Kavanaugh is a snake who worked with Bush Jr to justify torture in Guantanamo (outside of the 50 states), and spying without a warrant ("meta data" which we know is just a fractionalized placeholder for "all data.")
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision on Thursday allowing alleged domestic abusers to keep their guns is perhaps the most radical Second Amendment decision in the history of the federal judiciary. It is not, however, a surprise. Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in last year’s Bruen case invited lower courts to strike down any gun restrictions that “our ancestors would never have accepted.” This standard is infinitely malleable given the hopeless ambiguities in the historical record. But even where the record is clear, Thomas’ test leads to heinous results given that the “ancestors” in question were often violently racist and misogynistic white men. As the 5th Circuit tacitly acknowledged, “our ancestors” would “never have accepted” disarming domestic abusers because they did not believe domestic violence was a crime.
So, this introductory paragraph says a lot about the author, Mark Joeseph Stern. The guy is insanely anti-gun. His links in this paragraph are to other Slate articles which express as much horseshit as this paragraph. But worst of all, he is incredibly disingenuous and is insulting his readers with his idiocy.
Stern suggests that the 5th Circuit allowed a person accused of domestic violence to keep his arms because the 5th Circuit interpreted the Bruen decision to suggest that "domestic violence" wasn't a thing in the 17th and 18th century, so the accused has a right to own his guns.
Utter horseshit, and any reasonable person should see this as an insult to the reader. Why would anyone take this idiot seriously after that paragraph?
As for the Kavanagh and Thomas opinions. Thomas, in Bruen, was discussing "may issue" laws regarding carry permits, and used history to show that it was neither an intention of the Founding Fathers to allow guns to be restricted in this way, nor the understanding of any legislative body prior to the 20th century that they could regulate guns in this way.
He build off the techniques of Scalia and the Heller and McDonald decisions where Scalia went back in history and showed that laws that have never been implemented before are usually not implemented because they aren't allowed by the constitution, and laws that have a long history of enforcement and regulation are usually allowed by the constitution. Thomas then used this line of argument to suggest that we have had a right to carry arms in public, with little restriction since the Magna Charta, which is a good sign that we have that right even today and it is protected by the 2nd and 14th amendments.
Kavanagh simply reiterated that the Thomas decision was in reference to whether a state could enforce "may issue" laws, and that his decisions would not affect the criteria for the requirements for "shall issue" states. He did not suggest that future requirements would be constitutional, only that those currently in effect and not deemed unconstitutional are still not deemed unconstitutional.
Stern seems to be attempting to suggest that the potential for more gun control laws are in our future, and seems to be eager to suggest that states just got a wink and a nod to go forward with further requirements to their "shall issue" permit process. I've heard insurance requirements tossed about.
But realistically, the country is going pro-gun. More and more states are passing constitutional carry, and now the 6 may carry states just got forced into being shall carry where they can make requirements for a permit, but cannot arbitrarily ban carry from most places, or ban "common use weapons" like semi-autos, and magazines that normally carry up to 17 rounds.
I'm willing to bet we see the end of SBR laws and brace, bump stock, and trigger bans soon enough.
You would think being someone whose Second Amendment-guaranteed right could have been impacted by the presumably false allegations during his confirmation hearing, he would have more appreciation for the loss of one's rights without first being convicted of a crime, merely an accusation. Especially so considering the recent assassination attempt.
The key Lie here is 'subject to a restraining order' translation= RED FLAG LAWS. The 'accusation' of guilty until proven innocent is nothing but liberal/communist gun control.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 4 points 2.3 yearsFeb 5, 2023 12:35:37 ago (+4/-0)
Guantanamo (outside of the 50 states), and spying without a warrant ("meta data" which we know is just a fractionalized placeholder for "all data.")
Kavanaugh doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights.
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 1 point 2.3 yearsFeb 6, 2023 05:27:54 ago (+1/-0)
And no one has ever lied to get one…
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 2.3 yearsFeb 5, 2023 13:37:23 ago (+2/-0)
So, this introductory paragraph says a lot about the author, Mark Joeseph Stern. The guy is insanely anti-gun. His links in this paragraph are to other Slate articles which express as much horseshit as this paragraph. But worst of all, he is incredibly disingenuous and is insulting his readers with his idiocy.
Stern suggests that the 5th Circuit allowed a person accused of domestic violence to keep his arms because the 5th Circuit interpreted the Bruen decision to suggest that "domestic violence" wasn't a thing in the 17th and 18th century, so the accused has a right to own his guns.
Utter horseshit, and any reasonable person should see this as an insult to the reader. Why would anyone take this idiot seriously after that paragraph?
As for the Kavanagh and Thomas opinions. Thomas, in Bruen, was discussing "may issue" laws regarding carry permits, and used history to show that it was neither an intention of the Founding Fathers to allow guns to be restricted in this way, nor the understanding of any legislative body prior to the 20th century that they could regulate guns in this way.
He build off the techniques of Scalia and the Heller and McDonald decisions where Scalia went back in history and showed that laws that have never been implemented before are usually not implemented because they aren't allowed by the constitution, and laws that have a long history of enforcement and regulation are usually allowed by the constitution. Thomas then used this line of argument to suggest that we have had a right to carry arms in public, with little restriction since the Magna Charta, which is a good sign that we have that right even today and it is protected by the 2nd and 14th amendments.
Kavanagh simply reiterated that the Thomas decision was in reference to whether a state could enforce "may issue" laws, and that his decisions would not affect the criteria for the requirements for "shall issue" states. He did not suggest that future requirements would be constitutional, only that those currently in effect and not deemed unconstitutional are still not deemed unconstitutional.
Stern seems to be attempting to suggest that the potential for more gun control laws are in our future, and seems to be eager to suggest that states just got a wink and a nod to go forward with further requirements to their "shall issue" permit process. I've heard insurance requirements tossed about.
But realistically, the country is going pro-gun. More and more states are passing constitutional carry, and now the 6 may carry states just got forced into being shall carry where they can make requirements for a permit, but cannot arbitrarily ban carry from most places, or ban "common use weapons" like semi-autos, and magazines that normally carry up to 17 rounds.
I'm willing to bet we see the end of SBR laws and brace, bump stock, and trigger bans soon enough.
[ + ] La_Chalupacabra
[ - ] La_Chalupacabra 1 point 2.3 yearsFeb 5, 2023 16:20:53 ago (+1/-0)
Especially so considering the recent assassination attempt.
[ + ] Bufordxl
[ - ] Bufordxl 0 points 2.3 yearsFeb 5, 2023 22:19:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted -4 points 2.3 yearsFeb 5, 2023 10:44:10 ago (+0/-4)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks -1 points 2.3 yearsFeb 5, 2023 10:47:09 ago (+1/-2)