That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a “clear and present danger” to our democracy.
Posted on 11/07/2023 12:24:56 PM PST by Red Badger
“I do want to be clear that we think there are different principles that apply with those who are not law-abiding.”
Then prove they are not law abiding in a court of law. Then you won’t need to circumvent due process protections.
Gun Rights are NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. Gun rights are a STATES’ ISSUE!!!
Nowhere does the Constitution give the feds power to regulate individual ownership of guns. Period. That is a STATE ISSUE!!!
Again, Patriots, stand against the unconstitutional, now totalitarian, portion of the federal government, the GREATEST threat to our lives, liberties, and well being.
i.e. the Supreme Court has NO constitutional authority in this matter and must NOT accept this case but remand to the state from which it derived.
This was a really bad case to bring regarding 2A protection.
The accused is a deeply unsympathetic character with a history of violence.
If the Supremes allow states to deny firearms to those they deem dangerous, then the left-wing states will start figuring out ways to deem all conservatives dangerous.
Domestic abuse restraining orders are not a good judge of whether someone is dangerous because there is no hearing or right of the accused abuser to contest the order. They are granted willy-nilly to anyone who applies for them with no practical judicial review and with no hearing.
This case could effectively remove most 2A protections from all of us.
True.
Quite the contrary ... the Constitution prohibits both the federal government and the several State governments to "infringe" on the right to keep and bear arms.
IMO it's not even a State issue. It's not an issue at all ... it's a Constitutional requirement that government keep its dirty hands off our weapons.
That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a “clear and present danger” to our democracy.
I agree
In Domestic Abuse cases, the man is guilty until proven guilty.................
Or... As William Rawle put it...
"The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.
Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature.
But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
I am a Marine. To some, we’re all dangerous.
What good is to be armed and be a deterrent to criminals, both private and public sector, if even while being armed you are HARMLESS?
A battered woman can be dead from alot of things-—NOT always a gun.
“The only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun in the hands of the battered woman,” Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices.”
ther fixed it.
“The accused is a deeply unsympathetic character with a history of violence.
If the Supremes allow states to deny firearms to those they deem dangerous, then the left-wing states will start figuring out ways to deem all conservatives dangerous.
Domestic abuse restraining orders are not a good judge of whether someone is dangerous because there is no hearing or right of the accused abuser to contest the order. They are granted willy-nilly to anyone who applies for them with no practical judicial review and with no hearing.”
I am hoping that the Court somehow focuses on the procedural issue side of this case and demands some meaningful judicial review. Something like a very prompt mandatory hearing re the actual facts and history of the alleged abuser.
This should depend on if someone can prove that the accused has a history of violence. Just because someone makes a claim that another is an abuser when there is no evidence to back it up does not mean that someone should lose their constitutional rights.
As the 9th and 10th Amendments explain (wish people would study them), any power that the Constitution does not authorize to the feds or limit to the states is a power RETAINED by the states and the people of those states.
The Constitution is written with the presumption that the people and their states have pre-existing, God-given rights and powers whereas the government has NO pre-existing powers. Powers to the government must be DELEGATED by the people which the Constitution does on a very limited basis.
The second amendment does not limit the states at all but it directly forbids the feds. That’s it. Gun possession is a STATES’ issue.
I understand your position.
I do not agree with it.
Bad facts make bad law.
“Nowhere does the Constitution give the feds power to regulate individual ownership of guns. Period. That is a STATE ISSUE!!!”
No, it is NOT a State issue. The States do not have the right to regulate gun either!
“IMO it’s not even a State issue. It’s not an issue at all ... it’s a Constitutional requirement that government keep its dirty hands off our weapons. “
So felons and prisoners can have guns.
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.