This Is My Very Point About Recent Supreme Court Case

[BackAgain]

Sure. But you are not a SC justice. Thomas and the other idiot Conservative justices are and their opinions count. From the link:

None of this was in dispute on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over Rahimi’s bid to keep his beloved guns. But it was also not much of a topic of conversation, as Justice Clarence Thomas claimed there existed only a “very thin record” in the case. Despite the court’s inability (or unwillingness) to highlight the horrifying facts of his case, it does seem as if enough conservatives will join the court’s progressives to reject Rahimi’s plea.

A few weeks later, however, the Supreme Court blessed Rahimi with a chance to get his guns back. In an opinion penned by Thomas, the court held, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that restrictions on the right to bear arms are presumptively unconstitutional unless they are, in a judge’s learned opinion, consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The 5th Circuit withdrew its opinion in Rahimi’s case and issued another in which it changed its mind: Although the law embodies “salutary policy goals,” wrote Judge Cory T. Wilson, “our ancestors would never have accepted” it. Put differently, because the Framers did not disarm domestic abusers, who today shoot and kill an average of 70 women a month, modern lawmakers are powerless to do anything about it.


Now, do you see why libs are against these stupid judges?

No. You’re too ignorant and stupid to grasp the issues. Morons like you can’t even manage to hold two competing thoughts in your diminutive minds simultaneously.

The true idiots on the SCOTUS are the libs.

Like you, they are seemingly incapable of grasping that some things simply aren’t absolutes.

 

[Magnus]

No. You’re too ignorant and stupid to grasp the issues. Morons like you can’t even manage to hold two competing thoughts in your diminutive minds simultaneously.

The true idiots on the SCOTUS are the libs.

Like you, they are seemingly incapable of grasping that some things simply aren’t absolutes.

Another day, another retard.

Again, it is Thomas and the other idiot Conservative judges who are allowing him to have his guns.

What part of that don’t you get?

 

[BackAgain]

Another day, another retard.

Again, it is Thomas and the other idiot Conservative judges who are allowing him to have his guns.

What part of that don’t you get?

Again, there is a complexity to many legal issues that melts down your already feeble “mind,” Minnie.

I’d pity you. But you’re not worth that much consideration.

 

[Crepitus]

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

But we obviously do need more gun control if this whack-job is any example.

Uncle Clarence set an embarrassingly low standard for gun ownership in the opinion mention in the article, basically throwing everyone one of us under the bus as far as keeping them pout of the hands of people who demonstrably don't deserve them.

But hey, when you elect clowns you get a circus, same when you put them on the so-called supreme court.

 

[martybegan]

A restraining order is grounds you are a threat

And if the restraining order was found to be wrong, how do you retroactively protect said person when they were disarmed?

 

[Crepitus]

Again, there is a complexity to many legal issues that melts down your already feeble “mind,” Minnie.

I’d pity you. But you’re not worth that much consideration.

Your tiny little MAGA "mind" is adding complications that don't exist due to it's inability to understand basic concepts.

This isn't complex, it's retarded.

 

[Crepitus]

And if the restraining order was found to be wrong, how do you retroactively protect said person when they were disarmed?

Protect them from what?

 

[rightwinger]

And if the restraining order was found to be wrong, how do you retroactively protect said person when they were disarmed?

The judge will decide whether your gun is a bigger threat to your spouse or to some bad guy

 

[martybegan]

Protect them from what?

Being disarmed for potentially months at a time?

While not being convicted of anything? And not being put through a rigorous adjudication process like mental incompetency?

 

[martybegan]

The judge will decide whether your gun is a bigger threat to your spouse or to some bad guy

How about we let voting rights or abortion rights be decided the same way?

 

[Independent thinker]

He is not running loose.
Mr. Rahimi remains in the county jail, awaiting the outcome of pending state criminal charges.

Texas Man at Center of Supreme Court Case Says He No Longer Wants Guns (Published 2023)

Zackey Rahimi has vowed “to stay away from all firearms and weapons” in a case that could expand gun rights protections, but advocates say he is not an ideal poster boy for the Second Amendment.

www.nytimes.com

OK then. But then what is this article about then? Why do we have to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who are locked up? Keep him locked up and don't punish law abiding gun owners for us being too stupid to keep people like this locked up who should very obviously be locked up. This was a very bad choice of article by them to talk about gun control because it proves my point. The left would rather let people like this run around loose and pass laws to keep guns out of their hands, which would be moot if this guy were locked up.

 

[BackAgain]

Your tiny little MAGA "mind" is adding complications that don't exist due to it's inability to understand basic concepts.

This isn't complex, it's retarded.

You are retarded.

But that’s not the point.

The point is that the meaning and purpose of our 2d Amendment is to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Nonetheless, it is well established that some of our rights can be curtailed. Like your freedom can be taken away from you upon sentencing after a criminal conviction.

Sorry this eludes dopes like you, Crapitus.

 

[Independent thinker]

Not all people
Only those subject to a restraining order for domestic violence

Yes, we should take his right to freedom away instead of infringing on 2A rights for law abiding citizens.

 

[Crepitus]

Being disarmed for potentially months at a time?

While not being convicted of anything? And not being put through a rigorous adjudication process like mental incompetency?

I ask again: Protect them from what?

 

[Independent thinker]

But not convicted of any crime right?

Restraining orders have been weaponized and are usually granted carte blanche

And people are foolish if they think a restraining order is going to protect them. How many women have been killed by the person they put an order on? A piece of paper ain't worth shit in the first place.

 

[martybegan]

You are given your day in court to contest the restraining order

A judge will decide whether you are more likely to use your gun to shoot your spouse or to defend yourself against bad guys

anywhere from 2-3 months later.

Do you support a 5 day max time limit or the order is automatically lifted?

 

[martybegan]

I ask again: Protect them from what?

Things like this

 

[Independent thinker]

You are given your day in court to contest the restraining order

A judge will decide whether you are more likely to use your gun to shoot your spouse or to defend yourself against bad guys

How many women have been killed by the person who they got an order against?

 

[Rogue AI]

You are given your day in court to contest the restraining order

A judge will decide whether you are more likely to use your gun to shoot your spouse or to defend yourself against bad guys

Your 'day in court' is only after the government has seized your property without the same standards required in all other cases.

In other cases, people's Constitutional rights are being revoked over misdemeanors, not even felonies, that is also something that needs to be challenged. You commies are all about government thieving from the people, it's the cornerstone of your failed ideology.

 

[rightwinger]

anywhere from 2-3 months later.

Do you support a 5 day max time limit or the order is automatically lifted?

Absolutely not

These bans are issued while the domestic threat is recent and tempers are still hot
The couple needs a cooling off period without guns in the equation