Last year the Supreme Court ruled that gun restrictions are constitutional only if they are based on America's "historical tradition" of firearm regulation. So how about a law that bans gun ownership by people who are subject to restraining orders for domestic violence?
The Fifth Circuit Court, home of conservative wet dreams, naturally ruled that this ban had no historical basis and was therefore unconstitutional. So the question is: The Supreme Court may be conservative, but is it that conservative? The answer appears to be no:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed ready to rule that the government may disarm people subject to domestic violence orders.
Several conservative justices, during a lively argument, seemed to be searching for a narrow rationale.... But they seemed prepared to accept that a judicial finding of dangerousness was sufficient to support the law even if there was no measure from the founding era precisely like the one at issue in the case.
It's a measure of how extreme the Fifth Circuit has gotten that they are routinely overturned by the most conservative Supreme Court in memory. In this case, the net result is still going to be a considerable loosening of US gun laws, but not quite so loose as to be nonsensical. Count your blessings.
Ah. This may forestall my worst nightmare: The 5th Circuit voiding gun bans in airports and airplanes because there were no such bans in the 18th Century, and the ammosexuals on the Supreme Court upholding the 5th.
that's one where i think the backlash would be immense and lead to a real blue wave. not only would it be insanely unsafe, but it would cause chaos at airports and allow dems to label the GOP as as pro-terrorism and dismissive of 9/11.
This. The Roberts court is nothing if not aware of the effects of its decisions on the GOP's immediate political prospects.
I can envision the dem campaign ads with video of the planes hitting the WTC towers and a grim voiceover "is this the america republicans want to go back to?".
Malcolm Gladwell did a great evisceration of SCOTUS on guns
https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/guns-part-1-the-sudden-celebrity-of-sir-john-knight
The state Supreme Court in Maine, whose constitution has language stating that "the people's right to keep and bear arms shall never be questioned", still had no difficulty upholding DV-based restrictions on possession.
SCOTUS can do it if they want to.
The "historical precedents" principal they pulled out of their asses last year is too stupid even for these corrupt ideologues. Was domestic violence even a crime in 1800?
Given that the wife and females in the family were classified as mere "property" of the male, and the idea that a husband could not possibly "rape" his wife, because they were married and accommodating his beastly desires was her job, I'd say no.
"the most conservative Supreme Court in memory"
is there a more conservative supreme court in US history, at least in relation to contemporary cultural norms and preferences of the country?
I was gonna say, "Have you heard of Roger Taney?" But his court, Dred Scott aside, was surprisingly non-radical, even progressive.
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln…”
The current incarnation of the Supreme Court's conservative makeup apparently believes that the Constitution as they interpret it has a diffuse suicide pact encoded within it. We have spent the treasure and blood of this nation slowly editing it out over two centuries, while they run it back to an almost pre -Enlightenment form.
the Supreme Court's conservative makeup apparently believes that the Constitution as they interpret it has a diffuse suicide pact encoded within it.
No. That's not it. They're too smugly stupid and narrow-minded to perceive the myriad harms to the national interest flowing from their blinkered philosophy,
Heh. It must be innate; like moths to flame. Instinctively, dismantling the present so we can shit in the streets as our forefathers did. If it was good enough for them...
The 2nd amendment is nonsense from the very beginning.
I don’t think so. Why doesn’t the Constitution enumerate rights to own other personal-property items? Why isn’t there a Constitutional right to own stewpots, or settees? The 2nd is really about militias, isn’t it? That’s why the Roberts Court had to invent an individual right to own firearms in DC v Heller.
The 2nd is really about militias, isn’t it?
Yes.
"The Supreme Court may be conservative, but is it that conservative? The answer appears to be no:"
Yeah, but doesn't this blow a hole in their earlier ruling? You can only limit gun ownership in ways that already existed when the 2A was passed...except for these other ways that seem like no brainers...but not these other ways that also make perfect sense. For (sometimes) historical reasons.
Look, I understand that law is a messy thing and no judge will avoid some contradictions. But there has to be some rationale, and I don't see it here. I think they're just ruling for the political outcome they want, dressing it up in bogus historical/linguistic analysis, and finding transparently stupid reasons to ignore that framework whenever it suits them. Happy that they're upholding these bans, but they are complete hacks.
But there has to be some rationale, and I don't see it here.
Why does there have to be some rationale? The six right wingers are beyond the reach of our politics, and they know it. They answer to no one.
“not quite … nonsensical”
I dunno. This Court said New York couldn’t ask citizens why they need a handgun. Though the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment is that the question should be asked, and the only acceptable answer is “I belong to a well-regulated militia”.
In the context of the time, 'well-regulated militia' meant slave patrols. The 2nd Amendment was a sop to the southern states to keep them from forming their own country, as were the 3/5 compromise and the Electoral College. The point was that whites would need guns to keep the slaves in line and even free blacks would not be allowed have guns because a free black would never be part of a slave patrol.
To see a modern example of this attitude, note that California only made open carry illegal after some Black Panthers staged a protest while legally carrying firearms. This is the Mulford Act of 1967, signed by Reagan and supported by the NRA. "Nothin' scarier than a black guy with a guy," they said.
Well-regulated militia was not just slave patrols. It was well-regulated militias that won the Revolutionary War.
Except for that French fleet and 80% of the gunpowder in paquets rolled on the thighs of Parisiennes.
You should read about the Battle of Cowpens. The brilliant American commander and tactician, Daniel Morgan, made use of the British disdain of undisciplined Colonial militias, who often fled in the face of British bayonet charges. Morgan had his militias fire a couple of volleys and then fake a panic, running to the rear and drawing the British into a double envelopment by Colonial regulars; the militias rejoined the battle because they could count on the regulars, many trained by Europeans, to stand firm. (The British were routed.)
Slave patrols had a part in the Second Amendment, but so did the desire of Colonial militias to burnish their tarnished image.
The 2nd Amendment didn't exist during the Revolutionary War, doncha know. Again, if you read the debates that occurred at the time of the enactment of the 2nd Amendment "militia" is a euphemism for "slave patrol."
I mean, they did take the appeal of the 5th's decision to block the law, so it seems they were open to the possibility of overturning it.
Another crazy Afghan. Just like the Orlando mass shooter from 2016. Send him back.