This sounds like the trolly problem. If you go down track A, then there are likely to be some horrible family murders. Or track B you will upset the NRA crowd.
… Wow this Rahini guy does sound like a poster child for this law, but
ultimately the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law is unconstitutional because there was nothing like it in the 1790s
deleted by creator
Unfortunately they’ve either learned nothing, or are more than happy to let it happen again - this time with the military. By 2026 or so there’s a very real chance that the military will be full of far right appointees that have no qualms about using nuclear weapons on population centers, carrying out genocides, employing the military against the American people, etc. etc. Just like the judiciary in 2014-2016, the military is full of vacancies waiting for the next far right president to fill overnight as soon as he takes power.
deleted by creator
Well, they did recently finally push through some promotions, and Tuberville’s response was basically ‘see, they could push through promotions any time they want, don’t blame me for holding things up’.
Point well made though, the military should be ready for their duties, and it’s time to say they’ve given Tuberville all the time they can and just push ahead.
Which is funny, since firearms were often very strictly controlled in many places throughout the 18th century and earlier. It’s not that they aren’t aware of gun control from the 1790s, it’s that they don’t actually care.
Track B also opens up all manner of other 14A abuses, since this law involves no due process.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Since then, Second Amendment advocates have brought all manner of challenges to state and federal gun laws across the country, plunging the lower courts into conflicting conclusions about how precise the analog has to be.
Former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, who was in charge of the Justice Department’s criminal appeals docket for 24 years, says there is a good reason there is no precise analog from the 1700s.
“I think there’s a certain whistling past the judicial graveyard, if you will,” says Jerry Beard, a former assistant federal defender in Texas, who served in the office that is representing Rahimi.
Dreeben sees the dangers as far more imminent if the court strikes down the law banning guns for those covered by domestic violence protective orders.
More generally, Dreeben says, a decision against the federal law could cast doubt on an a network of prohibitions enacted by state and local governments that have been shown to be even more effective because of their greater breadth.
In 2019, Barrett dissented when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law banning convicted felons from possessing guns.
Saved 86% of original text.
