Quote of the Day
Is that law evidence that [the] government has the power to ban dangerous people from possessing firearms, because people thought that African Americans and other racial minorities were dangerous?”
Adam Winkler
UCLA Law Professor
September 21, 2024
The Supreme Court expanded gun rights. That could complicate the Trump assassination attempt case. (msn.com)
Or is it evidence the gun banners are going to face and admit the racists origins of the laws they want to inflict upon us? Interesting questions.
It will be entertaining to watch their tap dance.
Since it’s only one (1) of the charges that idiot will be facing the headline of the article is deliberately misleading. They’ve got plenty of other charges to apply.
More importantly, if we’re allowing convicted and then released felons who have completed their sentences to walk around without a keeper, what other dangerous tools will they be prohibited from possessing? The worst mass murders (outside of those done by governments) have not been committed with firearms. Are they going to be prohibited from possession of chains and padlocks? 5 gallon gasoline cans? Matches? On the simplest level, how about cut-off tree branches and rocks?
If they are “rehabilitated” enough to walk around our society without a keeper then they should certainly be allowed the full gamut of civil rights. If they’re NOT safe enough to walk around with a firearm then they should be back in prison. It’s pretty much a binary choice. And there are lots of convicts who should remain in prison for the rest of their lives, either because they’ve never been socialized, or are sociopaths or psychopaths.
P.S.: Note that “parole” is an entirely different matter in which the convict has agreed to a specific set of criteria of behavior in exchange for an early release from their sentence. Parole should be something like a short-term trial period during which the convict can demonstrate that they can meet those criteria and blend in with civilized human beings.
Maybe not a binary decision of prison or walking around free. We could always give them the option of finding another country that would accept them.
The larger question is: should they be walking around in public without a minder, breathing free people’s oxygen? I’m open to several options that foreclose oxygen thievery. One is to send them to breathe less-free people’s air.
This sort of chaos is the result of Roberts’ constant and sometimes successful efforts to split the baby. This means that the Supremes usually decide to not decide. And when they do, they always decide for judicial supremacy. In some ways, Roberts is well within the mainstream of lawyers. Their unit of analysis is the case, not the policy. I can’t tell you how many times I had to fight lawyers’ desire to settle cases even when the settlement undermined a perfectly reasonable policy. They always argued that it is cheaper to settle than litigate. True but only when you look at the individual case.
This is why I was one of the few conservatives who did not celebrate the overturning of Chevron. That just replaced bureaucratic tyranny with judicial tyranny. And the bureaucrats actually know stuff and they are more accountable than judges. (Low bar alert.) To take a recent case, the US Fish and Wildlife people are trying to delist wolves as an endangered species, arguing that the law was to prevent extinction, not to return all species to their total range. The watermelons naturally sued and some district court tyrant in black robes, substituted his judgment and issued an injunction. USFWS is appealing. God only knows what the Appeals Court will do.
Yes, Robert’s focus on the case rather than a bigger picture grasp of policy / philosophy is a problem. He’s as bad as Sandra Day O’Connor in that respect. If they’d simply lay clear interpretation philosophical guidelines, a great many more cases could be decided lower down by the application of said guidelines.
Maybe what is needed is a judicial three strikes law?
Get overturned three times, your out?
Of course the real problem is communists destroying the system.
Nothing will ever work as designed with traitors involved.
But having to go back for senate review/renewal might straighten a few backbones. Constitutionally speaking.
One could only hope.
If it is commies all the way down, using that system for accountability will fail.
A felon with a gun? How novel.
But the question of giving felons certain rights back is always going to be a tricky proposition.
Certain arguments as already stated, that if you can be trusted on your own OR, you can have your rights too, should be well taken.
To me the problem lies with the way we approach punishment.
It should be corporal, capital, or banishment. No one should be in jail for over a year. We spend far too much time and money on this moronic idea of “adult timeout”. Especially with people of little or no impulse control.
As for the communist moron bent on assassination?. Society should have no problem imposing the sentence he was trying to give DJT.
This should stem from the jurisprudence of false witness. And the practice of imposing double on the false accuser. That would normally be imposed on the accused.
Your out to murder? You get murdered.
A swift and public hanging would serve nicely.
But then again, nothing works as it should when communist traitors abound, mucking up in the system.
Expecting logic, facts and reason to be part of the “gun grabbing” agenda is a fools errand.
Pingback: Projection | The View From North Central Idaho