7th Circuit rejects 2nd Amendment challenge to law blocking abusers from possessing firearms

[usregimechange]

En banc Seventh Circuit rejects Second Amendment challenge to federal law that makes it a crime for anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to possess a firearm... Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote the majority opinion. Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes was the lone dissenter.
http://howappealing.law.com/

The majority specifically cites limitations of the 2nd Amendment described in Heller, that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...." (EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge joined by BAUER, POSNER, FLAUM, KANNE, ROVNER, WOOD, WILLIAMS, TINDER, and HAMILTON (Obama nominee), Circuit Judges.

They make note of the rational basis in preventing domestic abusers from possessing a firearm:

"There are three propositions in this passage: first that domestic abusers often commit acts that would be charged as felonies if the victim were a stranger, but that are charged as misdemeanors because the victim is a relative (implying that the perpetrators are as dangerous as felons); second that firearms are deadly in domestic strife; and third that persons convicted of domestic violence are likely to offend again, so that keeping the most lethal weapon out of their hands is vital to the safety of their relatives. Data support all three of these propositions" (emphasis added)

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/ZC15JDCI.pdf

Judge Diane Sykes is a radical right judicial activist nominated by George W. Bush on November 14, 2003, she "would remand for the government to make its own case for imprisoning Steven Skoien for exercising his Second Amendment rights."

[usregimechange]

1. First time I have seen something of interest involving Hamilton

[slackmaster]

2. Good. People who commit domestic violence are much more likely than others to murder their partners.

Fuck them.

[usregimechange]

3. The NRA may not like you now

[slackmaster]

4. I don't give a flying fuck what the NRA or anybody else thinks of me

:hi:

[usregimechange]

7. Good for you

[Statistical]

16. NRA has always supported keeping firearms from violent criminals.

It actually lobbied for the computerized background check system used today (NICS). It later lobbied in favor of expanding NICS to include disqualifications based on mental health.

Despite NRA supporting or filing amicus briefs for virtually all RKBA legal challenges they were absent from this one. Maybe there is a reason?

Of course don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

[nemo137]

6. Good, people

As in, "good comma people." It threw me for a second. :wave:

[slackmaster]

9. Period added for clarity

Thanks!!!

[jody]

8. My dear slackmaster, you are too, too kind to "those who commit domestic violence".

:hi:

[MicaelS]

22. Agree 100%, I have no problems with this decision. n/t

[madmom]

50. I have a misdemeanor domestic violence charge on me. I was backed into a corner, I

pushed SO so I could get out (self defense?) he fell (he was drunk). I was charged he wasn't. I don't drink but am not allowed a gun. He is drunk everyday but is allowed a concealed carry. How is that justice? Oh and this happened over 20 years ago, no repeat "offense".. so fuck you very much too!

[slackmaster]

63. Title 18, Section 925 of the US Code provides for relief from disability for old/minor convictions

You should consider pursuing it if you really care. Talk to an attorney.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000925----000-.html

[jody]

5. Opinion states "the Second Amendment creates individual rights," which ignores SCOTUS statement in

Heller

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

Someday every court will recognize that the BOR does not create any right, it obligates the federal government to protect inalienable rights, enumerated and unenumerated,against infringement by the federal government and now by state governments.

[safeinOhio]

10. Just like the first

Congress shall make no law..... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. So, why is kiddy porn abridged?

[jody]

11. SCOTUS has approved infringement when there is an overwhelming benefit to society versus the cost of

infringement of an inalienable right.

Your special case is one instance and SCOTUS has allowed adult porn in many cases.

IMO the authors of our Constitution by design or good fortune were correct when they created an independent body to make decisions when conflicts exist between the rights of an individual and the collective rights of society.

[usregimechange]

12. correct and the above ruling does a good job describing that very thing

[jody]

15. Statistical in #14 gave a much better answer than could have I. n/t

[safeinOhio]

19. So, in other words

it is all arbitrary and at the whims of SCOTUS, like Bush vs Gore? They may decide that a ban on certain types of weapons in California protects a "collective" right of society. The line is drawn and moved, drawn again and moved again. Kind of makes our arguments about what the Constitution means useless. The only important thing is what 5 Justices think.

