To recap this article:
- A man was ordered by courts to give back his guns because he was a reckless offender of common public safety. i.e. he was shooting at random pedestrians.
- SCOTUS, because it's working so hard for America to overturn decades of existing laws, had recently decided that historical precedent was required for all gun laws. What would our ancestors think?
- They wrote that all existing or new gun laws have to be consistent with "historical tradition of firearm regulation." Laws need a historical "analog" but not a "twin". Got that?
- No one - judges, lawyers, politicians - knows what it means to provide rationale of historic precedent before proceeding to trial.
- So, because of this new precedent, a reckless gun toting maniac got his guns back.
- Now this case is back. The prosecutors ask "Must we bow to whatever Clarence Thomas thinks that James Madison thought about each contemporary case, but from 250 years ago?" before going to trial?
- To the surprise of SCOTUS, the prosecutors are using the weird SCOTUS argument to provide thorough evidence that our country has a long history of disarming dangerous people.
- Conservative justices now are confused, embarrassed, that their words are being used against their own argument. They seemed visibly annoyed according to audience members.
- It doesn't seem that SCOTUS has credible path to restore this dude's guns. So... maybe we're actually going to get somewhere?
- If historical precedent illustrates a history of disarming dangerous people, then holds, background checks, etc. are all constitutional.
Right? I'm not a lawyer. Good article.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/11/rahimi-supreme-court-justices-gun-case-spectacle.html
@shavixmir saidSpeed limits aren't in the constitution ijit, the right to own the means of self defence is.
Speed limits are unconstitutional. The founding fathers never wrote that they were needed.
It’s state over-reach not being allowed to drive 220 km’s an hour within a town!
Fascists, the lot of them!
@wajoma saidActually :
Speed limits aren't in the constitution ijit, the right to own the means of self defence is.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
So well regulated is the key in my opinion. If a person will not adhere to regulations (such as not to fire on unsuspecting people, just because he wons a gun), the arms can be confisctade.
@wildgrass said- It doesn't seem that SCOTUS has credible path to restore this dude's guns.
To recap this article:
- A man was ordered by courts to give back his guns because he was a reckless offender of common public safety. i.e. he was shooting at random pedestrians.
- SCOTUS, because it's working so hard for America to overturn decades of existing laws, had recently decided that historical precedent was required for all gun laws. What would our ancestors thi ...[text shortened]...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/11/rahimi-supreme-court-justices-gun-case-spectacle.html
They don't need one. Their petty fears of the NRA give birth to keeping guns in the hands of criminals, the mentally retarded and children and they suckle it like swine. Nothing will change. The mass shootings, and slaughter of innocent people will go on.
But - after every mass shooting, you can count on them to send their "prayers." 🙄
@Wajoma
You clearly don't understand sarcasm when you see it.
And why do you think you need to have an assault rifle to defend yourself? Is it because most folks NEED to shoot 50 bullets to get one bad guy?
Or use an assault rifle to hunt deer? So poor a shot they also need 50 bullets to kill one deer?
What the HELL is wrong with you anyway?
NOBODY is denying folks the right to have weapons but the founding fathers of the US never imagined a small machine gun could be made and that is no excuse for the NRA to weaponize all that just so they can gain supporters and add to the bribe list they spend money on.
@mchill saidThe government was removing weapons from dangerous people while they were writing the second amendment. So by their own logic gun laws are constitutional.
- It doesn't seem that SCOTUS has credible path to restore this dude's guns.
They don't need one. Their petty fears of the NRA give birth to keeping guns in the hands of criminals, the mentally retarded and children and they suckle it like swine. Nothing will change. The mass shootings, and slaughter of innocent people will go on.
But - after every mass shooting, you can count on them to send their "prayers." 🙄
I guess you're right though. They could overturn their own decision from 6 months ago. That would be interesting.