The court’s conservatives have two choices: Tell violent abusers everywhere they can keep their guns, or strike a blow against their beloved principle of “originalism,” the idea that the Constitution must be applied today by divining the original intent of the men who wrote it and the values of the world they lived in centuries ago.
While oral arguments will give us a better idea of where the justices stand, for now most legal observers believe the plaintiff, Zackey Rahimi, is going to lose. The consequences of him winning — for both the court and the Republican Party — are just too grave. …
So it’s possible the court’s less extreme conservatives are looking for a way out. That could mean loosening the Bruen test to say a regulation doesn’t need a directly analogous law from two centuries ago, just a general justification — say, that sometimes guns were taken from certain people deemed dangerous, so it’s fine to take them from domestic abusers.
If Rahimi wins, laws on everything from carrying guns on planes to background checks to licensing gun dealers might have to be struck down. Even the court’s conservatives (apart from Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.) are probably hesitant to go that far.
— Paul Waldman in How the Supreme Court’s next gun case could deal a blow to originalism
If someone is too dangerous to be allowed a gun in public then they are too dangerous to be ALLOWED in public free and walking around.
Charge them with a crime, arrest them, and give them their day in court. Only after due process has been fully vetted shall an American citizen be put into jail and hos rights taken away
“Pre Crime” is the stuff of stupid Hollywood movies. The Constitution does not give the government those kinds of tyrannical powers.
“If someone is too dangerous to be allowed a gun in public then they are too dangerous to be ALLOWED in public free and walking around.”
Excellent sound bite. I’ve been trying to perfect this idea for years, this is a great version.
I’ve mostly used something like this one:
“Anyone too dangerous to be walking around with a gun is ALSO too dangerous to be walking around WITHOUT a gun!”
Just can’t find that short, succinct, hard-hitting final version.
Fuck Joe Biden always works for me….
LET’S GO BRANDON!
Maybe Giggles can look into published the Tennessee tranny shooter’s manifesto. That might be enlightening….
David Codrea has been saying this for years…..
if a man can’t be trusted to be in oublic with a gun, how can he be trusted to be in public WITHOUT a gun?
Maybe Giggles could pursue the publication to the Tennessee tranny shooter’s manifesto??? That might prove enlightening and within her skill set…
Who is some that is too dangerous, yet has committed no crime?
Prior restraint is the essence tyranny.
*of
My arguement as well. If someone commits and pays for a crime (any) and is deemed fit to reenter society, then all rights are restored. Even a convicted felon has the right to defend him/her self and loved ones. The current mentality is a law “preventing” a felon from buying or owning a gun is going to stop a determined evil doer from getting one is just plain ignorant. Laws do not prevent, they punish. Anyone who espouses otherwise is either dumb or lying.
“The current mentality is a law “preventing” a felon from buying or owning a gun is going to stop a determined evil doer from getting one“
Just as no one thinks speed limit laws are going to ‘stop’ speeding, no one thinks that any gun control law is going to ‘stop’ an evil doer from getting guns.
But these laws, with significant penalties, do act as a deterrent for wrongdoing.
A person has decided to shoot up a school and die in the process. What significant penalties are going to deter her, him or it?
The only hope at reducing the death toll at that point is to have guns on site when the attack starts.
People that are working and struggling to get by are deterred by those traffic penalties. But they aren’t the problem in the first place.
Making it difficult for a citizen to exercise their rights isn’t about crime control. It’s just control.
He says as he supports no-cash bail schemes.
Modern deterrence theory goes as thus:
1. The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
2. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime.
3. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished.
4. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
5. There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals.
Deterrence is a function of how strongly you believe in the system.
You think the people living in these neighborhoods believe in the system when the local offenders are back on the street the day after they’re caught?
All eyez on Illinois, California and New York. Crime there should be dropping any day now.
Laws do act as a deterrent, among the sane, rational, law-abiding general populace. In a moment of rage, you or I might think, “I’d like to shoot that SOB.” But, immediately, we realize that it would be wrong, as well as illegal, to shoot someone just because we are angry.
But we can’t project any rationality onto a madman, nor can we hope that the criminal cares about right or wrong. When either is enraged, or even merely angy, they will resort to the most deadly form of force at hand.
But these laws, with significant penalties, do act as a deterrent for wrongdoing.
I do not agree. I have a moral code. I choose not to do things which violate that moral code. I do not agree with most laws and some of them I violate with good conscience. AND I accept the responsibility of dealing with the consequences should I get caught. This is, IMHO, reflects the majority mentality and not simply because it is against the law or because of some particular penalty.
How much difference is there between an “evildoer” with any gun he/she wants and a young “man” in a car that will do 150+ mph on the open highway?
Both are criminals and what stops them is the knowledge that there is a viable deterrent right around the corner or pulling up behind.
The solution to gun violence is NOT to allow the government to take away the right of the people, any of the people, to keep and bear arms, it is to encourage the law-abiding to exercise that right and to bear arms and feel confident that to use them in lawful self defense will be rewarded, not punished.
Any other course of action is societal suicide. Current actions of Dem politicians tell us exactly which side of this argument they are on.
Did you hear something?? Guess it was nothing important.
puts me in mind of the Brit “terrorist”, er squeeze me, I meant “tourist” who flew to the US as a tourist, got himself down into Texas as a tourist, holed up in a cheap hostel of some sort, within two days he had a handgun then the next day went to attack s synagogue using that illegally obtained gun. How can I say it was illgglaly obtained? Easy. NOT a US citizen nor even Permanent Resident, he could not legally BUY any firearm. Yet buy he did. (our brilliant BATF never did identify the source of that gun).
He and his “supplier” must have together broken asimewhere near twenty laws over the transfer and possession of that handgun.
Thanksfully as the perp held hostage a number of men inside that Temple, he dropped his guard for a few moments when one of his captives slid the gun out of his reach and ofer across the floor to another member. He was then awakened to be staring diwn the muzzle of his illegally obtained firearm. LE were called, taken into custody. Never followed out what heppened to the perp. BATF/FBI never learned the source of the gun, that they admitted.
“he could not legally BUY any firearm. Yet buy he did. (our brilliant BATF never did identify the source of that gun).“
Clearly, he bought that firearm from an American gun owner.
That is not the issue here, which is that the law permits the confiscation of all firearms AFTER a charge of domestic abused, but BEFORE trial, i.e., when (at least in theory) there is a presumption of innocence. Hence, if presumed innocent, there is no basis for a revocation of Constitutional rights. Yet at the same time, there is a recognition in the constitution itself (right to be free from excessive bail) that the state may keep an accused in jail pending trial. What follows is the inference that if one may deprived of his or her freedom pending trial, then one may also have other Constitutional rights suspended pending trial as well. This conflict is squarely presented by Rahimi.
“What follows is the inference that if one may deprived of his or her freedom pending trial, then one may also have other Constitutional rights suspended pending trial“
Correct, good summation.
If he can be imprisoned without trial under the Constitution, he can certainly lose his gun rights without trial.
The drama queen author paul waldman is counting on the court looking down their noses at Rahimi’s Rights just like paul did in his doomsday article.
Like so many Gun Control History illiterates paul waldman sees Gun Control being the Holy Grail when History/Originalism Confirms Gun Control is Rooted in Racism and Genocide. Therefore Protecting Rights is paramount otherwise someone could just willy nilly put a sock in paul’s piehole.
“If someone is too dangerous to be allowed a gun in public then they are too dangerous to be ALLOWED in public free and walking around.”
this is what I have been saying for years
If he can be imprisoned without trial under the Constitution, he can certainly lose his gun rights without trial.
And you claim you’re not a fascist.
I say the same goes for those let out of prison. I cant believe in the concept of prison being a term of penance with a goal of rehabilitation if the specter of your past follows you to every job interview for the rest of your life. If you are too dangerous to be out with a clean record than you aren’t ready to be out. It makes it too easy to turn to a life of crime as an easier alternative when you cant get a job at a 711 because you are a felon for life.
“The court’s conservatives have two choices: Tell violent abusers everywhere they can keep their guns, or strike a blow against their beloved principle of ‘originalism,’ . . . ”
“The consequences of him winning — for both the court and the Republican Party — are just too grave.”
It’s hard to predict the outcome of most SCOTUS cases. But here the OP is attempting to do so. He doesn’t have much understanding of hour SCOTUS works.
This case isn’t about domestic violence convicts. It’s about a DV restraining order in a misdemeanor case. That might seem to him like a mere technicality. It’s not. These sorts of “technicalities” are what the rule of law is all about. And SCOTUS is acutely aware of what the rule of law is all about. They are not going to be pursueded that the petitioner is a scumbag. They are going to apply the law as they see it. They may search for an interpretation of the law that leaves the petitioner disappointed. But they will try to find what the law drives them to.
There are no consequences to the Republican Party that justices care about. There is little in the way of consequences to the Court that the justices care about. They care whether the American bar will view their ruling as correctly reasoned.
Whether or not the petitioner is a scumbag should be irrelevant. Constitution protects the rights of scumbags from being trampled by the tyranny of the majority.
Exactly. I am probably not alone here in being of of those “deplorables” that voted on 2016. Other elected politicians have called NRA members terrorists. The progressives are hoping for some sort of language in Rahimi that will allow them to ban/greatly restrict jaywalkers and parking ticket scofflaws from owning or possessing firearm yet they go lenient on violent gang member thugs like Kim Foxx using bizarre reasoning that is someone else’s fault they are the way they are.
But it is not. As I note above, a criminal can be denied bail and held pending trial, despite the presumption of innocence. True scumbags and murderers can be held in jail. (From his post-arrest conduct, Mr. Rahimi was indeed a scumbag.) If we can hold without bail, why not a lesser deprivation rights of the means by which the defendant can commit further crimes?
This is part of what makes losing the concept of what a woman is so destructive.
Women are just as responsible for themselves as everyone else. They are human too. Any woman in a relationship of any kind that has become life threatening has a direct responsibility to deal with it. Women that look to government to solve these problems are doomed to suffer. Government is not and never was the answer. Those that do this will find themselves in yet another relationship that is again life threatening. The same thing happens to men. This process is described in the Everlast song ‘What It’s Like’. It’s why there is so much heartache out there and part of what keeps the poor so poor. Every time a person restarts a relationship with someone wether a spouse or otherwise a domestic partner, it has a direct impact on finances. This is the point in prenuptial agreements. Everyone sees this wether you are the richest or the poorest person out there. You ignore this to your own peril. This is why “it’s cheaper to keep her”.
Take care of yourself. Failure to do that creates death and destruction in the wake. Sometimes that does mean getting a gun.
If Mr Rahimi is a such bad guy he should be convicted of some crime. In which case then he loses his gun rights.
He was, and he did. The question is presented is whether a pre-conviction suspension of the right to keep and bear arms is permissible, and what limits on such a deprivation may exist.
Maybe try locking up dangerous people?
Is it really the minority who can’t see the massive logic failure that is “you’re too dangerous to have a gun but here’s a knife, a car, a bus, a stick, gasoline, a hardware store full of chemicals, your job in food service, a bunch of power tools, your job in transportation, etc….” Clown logic for a clown world.
Meanwhile the dangerous person is living with a significant other and/or kids who can’t seem to recognize the danger even though they likely called the cops on him in the first place.
Either society wants protection from dangerous people or it doesn’t. Clearly this society doesn’t.
“Maybe try locking up dangerous people?”
Here is the MOST LIKED comment in the WaPo, it really shows where their lack of cognitive function is at –
“OK. you can have a muzzleloader all other guns are banned because they didn’t exist”
*snicker* 😉
“Waldman: The Stakes In Rahimi Are Too High for the Supreme Court to Stick With Bruen’s Originalism”
To that, POG say : “Wrong”.
“I should have known it all along
When the future looks to bright can’t be anything but right – {Bruen}
Wrong
Everything was going strong
The sky was always blue I thought my dreams had all come true
Wrong”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NZtpapVHmA
The Supreme Courts prior decisions are now coming back to haunt them. Trying to equate life 247 years ago in comparison to today’s problems is asinine to say the least. Back in the dead hand of the past women were treated as sex slaves (or were they?) At least in Colonial times they had the right to an abortion, but the crazed Neanderthal Republicans have turned the clock back ( or so they think) to Medieval Times by declaring all women should be bare foot, pregnant, and sex slaves.
Gun laws actually existed in pre-colonial America but the crazed and demented Supreme Court conveniently ignores the fact that there were laws against open and concealed carry in many large cities as well as laws that prohibited loaded guns in homes, as well as convicted prior criminals from even possessing guns in some cities.
Now the Supreme Courts prior decision has unleashed an avalanche of court cases wishing to overturn every gun law in the U.S. and the Court now will have to backtrack and start to simply refuse to hear any more gun cases just as prior courts have done for decades letting lower court rulings stand that were overwhelmingly anti-gun.
The court realizes that most homicides are not mass murders, and not done by terrorists, or even done by gang bangers, but the majority of killings are done by husbands killing wives, so to rule against Red Flag Laws will come back to haunt them.
Perhaps the gun lobbyists and manufacturer’s (merchants of death) have also not payed the corrupt justices enough graft under the table either. Clarence Thomas likes tax free new luxury cars.
dacian,
“… most homicides are not mass murders, and not done by terrorists, or even done by gang bangers, but the majority of killings are done by husbands killing wives …”
Your claim does not agree with multiple sources which attribute around 80% of ALL crime (which includes violent crime–and of course murder) to violent criminal gangs. Or are you going to tell me that the majority of those homicide victims in Chicago every weekend are wives/girlfriends? If I am wrong, by all means show us the sex of the homicide victims in Chicago and prove that the majority of the homicide victims were women.
You know, just about everything dacian writes is a meatball pitch like this. Given miner’s nervous tic about demanding citations and feebly attempting to correct things, I’m surprised that he doesn’t jump in and lambast dacian on easy stuff like this. He could count a lot of coups, at least in his mind, and that kind of stuff is apparently important to him. Although, I’m not sure whether it’s possible for multiple personalities to argue with each other. That, or they’re both just a pair of poseurs.
It is my opinion that they are the same guy.
Mentally ill does not even begin to describe it.
Here’s what I think.
If a person can be imprisoned without trial under the Constitution, he can certainly lose his gun rights without trial.
That’s nice Miner so lock them up and keep the dangerous people off the streets….. Oh wait we don’t do that anyway, so no abridged rights without a conviction seems to be a better path with the nature of government being known.
Safe. miner is a typical fascist. We’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. miner says all are guilty and cannot prove otherwise.
Burn and machine gun the whole village. That will stop crime.
jwm I am hoping he is more of a troll than a lupenprole and just pointing out the truck sized holes in his reasoning based off of observed experience in the NY petri dish. Your mentioned solution to crime control was one that a few of my former co-workers observed in various South American countries and is not recommended for reuse to put it mildly.
In the old movie “The 3 Faces of Eve” one of the personalities would get drunk and let another one have the hang over. Wonder if one had gotten pregnant!
dacian most likely is copying and pasting and no original thought comes forth from him.
Maybe all of those wannabe thugs were also wannabe thuggettes? What is a woman after all in a Deep Blue city these days? Guess that makes them “wives and girlfriends.”
“The Supreme Courts prior decisions are now coming back to haunt them.”
Only those that sought to rewrite the original intent of our Founders without seeking to do so via the expressed amendment process or actual legislation, as clearly put forth in our Constitution. All of the others, from Marbury forward, have sought to maintain a steady progressive path to the point where the original intentions have become totally masked or diluted.
The problem with progressive policy is that it is never stated exactly what its proponents are progressing towards. The only logical conclusion is that the rights and liberties of the individual; revered by the Founders; become totally replaced by the wishes of the collective.
The word describing such is “Communism”. Some might claim “Democracy”, but even this is in direct conflict with the Founders, who decreed that US citizens are guaranteed a “Republican form of government” in Article IV, US Constitution.
The right to defend one’s existence from another is natural, exhibited by humans and many forms of animals, warm and cold-blooded. The rights of the likes of humans, even Rahimi, must be upheld along with due process in dealing with them. Should the American legal/judicial system need to be changed, or The Constitution, for that matter, it needs to be done on the light of day- not by some appointed men, women and WTH knows in black robes; people who can/will never be held responsible for their actions by the American citizens.
Craig in IA:
Bravo, and thank you for your cogent defense of our inherent liberties, the Republic, and the Constitution!
It has always been my belief that sovereignty inheres in the individual as beings created in the Divine image, and that we are citizens of a Constitutional Republic based on popular sovereignty. Words have meaning, and the fact that the Constitution guarantees a REPUBLICAN form of government with separation of powers, (never an “R Democracy”) which means exactly what it says. The Founders feared “democracy” as a tyranny of the majority and akin to mob rule.
“the Constitution guarantees a REPUBLICAN form of government with separation of powers, (never an “R Democracy”) which means exactly what it says.”
A republic based on democratic pilings, i.e. “majority rules” in every situation where voting is the means of establishing the approval of “we the people”. The founders could not escape that.Essentially, the Constitution bought us “mob rule” at a level above the indidual. But which form of creating any ruling body at all is better. I am comfortable that people claiming that the US is a democracy mean the structure of the governing system used in our republic. Well, exept for the dangerous whackos who don’t. We know who they are.
“I am comfortable that people claiming that the US is a democracy mean the structure of the governing system…”
Not I. The democrat Party in particular, along with many elitist, establishment Republicrats would happily turn over control of this nation to a few large states, or even metro areas, all of which are currently failing their own citizens/taxpayers in grand fashion; and use the rest of us as their little worker collective. Work hard, send in over half of what you make to the various governing bodies, and shut up and live as we tell you. The AOCs, Mazie Hironos, Hillary Clintons, Nancy Pelosis, Liz Warrens, et al are already on record and wouldn’t deny it to their own automatons.
The first round to be won here is abolishing the Electoral College, even though the POTUS is, for the most part, a figurehead. But overall, the goal is to make the US exactly like the rest of the world- subjects ordered around and behaving as the governing regime sees fit for us. How ‘bout that little Mick Jagger (or Castro) spawn up there in Canada? Proudly showing the American Democratic Socialist party the way.
Like the old Soviet Commies back in Kruschev’s day: you can trust the democrats to do exactly as they say.
perhaps one day dacian will be sane enough to recognize this post of his is pure BS, but obviously that day is not today.
Killing babies does not relate to your fictional sex slaves. We are talking about a defenseless baby. Not an adults poor self control.
Did I just hear some rocks rattling in a tin can?? Disregard.
Bud even in gun control central NYC most murders are gang related with stolen/straw purchased with no real investigation and/or consequences guns. Did they legalize weed out in Ohio?
Guess what? violence in those “major cities” is still rampant and the criminals carry illegally. I think that progressives believe that “illegal” means some kind of special rights not endowed upon the rest of us by a non existant creator. Animals will be animals despite the”laws”.
Citations needed with all those claims. Bruen means the lawor equivalent must’ve existed before 1791 to be relevant. Let’s see you back up your big mouth!
When the founders wrote the Constitution, they realized times would change. That is why most of the writings are in general. If they had wanted to restrict gun ownership that would have written, “The right ot the people to keep and bear MUSKETS’. But they Wanted the people to have the means to remove the government by force if needed and wanted them to have the same weapons the government has.
Between Miller and Bruen the writing is on the wall for the NFA, gun bans by type, and background checks entirely. Simple analog of these restrictions (infringements) to any other right does not exist. There is a big difference between punishment for the inapprpriate exercise of a right which harms another and restricting the right in the first place. Everytime I hear anyone say “No right is absolute” I just cringe. The truly sad thing is even SCOTUS is saying it. They are all wrong. All stop. Period. End Conversation. Rights, by their very definition, are absolute and not subject to any Government control of their free exercise.
The right to life
vs.
The obsolete man
Without the right to life (the right to even exist) then the entire conversation is completely pointless. It really is this or that, 1 or 0, plain english black and white with no grey area. Your either alive or your not. Some things in this world ARE absolute. Not as a matter of choice or even a matter of law. But simply as matters of fact.
Glad to see that you are pro-life. You do include the right of the unborn children, right?
ince cnceived, they ARE children so absolutely YES
Until somene proves beynd any possible doubt that even ine child, conceived in the Mother’s womb, actually turned out to be a puppy, bunny, lizard, oyster, I’m sticking to this premise.
Of course I’m pro-life. As a living sentient being I don’t see any other option.
As for unborn children…
Without them, humans would not exist on this planet. For that reason alone they should be given reverence.
Yep.
The “compromise” between “Life” and “Death” is always death. No room for anything in-between.
It’s easy to make decisions concerning other’s lives. The Bill Gates, von Schwabs, Soros, et al NEVER lead by example. They should be the first ones to jump off the top of the Empire State Building- no parachute. It’s always up to someone else, some lesser minion like you or me…
It’s easy for a propagandist to win a debate when they frame both sides. The first two paragraphs of this drivel do exactly that, and are full of just plan WRONG “facts.”
Many of the amicus briefs on this case will tell you why, the government had ample other options available to them to take Rahimi off the streets and keep the neighbors safe.
violent crime convictions bad.
“… if [the U.S. Supreme Court] wants to uphold [Bruen] it would have no choice but to declare that the government can’t take guns out of the hands of abusive husbands and boyfriends.”
There are four ginormous problems with that statement and mindset.
1) An abusive husband or boyfriend can maim/murder their wife/girlfriend just as easily, efficiently, and assuredly with bludgeons, knives, ligatures, etc. as they can with a firearm. Thus, removing firearms from an abusive husband or boyfriend does ZERO to increase the wife or girlfriend’s safety.
2) If a husband or boyfriend is truly dangerous, the wife/girlfriend who stays with him is choosing to stay in a dangerous situation which does NOT obligate other people to give up their rights.
3) If a husband or boyfriend is truly dangerous and has already attacked his wife/girlfriend, he should be in prison and not free among us in society. Failing to imprison such an abusive husband or boyfriend is a monumental failure of society (via law enforcement) to protect those women.
4) It is flat-out wrong to infringe on a husband’s or boyfriend’s rights based on a wife’s or girlfriend’s unfounded accusations. Again, if a husband or boyfriend has demonstrated that he is dangerous, he should be in prison and there is no reason for any standard to disarm such a person out in public because he is in prison rather than out in public.
Of course the foundation of my above commentary is truth, justice, and reasoning which a very large percentage of our population reject in favor of emotional impulse and evil objectives. It is not possible to educate nor persuade such people. Plan accordingly.
5) Laws do not prevent; they punish. It is absurdly stupid (and potentially deadly) to think a red flag law will prevent a determined bad guy from getting another gun.
But this OPs exact mentality is the reason Carol Bowne is dead. Her government PREVENTED a law abiding citizen from obtaining the necessary tools to defend herself.
Gman,
You are correct on all counts.
And I will expand your comment to say that it is absurdly stupid (and potentially deadly) to think that a red flag law will prevent a determined violent husband or boyfriend from maiming/murdering, period.
Just as written words are worth no more than the paper they are written on. A Constitution or Protective Order are nothing but words. They have an intent, but the only enforcement is that which the individual puts forth. The 2nd Amendment protects nothing as we have all seen too oft as of late. We the People must assert and enforce our rights. As must the person who obtained a protective order; they must enforce it. For no one else will.
Funny how the deterrence argument works for traffic (and gun) laws but not for capital punishment….then again we all know the statist/leftist/fascist cheerleaders don’t really care about law and order, just their power to determine the “order” other people have to live by.
“It is flat-out wrong to infringe on a husband’s or boyfriend’s rights based on a wife’s or girlfriend’s unfounded accusations.”
Even for Jews living with Moses, there needed to be at least 2, better, 3 or more corroborating witnesses to bring charges that would “stick”. Of course, the Pharisees tossed that one later when they convicted Christ Jesus for making them all look bad by comparison.
There’s a lot of that going on in DC today with DJT and the Jan 6 crowd, as well as anyone who’d dare question the actions and motives of the present regime. (I’m not comparing Republicrats to The Christ, only the situation.)
In the WaPo, ‘George and Gracie’ had this gem to say (I shit you not!) :
“If Clarence Thomas is such an originalist, his vote should only count as 3/5ths of a vote because the constitution said blacks are 3/5ths of a person.”
Do they not realize the newest member of the bench also would only get 3/5 of a vote?
They probably think of themselves as such ‘good progressives’… 🙁
Not to mention this argument isn’t even historically accurate.
The odious “3/5th’s compromise” counted SLAVES at 3/5th. Freedmen / non-enslaved Blacks were counted like everyone else.
As the only thing Clarence Thomas has ever been a slave to is fidelity to the Constitution, the argument fall apart.
Everyone seems to also forget that the 3/5ths compromise was done to prevent the southern states from having more power. It was the free states that wanted the slaves to not count at all. the slave states wanted the slaves to count as a full person for the purposes of representation but then not give them the vote.
The three-fifths clause remained in force until the post-Civil War 13th Amendment freed all enslaved people in the United States, the 14th amendment gave them full citizenship, and the 15th Amendment granted black men the right to vote. The 3/5ths clause only referenced enslaved blacks…
The chick would get NO vote. More fad prog revisionism of the failed prog era.
“If Rahimi wins, laws on everything from carrying guns on planes to background checks to licensing gun dealers might have to be struck down.”
Well, that’s the consequence of writing, passing, and signing into law, unconstitutional legislation.
The “guns on planes” argument is especially stupid. Just as private property owners / businesses have the right to say “no guns allowed,” the airlines would be free to say “no guns allowed in the passenger compartment” if they want to, and they almost assuredly would.
Absolutely…. provided they are held 100% responsible for the safety of their passengers when someone gets box cutters on board.
go back and reconsider EVERY hijacking of any commercial airliner anywhere, ever. HAD THERE BEEN ONE ARMED PERSON aboard that was not part f the plot, that hijacking could not have succeeded. Hole in head of perp tends to make them mighty peaceful of a sudden.
WHY do you think Uncle Stupid decided to select a few trained Air Marshalls to ride anonymously aboard US flights? So in sime cases there might be ONE armed good guy on that plane for that flight.
How much better for two or three dozen armed and skilled citizens toalso be riding anonymously aboard each flight, and paying for the priviledge of so doing?
On the other hand what is the danger of a gun on a plane vs on a boat, in a school, on a bus, in a movie theater, in a drug store, on a subway, in a hospital, outside a gas station, at church, in a post office, in a car, in your home, on a University campus, in a park.
I know, pressurized cabin, narrow, but still, arguments are made for all of these places why you shouldn’t be able to carry a gun in them, but that imaginary line seems illogical, trying to appeal to emotion. if a law abiding citizen isn’t going to murder someone in a Walmart, they also won’t in a bus, taxi, or library.
BS – “Private” property owners that offer their spaces up to public access do NOT get sieze/suspend the Constitutional rights of a citizen.
” “Private” property owners that offer their spaces up to public access do NOT get sieze/suspend the Constitutional rights of a citizen.”
Are you sure? Any activity on private property held out as public accommodation can surely suspend deny Constitutional rights. For instance, at my grocery store,I can eject anyone for loud or any inappropriate speech I choose. Same at a gun range, I can prohibit anyone from entering the range unless their firearm is holstered, or encased when outside the actual firing line. Again, as a lodging establishment, I can enforce a “no guns allowed” demand. In such places, I can legally demand a potential customer display an active government identity document (same if I owned an air taxi, or run a government licensed/approved airport. So long as I do not enforce my requirements based on religion, race, sex, etc.
It’s a little peak into the statist/leftist/fascist worldview – rational individuals or citizens freely associated as companies can’t possibly be trusted to keep the greater welfare in mind when making decisions, only the government can be trusted to make the rules – in their view the airlines would start marketing their services to gunfighters and hitmen just to make a couple extra bucks without the benevolent, all-knowing FedGov keeping them – and us – safe.
The article ends with :
“Which is why, Winkler told me, “This case is the best case for gun-safety advocates that could come along.” The result might dial back Bruen and strike a blow against originalism, showing that when justices imprison the country in 18th- and 19th-century ideas and values, even this conservative court can’t live with the results.”
6-odd months from now :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xcr93xx3A
The hope is that the bright line test they come up with is that in order to be deprived of the RKBA, you first have to be ADJUDICATED (in a proceeding that complies with due process) to have committed a serious crime or be mentally unfit / defective — and a domestic restraining order ain’t enough.
Given that ACB previously (as a 7th Cir. judge) wrote a dissent arguing that there was no historical basis for prohibiting non-violent *felons* from possessing guns, my hope is that she’ll roll that way.
I say again: she’s the key — if she goes wobbly, Roberts will wobble right along with her.
As I commented yesterday, for *years* in TTAG I have been saying if we ever won big on gun rights, their response would be to make as many things possible to deprive you of your rights.
A few examples : Speeding ticket? Someone who can’t responsibly control a steel and glass missile at highway speeds can’t be trusted to own a gun.
Someone who gets in a heated argument at work is too unstable to own a gun, etc.
The ‘Bright Line’ you mention would be a good way to deal with that, but you can trust them to abuse that as much as they possibly can… 🙁
LKB,
I could be wrong (and please correct me if I am): I thought U.S. Supreme Court Justice Barrett recently started issuing statements or opinions that are a lot weaker on the Second Amendment than her previous track record before she joined the Supreme Court.
So far, the only indication I have seen that she may be going wobbly is that she voted to stay the permanent injunction in VanDerStok pending SCOTUS’s decision on the cert petition in that case. (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh dissented.)
Now, that’s not on the merits, and staying an injunction that vacates a federal regulation pending appeal isn’t completely unheard of. But it certainly has my antennae raised.
Thank you for the response LKB.
As they say, “Stay tuned.”
EDIT –
LKB – IOW, one would have to demonstrate actual physical violence to someone else, meaning, Hunter Biden would get his gun rights back for lying on form 4473?
In recent years, SCOTUS has passed on a number of opportunities to rule that nonviolent crimes aren’t enough to lawfully negate a person’s RKBA. (My read was that it was Roberts and Kavanaugh that were the problem.) But to my knowledge, there haven’t been any such cases presented to SCOTUS post-Bruen.
If the Court decides Rahini by holding that only an adjudication (crime, mental defect) can deprive an adult of the RKBA, then the “user of illegal drugs” prohibition goes bye bye. (Eleventh Circuit has already gone there.)
Absent some major retrenchment from Bruen (not likely), my guess is that Hunter ultimately walks on the 4473 charges. If the law making users of illegal drugs prohibited persons fails the Bruen test, it means that Hunter’s lying on the 4473 was immaterial, and thus he walks.
LKB,
“If the law making users of illegal drugs prohibited persons fails the Bruen test, it means that Hunter’s lying on the 4473 was immaterial, and thus he walks.”
Couldn’t Hunter win/walk on the fact that the illegal drug user question on the ATF From 4473 requires him to incriminate himself and is therefore not permissible under the Fifth Amendment?
Uncommon sense:
On the Fifth Amendment issue, the answer is no. He was under no legal compulsion to buy a gun and fill out the form — the decision to purchase the gun was a voluntary choice on his part.
And even if you could really stretch and find a potential Fifth Amendment issue, his remedy would be to refuse to answer the question and then sue to receive the firearm notwithstanding his nonanswer, claiming that to force him to answer the question was unconstitutional.
The Fifth Amendment is a right to remain silent — not a license to lie.
LKB,
Very good–thank you as always for your response.
“The hope is that the bright line test they come up with is that in order to be deprived of the RKBA, you first have to be ADJUDICATED (in a proceeding that complies with due process) to have committed a serious crime or be mentally unfit / defective — and a domestic restraining order ain’t enough.”
I agree.
If a person can be imprisoned without trial under the Constitution, he can certainly lose his gun rights without trial.
Miner repeating flawed reasoning does not make it miraculously functional.
If a person can be imprisoned without trial under the Constitution, he can certainly lose his gun rights without trial.
Damn Minerva, getting lazy? or forgetful? You’ve repeated that little tidbit of “wisdom” at least five or six times… Way to go…
It’s amazing how sheepish people can be. How they want others to handle their problems, take absolutely zero responsibility for their situations, but then want to tell others how it should be when they are trying to absolve themselves of it all. Crazy.
excelent. My first and strongest advice to amy woman presently involved in a “relationship” with a guy who ends up being violent is “WHAT were you thinking when you first took up with him? HOW could you NOT know his violent tendencies?”
Mean doods know how to come across all sweetness and light, put in the gentle schmooze. The women tey attract seem to fall for this stuff, give in to them for the false security it seems to provide, then once they are “owned” by the guy refuse tobeleive they were sogullible as to be duped. After that one “breaks up” they go find another similar situation.
I am firmly convinced this is part of the roten sour fruit of the divorce culture we as a people oave accepted.
this does NOT justify the eventual violence against these women at all, it merely is one man’s assessment of the phenomenon. I’ve seen plenty of evidence to support this assessment.
I also know scores of strong happy marriages that never will involve any violence. VERY different foundation for these healthy relationships.
Miranda was a scumbag but his case gave us the Miranda rights. Let’s see the progressive idiots try and justify that one.
How about IF the supposed abused gal(or guy)prove something bad happened? Women (&men) lie to get revenge or a huge advantage in a divorce or separation. That can backfire when your former spouse loses his job & goes to jail for contempt of court(ask me how I know🙄).
the water upon which you walked formerly got a bit thin?
A law or a Constitutional Amendment takes effect on the date it is signed into law or ratified as written! Live with it!
“The court’s conservatives have two choices: Tell violent abusers everywhere they can keep their guns, or strike a blow against their beloved principle of “originalism,” the idea that the Constitution must be applied today by divining the original intent of the men who wrote it and the values of the world they lived in centuries ago.”
Its almost like we should replace that pesky Constitution with one document that simply says “I feelz”
“Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
“deprived of … liberty,”
removal of the exercise of a constitutional right is also deprivation of liberty.
Rahimi wasn’t “held to answer” (e.g. no trial by jury) “for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury”. There was no grand jury or conviction of a crime. It was a ‘court order’, and a civil order at that, so is that really due process enough for removal of the exercise of a constitutional right for anyone?
So the 2A is a constitutional right also, and even if Bruen had not happened it would still be a constitutional right and this argument would have eventually come up anyway.
Its not your contrived “originalism” BS, SCOTUS decides constitutional issues, the fundamental question here is – is it constitutional due process to remove exercise of a constitutional right, any constitutional right, impose deprivation of liberty, simply because a court can issue what is a civil restraining order?
So yeah, Rahimi, although a scuzz ball and should have been locked up (and if he was such a threat then he should have been locked up) and I’m not cheering for him, but he is still entitled to ‘due process’, still has constitutional rights, and has chosen to exercise those rights through a 2A claim like, you know, the “originalism” that all Americans rely on for due process that is one of the very foundations of the legal system and has been for over 200 years and way before Bruen was decided.
And now Waldman is afraid that SCOTUS would apply the same “originalism” concept that he and all of us have been employing for first amendment rights and has been in place for over two hundred years in our legal system and was simply applied to the 2A just as its been used to uphold the 1A and other rights, that for some Waldman thinks “originalism” only arrived with Bruen and those mean old ‘conservative’ judges, and Waldman would rather go with ‘I feelz’ because if not then SCOTUS is gonna tell “violent abusers everywhere they can keep their guns”.
My own feeling here, for this case, is that SCOTUS is going to do what they have done for the first amendment in their “originalism” for almost 200 years – that the first amendment doesn’t allow for or protect intentionally harmful acts (e.g. hate speech). Then the question becomes is Rahimi likely to commit an ‘intentionally harmful act’ – well, the court that issued the order apparently did not think so for if they did they were obligated to act and confine Rahimi and not rely on a civil order saying basically ‘bad boy, no, you cant do that’ – so was there really due process applied here, ya know, that “originalism” due process that’s at the foundation of our legal system?
“So yeah, Rahimi, although a scuzz ball and should have been locked up (and if he was such a threat then he should have been locked up) and I’m not cheering for him, but he is still entitled to ‘due process’,…”
That’s the ‘crux of the biscuit’ as the late Frank Zappa once said.
The right (and likely) Rahimi decision will destroy every bullshit ‘red flag order’ law out there, and may well make tens of millions of folks eligible to own guns that can’t currently own them.
Gun companies better get ready for a potential ocean of new gun sales… 🙂
Can you imagine the flood of new gun owners if only people convicted of physical violence against another had no gun rights?
Every bullshit process crime felony means tens of millions of newly-eligible gun owners!
Tax cheats can own guns!
Even Hunter Biden can own a gun for lying on form 4473, after he gets out of prison! 🙁
laws on everything from carrying guns on planes to background checks to licensing gun dealers might have to be struck down.
And true National Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land… Where is the problem? Asshole beats his/her wife/husband, girl/boyfriend get him/her away from them and instruct the victim to get a gun, learn how to use it and defend themselves (the gene pool could use a culling)… I don’t see a problem with guns on planes (would we be dealing with the annual 9/11 trek to NYC if there had been an armed individual on those planes?), background checks are useless (criminals don’t do background checks and they do nothing to catch a drug user or a mentally unstable individual), licensing gun dealers? Just another form of government overreach… Just sayin’…
Free Men should have access to any Arm they desire and government has no duty to protect you. Nobody has authority over my right to self defense but me!
Is Rahimi a Vampire? Driving stakes in a vampire’s head wont work, go for the heart.
But, what if he’s a Zombie? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference, best to double tap just to be sure…
T-bone would work, I guess.
Liberals always rationalize instead of convict.
“Liberals always rationalize instead of convict.”
Wrong, look how they were eager to convict the peaceful Jan. 6 protesters… 🙁
That is of different comrade. Street criminals are but misguided youths in need of jobs, opportunities, and helpful programs. The Jan 6ths are guilty of wrongthink and deserving of reeducation
“The consequences of him winning — for both the court and the Republican Party — are just too grave.”
So what exactly is this leftist implying will happen if SCOTUS doesn’t rule the way the leftists want them to? Consequences for the GOP? Sure, they could feel it in the next election if enough people are pissed off. Consequences for the court? Lifetime appointment, by design so they can rule according to the law rather than political pressure. So I guess the justices are meant to use their imagination. But maybe they don’t need to imagine, we’ve seen it recently, and the Biden Justice Department did nothing about it. Getting kind of sick of these thugs, their threats, and their brownshirt tactics.
I’ve made clear before that I dislike the legal standard established by the Bruen decision because I think it’s unwieldy for the trial courts to apply – but at the same time I recognize the necessity of it because of how intransigent lower courts have been when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. They have demonstrated that any “balancing test”, no matter how strongly weighted toward 2nd Amendment rights, will invariably be interpreted by trial courts as permitting any gun control restriction the state desires, on the grounds of the most flimsy, ephemeral, hypothetical, or fictional benefit to public safety.
So now you get no balancing test. Because you deserve none. Enjoy.
Exactly. Thomas correctly saw that if you give the Second / Fourth / Ninth Circuits and similar judges an inch on the Second Amendment, they’ll take a mile, and so the only way to give the Second Amendment any teeth was to eliminate interest balancing *entirely.*
Similarly, the judge-made doctrines of Chevron / Auer deference were based on the fiction that bureaucrats are just a bunch of disinterested technocrats who are actual experts who can be counted on to stay in their lanes. Now that the bureaucracy is awash with activists who have run amuck for decades and still seek more and more power (to say nothing of self-dealing and corruption), SCOTUS is revisiting the fundamental issue, and it’s looking like it will finally return government power to the three-branch system set forth in the Constitution.
Hopefully SCOTUS will eventually reexamine qualified immunity. But that’ll probably take a while.
The entire Constitution is conditional; it is conditioned on the current mood of the majority of voters, otherwise, politicians are hamtrung to get the legislation they want, when they want. humans are living things, the rules they live by should reflect changes in life. All living things breathe, the rules of a nation should be a breathing, living entity, as well. Sometimes you must destroy representative government in order to save it.
Note also that punishing people prior to committing a crime is much more efficient than cumbersome and bothersome notions such as justice for everyone. How else could we repair the injustices of centuries ago?
@LKB
“The Fifth Amendment is a right to remain silent — not a license to lie.”
Seems the 4473 is the government compelling someone to testify against themselves. With government compelling speech, it seems perfectly reasonable that to exercise a natural, human and civil right, it is appropriate to lie, rather than submit to government coercion as to whether or not you may exercise a constitutionally protected, and enumerated “right”. The 4473 and BGC also violate the concept of “innocent until proven guilty. Where, in our concept of justice is a person required to prove their innocence, except as concerns the Second Amendment? Well, and as relates to Administrative Law, wherein fed agencies can accuse a person of an infraction of a non criminal regulation, and the accused must prove the govt wrong.
“Seems the 4473 is the government compelling someone to testify against themselves.”
They aren’t compelled to buy that gun.
Their are two main ways to buy a gun, at retail, and a private transaction among family, friends, and acquaintances. A private transaction has always been legal in America only until very recently.
That will easily hold up under ‘Bruen’, and knowing how Justice Thomas feels on the matter, we have a very solid shot of making a forced reporting of such transactions (universal background checks) *expressly* unconstitutional, because reporting such transactions to the government will always lead to a database being built, that can be used to confiscate them.
Government has a very strong motive to build such lists (risking their tyrant hides being nailed to the side of the metaphorical barn), and the best way that can never happen is for those lists to never be completed in the first place. That’s why I also believe that 80-percent kits being purchased over-the-counter will also be declared expressly constitutional.
The powers-to-be must *always* be concerned that if they go too far, their very lives will be at risk, *literally*.
That’s the only way this nation will remain free, it’s a literal slippery-slope issue… 🙁
EDIT – I also believe there could be limits on 80-percent kits being sold, to stop mass-manufacturing. Private sales will still be good-to-go…
“I also believe there could be limits on 80-percent kits being sold,”
Kinds like, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but….”? Isn’t that “our” general complaint about gun-grabbers and Libs on the whole? Leaving us arguing about which infringements are permissible, based on our individual vidsion of “common sense” gun control?
BTW, any justification you can imagine using as justification for restricting 80% parts can easily and justly applied to the entire function of firearm manufacture.
“They aren’t compelled to buy that gun.” Govt is compelling individuals to prove innocence in order to gain permission to exercise a protected, enumerated ‘right’. Which other constitutionally protected ‘right’ requires a person prove they are not prohibited from exercising a “right’. In order to purchase a firearm for legal purposes, individuals ARE compelled to fill out a govt permission form. Thus, a person is “compelled” to fill out a form designed to prove one is not prohibited, i.e. “guilty until proven innocent.
And where does the idea that government can “approve” use of a a ‘right’? One is not compelled to assert the First Amendment, so govt can then rule that public speech, regardless of location or forum, is prohibited until the individual fills out a form to prove they are allowed to speak. Indeed, we do know one can be compelled to testify against oneself in court, via “transactional immunity’, a concept that has no authority under the Constitution.
The constitution was constructed as a means of protecting the people from government, not the other way ’round.
Note: the 4473 is unconstitutional on its face, lacking a historical analogue. If the form did not exist, it would be impossible to lie about any information that cannot be demanded by a form that does not exist.
“A private transaction has always been legal in America only until very recently.”
A private transaction is still legal.
“The Fifth Amendment is a right to remain silent — not a license to lie.”
Isn’t the question one of “if government can find an analog to 4473 and BGCs at the early days of the nation? Not whether a person lies on an unconstitutional government form?
No. The remedy would be to refuse to answer and then sue to get the gun notwithstanding the non answer, and assert the Bruen test as the basis for your claim— NOT to lie on the form.
I say again — the Fifth Amendment is a right to remain silent, not a license to lie under oath.
“No. The remedy would be to refuse to answer and then sue to get the gun notwithstanding the non answer, and assert the Bruen test as the basis for your claim— NOT to lie on the form.”
I maintain thatthe 4473 itself is the issue; there is no historical analogue, thus the form and requirement is an entirely bogus demand of government,thus, govt cannot cannot enforce the requirement, meaning “lying” about info on the form is nota a crime/violation. The”remedy” for obtining the gun may be a suit agains the govt agent (FFL) for release of the firearm. the “remedy” regarding lying is s a suit against govt for propagation of the form in the first place. This is where I conclude that without history, text and tradition the violation of lying on the form is moot, if the form were not extant, it would be impossible to falsify any information in/on a non-extent form.
Sam,
You’re conflating what are discrete legal issues (a common mistake by first year law students as they are learning the process of legal analysis).
(1) Whether or not the requirement of filling out a 4473 and its question of drug use is constitutional is a Bruen analysis.
(2) Whether lying on the form is a crime — because the results of (1) makes the false answer on the 4473 immaterial — is a question of perjury / false statement law (only material false statements can be an offense).
(3) Fifth Amendment analysis has nothing to do with issues (1) or (2), because the Fifth Amendment isn’t a license to lie under oath, especially where there was no legal compulsion to enter into the underlying transaction.
I hope Rahimi WINS and all the gun haters can fall deeper in to Hell. They’re the SCOURGE of the USA and remaining free world.
I didn’t waste my time reading past the first sentence of Waldman’s bandwidth waste article.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
If I wanted to be brainwashed or lead around like I was on a leash, I’d watch CNN, MSNBC or even my local newspaper.
FOAD Waldman
The court can simply decide that you need to have ACTUAL due process of some type…
Breaking news: CAVALRY ARRIVES AT SUPREME COURT TONIGHT as Dozens of Groups File Briefs Defending 2A.
US Supreme Court accepted dozens of legal briefs in support of Rahimi’s efforts to declare 18 USC 922g8 to be unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RHMhfRUGrs
Ok, I’m late to the discussion here so I’ll keep it as brief as possible.
Item 1. If a person is not under indictment for a violent crime/felony, nor is in court ordered custody, they should not be under any restrictions of their Constitutional or civil rights.
Item 2. Only after due process through the courts, and conviction in the courts can anyone be deprived of property, papers or freedoms. With the single exception of being remanded/detained until trial if it is shown during the preliminary court appearance that the defendant is or may be a serious flight risk. Bond or bail is usually given as a surety that said defendant will appear on the appointed day of trial/hearing.
Deprivation of Constitutional or civil rights after completion of court ordered sentence, restitution, or reparations should also be considered as illegal and unconstitutional. Once the debt to society/victims/courts/government is paid, full rights should be restored by default.
Item 3. Confiscation of firearms alone does very little to protect anyone from someone with violent/criminal/evil intent. Humans have always been very creative and imaginative in finding methods of inflicting harm on each other.
Lastly. Exactly how would any written law, court order, or other scrap of paper prevent anyone determined to cause injury/death from doing so? The only way of preventing violence is the sure knowledge the potential victim will respond in kind. Knowing you are likely to receive corresponding injury for your efforts may cause a potential abusive spouse etc. or even random criminal thug to reconsider their course of action.
As a side note, for some reason there seems to be an attraction for some women, and even a few men, to the perceived bad boy or dangerous man. And many times in repeated relationships. Also, many of these abusive persons have the ability to be very charming and more than a little manipulative.
The problem is any protective order is only as useful as the paper it’s printed on. if the person ordered away chooses to ignore the order, or the protectee chooses to void or ignore the order, exactly how would the paper protect against a fist, knife, vehicle, blunt object etc. Firearms not needed.
“Evangelicals Have Higher-than-average Divorce Rates, According to a Report Compiled by Baylor for the Council on Contemporary Families
FEBRUARY 5, 2014
WACO, Texas (Feb. 5, 2014) — Despite their strong pro-family values, evangelical Christians have higher than average divorce rates — in fact, being more likely to be divorced than Americans who claim no religion, according to findings as cited by researchers from Baylor University.“
“States like Alabama, Texas and Tennessee, where family-friendly, evangelical Christianity is the dominant faith, have some of the highest divorce rates in the nation, according to the Center for Disease Control.“
“Divorce Rates for Atheists Are Among the Lowest in America
Why Do Conservative Christian Defenders of Marriage Get Divorced More Often?
By Austin Cline
Updated on August 24, 2018”
Now you’re posting unrelated articles from nine years ago? Are you running that low on material? Correlation does not imply causation. There are many other factors at play here, not the least of which is geographical location and the age when first married.
But you’re never interested in the fundamental elements of any problem because you’re not interested in solving these problems. You’re just gleefully spreading the word given to you from the hive. You’re little more than a bot.
Bots have more credibility…
Also this;
Messinger (2011) highlighted that all forms of abuse were more likely to occur in homosexual and bisexual couples than in heterosexual ones.
https://winteryknight.com/2020/06/02/domestic-violence-rates-are-higher-for-homosexual-couples-than-for-heterosexual-couples-4/
But no divorce.
@LKB
Yes, I am intentionally conflating Bruen and he 5th amendment, because Bruen would logically moot the 4473, thus making the whole process unconstitutional. I cannot accept that govt can benefit from an unconstitutional law/regulation. As in because government committed a crime, refusal to comply with that crime should itself be a crime.
If Bruen overturns he entire BGC, where is the logic and sense that is is possible to charge someone with lying on a federal form that is void?
And I still hold that requiring one to risk self-incrimination by demanding a person reveal whether they have committed an infraction in order to be permitted by governmen tto exercise a protected natural, human and civil right is “compelled speech.” No one is compelled to exercise a protected ‘right’. The analogue is that people can avoid being trapped by govenment, because an individual i not compelled to exercise any ‘right’ at al, and can avoid running afoul of government by foregoing the exercise of any ‘right’, ever. That notion is no different from poll taxes; no one is compelled to vote, so the case could be made that heavy restrictions on voting are right and legal.
Comments are closed.