[jody]

24. The issue is "inalienable/unalienable rights". Such rights are not created by our Constitution, are

not granted by government, and cannot be taken away by amending our Constitution or by a law passed by congress.

Such rights can be "infringed" upon using authority granted by We the People to the Supreme Court of The United States iff a conflict exists between an individual exercising one of those rights and society collectively benefits when that right is not exercised in a particular instance.

In that case SCOTUS may permit laws that infringe upon that right in a specific instance, e.g. laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists, but SCOTUS does not have the authority to approve laws that prohibit freedom of speech.

Agree with you that the opinions of 5 justices decide what infringement is permitted and their views may be influenced by their religious views. Some people may find that worrisome now that we have 6 justices from one religion and 3 from another and none from the protestant denominations to which most Americans belong.

Texas Beer Joint Sues Church

In Mt. Vernon, Texas, Drummond's Bar began construction on a new building to increase their business. In response, the local Baptist church started a campaign to block the bar from opening with petitions and prayers. Work progressed right up until the week before opening when lightning struck the bar and it burned to the ground.

The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, until the bar owner sued the church on the grounds that the church was ultimately responsible for the demise of his building, either through direct or indirect actions or means.

In its reply to the court, the church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise.

The judge read through the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's reply and at the opening hearing he commented, "I don't know how I'm going to decide this, but it appears from the paperwork that we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that does not."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

36. Well, then...

"SCOTUS has approved infringement when there is an overwhelming benefit to society versus the cost of infringement of an inalienable right."

...that pompous word "inalienable" doesn't really amount to more that bombastic rhetoric, now, does it?

[Statistical]

41. Of course it does....

rights can be restricted as a result of due process. Someone accussed of spousal abuse is aware of the risks of that action, they are charged, given a chance for defense, and convicted. The rights are only restricted as a course of due process.

However there are significant restrictions on how/when/why the govt can restrict inalienable rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

The people can't ban all guns for example simply because they "want to". Such an overwhelming infringement would never pass Constitutional muster.

[Statistical]

14. You missed the point. It went right over your head.

He never said the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited; actually nobody on this thread made that claim.

The point is neither the 1st nor the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution (nor any amendment) GRANTS or CREATES anything. In both cases the right exists. The 1st and 2nd are merely protections on government infringement on an existing right. They are RESTRICTIONS on the governments actions.

Bill of Rights:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution

The point is the court used the word "create" when the BofR creates or grants nothing it merely restricts the government. Nobody is making the claim that the restriction on govt is absolute (no laws restricting any right ever) however that doesn't change the point that the BofR is only a restriction on the government. While it is just words it is still sad that the court would be so imprecise with their wording.

On edit: looks to be simply a mistake rather than a factual error. In other parts of the decision words like "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited". Still one would think the court would have better editors.

[Hosnon]

27. Largely an academic distinction. nt.

[jody]

29. Please explain why if it's "an academic distinction" SCOTUS acknowledged the primal legal value of

pre-existing rights or as Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin viewed them "inalienable" or "unalienable"rights.

Do you contend that We the People do not have inalienable/unalienable rights?

[Hosnon]

35. Because it doesn't really matter in any practical sense.

Nothing internal and intrinsic about any right that you, I, or We the People deem inalienable is stopping any government from infringing thereupon. We the People decided (for good reason) that certain rights are rights not simply because We the People decided they are rights. But, of course, that decision was made by We the People. Ultimately, it's a philosophy of law question (i.e., academic).

Now, our judiciary might defer more to a right that has been so deemed which is why I qualified my statement (because such deference could very well have practical implications).

And I do not believe that We the People have rights endowed or sanctioned by any external force or entity; in other words, I do not believe in rights that have any sort of independent existence from humanity itself. But I most certainly believe in rights that are first among all rights. You can call them inalienable but that is, again, largely an academic distinction. What matters is how those rights are treated (such as by the SCOTUS).

[jody]

42. LOL at your parody of our nation's history. Just for a brief moment I thought, Hosnon believes that

stuff but then I realized no one with even the most elementary grasp of the history of these United States and our Constitution ratified by We the People loaning a central government some of our sovereign authority and power could make such statements.

