« Civil Rights figure calls for incarcerating more African-Americans | Main | A local amusement »
SCOTUS: "reckless" rather than "intentional" DV results in gun possession ban
Voisne v. US, handed down a few hours ago. Justice Thomas dissents, with Justice Sotomayor [correction, not Kagan, thanks for pointing it out] joining two of the three parts of his dissent. Parts one and two argue (convincingly, to my eye) the interpretation of the statute, part three argues that in light of the Second Amendment, the statute should be read narrowly to avoid creating a constitutional issue.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Why is it that it took 200+ yrs to unconstitutionally restrict firearms? Do you think there was no domestic violence in the 18th and 19th centuries? Do you think we are more civilized today? Ha!
The Constitution grants absolutely no police power over Arms. The 2nd prohibits government infringement over the Right to keep and bear Arms. The States could punish the use of an Arm if used improperly but neither the feds nor the states have any legitimate, constitutional authority to prohibit Arms to individuals. The courts of the US have done more to destroy the Constitution and the government it created than any other group. The courts have unilaterally made crap up from thin air that has absolutely no footing in the Constitution.
It is time the People tell the courts to shove it.
6 ta 2!!! There's justice in its abstract form here, but DAMN if I can see it or understand it.
Eternal vigilance time. The attack continues with
Senator Casey , Pa. introducing S - 3053. " hate crime misdemeanors " would be grounds to STRIP AWAY rights. Such a law would be enlarged in scope , rapidly , to include ANY minor offense .
Conservative speech = ' hate speech '....... No gun for you ! Speeding ticket ? ....Sorry , you lose. Where does it END ?
And then there are those that fall victim to 922(g)(8), where a court official checks the box next to Firearms, yet the court has not found you to be a domestic partner, doesn't find you a credible threat. But because of a checkbox marked on an Order of Protection, you can no longer possess firearms or ammunition for the duration of the protection order. Without the financial capability to appeal, and no rights group to back you up, because your case will not effect a large group, or make a significant difference. You just have to wait, and or go black powder.
Sure some will be sympathetic, but who will help, when the only one affected is me? Not GOA, not NRA, not NAGR.
Looks like it was Sotomayor joining the first two parts of the Thomas dissent. The third part refers to *Heller* and *McDonald*, and Sotomayor thinks those were wrongly decided.
Kagan wrote the majority opn.