Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff ) Second Amendment  (Read 985781 times)

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1693
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2450 on: August 19, 2023, 05:44:11 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
Possession by felons
« Reply #2451 on: August 29, 2023, 12:05:10 PM »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
Gov Grisham of NM cancels Second Amendment
« Reply #2454 on: September 10, 2023, 03:46:05 AM »


https://twitchy.com/dougp/2023/09/09/local-law-enforcement-responses-to-nm-govs-gun-edict-are-ring-hollow-for-dana-loesch-n2387018

I confess that I was stunned to see on FOX this morning that Cong. Ted Lieu, who was my Congressman when I was a Californian, and who is as loathsome a Woken Dead Prog as can be found in Congress, said that this was unC'l.

Then, to top it off that self-righteous little cunt David Hoag said the same thing.

The world retains its ability to surprise.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Gov Grisham of NM cancels Second Amendment
« Reply #2455 on: September 10, 2023, 06:38:40 AM »
An honest person who hates the second amendment must admit this is a clear violation.  This is why people who think 2A is wrong for our time need to repeal, or rewrite and re-ratify it, unless they just don't believe in the binding power of a constitution in a constitutional republic.

What holds us together if not the constitution?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2023, 04:00:20 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
Armed resistance in NM
« Reply #2456 on: September 11, 2023, 03:24:16 AM »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Annie Oakley
« Reply #2458 on: September 13, 2023, 01:22:15 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
BATFE Loses Another Court Case
« Reply #2461 on: October 13, 2023, 08:03:51 PM »


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
Bleeping Illinoisistan
« Reply #2463 on: October 20, 2023, 06:10:59 PM »
State of my childhood rules onerous carry permit requirements are kosher. As sundry other People’s Republics of Ameristan seek to find just where the SCOTUS will draw 2nd amendment lines post-Bruen will be interesting:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/20/illinois-appellate-court-upholds-90-day-waiting-period-for-concealed-carry-permit-150-fee/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
NY CHP Win
« Reply #2464 on: October 24, 2023, 09:21:39 PM »
Judge strikes down the very subjective “good moral character” clause of NY’s CHP process:

https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2023/10/victory_in_new_.php


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
NY accidentally promotes DIY gun making
« Reply #2466 on: October 27, 2023, 04:47:45 PM »
second
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/10/nys-crusade-against-homemade-guns-backfires-unintentional-masterclass-ghost-gunsmithing/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)#axzz8HNwRhHAL

NY’s Door-to-Door Crusade Against Homemade Guns Backfires, Unintentional Masterclass in Ghost-Gunsmithing
Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 26, 2023 by John Crump
Privacy Invasion: New York State Police’s door-to-door checks based on eBay pistol part purchases raise serious privacy concerns.
Misguiding Guide: NYPD’s leaked “ghost gun” handbook, riddled with legal inaccuracies, unintentionally becomes a detailed DIY firearm-making manual.
Unwitting Advertising: NYPD’s guide inadvertently promotes gun part manufacturers and DIY firearm assembly, including 3D printing and CNC machining details.
Ghost Gunner Gun Making CNC Machine
Ghost Gunner Gun Making CNC Machine
New York State declared war on citizens making their own firearms. To crack down on privately manufactured firearms (PMF), the New York State Police (NYSP) are showing up in force at people’s doors. The reason for the informal visit seems to be an inquiry related to purchased pistol parts from the website eBay. Ammoland News has learned from Law Enforcement Sources that the New York Police Department released a “ghost gun” handbook explaining PMFs and how to identify them.

Two weeks ago, NYSP “Ghost Gun” Team members began visiting citizens in the New York City area requesting information about parts purchased from eBay. The parts were purchased from multiple sellers across the auction platform.

Most disturbing, the officers had printouts of everything purchased by the individuals from the website, leading to the question of how the State Police came into possesion the item list.

