Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 03, 2023

Put another way, "the [G]overnment must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms." ... ruen instructs how to proceed. The plaintiffs there levied a facial challenge to New York's public carry licensing regime. 142 S. Ct. at 2122. To evaluate the challenged law, the Supreme Court employed a historical analysis, aimed at "assess[ing] whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment's text and historical understanding."

END;

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

... When the challenged regulation addresses a "general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment." ... The Government fails to demonstrate that 922(g)(8)'s restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

There were no laws against domestic abuse at the time of the Second Amendment. The first laws against domestic abuse appeared in 1850, www.rudnicklaw.com Under Bruen, the Second Amendment prohibits any new gun regulations that are not supported by historical precedent at the time of the Second Amendment being ratified.

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-02-03 01:07 AM | Reply

Reddit thread has some good comments. Here's one of them.
America is now in fascism's legal phase.
amp.theguardian.com

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-02-03 01:09 AM | Reply

Here's another good comment:
Plasmastronaut

"since the Founding Fathers didn't care about domestic violence and it was rife at the time, modern laws shouldn't either"

the scariest thing about this is that this isn't even the reason why. you wanna know the real reason? it's because over 40% of police officers in the united states have domestic violence charges on their records and if a law were passed banning domestic abusers from owning guns, 40% of cops would lose their jobs. terrifying.
Source
sites.temple.edu

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-02-03 01:11 AM | Reply

Law barring people with domestic violence restraining orders from having guns is unconstitutional, court rules
www.cnn.com

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-02-03 01:12 AM | Reply

GQP: Guns don't kill people. Dangerous people with guns kill people.

GQP Court: Dangerous people can keep their guns.

#5 | Posted by Nixon at 2023-02-03 08:51 AM | Reply

Wow it's almost like Due Process is real and you can't just take somebody's rights away when they haven't been convicted of anything. Truly, this due process is a step to direct fascism.

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-02-03 09:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Law barring people with domestic violence restraining orders from having guns is unconstitutional, court rules"

What's a statistically significant increase in the number of murdered wives and girlfriends in the face of the Second Amendment? That's just more of the blood that waters the tree of liberty. Praise Jesus.

#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2023-02-03 09:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Wow it's almost like Due Process is real and you can't just take somebody's rights away when they haven't been convicted of anything. Truly, this due process is a step to direct fascism."

If you can be physically detained pre-trial your guns should be able to be as well. Unless this is another instantiation about how guns are more important than people? Because under your interpretation they are.

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2023-02-03 09:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There were no laws against domestic abuse at the time of the Second Amendment. The first laws against domestic abuse appeared in 1850, www.rudnicklaw.com Under Bruen, the Second Amendment prohibits any new gun regulations that are not supported by historical precedent at the time of the Second Amendment being ratified.

#1 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The Conservative Appeals Court just essentially proved how stupid the Bruen decision is.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-02-03 10:50 AM | Reply

It's unconstitutional to make it harder to murder your wife.

At least 3 SCOTUS justices will vote to uphold this decision.

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2023-02-03 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just remember that the Guns are never to blame.

That the violent have rights to guns unless they are fully incarcerated,and human life is less important than the right to be armed at all times.

SITZFOOL.

#11 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2023-02-03 05:26 PM | Reply

From the local newspaper about a town in the area...

Chief: Bethel [CT] police not aware of abuse in murder-suicide case until days after guns should have been seized
www.newstimes.com

... Local police say they learned about an abusive relationship involving the estranged couple in this week's murder-suicide on Jan. 20 " two days after records show Lester Jones was supposed to surrender his firearms as a requirement of his wife's temporary restraining order.

The state Office of the Chief Medical Examiner said Traci-Marie Jones, 52, was fatally shot and the victim of a homicide in her Reservoir Street home Tuesday night. Her estranged husband, Lester Jones, 58, was fatally shot in a suicide, the medical examiner ruled.

Without naming them, Bethel police said in an update late Thursday that they learned about the estranged couple's domestic situation on Jan. 20 when Traci-Marie Jones reported receiving a harassing and threatening phone call from her husband.

The call violated an ex-parte restraining order Traci-Marie Jones obtained on Jan. 17 that prohibited her estranged husband from contacting or coming within 100 yards of her, records show. ...



#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-02-03 05:51 PM | Reply

__________
#11 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2023-02-03 05:26 PM
Just remember that the Guns are never to blame.

Anymore than one would blame for deaths or injuries by other inanimate objects like stones, 2x4s, machetes, bows and arrows, explosives, non-autonomous vehicles, cannons, tanks...

Almost a million people in the US used guns for self-defense or defense of property in 2020, among them abused (ex-)spouses.

That the violent have rights to guns unless they are fully incarcerated,and human life is less important than the right to be armed at all times.

Whether someone is "violent" may be a matter of law or interpretation (psychiatric diagnosis, history, allegations - substantiated/non-substantiated/fabricated) and someone's description or subjective opinion is not in and of itself a reason to deny someone an article of self-defense.

Russians apparently don't have that right, so the crime rate in Russia is much higher than in the US:

Intentional homicide rate - Ranked 21st - 3 times more than United States
Murder rate - Ranked 5th - 12% more than United States
... and so on, even after crime rate in Russia came down significantly after 2008-2011 spike after GFC.

    Russia Suffers Gun Crime Explosion as Police Say Cases Have Gone Up by 600%
    Nov 23, 2022 " Armed crime is up more than 600 percent in a Russian region bordering Ukraine, according to data from the country's Ministry of Internal Affairs.
    In the Kursk region, located near to Russia's border with Ukraine, the number of crimes committed using firearms, ammunition, and explosive devices over the first ten months of this year increased by 675 percent, compared to the same time frame in 2021, statistics show.

    Crimes involving the weapons also rose sharply in the Belgorod region and in Moscow, with a rise of 213 percent and 203 percent respectively.


Look in the mirror and take care of your own people and problems. Remove Putin and get the hell out of peaceful countries where uninvited.
__________

#13 | Posted by CutiePie at 2023-02-03 09:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So, let me get this straight, once again the court relies on laws in effect at a time when women and PoC had no rights and certainly no power to influence those laws. And since those laws were not on the books then, there is nothing that can be done now.

that, good sirs, is the definition of 2 classes of people. White heterosexual males-1st class (laws are based on their HISTORICAL rights and privileges), women PoC- 2nd class (rights contingent on laws passed before people of their stature had ANY power).

#14 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-02-03 10:43 PM | Reply

@#14 ... PoC ...

Please, take the time to type out what you mean.

na.pocsports.com

...Protection Outside the Comfort zone?...


#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-02-03 11:05 PM | Reply

people of color

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-02-04 12:35 AM | Reply

Effete, as a Russian, you of course against due process and pro stripping of rights from people with no convictions. It's in your DNA. Democracy that secure personal rights is different.

#17 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-02-04 09:52 AM | Reply

No doubt, a white exception.

#18 | Posted by fresno500 at 2023-02-05 08:56 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort