If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Absolute shitThoughts?
Oh ok so after your 2A is molested based on an individual judges personal opinion, theres no more shooting threat to the accuser, right? Bullshit. The threat is the criminal mind, not the inanimate object which is Constitutionally protected. Roberts is such a POS. Can't wait until Trump replaces him.Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the law uses “common sense” and applies only “after a judge determines that an individual poses a credible threat” of physical violence.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the 2022 Bruen ruling in a New York case, dissented.
I found the case: HOWARD v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF WAKEFIELD, et al. – Full-text Opinions@Rob Boudrie had mentioned elsewhere that the existence of an expired/vacated RO was used to show a threat and thus made the person unsuitable, paraphrasing.
I'd need to read the opinions on this but there might be a possibility to use the ruling, that pertains to a person currently under an RO, can be denied, also allows the inverse that a person no longer under an RO can't be denied on that basis. Need to do more research but there may be something for those still in MA.
Not sure I agree. I do on moral grounds, but that is irrelevant. If they can do it for this, then they can do it for armed robbery, getting into an accident because you were drunk, then eventually for posting "disinformation".Of course, a true domestic abuser should be denied a gun, knife, and his scrotum. However, the operative word is "true". What percentage of accusations are true?
If someone is convicted of armed robbery, would you allow them to buy a gun?Not sure I agree. I do on moral grounds, but that is irrelevant. If they can do it for this, then they can do it for armed robbery, getting into an accident because you were drunk, then eventually for posting "disinformation".
Ya, one of those slippery slopes. I think it blows the door wide open.
Key point is "convicted of".If someone is convicted of armed robbery, would you allow them to buy a gun?
How about assault with a deadly weapon? Rape? Murder?
Where's your line?
Someone being given a restraining order is not remotely close to being convicted of a crime.If someone is convicted of armed robbery, would you allow them to buy a gun?
How about assault with a deadly weapon? Rape? Murder?
Where's your line?
absolutely, which is why I said a true domestic abuser, who would have been convictedSomeone being given a restraining order is not remotely close to being convicted of a crime.
Key point is "convicted of".
A RO does not require a conviction, or even a preponderance of evidence.
Rephrase your question as "accused of maybe committing armed robbery or another crime in the future" and you will be describing a comparable situation.
So you agree that the acid test is a criminal conviction?maybe you missed this part, there were a lot of words there............a true domestic abuser
This is why one should go to primary sources such as the opinion itself rather than relying on even more-or-less neutral reports such as AP. What Roberts actually wrote about common sense is:Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the law uses “common sense” and applies only “after a judge determines that an individual poses a credible threat” of physical violence.
If someone is convicted of armed robbery, would you allow them to buy a gun?
How about assault with a deadly weapon? Rape? Murder?
Where's your line?
Roberts is living in a fantasy land if he believes there is any due process or standard applied to determine if the threat is "clear".This is why one should go to primary sources such as the opinion itself rather than relying on even more-or-less neutral reports such as AP. What Roberts actually wrote about common sense is:
"Together, the surety and going armed laws confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."
The "credible threat" language comes from the legislation itself.
Not really.This will end up being the most abused ruling the Supreme Court has ever made. This ruling will open up the doors to some new draconian red flag laws in Ma.. Hold on it is going to be a bumpy ride.
I know however it can only get worse. Who knows what crazy additional ideas may come of this.Not really.
The law is already shit. We already have red flag and discretionary issue. This is basically just a push. The shitty part is such a ruling only supports lautenberg bs which violates due process.
What about the fact threatening is not a procssacutable crime in Suffolk County/Boston any longer.This is why one should go to primary sources such as the opinion itself rather than relying on even more-or-less neutral reports such as AP. What Roberts actually wrote about common sense is:
"Together, the surety and going armed laws confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."
The "credible threat" language comes from the legislation itself.
Remember the reckless Heller case......that case was 4-4 going in and it all came down to Roberts. We wanted no part of that case what so ever. Roberts is a coin toss on every case. We got very lucky.Need to read this
But if Roberts wrote it you know that it is state power, baby splitting bullshit