Post #8395 by commonone on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4)

Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 7

SCOTUS considers firearms possession by violent individuals. Astounding that they are even considering restoring the right of people who are mentally unstable to possess firearms.

Several conservative justices, during a lively if largely one-sided argument, seemed to be searching for a narrow rationale that would not require them to retreat substantially from a new Second Amendment test the court announced last year in vastly expanding people's right to arm themselves in public.
--------------------------
Chief Justice Roberts said there was little question that Mr. Rahimi, who has been accused of a string of shootings, posed a threat to public safety.

'You don't have any doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?' the chief justice asked Mr. Rahimi's lawyer, Mr. Wright.

Mr. Wright said he would 'want to know what 'dangerous person' means.'

Chief Justice Roberts supplied a definition. 'Someone who is shooting at people. That's a good start.'

'I'm so confused,'Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

Poor Amy.

Perhaps she could call another Trump appointee, Judge Eileen Cannon for guidance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/us/politics/sup...

Print the post

Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 6

sano: SCOTUS considers firearms possession by violent individuals. Astounding that they are even considering restoring the right of people who are mentally unstable to possess firearms.

Astounding, why, exactly?

Last year justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion for a 6-3 majority designed to end many of the nation's gun laws enacted since the 1960s.

Thomas said the government may not deny an individual's right to bear arms unless it can "affirmatively prove" the restriction is "consistent with this nation's historical tradition."

That pretty much puts every gun restriction on the chopping block.

Never mind that women and Blacks were not able to legislate, let alone vote, when this country was founded.

Print the post

Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 6

Robert's Supreme Court is one of the worst in history, with rulings that will not stand up over time. They rely on twisted logic such as requiring gun laws to be something that would have been written over 200 years ago, at a time when domestic violence was not considered to be a serious problem because women were considered property. Times have changed, but Robert's Supreme Court is stuck in the past.

Supreme Court to decide if gun bans for domestic abusers are constitutional, November 7, 2023
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1208501397/supreme-...

Print the post

Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 3

Never mind that women and Blacks were not able to legislate, let alone vote, when this country was founded.

I think women could vote in New Jersey for about 7 years, then men took it away.

November 18, 1790

The New Jersey State Legislature passes an Act revising the regulations of the election law to include 'he or she' in 7 of 13 counties in New Jersey (Bergen, Burlington, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Monmouth, Salem, and Sussex). This law also institutes township voting in these counties. https://www.amrevmuseum.org/virtualexhibits/when-w...

Print the post

Post New

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.