Here’s an article with a bit more information on the case:
so much for “shall not be infringed”
I guess using the logic of this ruling... the government could pass a law tomorrow that anyone who exhales carbon dioxide (aka breathes) has committed a crime and automatically loses their right to keep and bear arms.
Tyranny comes in all flavors... This one is Black Robed.
Why? Because Domestic Violence can be used as a catch-all in an arrest at your home. And the bar can be set absurdly low too.
Frank Lautenberg’s foul legacy.
Not yet illegal (no potential stings).
I think many of the actions the court take as acts of domestic violence as well, from eminent domain to abortion, spying to healthcare, the victims aka legal US citizens, suffer in silence.. or will after the internet is turned off,, there is no redress , no shame for their actions,, no justice.. jmo.
Do their acts involve ‘violence’ per se? You be the Judge.
‘Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.’....Heller vs. DC....Thanks Scalia.
as the state has no power over an honest man.
It doesn’t actually bar him from owning a gun at all. It bars him from state approval for owning a gun.
Paraphrasing, Mark Twain ... Hide your guns boys, the legislature’s back in session.
This one is for all you folks who believe “criminals”, should be banned from possessing firearms. Soon, you’ll be a criminal. Well, you already are, you just may not know it yet.
Regarding any case decision involving a federal law, the states need to amend the Constitution to require the Supreme Court to officially and publicly cite specific constitutional clauses which reasonably indicate powers granted to Congress by the states to make a given law in the first place.
Note that pro-2A citizens would probably have liked gun rights to be include in 1A's list of powers prohibited to Congress. However, since the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had included clauses in Congress's constitutional Article I, Section8-limited powers which reasonably give Congress the power to regulate arms for military purposes, the delegates couldn't turn around and prohibit gun-regulating powers to Congress altogether.
That said, it remains that none of the gun-related clauses in Section 8 reasonably apply to domestic violence imo. So the Supreme Court would be hard-pressed to find any constitutional clause to justify why federal laws which address guns in the context of domestic violence should exist in the first place imo.
In fact, note that some people, including me, attribute many modern but constitutionally-questionable federal gun laws to Constitution-ignoring FDR.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle E › Chapter 53 › Subchapter B › Part I › § 5845
26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions
Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Updates
prev | next For the purpose of this chapter—
(a) Firearm
The term “firearm” means
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
(6) a machinegun;
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device)
which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other
characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
He plead to domestic violence. Just as felons lose the right to vote he lost the Rtkaba.This will come back to bite the left when they argue in Scotia that felons can not lose the right to vote.