In the seminal Heller case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. However, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the right wasn't unlimited:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.... Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
See? Completely reasonable and nuanced. Jittery liberals never had anything to worry ab—
A federal judge in Florida on Friday ruled that a U.S. law that bars people from possessing firearms in post offices is unconstitutional, citing a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2022 that expanded gun rights.
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump...said allowing the federal government to restrict visitors from bringing guns into government facilities as a condition of admittance would allow it to "abridge the right to bear arms by regulating it into practical non-existence."
That's from Reuters. The next step, I suppose, will be a ruling that there's no historical precedent for distinguishing handguns from rifles, and therefore no bar to showing up for work with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder. I mean, if you can't bring an assault rifle into a post office or court building, American freedoms are hanging by a mere thread, right?
The Supreme Court will never, EVER, rule that it is okay to bring weapons into their courtroom. You can count on that. Not sure how they'll rationalize it, but they will.
Exactly, especially THEIR courtroom. Freedom stops when they are at risk.
Without bad faith……
Republicans would have no arguments at all…
Not only were guns allowed in 18th century courts, they were sometimes required.
Seems I now have to login just tobread the comments. This is new.
That comes and goes. I don't know why. Earliest posters?
You have the right to fear for your life if you might piss off gun nuts. Freedom!
You misspelled freedumb.
Still waiting for the 5CA to declare that prohibitions on guns in airports/on airplanes are unconstitutional, because there were no such restrictions in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was ratified.
Why stop at guns? What about other arms like drones, missiles, nuclear warheads, anthrax, ...? Were any of them illegal in 1791?
The first manned balloon flight was in 1783, and no one told the Montgolfier brothers they couldn’t take their guns along, The constitution was drafted in 1787, so obviously the historical precedent is that guns are allowed on aircraft.
No because the balloon was unpowered. There is no historical precedent for powered flight, so that mean anything is allowed on powered flights, including large bottles of water!
The Montgolfier brothers balloon was a hot air balloon, powered by a large fire underneath it.
Didn't donnie say that the Continental Army freed the airports?
Will this judge start allowing guns in her courtroom from this point forward? Because if she isn't, then her ruling is pure nonsensical hogwash.
I'd like to see lots of lawyers start challenging this, by appearing in her courtroom with one of those stupid looking camo-splotched pistol-grip rifles slung over their shoulder, maga-style. Plastic, if they can't bring in the real thing. Cite her opinion. Have this happen several times a day.
Lawyers are subject to dress codes in court that don't apply to the public generally. Weapons are not part of the approved garb for lawyers. On the other hand, lawyers ARE officers of the court and so should get MORE leeway than the general public.
There was an original Star Trek episode in which the crew beamed down to a planet where the society was 1920's gangland Chicago. Everyone walked around in snazzy suits carrying Tommy guns.
https://youtu.be/daBvjkrZaDk?si=REH5UkxhlnzWp03s&t=58
Some people saw that and dreamed a dream.
I assume this judge will now allow visitors to bring their "heaters" into their court room. What a fucking moron.
That episode is A Piece of the Action from Season 2 and it's been one of my favorite TOS episodes since I first saw it in January 1968 when originally broadcast. (It's primarily a comedic episode and I like it even more than the more famous comedic episode The Trouble With Tribbles.) I'm hoping that we get a royal fizzbin and see Unser Drumpfenfuhrer in jail soon, but as Captain Kirk said, the odds of getting that hand, the best in fizzbin, were astronomical.
That and the one where some goof historian remodeled a planet after Nazi Germany claiming it was 'the most efficient period in human history', a claim entirely unchallenged in the script and which thereafter becomes the actual inspiration for the Reagan era.
I am of the Reaganaut generation, that episode was very impressive to my idiot peer group.
That's Patterns of Force from a few episodes later in the same season as A Piece of the Action. So-so episode with a couple of nice moments (I hate to say it, but Kirk and Spock look spiffy in their Nazi uniforms, though not as cool as they looked in A Piece of the Action in their Roaring Twenties suits and fedoras) but an absolutely ridiculous premise. What were they thinking?
They will never cross that line. They do that and the insurrection becomes an armed insurrection out to kill people, not just an angry, riotous, violent horde.
We can test Mizelle's resolve. Have 10 black men armed to the teeth into her courtroom.
You mean let history repeat itself. From Ronald Reagan's California
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
Yup. It always exposes their hypocrisy, IMO.
I'm so old I remember when "going postal" entered the vocabulary. I guess the courts want the youngsters to learn what that means.
Glad that I read all the comments before adding one this time, since you've already said what I would have added. I suppose that's one thing that has improved, while the harm has spread in so many other places
And how does this affect DC's & the Capitol's bans on firearms there?
I'm not allowed to walk in and raid your refrigerator, therefore I'm regulated into practical non-existence.
There is so much human blood on the hands of the Supreme Court that they walk everywhere in red puddles of victim's blood and it is surprising that they are welcome anywhere in polite company, from restaurants to supper markets they should be shunned and openly called Murder Enablers.
Traveller
PS I didn't mean to pull my punches and go so light on the Supreme Court on how great my negative feelings are
As if postal workers and customers don't deal with enough sh*t already.
So it would be perfectly OK to attend a meeting with an IRS auditor toting a couple Uzis. Got it
Depends if you are a small business many and properly amortized the cost of the weapons.
Aileen Cannon-like:*
At the age of 33, she was the youngest person chosen by Trump for a lifetime judicial appointment [August 12, 2020] . ... The American Bar Association (ABA)'s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, ... rated Mizelle "Not Qualified" to serve as a federal trial court judge, noting that "Since her admission to the bar Ms. Mizelle has not tried a case, civil or criminal, as lead or co-counsel." Before her appointment, the nominee had only taken part in two trials — both one-day trials in a state court conducted while she was still in law school. She had eight years of legal experience at the time of her nomination
*---> She joined the first group of judges appointed by a president who had lost reelection at the time of confirmation since Jimmy Carter's appointment of Stephen Breyer to the United States Court of Appeals <---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Kimball_Mizelle