SCOTUS Shocks After Upholding Gun Ban For Domestic Abusers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 чер 2024
- The Supreme Court upheld a gun ban for domestic abusers. Cenk Uygur, Francesca Fiorentini and Jackson White discuss on The Young Turks. Your Support is Crucial to the Show: tyt.com/team
Get the Progressive battle plan: go.tyt.com/book-description
Watch TYT LIVE on weekdays 6-8 pm ET. ua-cam.com/users/theyoungturkslive
Read more HERE: www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/politi...
"The Supreme Court upheld a federal law Friday that bars guns for domestic abusers, rejecting an argument pressed by gun rights groups that the prohibition violated the Second Amendment.
The 8-1 decision in one of the court’s most closely watched cases limited the scope of a blockbuster ruling the justices handed down just two years ago that prompted a flood of legal challenges to other gun laws across the nation."
***
The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET.
Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ ua-cam.com/users/TheYoungTurks...
SUBSCRIBE on UA-cam: ☞ ua-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
FACEBOOK: ☞ / theyoungturks
TWITTER: ☞ / theyoungturks
INSTAGRAM: ☞ / theyoungturks
TWITCH: ☞ www.twitch.com/tyt
👕 Merch: shoptyt.com
❤ Donate: www.tyt.com/go
🔗 Website: www.tyt.com
📱App: www.tyt.com/app
📬 Newsletters: www.tyt.com/newsletters/
If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network:
The Watchlist / watchlisttyt
Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey / indisputabletyt
Unbossed with Nina Turner / unbossedtyt
The Damage Report ▶ / thedamagereport
TYT Sports ▶ / tytsports
The Conversation ▶ / tytconversation
Rebel HQ ▶ / rebelhq
TYT Investigates ▶ / @tytinvestigatesreports
#TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews
240621__TB01SCOTUS
Violent people should not possess firearms!
Especially Don VonShitsHisPants.
You tell ‘em Hunter!
@@AlexandertheOrdinary-ev7uy Hunter just liked doing coke and banging hookers. He should be able to carry.
Including tRump
@@AlexandertheOrdinary-ev7uy @MAGApedo talking to @MAGApedo.
Wouldn’t that mean most cops can’t have guns?
Many, yes.
lol karma
Someone challenge Clarence Thomas to a dual, ‘cause that was also normal in the 18th century.
does thomas realize that he would be picking cotton back then...??
@@chuckharris4504 EXACTLY!! But Republicans aren't that smart to realize that.
Not sure why that’s a “Shock”. Even most republicans can agree that if someone is convicted for doe waits violence that they don’t need to own a gun.
yet its crazy how only republicans are against not giving guns to criminals
And of course the people bitching and moaning about this are the ones you'd expect. From the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" loons, people whining about unrelated crimes, people bringing up misandry and divorce rates, to people bringing up anecdotal stories that only happened in their heads. I'm proud of the Supreme Court this time. More rulings this this that protect people!
Impeach judges Thomas and Alito!
The problem is the gun control act was written in 1968. The justices made clear that the fore fathers would never have allowed such an act to even exist. The act on it's own is unconstitutional which is why Thomas wrote such in his dissent. He is also 100 percent correct. there is no historical analogue allowing such an act/law to exist. He also wrote that if a subject is deemed a 'credible threat' then he/she should be jailed. The fore fathers did not include a provision that one right/s could be limited if safety became a concern. The rights of a few do not out way the rights of the majority.
Frances is also a screaming mad nut job. So disregard anything she has to say because if up to her you'd have no rights at all.
Your statement "The fore fathers did not include a provision that one right/s could be limited if safety became a concern." is absolutely correct. Our fore fathers understood the threat of "interest balancing" when it came to limiting constitutional rights. And "interest balancing" is the foundation of most modern day gun control laws.
Just means women need guns.
Only in self defence
From Germany: Nope. Nobody needs guns.
If this was on the book since 1968 how did this end up having to come to court again?
That's their function. Laws are challenged all the time.
Texas and Abbott.
Oh wow a law that’s actually not going to stop someone from getting a gun
I agree with the court. Butttt, women and sometimes men (to be fair) lie on their significant others just to get custody of children or property. We know this happens and I don't think they should be barred for life for something they didn't do.
Therefore people's rights should be restored after a period of time. It's still not fair to the innocent party but at least it isn't for life.
Should we restore the teaching and day care licences of convicted child molesters after a period of time? It's possible some of them are wrongly convicted too.
In red flag laws, I believe there are exceptions in place, specifically for lying. If not, the laws would be deemed Unconstitutional even by Liberal judges.
@@kenofken9458Yes, if they were wrongly convicted, but how often are they wrongly convicted in comparison?
@@kenofken9458 A verbal altercation and a physical altercation are like apples and oranges, they're both fruit but they taste different. Simply yelling at your significant other is domestic violence. Guess what, you just lost your rights.
After all, someone opened the door to threatening judges, the families, witnesses in court cases (aka domestic terrorism) to the US and get to keep their guns so my question to you is should they be able to keep theirs?
@@ethanweeter2732 I've seen nothing that suggest to me that the wrongful conviction rates are markedly different.
The lie that many of the 2A people want to promote is that many, if not most domestic abuse accusations and red flag cases are falsely made by vengeful women.
I'm not buying that. The vast majority of men who abuse and/or get caught up in red flag orders have very long and often well documented patterns of this behavior. These are not for the most part one-off he said/she said deals.
Most of them will continue their patterns of abuse for life unless they receive intensive therapy and are highly motivated to change themselves. We should not be just randomly giving all of them their gun rights back because some tiny percentage of them were wrongly convicted. They have means of recourse within the law to try to have their convictions appealed or their records expunged or to contest red flag orders.
Good! Texas had removed that ban.
So did Florida.
I think you misunderstood this result.
It doesn't say you MUST ban them from owing firearms.
It says it doesn't violate the constitution to do so.
@@jaredkriedeman9071 I have no hope for Texas.
@@jaredkriedeman9071 I remember when I lived in Denton, that an abusive man was denied custody of his children. He took them, and when they tracked him down, he took a shotgun to them.
@@user-tl6vs3so4p Child fatalities in custody disputes are overwhelmingly caused by firearms wielded by people with a history of domestic violence.
Considering that over 90% of gun deaths are either suicides and/or family annihilators. So this is a good but shocking ruling
More people die from stabbings that gunshots. So do we get rid of all the knifes?
@@KeystoneInvestigations Should drug addicts have guns? How about drunks? KONTROL PEOPLE -- not Guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Fentanyl Euphoria for the Sunday Masses after the Pope is crowned Vicarius Dei of the One World Religion and the NEON GAUD is apocalypsed at the Great Worldwide Re-Set on the autumn equinox of 2026. YOU WILL BE HAPPY, and you WILL want more -- so do as you're told.
Does the Supreme Court have to decide everything now? Who the hell wanted that ruling changed? Who even considered it as a possibility?
No court can modify the U.S. Constitution. There would have to be a constitution amendment.
This is a perfect example how corrupt the government is.
We already have a law in Florida that takes guns away if you are violent, nuts,etc.
It's obviously not enforced in Florida.
Cops are in for a rough time.
They’re exempt like in many gun laws
Thomas is garbage.
Some how criminals will still get guns... imagine that
Criminals will always have guns.
Gun control is against the law abiding people.
"Criminals" is a rather inclusive term. but do criminals choose to randomly kill a bunch of six-year olds at an elementary school?
@@humboldthammer duh.....yea. That is the definition of a criminal.
@@KeystoneInvestigations But not all criminals have guns. Or knives. Some do it with AI.
Owning slaves was also commonplace for our Founding Fathers. I guess Clarence Thomas is good with owning slaves today?
The real question is, is he ok with being a slave?
slaves sold by the same africans that still have slaves today. You guys dont seem to acre about current slavery, so get off your high horse.
@@ihatetoshiba He doesnt live in africa, slavery in the uSA has been abolish. Let me know when the black people in africa end it.
Name a country where "owning slaves" wasn't "commonplace"????? I'll wait.
@@bugsy9007 Its still happening in some african nations. A few of the same ones who sold the slaves to americans in the first place.
Remember ladies, if you're ever going through a divorce you should always apply for a Domestic Violence restraining order. He doesn't have to have actually abused you physically. Just tell a judge you feel 'intimidated' by his physical presence and you have a 85% chance of getting the order granted. Then he will have to fight for his basic civil rights all while you take half of his loot!
I hope you're being sarcastic, I loathe witches like that.
No sympathy for these guys. They 100% bring it on themselves. I've been through a lot of relationships and rough breakups and never came anywhere close to having a restraining order against me.
This is absolutely the best, most fair supreme court EVER! I wonder who's responsible for picking their latest judges.
Lame troll...
Our judges judge for the highest bidder -- what could be fairer? Our Prophets are for Hire, too. And WE THE PEOPLE have proven, beyond a shadow-government of a doubt, that we are liars, cheats, thieves, and murderers who CANNOT be trusted with governing ourselves. Don't Worry! The NEON GAUD will be unveiled at the Great Re-Set on 09/23/26. IT has the Plan to Perfect Humanity. You Will Be Happy. In GAUD we will trust. The abomination of our desolation.
SCOTUS judges are chosen by the deep state to who will carry out their unconstitutional agenda.
Great law 🎉 Abusers shouldn't be in close proximity of any weapons at all.
In the 1700s Clearance Thomas was not considered a human being but as property.
