this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
114 points (95.2% liked)

politics

24897 readers
2891 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
114
Rahimi: The Supreme Court’s big gun case was humiliating for the justices. (slate.com)
submitted 2 years ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Since Bruen, lower court judges applying its test have been, to use a legal term of art, all over the place, a fact repeatedly highlighted during oral arguments by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who sought some, any, guidance on how the court should understand its own ruling. Again, lower courts are equally confused. One court, for example, decided that Florida’s ban on the sale of guns to 18-to-20-year-olds passed constitutional muster; another concluded that a federal law disarming people convicted of certain crimes perhaps did not.

A few judges have publicly aired their frustrations with the sudden analytical primacy of law-office history. “We are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791,” wrote one in 2022. “Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.” Another castigated the court for creating a game of “historical Where’s Waldo” that entails “mountains of work for district courts that must now deal with Bruen-related arguments in nearly every criminal case in which a firearm is found.”

Just goes to show how shitty, stupid, and partisan this Trump Supreme Court is.

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 46 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I'm an extremely pro-gun type of dude, but even I'm having a really hard time understanding why this is even a question.

The actions of this Zackey Rahimi dillweed outlined at the beginning are almost certainly felony level offenses. We have agreed for quite a long time that convicted felons cannot own firearms, let alone violent ones. Shooting at cars because of road rage? Shooting at the wrong car because of road rage? Capping off in a Whatabugger because your credit card was declined? I know we like to roll our eyes and make snide comments about "responsible gun owners." This asshat is not a responsible gun owner. There should have already been plenty of due process before this to take his guns away -- being convicted for any of the above offenses would have covered it -- long before we got to the restraining order phase. What I want to know is how the hell he still had a gun after the first offense to go on and commit all the others. (And if he had that gun illegally at the time to begin with, why he was apparently not jammed up for it.)

[–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 8 points 2 years ago

Take solace in the fact that the justices are likely to uphold this law!

... and somewhat less solace in the fact that one of the justices (I think it was Jackson?) said this was the easy case and they have much hornier Bruen cases in the pipeline.

... and even less solace in the fact that a supposedly "easy" case like this one still made it to the supreme court because of how much a shitshow the Bruen decision is.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

It's a common failing of the justice system. There aren't enough judges and lawyers to handle the case load in a reasonable time frame. This leads to most cases being plea deals, because it's better to spend 6 months locked up than a year waiting for a trial date. This inevitably leads to a handful of people that should have been locked up long ago being free to commit more crimes until they finally go to far for a district attorney to ignore.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I mean it's pretty easy to see why this is a question.

Trump's supreme court, the highlander quickening geniuses, issued a decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen that and I quote

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"

Basically requiring gun laws to have some analogue in to laws linking back to when the founders first wrote the amendment and if there's no analogue, and in this case it's all about domestic violence wasn't against the law and therefore if the supreme court doesn't want to look like god damn clowns, they should rule that this law is unconstitutional.

[–] Yewb@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

When dumb people get out into power and they make dumb decisions why are we always supprised.

These institutions have many mechanisms to unwind bad decisions its just slow as balls and they have many judges that need to look towards party politics instead of law they need to be removed.

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

These institutions have many mechanisms to unwind bad decisions

This requires a functioning government, which the US doesn't really have

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This requires a functioning government, which the US doesn’t really have

By design. The people who create roadblocks like this don't want a functioning government. It gets in the way of their cruelty and exploitation of anyone who doesn't have their wealth or influence.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

they require a functioning government to protect private property. the government is functioning exactly as they intend.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago

When dumb people get out into power and they make dumb decisions why are we always supprised.

when people make laws, they are unable to know how they will effect the future. I'm not doing special pleading for this court or the founders: quite the opposite. I'm saying abolition of law is the only way to ensure this kind of bad decision doesn't continue to haunt us.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Someone at some point said this and I agree that if everyone only had access to muskets that take anywhere from 30seconds to a minute just to load a single shot then everyone gets a gun. No problem. BUT we now have guns that can practically empty their clips in the same time it took to load a musket. And no matter how imaginative any of the founding fathers were they could never have concieved of how deadly guns would get in just a couple hundred years. So to try and use them now as any basis for how we craft gun laws is the height of madness.

On top of all this we have definitive verifiable proof that restricting access to firearms DOES reduce gun violence. ESPECIALLY school shootings. Other countries have done it and it works!

If you are a responsible gun owner, enthusiast or defender and you can't get behind restricting gun access for the health and safety of everyone then you're NOT responsible you're reprehensible.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I find this excerpt fascinating:

Today’s firearms are also far deadlier than Colonial-era firearms: In about two-thirds of fatal mass shootings between 2014 and 2019, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of domestic violence, according to an amicus brief filed by a gun safety group. In the context of a real-life epidemic of deadly intimate partner violence, the fact that the Framers did not disarm abusers in 1791 does not mean they would not have done so if abusers in 1791 murdered as many people as they do in 2023.

Tell me again how any and all restrictions on gun rights should remain unconstitutional in light of the damage being caused by unfettered access to firearms.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

unfettered

That word choice gives me an idea. We need a man to stop it, to fetter it. A Fetterman, if you will 😉

[–] nyar@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago

Fuck that genocide apologist. Fetterman sucks ass.

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Republicans will never vote in favor of Red Flag Laws that take guns away from Domestic Abusers, Sex Offenders, Predators Etc. Because that’s their fucking BASE!!!