Shredding of reasonable gun control laws by courts

V

vibise

Well-known member
An example from the WaPo:

Over a six-week stretch from December 2020 to January 2021, Rahimi took part in five shootings around Arlington, Tex. He fired an AR-15 into the home of a man to whom he had sold Percocet. The next day, after a car accident, he pulled out a handgun, shot at the other driver and sped off — only to return, fire a different gun and flee again. Rahimi shot at a police car. When a friend’s credit card was declined at a fast-food restaurant, he fired several rounds into the air.

Or, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put it in vacating Rahimi’s conviction for illegal gun possession, “Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.”..

When Arlington police searched Rahimi’s home, they found multiple guns — and a domestic violence restraining order imposed after Rahimi allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend. Federal law prohibits those subject to such orders from possessing guns, and Rahimi was indicted by a federal grand jury...

This isn’t about political correctness. It’s about a man accused of dragging his girlfriend into his car, shooting at a witness who saw him assault her, and warning the girlfriend that he would shoot her if she told anyone what had happened.
Click to expand...

This is from the court decision linked in the above quote:

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.
Click to expand...

So this court decided that in light of the SCOTUS Bruen decision, laws that prevent domestic abusers from having guns are unConstitutional.

Are people actually OK with this?
 
vibise said:
An example from the WaPo:



This is from the court decision linked in the above quote:



So this court decided that in light of the SCOTUS Bruen decision, laws that prevent domestic abusers from having guns are unConstitutional.

Are people actually OK with this?
Click to expand...
Once again, your reading comprehension skills are pitiful.

The ruling was about whether of not the state can prohibit the free exercise of the 2nd Amendment in certain places, not whether or not domestic abusers can have guns. Domestic abuse isn't even mentioned in the decision.

You continue to be a source of amusement.
 
Mike McK said:
Once again, your reading comprehension skills are pitiful.

The ruling was about whether of not the state can prohibit the free exercise of the 2nd Amendment in certain places, not whether or not domestic abusers can have guns. Domestic abuse isn't even mentioned in the decision.

You continue to be a source of amusement.
Click to expand...
pronoun is a WAPO subscriber. lol
 
Mike McK said:
Once again, your reading comprehension skills are pitiful.

The ruling was about whether of not the state can prohibit the free exercise of the 2nd Amendment in certain places, not whether or not domestic abusers can have guns. Domestic abuse isn't even mentioned in the decision.

You continue to be a source of amusement.
Click to expand...
Domestic abuse is mentioned in the very first sentence of the decision, which I also quoted in the OP. Another quote from that decision:

A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi for possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)
Click to expand...

Domestic abuse was not only mentioned in this decision, it is the central matter. The question answered by this decision was whether a statute that removes guns from domestic abusers under restraining orders is constitutional. Amazingly, the judge decided that domestic abusers who threaten their wives with death by gun should be able to keep their guns, and that the law removing those guns is unConstitutional!

This is the direct link to the decision which was also linked in the quote I provided:

 
Mike McK said:
I don't expect her to know the nuances of the law, or the details of every court decision, but she should at least be honest about it.
Click to expand...
So if you post a response, expect what you post to be mischarachterized in pronoun's response.
Pronoun cherishes WAPA which is famous for misquoting .
 
vibise said:
An example from the WaPo:



This is from the court decision linked in the above quote:



So this court decided that in light of the SCOTUS Bruen decision, laws that prevent domestic abusers from having guns are unConstitutional.

Are people actually OK with this?
Click to expand...
Once again, NO LINKS.

Is there an issue with posting links?
 
vibise said:
Domestic abuse is mentioned in the very first sentence of the decision
Click to expand...
Actually, that's a lie. Domestic abuse isn't even mentioned in the decision. In fact, the decision states:

"Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are adult, law-abiding New York residents who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense. The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses, allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement".


No mention of domestic abuse.


vibise said:
, which I also quoted in the OP. Another quote from that decision:
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not a quote from the decision. That's a claim made by a newspaper article.
vibise said:
Domestic abuse was not only mentioned in this decision, it is the central matter.
Click to expand...
Not according to the text.
vibise said:
The question answered by this decision was whether a statute that removes guns from domestic abusers under restraining orders is constitutional.
Click to expand...
Then, in your collosal ignorance, you must be confusing it with another case, because I just quoted it for you, with link provided, and it says something completely different.
vibise said:
Amazingly, the judge decided that domestic abusers who threaten their wives with death by gun should be able to keep their guns, and that the law removing those guns is unConstitutional!
Click to expand...
Not found anywhere in the decision.
vibise said:
This is the direct link to the decision which was also linked in the quote I provided:

Click to expand...
That's not the Bruen case.

