So … No guns for law enforcement.
Good. About time. So much good they did in Uvalde.
How is a cop supposed to cop if they can’t shoot people?
The could always just carry a pocket full of acorns.
The humor left the situation as soon as I heard what the cop was shooting at was a confirmed unarmed and handcuffed person locked in a police car.
That piece of shit is in all likelihood riding around in a cop car right this second.
While the right to keep and bear arms is one of the “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” that right “is not unlimited,” Roberts wrote
I’m astounded to see that written that way. The crowd that always angrily asks “WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND” thinks there is no limit to the rights of people to bear arms.
I’m pleasantly surprised to see most of the justices agreeing that the right “is not unlimited”. The only holdout is Thomas. I’m sure he came about his vote through quiet introspection and reflection. (Or, possibly, bribery…)
I haven’t kept up with his output, but when I was studying SCOTUS cases years and years ago, his opinions, mostly dissents or concurrences back in those days, were just bafflingly literal and lazy. Shit like, “I would declare the government’s actions unconstitutional because they’re regulating cars and the word ‘car’ is not in the Constitution.”
I can’t believe his thread of, I won’t even call it originalism, more like historical-context-free literalist textualism, has gained any traction.
To be fair, the person usually saying that, Infringed is the biggest word they know.
This is obviously a victory for humanity overall, but does anyone think the Supreme Court could take this new definition and use it to take guns away from regular people? I’m an idiot so if anyone can tell me why this isn’t a possibility, I’ll be relieved. The thing is, if Trump getting elected again does lead to the fall of democracy in this country (which I doubt, but it’s definitely more possible than any other candidate we’ve ever had), couldn’t the Supreme Court take guns away from people who opposed him?
It’s a very good point you bring up. It’s worth pointing out that this case hinged on the fact that the guy whose gun got taken away had a restraining order against him, so that meant that a court had already determined that he posed a danger to someone. And there is historical basis for taking guns away from dangerous people.
One of the benefactors of this new approach, ironically enough, may be Hunter Biden. I saw an article saying that this ruling may help him appeal his conviction, because he is a first-time offender so no court had any reason to make a ruling on him at all.
Thank you for elaborating the actual case, this makes sense.
Oh thank god. So many women were going to die if they struck that down.
Seriously. ^That’s the important bit.
I would be shocked if that was on any of the judge’s minds, but it’s the primary concern in cases of domestic abuse.
Domestic abuser plus gun owner is the “my boyfriend choked me during sex without my consent” red flag for upcoming potential future death.
it’s not a guarantee, but it’ statistically waaaaaay more likely to end that way.
The Court’s opinion:
Finally a ruling that can help save lives!
Broken clocks and all that.
How’d this guy get lawyered up in the first place?
He complain on an NRA Facebook group, and greed took it from there?
Imagine knowing you could fight for some BS in exchange for at BEST having “<Your Name> beats his wife and wins case” all over the headlines.
It was a federal public defender. He saw a route to zealously advocate for his client and he took it. It was a bit of a moonshot, but I’m glad that we have a country where public representation is willing to go as far as he did for his client. Regardless of the circumstances.
