Interesting case here.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/co...cle_ba0a2bca-6456-11ed-9762-271b77812ba9.html
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/co...cle_ba0a2bca-6456-11ed-9762-271b77812ba9.html
Agreed. But that isn't going to stop me from making popcorn and watching the fireworks.It will be interesting to watch, my suspicion is that he's staying in jail.
Agreed. But that isn't going to stop me from making popcorn and watching the fireworks.
...the ruling was clearly not intended to give felons the right to bear arms...
He is a felon, the ruling was clearly not intended to give felons the right to bear arms. It was intended to prevent the type of abusive "may issue" regimes that are going on in certain states. This guy's argument is more frivolous that buttons on a dishrag.
Unintended consequences. You're right about the court's intent, however, the words on the page say "text and tradition at the time of the founding." Subsequently...
If they have a proclivity for not following laws, a law isn't really going to stop them from obtaining a firearm if they want a firearm for committing crimes. What's more, I doubt a common violent street criminal who intended to acquire a firearm for malevolent purposes would even buy one from an FFL as they wouldn't want the gun to be traceable back to them. And most of the modern high profile mass shooters that I'm aware of had no criminal record that would have made them a prohibited person anyways. And, as such, these laws that ostensibly keep guns out of the hands of criminals serve no other purpose than to erode the rights of people who do follow the law.
...the bottom line is, the supreme court says there has to be a historical precedence for the law to be constitutional and that decision overturned a 100 year old law. Is there a historical precedent from over 100 years ago by which a felon or, worse yet, a person convicted of any misdemeanor crime has been denied his 2A rights for the rest of his or her life? I don't think so. So these prohibitions have to go or else the Bruen decision is immediately neutered. Any law that runs afoul of the Bruen decision needs to be aggressively and immediately repealed. Any law.
Well, the constitution is pretty specific with regards to the RKBA so I don't think we can carry that logic to the conclusion you have suggested. If we were talking about drug legalization and not 2A rights, I might agree however even though I'm pretty libertarian as far as that goes too. I think the gradual erosion of our 2A rights is the more slippery slope here. We have basically been in a war with these anti-2A forces for multiple decades now and we are now in a position to just destroy them and I am loving it and I do believe they would happily destroy us if the roles were reversed, if they were empowered with a weapon such as we have here.your premise is, essentially, that, because criminals are going to break gun laws anyway, we shouldn't have gun laws at all. Carry that to its conclusion and what you're saying is that, because criminals are going to break the laws, we shouldn't have any laws.
we are now in a position to just destroy them
That's not how I see it. I haven't been this optimistic in about 20 years. We have McDonald, Heller, and now Bruen. We have a super majority in the supreme court and we have control of the HOR now so they won't be packing the court to get their way and so we will be holding onto that super-majority for at least a decade during which time we will be the dominant force in this little contest we're having. The states can kick and scream and throw their little temper tantrums all they like but at the end of the day, we hold the high court and they are at the disadvantage.That is beyond fanciful. We are not even remotely close to that, in fact we are far worse off then we were 6 years ago. All we have is a court ruling that no one is going to enforce.
All we have is a court ruling that no one is going to enforce.
Using the Bruen standard, laws have already been struck down in Colorado and New York with many more cases coming up soon and many new cases are being filed. George Wallace resisted the courts opinion on segregation, but in the end, he lost too.
George Wallace is not a relevant example. He was on the opposite side of the issue from the White House. That does not apply in this case. The guy in the Oval Office is on record saying that none of us need to have more than a double barreled shotgun. If you think he is sending in the military to force NY or CO to comply then you are dreaming.
I think the gradual erosion of our 2A rights is the more slippery slope here. We have basically been in a war with these anti-2A forces for multiple decades now...
I don't want them getting back up again 10 years down the road and forcing us to refight this war when we're in a weaker position.
I didn't mean to call you out on that post though. It was a fair point and I just wanted to speak to it and now I have.
...I may be a little excessively optimistic...
The President is irrelevant in this case. My point was that Wallace thought he could ignore the civil rights of black citizens, he was wrong. Similarly, Houchel, Newsome, Murphy and their cohorts think they can give SCOTUS the finger with their Draconian laws. When they are struck down, attempting to enforce unconstitutional laws will result in a flood of law suits for civil rights violations. They will be coerced to comply one way or another.
some might argue that if you have done your time, and are back in society, does that person no longer have a right to defend themselves? like everyone else? the other side of it is, and I think this may be relevent to today's legal system climate, if a person is violent - has commited violent crime in the past, and is highly likely to commit violent crime again in the future upon release, why are they released?I find it disheartening, nay, mortifying, that so many gun owners, members of this forum, 2A organizations (FPC) want to put guns in the hands of people who have proven that they have a proclivity to not follow our laws, especially those who have proven to be violent people with no regard for others. These are the very people that necessitate us to carry firearms every day, and some of you want to give them the means with which to attack us and our families.