When the officers show up at New York residents’ doors, they show up in force with between nine and twelve officers. Only two to three officers will speak to the person while the others stand far back in the yard looking bored. The police will ask about the parts and ask to see any firearms that the resident owns. The New York Police are knocking on doors requesting to see the individual’s firearms.

AmmoLand News spoke to several of the residents that the State Police visited. None of the individuals allowed the police to inspect their firearms. The officers would state, “We know what you have.” When the residents still refused to hand over any information, the State Police let them know they could turn in anything violating New York law to the State Police. None of the residents we spoke to were threatened with legal action, and the interactions were between five and fifteen minutes.

Could eBay be handing over private transaction information to the police?
Since the task force had a complete list of the items purchased on eBay, eBay is the most likely source for the information. AmmoLand News reached out to both the New York State Police and eBay, but neither would confirm or deny what information was shared.  All interactions AmmoLand News was able to track down are from the greater New York City area. We also have not identified any visits within the city’s five boroughs.

At the same time the New York State Police are going door to door, the New York Police Department (NYPD) released a handbook to identify “ghost guns.”
This guide was leaked to AmmoLand News but is now being widely circulated across the internet.

Ghost Guns: Past, Present, and Future NYPD Intelligence Division Major Case Field Intelligence Team
Ghost Guns: Past, Present, and Future NYPD Intelligence Division Major Case Field Intelligence Team
The guide comes from the NYPD Intelligence Division and aims to help officers identify PMFs. Although the intention is to help police identify PMFs, it reads like a “how-to guide” to firearms building. It lists all the parts needed, where to get them, and examples of homemade guns.

The guide lists a gun’s parts and gives an example of a lower receiver. According to the guide, “all lower receivers need to be serialized” because the federal government considers them firearms. Next to this statement is a picture of an 80% AR-15 receiver. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Final Rule on frame and receiver is very clear on this topic.

The ATF has never and still does not consider 80% AR-15 receivers to be firearms.

The document also incorrectly states that all lower receivers must be serialized under federal law. Once again, the document is incorrect. The ATF says a frame or receiver must only be serialized when transferred. According to federal law, it is legal to have an unserialized firearm unless it previously had a serial number. Many are concerned that these inconsistencies between the law and the guide could lead to false arrests. AmmoLand News contacted the individual contacts listed in the document to see if the misinformation would be corrected, but none responded.

The guidebook calls out several manufacturers, including Polymer80, Glock Store, Strike Industries, 80 Percent Arms, Lone Wolf, Geisler, and JSD Supply. The guide includes a handy list of the companies’ websites and their products.

In addition to those retailers, the guide also covers the Ghost Gunner. The Ghost Gunner is a tabletop CNC machine that allows users to mill a firearm. It also lists the sites that sell the device and shows a picture of the founder of Ghost Gunner and Defense Distributed, Cody Wilson. The document references Defcad, which is another Defense Distributed project.



AmmoLand News spoke to Cody Wilson, who found the New York Police Department handbook to identify “ghost guns” document hilarious. He believes it is an excellent advertisement for his company.

“New York has produced the best getting started guide on the market,” Wilson said. “We will be emailing it to all of our customers.”

The document also explains how to 3D print a gun. It breaks down the printers needed, including the Creality Ender 3, and lists the filament types. It also gives an overview of the most popular slicing software. A current bill in the New York Legislature would require background checks to purchase a 3D printer.

The document also lists the most popular sites for downloading “gun CAD” files. Even if someone were to download the files, they would be unable to turn that 3D-printed model into a working firearm without certain parts. Fortunately for the building community, the NYPD documentation lists the parts and links to sites selling everything a person could use to finish the homemade firearm.

Oh No! Crypto!
The documentation touches on Glock switches purchased off of Chinese sites. These are auto sears and turn a regular Glock into a machine gun. In addition to auto sears, the document also worries about importing solvent traps to make suppressors.

The handbook also states they will attempt to get postal data to track shipments. The NYPD will also try to get Micro Center and Amazon data to track 3D printers and supply purchases. The police attend gun shows in other states to follow the selling of firearms parts.

