The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law

[Dadstoys]

You would think they would be smart enough to know this is one of the most abused laws ever written.
No proof needed just the word of a head case ex or spurned nutbag.
One of my co-workers had 24 filed against him by his c*nt of an ex.
Every Friday when it was his turn to have the kids like clockwork and the judge sucked for it every time.
His lawyer even said to the judge "Don't you see a pattern here your honor ?"
That was years ago and he never did get his guns back.

 

[drgrant]

Has no one here yet learned that bad cases make bad law? How many times to people from Comm2A tell us that bringing a bad case to SCOTUS risks a bad outcome? Did we learn nothing at all from Abramski v. United States? SCOTUS should never have granted cert. to such a dog of a case.

Honestly Abramski actually was perfect- you had clean plaintiffs trying to do the right thing.... the court just plain sucked.

 

[pastera]

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.

That's where the "baby splitter" comment comes from
If he sees the court perception in the media swaying to one side he moves to try to correct it.

But I shouldn't hit only Roberts, Kavanagh and Gorsuch both love putting people in prison too

 

[drgrant]

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.

Yeah it's so "reckless" that the NRA was threatened enough by its existence that it tried to derail it. There was no "luck" there, that case was a goddamned moon landing in its execution.

 

[T-Unit]

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?

Even a criminal has the right to self defense when they are not committing a criminal act. Where the line is, IDK, but restraining orders are handed out like candy on Halloween and they're going to be abused by anti 2A judges.

 

[drgrant]

That's where the "baby splitter" comment comes from
If he sees the court perception in the media swaying to one side he moves to try to correct it.

But I shouldn't hit only Roberts, Kavanagh and Gorsuch both love putting people in prison too

The sad thing here is is they actually could have at least demanded/forced a better form of due process for something like Lautenberg if they didn't want it remove it entirely. (Example- demand a Jury be seated to issue an RO beyond 72hrs or similar) They could have still picked a chicken shit option while moving the bar in our direction significantly. Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that there's no punishment for filing bogus dvro. Ever.

 

[drgrant]

Even a criminal has the right to self defense when they are not committing a criminal act. Where the line is, IDK, but restraining orders are handed out like candy on Halloween and they're going to be abused by basically every judge.

Fixed it for you. This is more about Judges being put in a bad position/hamstrung then it ever was specifically an anti-2a thing, WRT the stupid ROs theyre all like "bweah muh liability" etc. or getting hung out to dry in the court of public opinion for not issuing an RO and having a death follow it, even if 1 out of 999 times, is going to be too much exposure
for them. The system practically points a gun at them to issue an RO. The current system is just a pile of garbage and its abhorrentt that the court couldnt have even sought tto deal with the obvious problems at least in a half assed way. Anything would be better than what the current system is now, which basically is deprivation of rights without due process. Maybe SOME? states handle it better with their own laws WRT issuance but I'm not aware of any offhand that dont basically rubber stamp the damned things.

 

[appraiser]

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?

but there is NO CONVICTION in 99% of the cases where domestic violence is ALLEGED

It is a decision by a Judge in either a divorce case ( in MA a 208A order can be part of the divorce decree) or a 209A case where RO's are weaponized on a daily basis.

Yes or no have you stopped abusing your spouse, intimate partner, family member, or any other person who walks into District Court on a Monday morning after some poor schmuck gets served on a Saturday night with an emergency RO

Trying to fight one of those things will bankrupt you

Oh wait they have to be reviewed every year in MA if it is a 209A

BS, I know someone who has a LIFETIME 209A order on him after he stopped going to court to object.

Can't go hunting, can't go target shooting, can not defend himself

No contact with the Ex in 30 years, he is as pure as the driven snow, not so much as a traffic ticket

I have talked with him about this case, and the previous one out of Maine that also did not go his way.

I told him not to get his hopes up, and it looks like I was right

If someone has a CRIMINAL conviction for Domestic Battery, sure there may be reason to prohibit possession of a firearm as they are no longer a law abiding citizen in the eyes of the law, but without a criminal conviction, it is criminal that a persons 2A rights can be wiped away by a vengeful Ex and a Judge who rubber stamps them because he or she does not want Channel 7 on his doorstep if someone does use a firearm on another person


I do hope Lautenberg is rotting in hell

 

[ridleyman]

but there is NO CONVICTION in 99% of the cases where domestic violence is ALLEGED

It is a decision by a Judge in either a divorce case ( in MA a 208A order can be part of the divorce decree) or a 209A case where RO's are weaponized on a daily basis.

Yes or no have you stopped abusing your spouse, intimate partner, family member, or any other person who walks into District Court on a Monday morning after some poor schmuck gets served on a Saturday night with an emergency RO

Trying to fight one of those things will bankrupt you

Oh wait they have to be reviewed every year in MA if it is a 209A

BS, I know someone who has a LIFETIME 209A order on him after he stopped going to court to object.

Can't go hunting, can't go target shooting, can not defend himself

No contact with the Ex in 30 years, he is as pure as the driven snow, not so much as a traffic ticket

I have talked with him about this case, and the previous one out of Maine that also did not go his way.

I told him not to get his hopes up, and it looks like I was right

If someone has a CRIMINAL conviction for Domestic Battery, sure there may be reason to prohibit possession of a firearm as they are no longer a law abiding citizen in the eyes of the law, but without a criminal conviction, it is criminal that a persons 2A rights can be wiped away by a vengeful Ex and a Judge who rubber stamps them because he or she does not want Channel 7 on his doorstep if someone does use a firearm on another person


I do hope Lautenberg is rotting in hell

I'm not talking about BS cases. Yet again, I'm only talking about convictions, as I said "true" cases. I agree with you that many women use the system and screw men to the hilt, and what's left of them is destroyed by the judiciary.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

There was one good tee up on the opinion where the court said specifically that the government cannot ban modern guns and weapons. Also I think Rahimi will be a good decision to leverage for cases involving the good old 'permit' and permit process since the court has said quite specifically that no court can use the notion of a responsible person when exercising second amendment rights. It was a case that Merrick Garland rushed to the court in front of the non violent 'food stamps cheat' felons case and the weed smokers case, but in essence Garland lost because the court said that it can't be permanent.

 

[ridleyman]

Even a criminal has the right to self defense when they are not committing a criminal act. Where the line is, IDK, but restraining orders are handed out like candy on Halloween and they're going to be abused by anti 2A judges.

WTF logic is that? So you're saying that a paroled ax murderer, because increasingly violent scumbags are being released by the leftists, has a right to own a gun to defend himself. Would you temporarily confiscate guns from someone accused of domestic violence, or assault, or murder?

 

[ridleyman]

Time served, rights restored.

So you think that there's justice, and people who go to prison come out as reformed humans. Have you seen the rate for violent recidivism? It's probably north of 50%. That's a lot of future victims. IMHO, if you commit a violent crime, you're dead. Not a bar brawl or some crime of passion, I'm talking about evil, and we all know what that is.

 

[ridleyman]

Someone being given a restraining order is not remotely close to being convicted of a crime.

maybe you missed this part, there were a lot of words there............a true domestic abuser

 

[PappyM3]

“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.”



I agree with the intent of the law, but we all know that most restraining orders get approved without any credible threat.

 

[T-Unit]

WTF logic is that? So you're saying that a paroled ax murderer, because increasingly violent scumbags are being released by the leftists, has a right to own a gun to defend himself. Would you temporarily confiscate guns from someone accused of domestic violence, or assault, or murder?

The ax murderer after serving his time has the same right to self defense as everyone else and because the Leftist DA's are releasing violent people on the streets the paroled murderer is likely to be victim of these types. What's a 75 year old ex-con whose been released 40 years ago supposed to do when the migrants try to rob his house? Throw his dentures at them?

 

[T-Unit]

“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.”

View attachment 890686

I agree with the intent of the law, but we all know that most restraining orders get approved without any credible threat.

Somebody should seek a restraining order on John Roberts and see how he likes it.

 

[Mesatchornug]

WTF logic is that? So you're saying that a paroled ax murderer, because increasingly violent scumbags are being released by the leftists, has a right to own a gun to defend himself. Would you temporarily confiscate guns from someone accused of domestic violence, or assault, or murder?

It's actually quite simple. If they're not safe in society, don't release them into society.

Maybe even make the system one that pursues rehabilitation.

“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.”

View attachment 890686

I agree with the intent of the law, but we all know that most restraining orders get approved without any credible threat.

I mean, it's kind of incumbent on him to believe in the decision making prowess of judges...

 

[drgrant]

I'm not talking about BS cases. Yet again, I'm only talking about convictions, as I said "true" cases. I agree with you that many women use the system and screw men to the hilt, and what's left of them is destroyed by the judiciary.

Lautenberg has screwed women, too. There at least one "must arrest" DV state like VA? Basically the NRA had profiled the case where a woman became federally disabled because she admitted to throwing a set of keys at her husband and tearing a pocket on his pants after the neighbors called the cops on them arguing with each other. So basically something that didn't really rise to any serious level of violence caused the guys like wife to get disabled. Meanwhile because it's a must arrest state for DV then he can't even opt out of the charges. So she sucked for a plea deal and paid a small fine and became disabled from ever owning a firearm ever again. Because Lautenberg. The only way to break free of loutenberg is if you can get the original court to overturn the conviction or otherwise get it fully expunged somehow.

 

[kingson]

A different look at the outcome

 

[1911rnr]

So you think that there's justice, and people who go to prison come out as reformed humans. Have you seen the rate for violent recidivism? It's probably north of 50%. That's a lot of future victims. IMHO, if you commit a violent crime, you're dead. Not a bar brawl or some crime of passion, I'm talking about evil, and we all know what that is.

Rights don't stop because a bad guy did something bad. That mentality and violation of rights gave us what we have today in Mass. I think more about the good guys who got screwed more than the bad guys who get guns and whatever else they want and do whatever they want anyways. More laws won't stop evil. You can't regulate morality. We either have the right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed or we don't.

 

[Coyote33]

It's actually quite simple. If they're not safe in society, don't release them into society.

Would you be OK with frontal lobotomies, to make unsafe people who cannot be rehabilitated safe?

 

[alcestwo]

Roberts is also quoted as saying..."Roberts writes for the majority that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” Otherwise, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to “muskets and sabers,” he said." Supreme Court Rules Accused Domestic Abusers Can Be Legally Barred from Possessing Guns | National Review

I am not a lawyer but I wonder if this sentiment might be useful in the future.

 

[drgrant]

I do hope Lautenberg is rotting in hell

If I was king id install portopotties with piping linked to piss troughs on that mfers grave.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This decision shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. The basic, unwritten principle of law and play here is “bad man stays in jail”.

Don’t forget that the guy in this case agreed voluntarily to the restraining order.

 

[drgrant]

Don’t forget that the guy in this case agreed voluntarily to the restraining order.

Lol this is a thing? What happens if he says "no"?

 

[Waher]

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".

Roberts bleats about judges being non-partisan when an increasing portion of the SCotUS case load is because blatantly partisan judges rubber stamped stupid shit all the way up to the flaming bag of dog shit on his doorstep.

 

[ridleyman]

Rights don't stop because a bad guy did something bad. That mentality and violation of rights gave us what we have today in Mass. I think more about the good guys who got screwed more than the bad guys who get guns and whatever else they want and do whatever they want anyways. More laws won't stop evil. You can't regulate morality. We either have the right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed or we don't.

Actually, many rights do stop if you do something bad, as they should. I don't trust the gov't as far as I can spit. Every gov't is corrupt, and ours excels at it. But if someone is adjudicated guilty of a VIOLENT crime by their peers, they probably shouldn't be given tools to be more successful at recidivism for quite a while.

 

[ridleyman]

When would you give this guy the right to bear arms?

"Friday’s case involved Zackey Rahimi, who in December 2019 assaulted his girlfriend in an Arlington, Texas, parking lot
and shot at a bystander who witnessed the incident. "

 

[Roadglide]

It's actually quite simple. If they're not safe in society, don't release them into society.

 

[1911rnr]

Actually, many rights do stop if you do something bad, as they should. I don't trust the gov't as far as I can spit. Every gov't is corrupt, and ours excels at it. But if someone is adjudicated guilty of a VIOLENT crime by their peers, they probably shouldn't be given tools to be more successful at recidivism for quite a while.

Time served, rights and property restored. Bad guys have guns anyway and do whatever they want. J6ers are violent felons according to establishment politicians and judges. Shall not be infringed, because when we give an inch, we have what we have in Mass. A state where you can catch a felony for a legal pre-94 manufactured 30rd mag because some LEO's don't know the law.