The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law

johngalt2 said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Absolute shit
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
It is interesting watching the media spin. CNN headlinet is as "

Supreme Court upholds law barring domestic abusers from owning guns in major Second Amendment ruling​


Whereas Foxnews reported:

Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders​


Quite a difference in the spin.
 
@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.
 
42! said:
@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.
Click to expand...
I found the case: HOWARD v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF WAKEFIELD, et al. – Full-text Opinions

Note the pre-Bruen reference to "no right to keep and bear arms" used as a partial basis for the decision.
 
ridleyman said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
peterk123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
ridleyman said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
TLB said:
Someone being given a restraining order is not remotely close to being convicted of a crime.
Click to expand...
absolutely, which is why I said a true domestic abuser, who would have been convicted

you might have missed this part...............a true domestic abuser
 
Rob Boudrie said:
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.
Click to expand...

maybe you missed this part, there were a lot of words there............a true domestic abuser
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Parker Schreiber said:
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.
Click to expand...
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".
 
JDL said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Has no one here yet learned that bad cases make bad law? How many times have 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.
 
Last edited:
drgrant said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know however it can only get worse. Who knows what crazy additional ideas may come of this.
 

IMG_2976.jpeg

This might be the kicker - an historical analogue vs twin. NY State can come up with analogues like 3rd cousins twice-removed instead of twins now…

"The ruling somewhat loosened the test outlined in Bruen by emphasizing that modern laws need not have a “historical twin,” but rather a “historical analogue” to survive legal scrutiny.

“Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases,” Roberts wrote. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”
 
Parker Schreiber said:
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.
Click to expand...
What about the fact threatening is not a procssacutable crime in Suffolk County/Boston any longer.
 
pastera said:
Need to read this
But if Roberts wrote it you know that it is state power, baby splitting bullshit
Click to expand...
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.
 

Similar threads

Second Amendment Activism @ the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Replies
2
Views
371
Spartan65
Spartan65
Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
257
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
High Court Upholds NRA’s 1st Amendment Rights To Defend 2nd Amendment
Replies
0
Views
80
Coyote33
Coyote33
Paul Craig: Gun control debate a fractured discourse
Replies
2
Views
169
jkelly1229
J
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
278
Coyote33
Coyote33
Back
Top Bottom