The document also states that many who print guns are involved in cryptocurrency. The NYPD points to several gun-part retailers that accept BitCoin as a payment option. Many non-gun sites accept cryptocurrency as payment.

It also lists items to look for when executing a search warrant. These include packages, pre-paid credit cards, invoices, gun parts, storage locker keys, 3D printers, flash drives, cell phones, and micro SD cards.

The NYPD will offer a one-hour class to officers to help them identify PMFs. The content of the class has yet to be released, but when made available by the department, AmmoLand News will publish it.

Neither the NYPD, NYSP, nor eBay responded to requests for comment for this story.

LEAKED: Ghost Guns: Past, Present, and Future NYPD Intelligence Division Major Case Field Intelligence



About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist; he has written about firearms and interviewed people of all walks of life. Mr. Crump lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

Some of the links on this page are affiliate links, meaning at no additional cost to you, Ammoland will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
Early Air Rifle
« Reply #2468 on: October 28, 2023, 02:47:28 PM »
Second

HT CCP:

the only gun taken for the Lewis and Clark expedition.

would pump up to 800 lbs of pressure, and could load 22 balls.

was used by Austrian army.

very revolutionary for late 18th through early 19th century:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Girandoni%20air%20rifle%20youtbue&mid=DB491C06B0B038F434C1DB491C06B0B038F434C1&ajaxhist=0

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Lewiston Maine, these were gun-free zones
« Reply #2469 on: October 30, 2023, 02:01:09 PM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
Re: Lewiston Maine, these were gun-free zones
« Reply #2470 on: October 30, 2023, 03:48:41 PM »
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/as-the-maine-shooting-showed-once-again-gun-free-zones-kill/

Apparently Mass Shooters do pay attention to these signs.

We firearms trainers refer to the signs as denoting “criminal empowerment zones.”

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
Everything Old is New Again
« Reply #2471 on: October 30, 2023, 03:52:16 PM »
Oh look, the ATF has an agent running guns to Mexico … and the DOJ et all appears uhinterested.

Hey, maybe we can nail another Democratic Attorney General for contempt of Congress for failing to investigate the matter and answer Congress’s questions.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20231030/more-atf-linked-gunrunning-to-mexico

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2472 on: October 30, 2023, 04:53:20 PM »
Shared this with my BP friends.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2473 on: October 30, 2023, 05:08:35 PM »
Shared this with my BP friends.

British Petroleum?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2474 on: October 30, 2023, 06:53:04 PM »
Border Patrol.  They knew and worked alongside Brian Terry.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
Commerce Disallows Civilian Arms Exports
« Reply #2475 on: October 30, 2023, 07:19:34 PM »
Ah, shoulda guessed, Marc.

Meanwhile back at the thwarted ranch, can’t win in court? Well then let’s hit gun and ammo manufacturers in the pocketbook instead:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-halts-exports-most-civilian-firearms-90-days-2023-10-27/

Dear fellow shooters: save your pennies as the cost of ammo in the US looks like it’ll be dropping soon….

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
Two More Wins
« Reply #2476 on: October 31, 2023, 09:38:26 PM »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Justices are Bad Gun Historians
« Reply #2479 on: November 03, 2023, 12:02:30 PM »


The Justices Are Bad Gun Historians
The Supreme Court’s recent rulings on gun rights play fast and loose with the country’s traditions of owning and regulating firearms

ILLUSTRATION BY DANIEL DOWNEY
By Jack Rakove
Nov. 2, 2023 1:00 pm ET





In the distressing wake of the recent mass shooting in Maine, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in U.S. v. Zackey Rahimi, the latest case to test its emerging jurisprudence on gun rights. In these cases, the key text for the justices is, of course, the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Ratified in 1791, it reads in its entirety: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

As the court’s conservative majority has made clear, its current interpretation of the amendment depends decisively on its view of the nation’s long history of firearms ownership and regulation. If the most urgent question for ordinary citizens is how these rulings affect their ability to live securely in their homes, schools and public spaces, the narrower question for historians is how well the historical evidence cited by the court holds up. Where those concerns intersect is in the tragic fact that, on this issue of such importance to public safety, the justices are very poor and tendentious historians.

