Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hey, SCOTUS — the right to life trumps the right to own a gun (barf alert)
The Hill ^ | 28 june 2023 | Jonathan Lowy

Posted on 06/28/2023 7:57:45 AM PDT by rellimpank

The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to review a lower court ruling that struck down a law prohibiting domestic abusers from possessing guns. Speaking as someone who has represented families of women and children killed by domestic abusers with guns, the potential danger of this decision is hard to overstate. But under recent Supreme Court Second Amendment precedent, that danger is treated as virtually irrelevant.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; abortion; banglist; gunsrkba; nra; plannedparenthood; righttolife; scotus; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last
--yeah--get the UN in on it-- (sarc)

--and quote Warren Burger, who became a chief justice because Nixon thought he "looked like one should"--

1 posted on 06/28/2023 7:57:45 AM PDT by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

The right to life is why you should have a gun.

I believe the quote is: the purpose of gunpowder is to make all men tall.

Progressives, though, prefer that all men are short and government is tall.


2 posted on 06/28/2023 8:01:15 AM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

“The right to life...” Stopped reading right there. Including the unborn?


3 posted on 06/28/2023 8:02:00 AM PDT by Huskrrrr (Alinsky, you magnificent Bastard, I read your book!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
Jonathan Lowy

Hey , Stupid, the right to life and the right to own a gun are not mutually exclusive rights Dumb-Dumb.

4 posted on 06/28/2023 8:03:05 AM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ (Jude 3) and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

The right to own guns is the right to life. You don’t truly have the right to live if you don’t have the right to defend your life.


5 posted on 06/28/2023 8:03:06 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

History revisionists...


6 posted on 06/28/2023 8:03:13 AM PDT by Democrat = party of treason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

If a man can’t be trusted with a gun, he shouldn’t be walking around loose without 24/7 supervision.


7 posted on 06/28/2023 8:03:44 AM PDT by Chad C. Mulligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Abuse men’s rights without due process. Yeah, that seems just when half the women in America are batshit crazy.


8 posted on 06/28/2023 8:04:31 AM PDT by ConservativeInPA (Delay Trump’s trial, delay. Elect Trump President. Trump pardons himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
Jonathan E. Lowy is the Vice President, Legal and Chief Counsel at Brady.
9 posted on 06/28/2023 8:08:47 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

The author’s an interesting guy...

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/ex-brady-attorney-debuts-group-targeting-gunmakers-with-lawsuits


10 posted on 06/28/2023 8:09:32 AM PDT by mewzilla (We will never restore the republic if we don't first secure the ballot box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

So you would allow ANYONE to own a gun?


11 posted on 06/28/2023 8:10:10 AM PDT by RWGinger (LGB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

the stupid is strong with this one...


12 posted on 06/28/2023 8:17:57 AM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huskrrrr

If abortionists used guns on babies accidentally born alive, the left would have no problem with it.


13 posted on 06/28/2023 8:19:27 AM PDT by Cincinnatus.45-70 (What do DemocRats enjoy more than a truckload of dead babies? Unloading them with a pitchfork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

From Wikipedia:

United States v. Rahimi, No. 21-11001, is a 2023 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidating a federal law prohibiting individuals from possessing firearms while under a restraining order related to domestic abuse.

Zackey Rahimi was issued a civil restraining order by a Texas state court on February 5, 2020, after his ex-girlfriend accused him of assaulting her; the order barred him from engaging in certain harassment-related behaviors towards his ex-girlfriend or her child, as well as owning firearms. Suspecting Rahimi of an unrelated crime, officers executed a search warrant at his home, discovering a rifle and a pistol he admitted to possessing. He was charged and convicted in a federal district court of unlawful firearm possession under U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits individuals from owning firearms if they are “subject to a court order that restrains [them] from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.”

The revised March 2 opinion included an expanded concurrence from Judge James C. Ho, arguing that “civil protective orders are too often misused as a tactical device in divorce proceedings – and issued without any actual threat of danger”. Judge Wilson went further and argued that Section 922(g)(8) could even put victims of domestic violence “in greater danger than before”, because they would be unable to defend themselves against their abusers with guns, if a judge had issued a “mutual” protective order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Rahimi


14 posted on 06/28/2023 8:20:07 AM PDT by Brian Griffin (ARTICLE I SECTION 2....The President...may require the opinion, in writing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

With respect to domestic violence restraining orders, the issues of already owning guns (and the obvious evidence of having not used any of them maliciously) and buying a gun are different.


15 posted on 06/28/2023 8:25:21 AM PDT by Brian Griffin (ARTICLE I SECTION 2....The President...may require the opinion, in writing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
"the right to life trumps the right to own a gun"

Does the right to life trump the convenience of abortion?

16 posted on 06/28/2023 8:25:40 AM PDT by Savage Beast (We have a choice: darkness and decadence or light and ascendancy. You deserve what you choose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Often those two rights are the same.


17 posted on 06/28/2023 8:27:04 AM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeInPA
That's about it.

Especially when accusations of domestic violence have become routine in any divorce or custody case.

And it gets worse. Friend of mine has been a superior court judge for a very long time. He says 30 years ago or so, you never saw an allegation of child abuse or child sex in a divorce petition. Now, he sees them ALL the time.

Just another shady lawyer tactic. Shouldn't deprive somebody of a constitutional right on that basis.

18 posted on 06/28/2023 8:36:20 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

“THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRIMER” by Les Adams is a very interesting book with many quotes most of you are probably unfamiliar with.


19 posted on 06/28/2023 8:38:59 AM PDT by Brian Griffin (ARTICLE I SECTION 2....The President...may require the opinion, in writing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Rope, knives and cars can also be used to kill.


20 posted on 06/28/2023 8:41:37 AM PDT by Brian Griffin (ARTICLE I SECTION 2....The President...may require the opinion, in writing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson