Thomas is an outlier once again.

[Rogue AI]

WTF?
The 14th amendment does.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It sure is.


DUE PROCESS.

Learn to read, none of what posted gives the government the power to revoke rights. Abridge is not equal to revocation. Try harder. Might want learn a new word today, inalienable.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Learn to read, none of what posted gives the government the power to revoke rights. Abridge is not equal to revocation. Try harder.

WTF?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause | Constitution Center​

The National Constitution Center

On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens' private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens.

Might want learn a new word today, inalienable.

NO such thing.

 

[Rogue AI]

WTF?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause | Constitution Center​

View attachment 966785
The National Constitution Center
On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens' private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens.

NO such thing.

Again, that is not the same as revocation. Your lack of vocabulary isn't my problem.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Again, that is not the same as revocation.

YES, IT IS.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause | Constitution Center​

View attachment 966785
The National Constitution Center
On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens' private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens.

On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens’ private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens. As long as all citizens have the same property rights, for example, it does not matter what those rights are.

Your lack of vocabulary isn't my problem.

Your lack of comprehension, isn't my problem.

 

[Orangecat]

Thomas is an outlier once again.​

Thomas triggers another Karen.

 

[Rogue AI]

YES, IT IS.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause | Constitution Center​

View attachment 966785
The National Constitution Center
On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens' private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens.

On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens’ private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens. As long as all citizens have the same property rights, for example, it does not matter what those rights are.

Your lack of comprehension, isn't my problem.

Wrong, revocation is not a limitation, it is the removal of. The government may revoke privileges, like driving, they may not revoke rights. Stop lying.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really....

Say you got in a fight in a bar, went a bit overboard, and really cleaned someone's clock and was charged with say 2nd degree assault.....not even a felony.

You go to court and there is nothing preventing an activist judge or even a magistrate from arbitrarily denying your gun rights and pulling your carry permit.....Even ordering the removal guns from your home.

The kicker here is that there is no felony charge and no conviction yet but no time limit as far as denying you your 2nd amendment rights, could be anything from a month till forever.

Meanwhile you are disarmed and as luck would have it your home gets invaded by FJB's new friends and there you are with no gun to defend hearth and home.

That also extends to to family members residing in your home.

I'm torn on this one. I have appreciated and admired Justice Thomas's perspective in most things, but this time I can't unequivocally say I agree with him.

I posted on another thread that a close relative and her teenage daughter were threatened with a loaded handgun by her drunken estranged husband she was in the process of divorcing. We know the gun was loaded because he shot out a window to demonstrate it. We know the threats were valid because several neighbors heard them. The judge issued a strong restraining order and he would not have to go to jail if he obeyed the restraining order and gave up all guns in the house.

In that case there was no way that nut should be allowed to have a gun.

And I am a strong constitutionalist and a strong second amendment person.

 

[Meathead]

If you read his history Thomas had an incredibly fucked up childhood which probably explains his love for inflicting cruelty and misery on others

Why do you hate blacks with an IQ in triple digits? Do you perceive them as acting white?

 

[Jarlaxle]

In addition, the only
process required before that revocation is a hearing on the
underlying court order.

THAT is due process.

Bullshit.

 

[justoffal]

Not really....

Say you got in a fight in a bar, went a bit overboard, and really cleaned someone's clock and was charged with say 2nd degree assault.....not even a felony.

You go to court and there is nothing preventing an activist judge or even a magistrate from arbitrarily denying your gun rights and pulling your carry permit.....Even ordering the removal guns from your home.

The kicker here is that there is no felony charge and no conviction yet but no time limit as far as denying you your 2nd amendment rights, could be anything from a month till forever.

Meanwhile you are disarmed and as luck would have it your home gets invaded by FJB's new friends and there you are with no gun to defend hearth and home.

That also extends to to family members residing in your home.

Exactly. The devil is usually in the details with these laws.

When you read the fine print you always find mission creep that makes the law undesirable even if the main body of the law is good.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Wrong, revocation is not a limitation,

Holy fuck.
It's the epitome of limitation.........WOW.

it is the removal of. The government may revoke privileges, like driving, they may not revoke rights. Stop lying.

Really Dumbass?

18 U.S. CODE § 922G - FELON WITH A FIREARM​

Many states have specific laws restricting or revoking gun ownership or possession rights for people convicted of a felony.

However, the federal criminal code also contains similar and expanded restrictions on firearm possession for convicted felons and other individuals at the federal level. This is commonly referred to as the "felon with a firearm" or "felon in possession of a firearm" law defined under Title 18 U.S.C. 922g.


Violating this law is a felony in itself. Moreover, if convicted, you could face up to 10 years in federal prison—and potentially much more if you qualify for certain sentencing enhancements.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Bullshit.

Really?
A hearing isn't due process?
Then what is?

 

[Rogue AI]

Holy fuck.
It's the epitome of limitation.........WOW.

Really Dumbass?

18 U.S. CODE § 922G - FELON WITH A FIREARM​

Many states have specific laws restricting or revoking gun ownership or possession rights for people convicted of a felony.

However, the federal criminal code also contains similar and expanded restrictions on firearm possession for convicted felons and other individuals at the federal level. This is commonly referred to as the "felon with a firearm" or "felon in possession of a firearm" law defined under Title 18 U.S.C. 922g.


Violating this law is a felony in itself. Moreover, if convicted, you could face up to 10 years in federal prison—and potentially much more if you qualify for certain sentencing enhancements.

How does that make it Constitutional? It doesn't, you commie lemming.

 

[Billiejeens]

Why do you hate blacks with an IQ in triple digits? Do you perceive them as acting white?

Because intelligent blacks leave the plantation.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

How does that make it Constitutional?'

WTF?
It was enacted in in 1891 and chapter 18 was enacted in 1971.

It doesn't, you commie lemming.

So, why hasn't any communist teabagger, challenged the law?

 

[Rogue AI]

WTF?
It was enacted in in 1891 and chapter 18 was enacted in 1971.


So, why hasn't any communist teabagger, challenged the law?

So no federal has ever been deemed Unconstitutional? Try harder.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

So no federal has ever been deemed Unconstitutional? Try harder.

Maybe you need to.

 

[Billiejeens]

WTF?
It was enacted in in 1891 and chapter 18 was enacted in 1971.


So, why hasn't any communist teabagger, challenged the law?

People of multiple political parties finding common ground around pushing for tax reform, equals Communist, in your mind.

Do you see why most people find you extremely ignorant?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

People of multiple political parties finding common ground around pushing for tax reform, equals Communist, in your mind.

WTF?
Tax reform?

Do you see why most people find you extremely ignorant?

You just showed yours, moron.

 

[Rogue AI]

Maybe you need to.

Avoiding the question shows your ignorance and laziness. Sad.