At issue in U.S. v. Zackey Rahimi is a federal statute prohibiting individuals subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Rahimi is no peaceful citizen. A convicted drug dealer, he has fired AR-15 rounds into a client’s home and in a fast-food restaurant and has physically threatened his ex-girlfriend, thus prompting a restraining order.

Rahimi initially pleaded guilty to holding arms in violation of the order, but he and his lawyers filed an appeal against his sentencing. The appeal drew on the two cases that have thus far set out the conservative justices’ reconstruction of the Second Amendment: D.C. v. Heller (2008), which held for the first time that the amendment protected a personal right of self-defense in one’s own home, and New York Rifle Association v. Bruen (2022), which extended that right to public places, leaving open the question of what places, if any, could be insulated from firearms.

Bruen is also noteworthy for another reason. In the aftermath of the Heller decision, courts around the country had developed a “two-step test” for resolving Second Amendment cases. They would first ask whether the activity in dispute fell outside the original historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms. If no clear answer to this question emerged, courts would then ask whether some important public interest justified the proposed regulation. In pursuing that question, they would balance an individual’s right of self-defense against a communal interest in collective security in public places or sensitive locations.

The court’s ruling last year in Bruen created a new rubric. In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas rejected the two-step balancing framework and held instead that the government had to show that a given gun law was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.” The modern regulation in dispute did not have to find a “twin” in the past, he wrote; lawyers and jurists could reason by analogy as they engaged in this historical inquiry.


Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a Supreme Court ruling that gun laws should be ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.’ PHOTO: J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Critics argue that Bruen failed to provide clear criteria for assessing this evidence or establishing standards of proof. As a recent article in The Wall Street Journal explained, these loosely drawn instructions have created chaos in lower courts. Any well-trained jurist or lawyer is capable of drawing either broad or narrow analogies, as the legal situation dictates. Nor did the Bruen majority help matters by eliminating as “outliers” historical examples that seemed to contradict its decision to extend the right of self-defense to public places.

The court’s reasoning was circular: Whether a regulation was consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation” seemed to depend not on the record established by historians but on whether it conformed to the court’s own recent rulings. Indeed, many of the supposed outliers rejected by the conservative majority show that state and local governments have long been comfortable limiting the public carrying of dangerous weapons.

In his dissenting opinion in Bruen, Justice Stephen Breyer complained that the majority had replaced the familiar balancing test with “a laundry list of reasons to discount seemingly relevant historical evidence.” Some of the historical examples that New York had offered in defense of its legislation were dismissed as being “too old” while others were “too recent.” Some “did not last long enough” while others “applied to too few people.” If there was some Goldilocks rule that could illuminate the court’s rationale, Breyer could not discover it.

Where does this leave historians? Any scholar who reviews the history of firearms regulation in Anglo-American law has to wrestle with the Statute of Northampton of 1328. Here Parliament imposed rather strong limitations on the ability of Englishmen to carry arms in public places. In his opinion in Bruen, Justice Thomas went to great lengths to dismiss the precedential authority of this statute. After all, firearms did not exist in the 14th century; knives were the weapon of choice. “We cannot put meaningful weight on this solitary statute,” Thomas concluded.

And yet soon after the Second Amendment was ratified, Massachusetts and Tennessee enacted laws that strongly echoed the language of the Statute of Northampton. The justices of the peace who were chiefly responsible for law enforcement in individual communities also followed those English norms. The most important of these was to restrict arms-carrying that worked to the “terror” of the general public. If one indeed wants to reason by analogy, as the court’s ruling in Bruen instructs, who would say that the public and open carrying of firearms has not become a “terror” to many Americans?

Or consider whether restrictions on military-style weapons like the AR-15 or large-capacity magazines are consistent with the country’s historical regulation of firearms. Opponents of these restrictions argue that antecedents of these powerful weapons existed in the founding era and were not regulated, which means that restrictions should not be imposed today.


But the analogy is fallacious. As historian Brian Delay of the University of California, Berkeley, has noted, 18th- and 19th-century efforts to produce large-capacity firearms rarely succeeded, and none of these ingenious experiments were ever produced in large numbers. Some of these weapons have survived in museums as curiosities—isolated examples of mechanical ingenuity—but not because they were commonly used. And that is precisely why governments saw no need to regulate them.

A deeper historical problem is that our modern assumptions about the protective value of firearms presuppose facts that the adopters of the Second Amendment would not have shared. As Randolph Roth, the leading historian of American homicide, has demonstrated, firearms were not the weapon of choice for anyone needing to protect himself or his family from some imminent danger. The primitive guns of the founding era were unreliable and hard to use. Only in the late 19th and early 20th century would revolvers and then semi-automatic weapons acquire their terrifying effectiveness.

Even more problematic historically is the proposition, sanctified in court’s ruling in Heller, that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect an individual right of self-defense with firearms. That view would have flabbergasted Americans of the founding era. True, a handful of references in the voluminous records documenting the ratification of the Constitution do conceive of gun ownership as a right belonging to private citizens.

But public debate at the time was completely focused on the future status of the state militias under a federal Constitution that empowered Congress to oversee their organization, armament and discipline. No one ever publicly proposed that the purpose of bearing arms was to protect a common-law right of self-defense, nor did anyone explain what constitutional purpose such a private right would protect.

It is a tragic irony that the minuscule evidence ostensibly supporting the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on gun regulation are the real outliers in the historical record. This is a tradition that the Supreme Court has largely invented, not one it has discovered, and it is sadly consistent with the evolution of the U.S. into a nation uniquely vulnerable to gun deaths of every kind, from suicides to mass shootings. Future generations of historians will have the depressing duty to study the social and legal origins of this dire reality.

Jack Rakove is the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies Emeritus at Stanford University. His many books include “Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution,” which won the Pulitzer Prize in history, and “Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
SCOTUS to hear red flag case
« Reply #2481 on: November 10, 2023, 05:30:39 AM »
Texas Man With History of Wantonly Firing AR-15 Could Gut Gun Laws Nationwide
Supreme Court to consider whether Second Amendment trumps law prohibiting gun ownership by those under domestic-violence orders
By Jess Bravin
Nov. 6, 2023 9:01 am ET


WASHINGTON—Zackey Rahimi pulled a gun on his ex-girlfriend in a parking lot and shot at a witness who saw them arguing, prompting a Texas family court to issue a protective order in 2020 temporarily forbidding him from possessing firearms.

Rahimi ignored the order, authorities say, going on to threaten another woman with a gun, fire an AR-15 into the house of one of his narcotics customers, and shoot into the air at a Whataburger drive-through after his friend’s credit card was declined. That led to his conviction under a 1994 federal law prohibiting people under domestic-violence orders from possessing guns—and set up the latest chapter in the modern history of the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, a federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down the 1994 federal law for violating the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider the Biden administration’s appeal in U.S. v. Rahimi, which argues that the law—and similar measures in nearly every state—not only is constitutional, but has helped protect vulnerable women, children and bystanders from deadly violence.

“The presence of a gun in a household with a domestic abuser increases the risk of homicide fivefold,” according to research cited by the Justice Department’s brief. “Abusers also use guns to threaten, pistol-whip, and shoot their partners or their partners’ children, relatives, and pets,” the brief argues, enabling them “to perpetuate their pattern of abuse.”