Honestly, talking to you is like talking to a toddler.
 
vibise said:
Domestic abuse is mentioned in the very first sentence of the decision, which I also quoted in the OP. Another quote from that decision:



Domestic abuse was not only mentioned in this decision, it is the central matter. The question answered by this decision was whether a statute that removes guns from domestic abusers under restraining orders is constitutional. Amazingly, the judge decided that domestic abusers who threaten their wives with death by gun should be able to keep their guns, and that the law removing those guns is unConstitutional!

This is the direct link to the decision which was also linked in the quote I provided:

Click to expand...
Again your reading comprehension skills fail you. It says that domestic abuse is not a factor the decision. You need to learn how to comprehend what you are reading.
 
vibise said:
An example from the WaPo:



This is from the court decision linked in the above quote:



So this court decided that in light of the SCOTUS Bruen decision, laws that prevent domestic abusers from having guns are unConstitutional.

Are people actually OK with this?
Click to expand...
Yes. I'd like to point out if he had been a churchgoing Republican they never would've issued this decision. The second amendment protects the woman that he is threatening by making her every bit as lethal as he is should she choose to be so. The great virtue in this solution is that her security does not depend on the behavior of a federal judge.
 
Mike McK said:
Actually, that's a lie. Domestic abuse isn't even mentioned in the decision. In fact, the decision states:

"Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are adult, law-abiding New York residents who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense. The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses, allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement".


No mention of domestic abuse.



Actually, that's not a quote from the decision. That's a claim made by a newspaper article.

Not according to the text.

Then, in your collosal ignorance, you must be confusing it with another case, because I just quoted it for you, with link provided, and it says something completely different.

Not found anywhere in the decision.

That's not the Bruen case.

Honestly, talking to you is like talking to a toddler.
Click to expand...
You are not talking about the relevant court case. You are referring to a different court case, which you would know if you had actually read my posts and linked to the decision that is the basis of this thread. A link I provided twice. It was NOT a SCOTUS case.
 
glenlogie said:
Again your reading comprehension skills fail you. It says that domestic abuse is not a factor the decision. You need to learn how to comprehend what you are reading.
Click to expand...
Yes it was a factor. The issue was whether guns could be taken from a man who had engaged in domestic abuse. The court said no, even though this man had also threatened and shot at many others with his gun.

The first sentence of the decision:

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.
Click to expand...
 
Thistle said:
Yes. I'd like to point out if he had been a churchgoing Republican they never would've issued this decision. The second amendment protects the woman that he is threatening by making her every bit as lethal as he is should she choose to be so. The great virtue in this solution is that her security does not depend on the behavior of a federal judge.
Click to expand...
Ah. So the solution to domestic abuse is to have the woman carry a gun so they could shoot it out. Very civilized.
 
vibise said:
Ah. So the solution to domestic abuse is to have the woman carry a gun so they could shoot it out. Very civilized.
Click to expand...
The alternative is to have the police come and draw a chalk outline around her body. The idea that the authorities are going to collect enough of the 300 million guns in America to resolve this problem as you seem to think is possible is insane. A well armed society is a very polite society.
 
Thistle said:
The alternative is to have the police come and draw a chalk outline around her body. The idea that the authorities are going to collect enough of the 300 million guns in America to resolve this problem as you seem to think is possible is insane. A well armed society is a very polite society.
Click to expand...
Our well armed society is full of dead bodies, and the pile gets bigger every year.

And we hear stories all the time like the recent case of a man robbed at an ATM who took out his gun and shot at the fleeing robber but missed and shot and killed a 9YO girl sitting in a car with her father. In the first place, robbery is not a capital offense and the shooter was not judge, jury and executioner. In the second place, shooting in a public place can get bystanders killed. Amazingly, this shooter was not charged with anything. I am sure you think that was the right decision.
 
Last edited:
vibise said:
Our well armed society is full of dead bodies, and the pile gets bigger every year.

And we hear stories all the time like the recent case of a man robbed at an ATM who took out his gun and shot at the fleeing robber but missed and shot and killed a 9YO girl sitting in a car with her father. In the first place, robbery is not a capital offense and the shooter was not judge, jury and executioner. In the second place, shooting in a public place can get bystanders killed. Amazingly, this shooter was not charged with anything. I am sure you think that was the right decision.
Click to expand...
Since a gun is an inanimate object, how about looking at people as the cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top