How will the police operate if they can’t have guns???
deleted by creator
You should be a mod here
deleted by creator
You bring a certain truth that this place benefits from though.
They had to watch Mornlbius first
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the 2022 in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen opinion, filed a lone dissent.
“The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” Thomas wrote.
A Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, was convicted for violating that law following a series of shootings, including one in which police said he fired into the air at a Whataburger restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined.
Rahimi’s lawyers claimed that the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision two years ago meant that the law on domestic violence orders could not be squared with the Constitution.
The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals embraced that argument, concluding that a gun ban for people involved in domestic disputes was an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”
That may be in part because a series of related legal challenges are already queued up for the court, including a question of whether non-violent felons can be denied access to firearms.
The original article contains 773 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
How will a supreme ruling prevent individuals selling illegal firearms? I support 100% of the population owning illegal firearms because it is aninanimate object, only the manner in how it is discharged that makes it a crime. If I find out someone bought a black market weapon, I treat it as a legal valid purchase. Society’s problem with guns is a cultural problem and a moral problem, not a gun problem.
My issue is most DV is a misdemeanor. As such, you shouldn’t lose a constitutional right over it. What other misdemeanor do you lose rights over?
Ok, then make DV a felony, like it should be. Letting someone convicted of domestic violence own a gun is just silly.
I reject the idea that any criminal convition nulifies an absolute right.
Someone is convicted of assault and battery, armed robbery, homocide, etc., they may still possess firearms. Laws do not prevent mass murder, street gangs have unlimited fire power, blackmarket sellers don’t ask why someone is buying it, thereby people are butt studpid to believe a law will forever eliminate homicide.
It’s a cultural problem in society, not a gun problem. If I had a neighbour who was in prison and now has multiple firearms for sport shooting, I might try to be friends with that person to go shooting together and listen to how they changed their life from their prison days.
Felonies restrict rights. I have no issue with that. We take away many rights under a felony.
Otherwise there is no punishment.
I reject a felony affecting individual rights. I will never report anyone with a conviction for possessing guns.
There is more to this than guns. This is about losing constitutional rights over a minor conviction.
Domestic violence is not minor. Jfc.
A misdemeanor conviction is a minor conviction. A serious crime is a felony.
Every and all kinds of convictions will never negate or nulify consituional rights. A criminal still keeps 100% of consituional rights. No law restricts a constituional right.
Criminals do not keep all their constitutional rights, when they are incarcerated they are not free to move about or posses many things. Felons on probation are not allowed to associate with other felons.
That isn’t true. A felon can’t vote in many jurisdictions. They can’t own a gun. They can’t run for certain offices. There are many things a felon can’t do.
