Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Many times that is the case. If you are a known and proven danger to others (including just one person) then you should be locked up. We just need to make sure the person is a known and proven danger and not just being weaponized against. The person in the OP link is a great example.Like those accused of domestic violence ?
This post proves you are just anti-gun and anti-2A.The people I blame most for our nation's ridiculously high homicide rate are the gun makers and the NRA.
They are no different than the drug companies which created the opioid crisis by making more pills than they knew there was a legitimate demand for.
It wasn't tried at all.Actually CLinton tried that back in the 80's. Didn't work out well.
If you're gonna blatantly deny reality we cannot have a discussion.It wasn't tried at all.
Guys like this shouldn't be running around loose at all. That's the purpose of this thread. When are we going to wake up to the fact that these people shouldn't be running around loose instead of letting them out and trying to keep guns away from them? They will either get guns anyway or terrorize and kill people without guns. The left stupidly think that if we can successfully keep guns away from them that they will become model upstanding citizens. They won't.Zackey Rahimi had been subject to a domestic violence restraining order in Texas in 2019 after threatening to shoot his girlfriend after physically assaulting her. After a Texas court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi, he was a suspect in multiple shootings, and police officers found firearms in his apartment. He pleaded guilty to violating the ban on firearms for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders and was sentenced to prison. In July, he wrote a letter from behind bars, apologizing for his actions and saying he would no longer carry a gun, according to the New York Times.
United States v. Rahimi comes to the Supreme Court following a lower court ruling earlier this year that ruled the government cannot take firearms away from people in Rahimi’s position.
The stakes of Rahimi’s case pit the safety of domestic violence victims against the nation’s broad Second Amendment rights. Advocates for victims of domestic violence say the fifth circuit’s decision overlooks public health evidence. An abused woman is five times more likely to be killed by a male partner when there is a firearm in the house, according to a widely-cited 2003 study published in the American Journal of Public Health. “Dangerous people or people with histories of violence should not have access to firearms,” says Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action. The effects go beyond the home, she notes, pointing out that many mass shooters end up killing their current or former intimate partner as “part of their rampage.”
Supreme Court to Decide Whether Some Domestic Abusers Can Have Guns
What to know about the case United States v. Rahimi.time.com
"He pleaded guilty to violating the ban on firearms for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders and was sentenced to prison." That is a crime, no? He is a convicted criminal. Seems to me that this why we have the national background checks so guys like this can't acquire a gun and should not be allowed to possess because he violated the DV restraining order. I am a gun rights guy myself, but you can't allow guys like this free rein to terrorize people and eventually shoot someone. Every constitutional right we have is limited in some way, and so is the 2nd Amendment. That is why you cannot own a bazooka or an automatic weapon. It seems to me that local and state laws ought to be able to specify the conditions under which a citizen might lose their 2nd Amendment rights, at least in DV cases.
I will need an evaluation less prejudicial than what Jay Willis offers us in his essagy linked here. Willis destroyed his own credibility with a prejudicial last paragraph of the essay revealing motive to distort the facts in a particular direction.For Zackey Rahimi, the solution for just about every problem in life seems to be to shoot a gun in its general direction. In December 2019, he fired a shot at a bystander who’d seen him shove his girlfriend in a parking lot, then threatened to shoot his girlfriend too if she told anyone about it. When an acquaintance posted something rude about him on social media, he fired an AR-15 into their house. When he got into a car accident, he shot at the other driver; when a truck flashed its lights at him on the highway, he followed the driver off the exit and, for some reason, shot at a different car that was behind the offending truck. After Rahimi’s friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger, Rahimi pulled out a gun and fired several shots into the air, a choice that I doubt made terrified employees any more inclined to fulfill his order.
My point is we don't need more gun control. Why is this guy running around loose? How stupid can we get? And, if you change gun control laws, this guy will get a gun anyway, that is if he's loose, which he shouldn't be.
The Supreme Court’s Big Gun Case Was Humiliating for the Justices
Zackey Rahimi has not demonstrated an ability to safely possess firearms.www.yahoo.com
Protection from what?
Can you point to any case where someone who had their guns taken away because of domestic violence was killed?
Can you show a home invasion of someone who had his guns taken away?
It doesn’t happen
Go back and reread the OP. This nut-job is the poster child for "shouldn't have guns".
And judges don't hand these things lout like party favors either.
Then there's the fact that this guy being subjected to a home invasion at just the wrong time ar so vanishingly small that your whole point is just patiently ridiculous.
But this DOES happen:Protection from what?
Can you point to any case where someone who had their guns taken away because of domestic violence was killed?
Can you show a home invasion of someone who had his guns taken away?
It doesn’t happen
www.snopes.com
This guy is obviously practicing to be part of a well regulated militia
This nutjob is the poster child for someone who should not have guns because they are locked up.Go back and reread the OP. This nut-job is the poster child for "shouldn't have guns".
And judges don't hand these things lout like party favors either.
Then there's the fact that this guy being subjected to a home invasion at just the wrong time ar so vanishingly small that your whole point is just patiently ridiculous.
If you're gonna blatantly deny reality we cannot have a discussion. Yes, the reality is people like in the OP should not be running around loose to keep guns away from them.If you're gonna blatantly deny reality we cannot have a discussion.
O.K.
From time to time, I look at one of your posts.
Still stupid as ever. You are still on ignore.
No……Not that!
Your link proves that taking away guns under a restraining order is warrantedBut this DOES happen:
Are 20 Percent of Homicide Victims with Restraining Orders Killed Soon After Obtaining Them?
An image disseminated online cites part of a 2008 study on domestic violence but omits one key piece of information.
I tend to agree. Those who misuse guns in a manner that can or does improperly endanger others should have those guns taken away.If you're gonna blatantly deny reality we cannot have a discussion. Yes, the reality is people like in the OP should not be running around loose to keep guns away from them.
These aren't tried and convicted felons, these are people with clean records.
How many wife beaters aren't felons already?
My links proves this guy should be locked up, making the gun issue irrelevant.Your link proves that taking away guns under a restraining order is warranted
No, these are people with domestic violence charges against them and a restraining order
If I understand correctly, you're not supposed to have guns while you are locked up and this guy should be locked up.I tend to agree. Those who misuse guns in a manner that can or does improperly endanger others should have those guns taken away.
But it has to be done with due process and in accordance with existing law. And that is what SCOTUS will ultimately determine. Was due process denied the guy? Or was the law misapplied? If so then the ruling will rightfully be in favor of what is most likely a dangerous person. If not the guy loses his guns.
Either way that won't be the fault of SCOTUS though but the fault of those who denied due process and/or otherwise misused the law or those who properly applied both to the defendant.
And due to the prejudicial interpretations in the linked essay in the OP there is no way for any of us to know which way that will go.
