294

The Supreme Court just proved that its gun rulings have been a disaster (www.motherjones.com)

submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world 61 points 5 months ago

Maybe personal beliefs shouldn't be imposed on policy that affects different people of different faiths. Wish that was written down somewhere. We could use it as a guideline for how the founding fathers wished the country would be run.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 53 points 5 months ago

In 2019, Texan Zackey Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend and fired his gun at a witness. He was put under a domestic violence restraining order, which he violated by possessing a firearm—an infraction under a 1994 federal laws—which he fired at people on multiple occasions. In his defense, Rahimi argued that the restraining order’s gun ban violated his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed: there was no 18th century law analogous enough to the statute barring Rahimi from possessing a gun, and therefore under Bruen, that statute must be unconstitutional.

Yo what the FUCK

I can see why Texas is the venue that Republicans go to when they wanna get some crazy shit into precedent on a federal level

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

The 18th century analogy standard was widely misused. Probably because SCOTUS didn’t make it clear and it’s a strange standard anyway. But yeah, the fifth circuit is a wild one

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 16 points 5 months ago

I mean it’s basically a gateway to bad laws

“If there’s any dispute between how it used to be and how it is now, we want to make it so how it used to be wins”

“Wait isn’t there usually a reason they changed it?”

“I said no questions”

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

It's like exigent circumstances only exist when it benefits their arguments...

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Confused what the complaint is here, they ruled that you can't be a criminal and own a firearm.

We have a bigger issue that abusers are rarely forced to give up their firearms.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120094/

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

Did you read the article? It’s mostly about how Rahimi relates to Bruen and why that makes it so problematic. Nowhere do they condemn the outcome

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

So it's more bullshit take on the Bruen ruling that anti-2a groups are still salty from? This has nothing to do with the Rahimi ruling at all...

[+] Decade4116@awful.systems 15 points 5 months ago

[deleted]

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I read the article, it's exactly as I described it, bitching from the anti-2a crowd about Bruen

You all can down vote me all you want. That's literally what the article is. The 2nd isn't going anywhere, you're a minority of people who want it repealed. And your group got even smaller now that people on the left are becoming gun owners more and more.

[-] turmacar@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

People don't take issue with Bruen because they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They take issue with Bruen because it's an insane precedent.

Bruen argues that there hasn't been meaningful discussion or growth of laws and rights for 200 years. It's a really dumb test. The constitution and amendments are really short. Not because they were written by divine geniuses, but because it is the founding document, it was never meant to be the entire body of law. That's why it sets up 3 bodies of government to continue to govern and not just a judiciary to impose the constitution like divine mandate.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

People don't take issue with Bruen because they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They take issue with Bruen because it's an insane precedent.

Lol no that's bullshit. Plenty want it repealed, usually the loudest do. It's also not an insane precedent, there has been zero gun control laws that have actively helped drive down crime. It's all been feel good legislation that's done nothing but try and kick the can down the road for meaningful progress.

Bruen argues that there hasn't been meaningful discussion or growth of laws and rights for 200 years. It's a really dumb test. The constitution and amendments are really short. Not because they were written by divine geniuses, but because it is the founding document, it was never meant to be the entire body of law. That's why it sets up 3 bodies of government to continue to govern and not just a judiciary to impose the constitution like divine mandate.

They're really short because convoluted laws don't do shit but target those who can't hire expensive lawyers and lobbiest to avoid them. They're rules for the working class not for the ruling class.

[-] turmacar@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Laws are complicated because people are complicated.

"Everyone should have the tools to defend themselves from aggressors" is a good sentiment.

This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don't overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that's impossible because 100 guys didn't think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.

There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That's why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns. It's why "arms" doesn't include suitcase nukes and howitzers.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Laws are complicated because people are complicated.

People can be complicated all they want, actions are what are judged not how complex a person is. It's literally why we have a judicial system. So people can be judged on their actions.

This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don't overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that's impossible because 100 guys didn't think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.

What are you talking about? The ruling here is exactly that, if you're a criminal, you can't own firearms.

There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That's why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns.

No there has not, mental healthcare is completely lacking in this country, background checks fail all the time, and kids find their parents firearms a lot more than they should.

It's why "arms" doesn't include suitcase nukes and howitzers.

It actually does mean exactly that. The revolution was fought using mainly private arms. There wasn't even a standing navy, we literally had people who owned the equivalent of a battle ship today. To act like the founders didn't realize technology was going to advance is ridiculous.

[-] turmacar@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

The justice system is not vibe based. It's ruling on whether laws were violated or if a particular case is novel in some way. Laws change as what a population wants to do changes.

The ruling here is exactly that

Several courts decided otherwise until SC revised Bruen with this decision, and the SC justices are still arguing with themselves because of how ambiguous Bruen is.

mental healthcare is completely lacking in this country, background checks fail all the time, and kids find their parents firearms a lot more than they should

Perfect should not be the enemy of good. Mental Healthcare is exponentially better now than it was 20+ years ago, Background checks succeed a lot, parents that treat firearms responsibly have more living children. Guardrails don't stop all people from falling off bridges, but they should still be there. That things fail sometimes doesn't mean they should just go away without replacing them with something better.

The revolution was fought using mainly private arms.

And they immediately limited that scope when the Whiskey/Shay rebellions happened and further as time when on because they explicitly wanted the laws to grow and change. The founders did not put in place the tools for their own overthrow, nor did they bring tablets down from a mountain. It's not that they didn't realize technology was going to advance, it's that you can't write laws for things or situations that don't exist. Pretending you can divine intent from what did get written, as Bruen calls for and Justice Thomas has explicitly said for years, is just saying you are the only arbiter of what is allowed in the guise of "the founders wanted it that way".

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

The justice system is not vibe based. It's ruling on whether laws were violated or if a particular case is novel in some way. Laws change as what a population wants to do changes.

That's literally what I said. You acted like they're not.

Several courts decided otherwise until SC revised Bruen with this decision, and the SC justices are still arguing with themselves because of how ambiguous Bruen is.

You mean the left judges who are anti-2a are arguing with the pro-2a judges...this is nothing more than anti-2a sides being annoyed that the 2nd doesn't have more rules and or being completely ignored and repealed eventually.

Perfect should not be the enemy of good. Mental Healthcare is exponentially better now than it was 20+ years ago, Background checks succeed a lot, parents that treat firearms responsibly have more living children. Guardrails don't stop all people from falling off bridges, but they should still be there. That things fail sometimes doesn't mean they should just go away without replacing them with something better.

The issue with this logic isn't that they stop some, it's that they put rules in place that do not actually do anything. More bullshit gun laws are not going to reduce crime. Anti-2a groups want to focus on the tool used vs why the crime happened in the first place.

Also mental health while its better, it was stripped because of Reagan, and has never really recovered.

And they immediately limited that scope when the Whiskey/Shay rebellions happened and further as time when on because they explicitly wanted the laws to grow and change.

No it did not, I don't know what parallel history you're coming up with here, but the 2nd was not created to limit the scope.

The founders did not put in place the tools for their own overthrow, nor did they bring tablets down from a mountain. It's not that they didn't realize technology was going to advance, it's that you can't write laws for things or situations that don't exist. Pretending you can divine intent from what did get written, as Bruen calls for and Justice Thomas has explicitly said for years, is just saying you are the only arbiter of what is allowed in the guise of "the founders wanted it that way".

They absolutely did put in place tools to be able to stop the gov from becoming a tyrannical gov.

Literally from Jefferson:

What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm

[-] turmacar@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I mean that the conservative judges are arguing amongst themselves how far Bruen applies.

Literally from Adams

Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies

Taking up arms against the US is Treason. That's not even an amendment. Jefferson was writing to a US representative in England reassuring him that the US is strong and the rebellion was "no big deal". That section starts off:

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted?

and continues

Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.

The "few lives lost in a century or two" he's talking about are those of the people rebelling.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I mean that the conservative judges are arguing amongst themselves how far Bruen applies.

News to me, I've not seen anything on them arguing with each other. Just a ton of anti-2a groups and media calling the ruling horrific... though I will say that this scotus is not 2A friendly so it wouldn't surprise me if they actually are doing so. I'd love to read about it if you have a source.

Literally from Adams

Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies

Yea, remove the arms from those who do not support the cause to fight the British...no where in there did he say to disarm those who support the new nation. They literally were fighting for independence.

Taking up arms against the US is Treason. That's not even an amendment. Jefferson was writing to a US representative in England reassuring him that the US is strong and the rebellion was "no big deal". That section starts off:

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted?

and continues

Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.

The "few lives lost in a century or two" he's talking about are those of the people rebelling.

And finishes with the exact line I provided you in my previous comment:

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

To assume Jefferson was speaking of disarming the people and telling them they're traitors is incorrect.

I don't know how much you think that paper supports your argument, but the "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Is a motto that a lot of 2A supports use. It's literally the embodiment of the 2nd amendment.

[-] turmacar@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

SC justices don't do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.

If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You're right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you're left with only the piece you posted.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

SC justices don't do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.

They're not fighting over bruen then. Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?

If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You're right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you're left with only the piece you posted.

Nothing I've posted has been taken out of context. It's very very clear what both of those letters meant.

[-] turmacar@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?

In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren't yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.

Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren't yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.

So you don't, just say that. We're not talking about the rahimi ruling. You don't need to explain how a ruling works and yes they do still "vote" on a ruling. They don't all just write opinions and then magically uphold or strike down a ruling...

Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.

No it's not, you're literally trying to make it something its not. You're assessment that Jefferson was anti gun is completely incorrect.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Some folks are trying to spin this ruling as good news for Hunter Biden and I don't see it.

The court ruled it's OK to deny gun rights to domestic abusers.

People really think they'll deny abusers but allow crack addicts? 🤔

[-] reattach@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

"Some folks"

Who tf cares about Hunter Biden?

[-] xantoxis@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

You're a fucking mod on this sub? Grow up

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Statement of fact: Supreme court doesn't want criminals to be able to get guns.

Abusers are criminals, no guns for them.

Drug users are criminals... what do you suppose their ruling will be?

It's not going to benefit Hunter in the slightest.

this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024

294 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers

2080 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News