Rahimi’s lawyer, federal public defender Matthew Wright, says the system lacks enough safeguards to ensure that only people who are genuine threats are disarmed. The Second Amendment takes policy choices like the 1994 law off the table, he argues. The constitutional approach to domestic abusers is to “prosecute and jail people who commit violence” rather than take away their guns before they are convicted of a crime, Wright asserts.

There is little dispute that felons can be stripped of their gun rights, but the 1994 law was aimed at people like Rahimi, who courts considered dangerous but hadn’t been convicted of crimes.

Absent such a conviction, Rahimi remained “among ‘the people’ entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal,” the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a March decision striking down the law disarming domestic abusers. The court said its ruling was compelled by a 2022 Supreme Court precedent placing new limits on government’s power to curb gun violence, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The majority opinion, by Justice Clarence Thomas, declared that only laws analogous to weapons regulations common during America’s founding era can pass constitutional muster.


A 2022 Supreme Court ruling declared that only laws analogous to weapons regulations common during America’s founding era can pass constitutional muster. PHOTO: KEITH SRAKOCIC/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Bruen was the court’s widest expansion of Second Amendment rights since 2008, when for the first time the justices found the provision entitles an individual to armed self-defense within the home rather than simply maintaining the right of state governments to maintain militias akin to those they had organized before the Union.

Gun-rights advocates set up test cases like Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller, which kicked off the 21st century revolution in Second Amendment law to demonstrate how regulations could frustrate law-abiding, responsible citizens interested in self-defense and recreational shooting. But public defenders also have been watching legal developments closely, and have quickly moved to apply the Supreme Court’s more permissive approach to firearms on behalf of suspected criminals who often run afoul of gun laws.

That is how Rahimi, whom the Fifth Circuit acknowledged was “hardly a model citizen,” became the unlikely face of the gun-rights movement. After the parking-lot argument, where Rahimi threatened to take away the child they shared, the ex-girlfriend sought a restraining order from the family court in Fort Worth. The court, finding that he had “committed family violence” and that it was “likely to occur again in the future,” issued an order that among other provisions suspended his handgun license and forbade him from possessing firearms for two years.

Rahimi, authorities say, quickly flouted the order. He was arrested for approaching the woman’s house in the middle of the night, threatened another woman with a gun, and was involved in at least five shooting incidents. Police investigating the shootings searched Rahimi’s house and found a .45 caliber Glock pistol, a .308 caliber semiautomatic rifle, magazines and ammunition, along with a copy of the protective order.

Charged in federal court with violating the 1994 law, Rahimi argued that he had a Second Amendment right to possess the weapons. The trial judge rejected the argument, and, on June 8, 2022, the Fifth Circuit, applying precedent then in force, affirmed that decision. Rahimi, who after his constitutional argument was rejected had pleaded guilty to violating the 1994 law, was sentenced to more than six years in prison.

But when the Supreme Court issued its Bruen decision 15 days later, Wright asked the Fifth Circuit to reconsider the case. The circuit court withdrew its previous ruling and threw out Rahimi’s conviction.


The appeal before the Supreme Court argues that the domestic-abuser law fits within the government’s traditional authority to keep weapons out of untrustworthy hands.  PHOTO: SARAH SILBIGER/BLOOMBERG NEWS
The question “is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal,” wrote Judge Cory Wilson. Rather, it was whether the 1994 law violated the Second Amendment.

Under the Bruen rule, he wrote, it did, because no analogous laws disarming violent domestic partners were applied in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, or in 1868, when the 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from violating federal rights, was adopted.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argues that the domestic-abuser law fits within the government’s traditional authority to keep weapons out of untrustworthy hands.

“Different legislatures have disarmed different groups at different times: loyalists and rebels in the 18th century; underage individuals and persons of unsound mind in the 19th century; and felons, drug addicts, and domestic abusers in the 20th century,” the department’s brief argues. “But those disqualifications all reflect the same enduring principle: The Second Amendment allows Congress to disarm individuals who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens.”

