It's a nice historical review, this article, but I don't see any way that the supreme Court is actually going to make logical improvements to fix terrible rulings it's made in the past. Many of those judges really don't care about victims of domestic violence, so although you and I can see that the situation is appalling, they honestly won't.
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
93 points (93.5% liked)
politics
19080 readers
3483 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Obviously if you're blackout drunk because you "like beer", the abuse never happened. /s
This is the best summary I could come up with:
One fundamental problem with Bruen, as Judge Miller’s critique of the decision emphasizes, is that the six Republican-appointed justices who joined it appear to have no understanding of why changes in American society over the past 250 years make it difficult or impossible to draw meaningful analogies between modern gun laws and those that existed when the Constitution was written.
Recall that Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion in Bruen announced that gun laws that address a “general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century” are presumptively unconstitutional unless there is a “distinctly similar historical regulation” from the 1700s.
As Ohio State University historian Randolph Roth explained in a 2019 book chapter, “fewer than 10 percent of household homicides” in colonial and revolutionary New England or Maryland were committed with a gun.
But the fact that the drafters and ratifiers of the Second Amendment were comfortable living in a world where muzzle-loaded muskets were commonplace tells us nothing about whether they would have also wanted the Constitution to protect weapons that can be carried while loaded and that can turn a mere argument into a murder in less than a second.
Thomas’s innovation makes a lot of sense if you are an originalist judge who wants to solve the problem of not knowing how to rule on a case if the historical record is indeterminate — provided, of course, that you don’t care one bit what happens to the people of the United States after countless gun laws are struck down.
Add on Roberts’s decision to join Kavanaugh’s Bruen opinion, plus the Court’s three liberals, and that’s five votes that are willing to create categorical carve-outs to the right to bear arms which exist outside of Thomas’s originalist framework.
The original article contains 3,530 words, the summary contains 290 words. Saved 92%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Yea the thing this article puts in the fine print is he has not been convicted of any crimes, he has not had his bail revoked by the judge, and none of the alleged crimes were fellonius. If any of these three conditions had been met, he would not have his weapons. The case was not struck down due to a 2A violation, it was struck down because it's unconstitutional under the due process clause, and pretty black and white at that. If he endangered the public after his arraignment the judge should have revoked his bail.