:rofl: because you almost had me believing your parody for a nanosecond. :hi:

[Hosnon]

46. That's a pretty base reply.

Primarily because you didn't respond to the substance of my post and secondarily because you relied on snark to try to score some points.

There is quite a bit of literature on this topic. You can disagree but trying to assert certainty is foolish.

[jody]

48. Sad that you don't acknowledge the humor behind your ignoring our history. What part of SCOTUS'

statement don't you understand, "{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

I accept the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln who said "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

[Hosnon]

53. You don't see the irony in a Supreme Court deciding that something is outside

of its jurisdiction, so to speak?

Proclaiming that the right to keep and bear arms was not granted by the Constitution is nice rhetoric, but that's about it (unless, of course, the Supreme Court does give greater deference to rights it claims precede the Constitution as opposed to those granted thereby).

[jody]

58. You refuse to acknowledge my point. The SCOTUS statement I quoted applies to 100% of those rights

enumerated in our constitution as well as unenumerated rights that government is obligated to protect because they are inalienable/unalienable and pre-existed our Constitution and in no way depend upon it for their legitimacy.

What is so difficult for you to understand about that statement?

[Hosnon]

60. I understand it COMPLETELY. Trust me, I do.

Where does the "inalienable-ness" of a right come from?

[Statistical]

61. According to the founders ....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

To the non-religion they would be called human rights. All humans have certain rights. Those rights aren't granted by government and as such can't be usurped by governments.

That applies not to Americans but all humans. All humans that ever lived, and all that ever will live. Any government that violates the rights of the people is illegitimate because legitimacy of the government comes from the governed.

[jody]

62. You finally IMO asked the right question. It's inalienable because a sovereign people said it was as

a way of retaining to themselves some of the things an individual possesses in a state of nature.

History records before the 15th century or there-about people were mere subjects to whoever had the power to enslave others. Add to that a religious group that could prey upon the ignorance and fear of subjects and anoint kings and we had only privileges granted through the divine right of kings.

Science finally broke the iron grip of the church-king relationship and philosophers began to question privately and then openly whether subjects really had to beg privileges from the king-church duo or whether each individual had rights that were natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable as PA (1776) and VT (1777) stated in their constitutions.

Obviously PA and VT were influenced by Jefferson who wrote "they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" although someone either John Adams or Ben Franklin, replaced "inalienable" with the word "unalienable" that we read today in the Declaration of Independence.

Back to your question.

We the People threw off the tyranny of kings and churches and declared ourselves free.

We then loaned or granted some but not all our authority to a central government but declared some things off limit to that government. Those things we recognize today as inalienable rights like freedom of speech, press, assembly etc.

I've read enough of the history preceding our Declaration of Independence and Constitution to believe your question can be answered only one of two ways.

One inalienable rights are granted by some divine entity but I haven't been able to find a link to his/her/its website to check out that source.

Two a right is inalienable because a group of sovereign people say it's an inalienable right to tell government that its off limits.

Of course there do emerge conflicts between an individual exercising an inalienable right and society which might benefit if that right is infringed upon.

My field is science and math so I bow to an authority in philosophy et al who have a different view.

ON EDIT ADD:Some time ago I posted on this topic at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x149269

[Statistical]

33. A war was fought over that "largely academic distinction"

The concept was incredibly radical and progressive for its time.

The idea that right are inalienable sometimes also called natural right or God given rights. That the King of England had no authority to deprive the rights of the colonist without due process. Why? Because it was wrong or bad?

No far more fundamental; the King had no authority to take away rights because they were never his to give to begin with.

That concept is utterly radical and is the basis for all modern Democracies. That humans have rights that pre-exist their governments and that governments exist to protect those rights and exist solely with the consent of the governed.

To dismiss it as "largely academic" is to dismiss the reason why colonist were willing to risk everything not just their lives but their prosperity and their families future for a war with the reigning superpower of that time.

[Hosnon]

37. Were I to bet I would bet that Jefferson is your favorite Founding Father.

I'm not questioning the importance of what we call inalienable rights. Simply pointing out that they are only inalienable to the extent that we all agree they are...which means they're not really inalienable, just important by agreement.

[Statistical]

39. Well to take that step further ...

it is why we have such protections on them to prevent it simply being a majority rule (majority tyranny) decision.

The conclusion on what is the moral thing to do when a government decides it has the authority to take rights is very clear in our first official document as an independent nation....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The founding fathers would say if our government today deprived its citizens of inalienable rights it would have no more legitimacy of rule than did King George when he felled compelled to usurp rights granted by the "Creator". If those injustices could not be rectified by any other means than the abolishment of the government would be the last and only recourse. They would go so far as to say not only is it moral but it is the duty of the citizens to "throw off such government and to provide new guards for the future security".

Like I said they were very radical men for there (and ever our) time. Our education system really "dumbs down" the radical & progressive nature of their philosophies.

To answer your question I don't really have a favorite but I do believe Jefferson was a brilliant man and ahead of his time.

[Hosnon]

My understanding of the revolution is a bit less lofty - and more typically human.

The words they used to get things going must be taken with a grain of salt, in my opinion. The only example one needs to see is slavery. So much for inalienability, right?

My primary point in this thread is that nothing is immutable, including things deemed immutable by vote. It's simply nonsensical because the legitimacy of that label is derived from that very vote - saying that a vote cannot change that label is creating something out of nothing. For example, the Articles of Confederation had an amendment process - which was wholly ignored by the drafters of the Constitution. So it seems that even they realized that practical necessities can justify a "do over".

Again, I support the idea of "super" rights. But I also recognize that there is nothing external to humans that protects that status.

[Statistical]

47. "there is nothing external to humans that protects that status."

The rights exist even when infringed. It is a philosophical statement. There is no protect in the sense of a deity intervening to smite those that transgress.

The concept is still an important and valid one. Certain things are rights (not super rights that is redundant). Any government that violates those is no longer legitimate. Period. There are no exceptions. Sometimes tyranny prevails for a time but it still is tyranny.

If the people chose to accept that tyranny then that is their choice. The founders would say that people that openly rebel against such tyranny are doing their moral duty. Likewise rebellion in the absence of such usurpations is immoral. It should be a last resort. Unjust laws don't justify rebellion, only violation of inalienable rights.

[Hosnon]

52. "It is a philosophical statement."

That was my point.

As a side note, I do think there are degrees of rights. For example, I would place the right to due process above the right to be free from criminal prosecution except by indicted of a Grand Jury.

[Statistical]

54. I would say the exact opposite.

Both are rights.

While you may feel that jury trial is less important that doesn't make it less rights. Other people may have differing opinions on that comparison.

If either was denied then it would be the definition of tyranny.

[Hosnon]

55. Um, no. You do know what a Grand Jury is, right?

Not being indicted by a Grand Jury does not mean there will not be a trial by jury.

[Statistical]

56. That doesn't change the facts.

I missed the word Grand in your statement but doesn't change the fact. Usurping of rights it tyranny.

Just because the government gets away with it doesn't make it less tyrannical. A rapist that gets away with rape doesn't make the crime less of a crime.

Doesn't matter if the govt violates a right you consider "not important" or "less important" if it does so then it is tyrannical. Simple concept.

[Hosnon]

57. I agree that usurping of rights is a bad thing. I don't think I've claimed otherwise.

The only point I'm trying to get across is that rights don't exist as Platonic Forms or anything like that. They are products of human culture and owe their existence to humanity.

And claiming otherwise is mostly just appealing to our emotions. The two exceptions I can think of are (1) framing of the topic in favor of limited government; and (2) advocating an actual difference in treatment of inalienable rights and run-of-the-mill rights by the judiciary.

And your insistence on the existence of inalienable rights presupposes at least two classes of rights, by the way.

[Statistical]

59. No there is only one class of rights; right.

Right are inalienable. Period. They pre-exist the government. They exist even in the presence of tyranny, and they still exist after that government is abolished.

Anything granted by the government is merely a privileged. Even if it is granted to all citizens equally it is still a privileged to be rescinded on the whims of the governing.

Rights vs. privileges. Those are your two classes.

[Winterblues]

34. That just isn't true

By recognizing the right it creates it.. Without the Constitution there is no "right". You may think you have a "right" but without the recognition of such "right" by the constitution there is no "right". The Constitution creates and protects certain "rights". That is why the first ten amendments are called the "Bill of Rights".

[Statistical]

40. The Bill of Rights creations nothing. It simply protects existing rights from govt infringement.

Sad that this is not taught properly anymore.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution."

There is no historical evidence that the BofR grants or create anything. They clearly wrote the BofR to be a restriction on the actions of the government, nothing more.

[jody]

51. Thanks for the lecture. You can lead a student to teaching but you can't make him/her learn.

Sad that you and other DUers have to keep repeating that same lecture over and over again and yet there are some DUers who never learn.

We DUers who post frequently in the Guns forum base our defense of RKBA on our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions that apply to each and every inalienable/unalienable right.

If some DUers are so ignorant of our Constitution and inalienable/unalienable rights protected by it as their posts confirm, are they also ignorant about other equally important issues?

[jody]

44. LOL because you ignore unenumerated rights protected, not created, by the 9th Amendment.

ON EDIT ADD:
What part of SCOTUS statement don't you understand, "{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

[X_Digger]

65. Woops, someone already addressed it.

A natural law philosophy holds that all rights are part of being born as a human (from a 'creator' for the theists). See Locke, Thomas Acquinas, etc.

There was serious public debate at the time of the passage of the BoR: some argued that certain rights should absolutely be put above government interference; others, as you seem to be doing, worried that the enumeration of these rights would cause future generations to believe that the scope of the rights would be seen as set in stone, or that only these rights would be recognized. The latter's fears were addressed largely by the inclusion of the ninth and tenth amendments.

[Statistical]

13. Now this is "reasonable gun control" I can live with.

[slackmaster]

25. It's not gun control

It's criminal control.

[Statistical]

30. I agree and that is why I can live with it.

We need a lot more criminal control in this country.

[Upton]

17. delete

[msongs]

18. 2nd amendment - there are NO restrictions of any kind - kids, criminals, all have RKBA nt

[X_Digger]

20. *hurk* *hurk* *spew* adding to your greatest hits again?

"all gun owners must be required to join the militia, like the constitution says nt"
"all gun owners should be required to join the militia, as the constitution says nt"
"gun owners should be required to join the militia - "A well regulated militia being necessary..." nt"
"all gun owners must be required to join the militia, like the constitution says nt"
"are you in the militia as required by the second amendment? nt"
"you only have a right to a gun if you're in the militia per 2nd amendment nt"
"if you're in the militia you have the right to bear arms nt"

"fear of a black president nt"
"gun sales soar as first BLACK president is sworn in - gee wonder who's rushing the gun stores? nt"
" having a black president has way jackkked up gun sales. hmm wonder why? nt"
"fear of a black president + right wing media hysteria egging things on nt"
"racist gun wingnuts and fear of a black president - great for business eh gun shops? nt"
"gun whackos run amok using fear of a black president nt"
" fear of a black president run amok nt"
"fear of a black president by a group which is full of racists lol nt"
"lol sales are way up amongst the fear of a black president crowd...WAY up amongst racists nt"
"fear of a black president is doing wonders for the gun industry nt"
"did they tell you a BLACK man is now president n u should run out n buy guns? nt"
"fear of black president - go out and buy lots more guns nt"
"fear of a black president is swelling your ranks for the most part imo nt"
"driven by fear of a black president, gun sales have soared in the USA :-) nt"

"the toddler was just excercising his 2nd amendment rights IF he was in the militia nt"
"nuclear weapons are "arms". every 6 year old should have some nt"
"should be legal for 5 yr olds to carry at day care centers, after all, the constitution"
"constitutution does not prohibit 5 yr olds from owning guns. free guns for all apt. kids nt"
"guns for everyone, serial killers, 5 years olds, nut cases - constitutional rights ya know nt"
"children have a right to own and shoot guns anytime they wish. no bidg deal really nt"
"students have a constitutional right to carry guns at school...there is no age listed in the"
"all kids should be allowed to carry to school - 2nd amendment does NOT probhibit this nt"
"kids at elementary school should be allowed to carry guns, 2nd amnd. doesnt say adults only nt"
"yes the 2nd amendment allows 6 year olds to take guns to school so lets allow that too :-) nt"
"2nd amendment does not prohibit gun ownership by 8 year olds anywhere they go nt"

"crazies n nuts have a constitutional right to own and use guns too nt"
" legalize al weapons - convicted felons have a constitutional right to guns ya know nt"
"parolees, probationers, nuts, serial killers - everyone has the right to own guns . "
" the constitution does NOT bar serial killers from owning guns...or 4 year olds either nt"
"2nd amendment does NOT prohibit guns on airplanes or in the hands of criminals nt"
"2nd amendment does NOT prohibit felons or 5 year olds from owning guns nt"
"criminals have a constitutional right to carry guns on airplanes - not prevented by 2nd amendment nt"
"terrorists have a right to carry guns on planes, not prohibited by 2nd amendment. nt"
"terrorists have a 2nd amnd. right to carry guns on planes - not prohibited ya know nt"
"terroristsRKBA rights are denied when they cannot open carry on airliners nt"
"terrorists & serial killers have 2nd amendment rights too ya know. nt"
"prohibiting guns on airplanes and in schools = anti-RKBA bigotry right? nt"
"unlimited protection = terrorist RKBA rights to take guns on airplanes nt"
"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for any reason at all ever lol nt"
2nd amendment - there are NO restrictions of any kind - kids, criminals, all have RKBA nt

"no righteous killing to get off on in this one? nt"
"let all those gangbangers shoot a bunch of kids - its their righteous killing rights nt"
"so will the resident gun lovers call this another "righteous killing"? stay tuned ..... nt"
"is this another "righteous killing" for the gun crowd to celebrate? nt"
" "another righteous shoot" ..... jesus loves u anyway nt"
"another "righteous killing" for sure - after all that's what guns are FOR nt"
"oh this one is not righteous enough for u lololol. nt"
"the righteous killings are wonderful if a gun is used crowd disagree with you nt"
"another righteous killing in gun land...oh wait, the kid didnt die....yet nt"

[ThoughtCriminal]

23. Collecting?

Frankly, that's a pretty good collection ammo.

[X_Digger]

66. Forgive the misappropriation, ACC, but..

.. when it comes to msongs and anything tangentially related to guns, "The thing's hollow—it goes on forever—and—oh my God—it's full of stars memes."

[virginia mountainman]

64. X Digger for the win!!! LOL !!! nt

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

21. Good outcome.

Though I do think the root problem identified should also be addressed- "domestic abusers often commit acts that would be charged as felonies if the victim were a stranger, but that are charged as misdemeanors because the victim is a relative".

eta: formatting

[mmonk]

26. Guns are an inalienable right. One's health and welfare are not.

[Statistical]

31. guns are objects.

The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right however no right is absolute and rights (including but not limited to RKBA) can be restricted via due process.

A person is aware that if they beat their spouse their ability to keep and bear arms will be severely restricted. Said person choses to do so. Said criminal is given full due process, convicted and their right restricted.

[Blue_Tires]

28. I remember some NRA lawyer on NPR a couple weeks ago

after the USSC ruling talking how this was going to be the next law they challenged in court...I thought he was joking or something...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. Holy crap. And they have the gall to object to the term "gun nut". -nt

[Statistical]

43. The NRA did not support this court case.

They provided amicus briefs to both Heller & McDonald (and dozens of other RKBA cases) but not this case.

Indicated that this lawsuit exists doesn't indicate support for it. Try to find a cite where NRA indicates criminals should have access to firearms?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

45. So, the lawyer Blue_Tires mentioned was... too overzealous, or what? -nt

[Statistical]

49. Without a cite I would say "inprecise".

"some NRA lawyer ... talking how this was going to be the next law they challenged in court"

maybe it was more like

"some NRA lawyer ... talking how this was going to be the next law challenged in court"

A lawyer versed on RKBA lawsuits would be aware that this case was already in progress. Even IF (which they don't) the NRA supported giving criminals firearms there would be no reason to waste money/resources on an identical lawsuit. This lawsuit will play out. It would either be won or lost at this level and likely will be appealed. A second lawsuit arguing the same thing would do nothing.

It isn't like the court is going to say it is Constitutional and the next week say "nope Unconstitutional". Stare decisis and all that.

I will stand corrected (and shocked) if someone find a cite indicating the NRA will be challenging this statute.