Rahimi’s brief says the government’s argument generalizes the historical analysis Bruen requires into irrelevance.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
To what extent should the founding era of the U.S. determine who can possess a gun in contemporary times? Join the conversation below.

The Second Amendment right is addressed to “the people,” it says, a term “originally understood to include every citizen who held civil and political rights, e.g., the rights to vote, hold public office, testify in court, and own property.”

It is true that at various times, enslaved and free Black people, Native Americans and—during the French and Indian War in the 1750s and ’60s, Catholics—have been prohibited from possessing weapons, the brief observes. But in such instances, the firearm prohibition was part of a broader scheme to exclude them from full membership in society, it argues.

“People outside the political community were sometimes treated as though they had no rights, including the right to possess firearms,” the brief says. But “no member of the body politic was punished for keeping arms.”

Even if he wins the case, it may be some time until Rahimi gets his hands on a gun. He currently is being held at the Tarrant County Jail on several charges, including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
Gun rights and Pot
« Reply #2482 on: November 10, 2023, 07:26:01 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
The Curly Bill spin / "Curly Bill"
« Reply #2483 on: November 15, 2023, 09:28:07 AM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
Re: Gun rights and Pot
« Reply #2484 on: November 15, 2023, 08:35:29 PM »
second post

https://www.thecannabiscommunity.org/cannabis-gun-rights/

Don’t get me started. THC was a godsend during chemo. Contending now with chemo induced neuropathy I’ve let me Virginia medical THC card lapse lest I become a gun owning felon. They are from the government and here to help, don’tcha know?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
don't know what is new about this
« Reply #2488 on: November 25, 2023, 10:00:23 AM »
I had concealed permit in the 90s and early 2000s
Had to take a few classes.

Permit vs License does NOT seem importantly different

The main difference between permit and license is that 12345:
Permits are official or legal documents that are issued to administer safety issues.
Licenses represent permission to do or use something, and they are given more generally than permits.
A permit is a temporary authorization that allows someone to perform a specific activity, such as building construction or driving.
A license is a permanent authorization that grants someone the right to engage in a certain profession or activity, such as practising medicine or owning a firearm

requirements under new law to carry via license:

To obtain a concealed weapon or firearm permit in Florida, you must meet the following requirements 1:

You must be at least 21 years old, unless you are a current or former member of the armed services.
You must show competency with a firearm and complete an approved Florida concealed carry class.
You must reside in the US and be a US citizen or permanent resident alien.
You must pay a fee of $97 and submit a completed fingerprint card.
Please note that there are several disqualifying conditions that may prevent you from obtaining a concealed weapon or firearm permit in Florida. These include, but are not limited to, a felony conviction, a record of drug or alcohol abuse, and being

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
The Case for Standard Capacity Magazines, Take 2
« Reply #2493 on: January 12, 2024, 05:34:43 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
OH carry law
« Reply #2495 on: January 18, 2024, 07:38:29 AM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
A Couple 2nd Amendment Cases to Watch …
« Reply #2496 on: January 26, 2024, 08:10:36 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72246
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2497 on: January 27, 2024, 03:18:44 AM »
Yes, good to see sleeves getting rolled up to fight this type of bureaucratic tactic.   Overturning Chevron is vital to the functioning of our C'l Republic.   Congress may not abdicate its legislative function to the Administrative State of the Executive Branch!


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3229
    • View Profile
Re: Prof. Lott: Mass shooting dat is inaccurate
« Reply #2499 on: January 27, 2024, 11:00:14 AM »
https://rumble.com/v48tmxz-lott-new-analysis-shows-stats-on-mass-shootings-inaccurate.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=One+America+News+Network&ep=2

Something most don’t know is that EVERYONE on the anti second amendment side of the debate won’t debate or engage Lott, putatively because his data and conclusions are false, but in reality because he makes hash of them. Indeed, if his conclusions were so clearly false one would want to debate him and make hash of HIS arguments. They don’t. And can’t.