Another gun thread

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Another gun thread

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... se/672993/
Originalism is going to get women killed.

A federal court has ruled that a law barring domestic-violence offenders from owning firearms is unconstitutional.
It seems that common sense rules about gun ownership which even the most hawkish NRA types probably agree with - is unconstitutional. A paragraph from the piece is below - underlining is mine. I have an Atlantic subscription and I will copy the whole piece if anyone needs me to do so.
A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment was violated by a federal statute that made possessing a gun unlawful for a person who is subject to a restraining order in protection of an intimate partner or child. Its explanation for this dangerous ruling was a straightforward application of originalism. The Founders mentioned a right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They did not, however, mention women, who are disproportionately victimized by domestic violence. And although today’s lawmakers may care about women’s rights, they cannot deviate from the Founders’ wishes without a formal constitutional amendment. This will almost assuredly have very real, potentially fatal consequences for women in America: The presence of a gun in a domestic-violence situation increases the risk of femicide by more than 1,000 percent. Originalism is going to get women killed.

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Another gun thread

Post by Burning Petard »

This particular application of originalism has been around a while and it might just be the lever that is needed to move this legal position into the dust bin of history. Originalism could be the way around the 24th amendment. Require voters to show a net-worth above X dollars. Put it right back to the original view, That only the wealthy should vote. That could include transsexuals,individuals blessed with an abundance of melanin, and even worshippers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No exclusion for race, sex, creed or national origin, no poll tax involved. Just good old American show-me-the-money.

That is clearly absurd. So is originalism.

snailgate

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Another gun thread

Post by BoSoxGal »

I can assure you that the most hawkish NRA members never agreed with the laws removing firearms from domestic abusers and are cheering this decision.

There is a lot of overlap between the ammosexuals and the men who don’t think it’s really a crime to beat shit out of your GF/wife and/or threaten her with your gun. Then there is another subset who think all DV allegations are fake and intended to influence custody decisions and nobody should lose guns over false accusations. The provisions in the law removing guns from domestic abusers have raised plenty of hackles in Congress, too, over the years of battling to keep getting VAWA renewed.

The more things change . . .
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9014
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Another gun thread

Post by Bicycle Bill »

If you want to talk about originalism, the right to bear arms — or the right to freedom of speech or religion, or the right to not be forced to incriminate ones' self, or the right to a fair trial (I could go on) — was NOT in the original document as adopted in 1787.  It wasn't added to the Constitution until four years later (in 1791) with the adoption of the Bill of Rights — a list of TEN amendments/additions to the original document.

If anything, the fact that there was a need or desire to modify the document so soon after its initial adoption would seem to indicate that even those 'Founding Fathers' who were responsible for the Constitution weren't even sure themselves what they wanted or meant at the time they were drafting it.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Another gun thread

Post by Jarlaxle »

Burning Petard wrote:
Fri Feb 10, 2023 12:56 am
This particular application of originalism has been around a while and it might just be the lever that is needed to move this legal position into the dust bin of history. Originalism could be the way around the 24th amendment. Require voters to show a net-worth above X dollars. Put it right back to the original view, That only the wealthy should vote.
At this point...I would no longer oppose a return to only property owners voting.

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Another gun thread

Post by Econoline »

Again: don't repeal the 2nd Amendment—amend it, to clarify what it actually means.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Another gun thread

Post by Sue U »

"Originalism" is a modern-day judicial fraud that Madison & Co. would have thought idiotic.
GAH!

Post Reply