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.
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.
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
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. -"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
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.
