[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Supreme Court Rules that Corrupt Biden DOJ Overcharged 350 Innocent Americans for Crimes Related to Jan 6

John Deere announces mass layoffs in Midwest amid production shift to Mexico

Trillion dollar trainwreck: US super stealth fighter is eating the next generation

RFK Jr. Leaves Dr. Phil Stunned As He Explains Huge Kickbacks Fauci And NIH Have Earned From Moderna Vaccines (VIDEO)

79,000 DACA Recipients Were Approved Despite Arrest Records, Some Arrested 10x or More

Davos Forum Founder Schwab Reportedly Facing Sexual Harassment Allegations

FAB-3000 is breaking the Ukraine military

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden's Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal

Supreme Court FREES HUNDREDS of January 6th Political Prisoners | Nukes TRUMP Charges

Diseases Increase Exponentially With Each Added Vaccine Given to Babies

Mexican cartels boast of increased lethal firepower, including some weapons from the U.S.

US Military Bases in Europe Declare Highest Security Alert in a Decade Amid Terror Threats

5 Devices You Cant Hide From- The Government Alphabet Agencies

How your FedEx driver is helping cops spy on YOU

‘Historically ludicrous’: Jewish leaders speak out against comparing vaccine passports to Holocaust

Israeli Officials Hiding Data About Forced Starvation of Gaza Prisoners:

How the F*** Are You Going to Put All These White People Ahead of Kamala?

Protests Erupt In Paris After Marine Le Pens Party Wins Big In Parliamentary Elections

Supreme Court Rules Trump Has Immunity For Official Acts, Likely Delays Trial Past Election

Rising Debt Means a Weaker Dollar

Lefties losing it: Sky News host roasts 'leftie' Jill Biden after Trump rant

JiLL THe SHRiLL...

Lefties losing it: Jill Biden ‘gaslights’ crowd after presidential debate

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

Mark Levin: They lied to us about Biden

RIGGED: Pfizer cut deal to help Biden steal 2020 election

It's Dr. Kimmy date night!

Glenbrook Dodge will raise a new American flag just before the 4th of July

Horse's continuing struggles with getting online.


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: SCOTUS Sets Terrifying New Precedent on Gun Rights
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.conservativereview.com/ ... ecedent-on-gun-rights?AID=7236
Published: Jun 27, 2016
Author: Nate Madden
Post Date: 2016-07-06 07:08:06 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 60

SCOTUS Sets Terrifying New Precedent on Gun Rights

By: Nate Madden | June 27, 2016

A family enjoys the outdoors and practices their aim.

Loren Kerns | Flickr

The Supreme Court passed some potentially sweeping gun control legislation Monday (misnomer intended), and carelessness could now cost you your Second Amendment rights, according to the ruling.

In a 6-2 decision in the case of Voisine v. United States, the court ruled that crimes of recklessness rise to the same level as “misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence” which preclude individuals convicted of such a crime from firearm ownership by federal law.

The Second Amendment is under assault on all fronts.

Both petitioners in the case, who had been convicted of crimes reckless in nature, claimed that their convictions shouldn’t have triggered the federal prohibition. Justice Kagan, on behalf of the majority, saw it quite differently. And anyway, we would not know how to resolve whether recklessness sufficed for a battery conviction at common law. Recklessness was not a word in the common law’s standard lexicon, nor an idea in its conceptual framework. The common law traditionally used a variety of overlapping and, frankly, confusing phrases to describe culpable mental states—among them, specific intent, general intent, presumed intent, willfulness, and malice.

The federal ban on firearms possession applies to any person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for the “use . . . of physical force” against a domestic relation … That language, naturally read, encompasses acts of force undertaken recklessly—i.e., with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm.

But while the decision may seem innocuous, it sets some troubling precedents for anyone who values the right to bear arms.

Joining in dissent (in parts I and II), Justices Thomas and Sotomayor point out that reckless behavior does not necessarily rise to the level of the kind of malicious intent necessary to trigger the federal firearms prohibition, and has dangerous implications for anyone who is sometimes careless.

“Today the majority expands [the federal ban]’s sweep into patently unconstitutional territory,” writes Thomas, dissenting alone.

We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly. At oral argument the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine.

In enacting [the federal firearms law], Congress was not worried about a husband dropping a plate on his wife’s foot or a parent injuring her child by texting while driving. Congress was worried that family members were abusing other family members through acts of violence and keeping their guns by pleading down to misdemeanors … Instead, under the majority’s approach, a parent who has a car accident because he sent a text message while driving can lose his right to bear arms forever if his wife or child suffers the slightest injury from the crash.

The Second Amendment is under assault on all fronts. Between a president willing to use “the pen and the phone” to the fullest extent possible, to congressmen either hostile to the Constitution itself or others simply too cowardly to fight for it, and a federal judiciary that seems content to erode and chip away at the founders’ intent for the right, one wonders: Isn’t government interference with the right to bear arms the reason it’s enumerated in the first place?

- See more at: www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/scotus-sets-terrifying-new-precedent-on-gun-rights?AID=7236#sthash.UyonWNm1.dpuf


Poster Comment:

Don't beat on your woman, or get caught up in one of those other situations they can say you were being "reckless" or it could cost you a lot.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  



[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]