Notes from the Resistance
Restraining Order Based on Unwanted Online Contact Upheld, but Weapons Restriction Struck Down [More]
Since when is any conflict not made better by adding “Only Ones” into the mix?
It actually sounds like they both deserve each other, but the legal hurdles, penalties, and expenses raise a question as to just how far “the law” could go, depending on the jurisdiction.
The family of a man who was shot and killed by police while under an active court order for involuntary mental health treatment has sued the systems and individuals they believe were responsible for their son’s death. [More]
It doesn’t matter what the family believes. The police WERE responsible for their son’s death.
What a cluster from the word “Go.”
[Via Mack H]
Comment Update from Mack H
David, I Wanted to discuss this a little bit further. The video has a segment on the family that does not show up in the article, so perhaps you missed it. Be sure and watch the video, starting around four minutes. The family says the officer shot their son six times. Does that seem right to you? Also, the CPD has a policy that all on duty officers have their body cameras active when Interacting with any person. So there has to be video of the officer shooting Byers with the hatchet. But the CPD refuses to release the video. CPD says “Ongoing investigation” – I say CYA.
Durbin, Duckworth Join Colleagues To Introduce Legislation To Protect Domestic Abuse Survivors From Gun Violence [More]
Durbin, Duckworth Join Colleagues To Introduce Legislation To Deny Constitutional Rights to the Accused — there, I fixed it for them.
No prognosis yet on GovTrack, but with a Republican House consider this political posturing by the usual gang of rights prohibitionists in anticipation of SCOTUS enraging them in Rahimi.
Assuming the GOP doesn’t blow ’24.
[Via Jess]
The US Department of Justice made a major concession involving whether licensing officials working for executive agencies may exercise “discretion” over CCW permits. [Watch]
That is big.
And using that rationale, I’d argue they can’t exercise executive “discretion” in “rulemaking” not backed by legislation, either.
Or in creating new classifications of “prohibited persons.”
[Via Jess]
The Right to Bear Arms and Terrorize Your Partner [Listen]
Or don’t. Noting who is featured and by whom, starting out with a bald-faced lie makes me not want to waste my time being lied to.
[Via Michael G]
Related UPDATE
Here’s some truth. [Watch]
But we still don’t have a decision.
Let’s hope the storm crows are wrong.
[Via Jess]
The Supreme Court appears inclined to uphold a federal law banning guns from those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term. [More]
Looks like some of the pundits assuring us Bruen was a magic bullet may have some ‘splainin’ to do…
The question now is which of the “justices” will show the beliefs no one dared ask them about during confirmations…
UPDATE
“He would not have been able to access that gun if we had these current laws in place,” Glenn said in an interview with The Associated Press that took place outside the Supreme Court. [More]
Why aren’t they telling us his Colorado TRO said he couldn’t get a gun?
And if “prohibited persons” can’t get guns, what’s all this about?
Not that reality and logic could ever compete with heartstring-tugging anecdotes…
[Via bondmen]
Historically, at the time of the Founding, any laws that disarmed an entire category of people were limited to those individuals who remained loyal to the crown because they posed a threat to the success of the patriot cause in the Revolutionary War. Many of these people were literally considered to be enemy combatants and the total disarmament was viewed in the context of a war and the survival of a fledgling nation. Today’s laws that disarm private citizens subject to civil restraining orders must be considered in a peacetime context, where national security is not an issue. [More]
Maybe that’s why DOJ is using terms for rowdy protestors like “insurrectionists” and smearing patriots as domestic enemies…
The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday, Sept. 5, approved recommendations intended to promote and track the filing of gun violence restraining orders against people who pose a danger to themselves or others. [More]
If they’re proven dangers, why aren’t they in custody until they no longer are?
If it hasn’t been proven, how is saying they pose a danger not libelous?
[Via Jess]
S. Ct. Will Review Whether Second Amendment Allows Disarming of People Subject to Civil Restraining Orders [More]
Just like the Founders used to do?
I gotta tell ya, Roberts and Kavanaugh and Barrett make me nervous.
[Via several of you]
The order included a finding “Rahimi had ‘committed family violence’ and such violence was ‘likely to occur again in the future.’” [More]
Define “likely.”
If he was truly proven dangerous why didn’t the order remand him into custodial care until such time as he can once more be trusted to behave his punk @$$?
[Via Michael G]
Another Federal Judge Rejects the DOJ’s Argument That Cannabis Consumers Have No Second Amendment Rights [More]
And then there’s action on the restraining order front…
I’ll bet a lot of “prohibited person” exclusions could be overturned with the right case, starting with the “one year” nonsense that has no bearing on proven proclivities for violence.
In the Fifth Circuit, the entire Court has ruled, en banc, that rights protected by the Second Amendment may not be infringed by mere civil restraining orders. The unconstitutional infringement was placed into law by the infamous Lautenberg amendment in 1996. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been turned upside down and ruined by this infamous and unjust law. [More]
So unproven accusations by parties with vested interests aren’t enough?
Weeks after she was denied a protection order, a Michigan woman and her family are dead – A judge denied the order June 27, saying there was insufficient evidence of immediate or irreparable injury. The woman and her family were found dead Sunday, officials said. [More]
The prohibitionists will say this proves the need for “red flag laws.”
Who thinks a piece of paper would have stopped this maniac or prevented him from getting his hands on whatever he wanted for a butchery spree?
Look what they (purposely) didn’t tell us when they report he “bought a gun.”
The only way to prevent such atrocities, proven once more, is to separate the threat from the victim pool. With full due process.
That may not be foolproof? Anybody see any guarantees in life? And a system could be set up that would do that and do a much better job of considering individual circumstances and probabilities than one-size-fits-all prior restraints.
The alternative is denying rights to the innocent. We call governments that do that “tyrannical” for a reason. We’re supposed to accept that because of statistically rare aberrations lawmakers refuse to more effectively address, mostly for political reasons?
[Via Steve T]
