Only Thomas dissents!

If a handful of domestic abuse victims need to be shot and killed that's a small price to pay to ensure the luxury vacations keep coming.

 

Didn't read the whole dissent but skimmed it and saw the below about the historical analysis. Not sure if I get his point here. Is he saying that Congress would have more authority to restrict access to one's guns if Congress says it's for the safety of the government as opposed to other citizens? How would that be consistent with the position that the 2nd Amendment is primarily about the right of citizens to protect themselves from government tyranny?

Opinions of the Court - 2023

While the English were concerned about preventing insurrection and armed rebellion, §922(g)(8) is concerned with preventing interpersonal violence. “Dangerous” person laws thus offer the Government no support.

 

What Thomas' dissent was based on was NOT that the government shouldn't be able to temporarily disarm dangerous people (the "why"). It was that the manner in which the specific law around disarmament of those who are under DV restraining orders goes about doing so is much more sweeping and severe in scope than the historical analogues (surety laws) the government pointed to in their arguments (the "how")

He's not wrong in that and the dissent actually makes a few good points (e.g. surety laws required a finding that an individual is dangerous and allowed them to post a bond as a remedy to ensure peaceful conduct, and DV restraining orders are often issued when there is no such finding (e.g. mutual consent) and the individual(s) affected have no remedy to maintain arms for their own defense).

All that said, Rahimi appears to be a dirtbag by all accounts and probably shouldn't be armed.

 

That part was part of his pointing out that many of the English laws pointed to in the majority opinion's historical commentary referring to "dangerous" persons were weaponized to disarm political opponents, which is exactly contrary to the reason the 2nd amendment was created in the first place, as the colonists were, in fact, seen as "dangerous" political opponents and the brits wanted to disarm them, leading to the start of the revolution. Those laws had no applicability to general domestic issues.

 

He is a patriot that is just trying to make us safer. Guns shouldn't be taken from ANYBODY, because......and say this with me please, because it's been proven to be TRUE (!!!!!!)........... having more guns in the country makes us safer!!!*



* That's why we have so much less crime, and so many fewer acts of gun violence in our country, relative to others. Because of our guns. Isn't it obvious?




Also; the NRA just put in a special order for a new RV for Clarence.

Also; they are paying for it with funds they got from Russia.

 

Thomas is the epitome of cult over country (Alito is a close second).

 

It's the video games. No other country in the world has violent video games. Keep up.

 

Interesting how he always lands on the side of more gun deaths. Co ikny dink? I think not.

 

You realize he literally said exactly the opposite of that in his dissent, right? The TLDR was dangerous people should not be able to have guns, but that the manner in which gun rights are denied through DV restraining orders is broad and severe and without respect whether a person actually is dangerous.

 

The TLDR is that he'll find a way to make sure people can have their guns.

 

Sad day for the gun lobby.

 

thoughts and prayers

 

Correct, read rationally

 

Nothing makes me weep for the future like ardent 2A supporters. Shit hole country.

 

I'm just guessing here - you typed that post on a computer/device with adequate electricity, you are well-fed and hydrated, there are no armed forces outside your door, you have no concern about anyone actually causing you physical harm because of your post, you committed no crimes in disparaging your government, even if you are unemployed and living off government largesse you would still be wealthier than 70% of the world's population, you have endless entertainment at your fingertips and access to supplies/resource unavailable to most of the world, etc. Yeah, it's sad you live in a "shit hole country."

 

Someone thinks they're smart when they're not

 

Yes, we all feel so much safer with the knowledge that the ammosexual down the street has enough firepower to take out an entire elementary school, wal mart, theatre, music festival, grocery store etc.

 

This just tells me that look what we had to do to all those other countries to live in an absolute shithole like this