roman Republic became a dictatorship. Ironically, it was Cicero who concocted the legal justification for this deprivation of rights under Roman law.
” “The only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun,” Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices on Tuesday at the start of nearly 100 minutes of arguments.”
True. If the woman has a gun she won’t end up dead.
I haven't bothered to read the excerpt here, but will be perusing the entirety tonight.
Real simple: if they are “too dangerous” to have a gun, then they are too dangerous to walk the streets, a fact that should be determined in a trial.
The man in this case should have been in jail long before they arrested him for a firearms violation.
The camel’s nose is under the tent.
You’re next.
Infringement; A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition
Reading tea leaves from the oral discussion. We will know when they issue their decisions.