What is shocking, is that we are at all shocked that it is SO DIFFICULT for a supposed high court of educated persons to make such a safe and reasonable decision to protect the welfare of citizens who are at risk of death by their ABUSERS. This is not that hard a decision.
Thomas showing that luxury RVs can buy a judge
If they are that dangerous they shouldn't be out of prison
Or following the Constitution. A restraining order isn't a conviction and red flags are inherently unconstitutional.
@chrisbelt2406 Most restraining orders aernt criminal cases, and you aren't even charged with a crime. A lot of cases are done out of spitefulness from the partner.
Being a slave to someone comes naturally to him.
I think for legal stuff Glenn Kirschner or Michael Popok might be the better people to turn to to unpick what actually happened. No offence
I was attacked by a group of police who used the excuse my “cane” was moved in a threatening way as a weapon. It was not, but they look for any excuse to practice their wrestling moves, shove your face into the wall, and rip you arm and shoulder from your body. The surgery to reattach the torn muscles was only $20,000 an a year of rehabilitation. I was the victim who called them for help.
.. And your freedom could be taken if you owed a debt.
06:10: Cenk, in his twisted logic, is referring to the NYSRPA v. Bruen case. He is ridiculing the constitutional methodology established in that case by using the tired old argument that modern weapons did not exist at the time of the adoption of the 2nd amendment. His logic is utterly moronic as modern methods of mass communication (television, radio, internet, etc.) did not exist when the 1st amendment was established. Yet, we use the same judicial methodology to protect free speech.
As I said before, where did this guy go to law school? Hamburger University?
Not to mention, other recent court decisions have upheld what you are saying such as USA v Miller, DC v Heller, Massachusetts v Caetano, McDonald v Chicago.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the abused to bear arms since the abuser will be bearing arms? Let's keep it real for once.
How do you know they are not?
@@bovinityleak2066 You wouldn't need a restraining order if you have a gun.
@@bugsy9007 you are being silly and flippant or are just ignorant.
@@bovinityleak2066 Do you think an abuser is deterred by a "restraining order" or "gun law"? LOL! What fantasy land do you live in??? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!?
This is because Alito's wife abuses him and he doesn't want her to have guns. Vergogna!
How stupid is TYT? This stupid. I am agnostic on the subject, but this was not about donestic abusers, or felonies. Thomas made the (good) argument that a protection order does not mean the person was a domestic abuser. Any mam or woman can ask for such an order without proof of physical violence. violence. Thomas is an originalist. Stop saying abuser. There need be no conviction.
the country becomes more and more unconstitutional. A restraining order is not due process... This whiney women stuff i hate...
So you believe you have the right to shoot your significant other? Guess we'll see you in the news, next.
@@PhredsArmy I don't. However, I believe I have a right to presumed innocence and my day in court before my rights are taken away.
Ugly mask off dude, standing with the domestic abusers is a bad look. Your whiney incel stuff is pathetic.
What a POS -saying Clarence Thomas is mental. I hate the guy but this is another reason why I hate this and everybody else who sweeps away immorality by calling somebody mental. Why not use the R word why not use any other word. But it’s OK to call somebody mental When there’s so many people who struggle. Jerk
I’m questioning this analysis saying it’s not a gun control issue it’s about criminals. Yeah great a person who has been convicted of a domestic can’t have a gun. But people who have restraining orders are not convicted and those are not criminal felonies.
Does the ruling affect restraining orders in the same way?
Thomas is a R-EtAr-d
@@BBakira1031 he wishes he was that good.
I think you have some ethics involved by allowing abusers to have guns while under a PO. It is controversial to say the least.
Something not awful? So they upheld constitutional law here like they always do. Difference is you agree with this one
You CANNOT change the U.S. Constitution with a law.....only a constitutional amendment.
So how will this help? If the person doesn’t have any abuse charges, how will help? I’m speaking about how she said that a lot of these abusers aren’t reported.
Ok this was a win and a lose for US. It all depends on just what it takes to forfeit a persons 2nd Amendment rights.
A claim by a person, an investigation by law officers, and judgment by a court.
@@dougjb7848 Is there a Lawyer for the accused? And should the charges be found bogus does the Accused regain his 2nd Amendment rights. More then 1/2 the claims filed prove to be bogus.
So how does this help the parents who have lost their innocent children in classrooms - there must not have been enough offered to these "justices" or they would have done their usual garbage
C. Thomas arguing when the 2nd amendment was created there was no laws protecting any person from domestic gun violence. by Thomas's logic then by law you should only be allow to own a musket or any gun available at that time in 1868 2nd amendment adoption. No one expected or anticipated deadlier weapons than what we have today, those should not be available today to the general public.
Then we'd have to apply that to 1A.
We would have a drunk guy on a soap box in the town square.
So what's the limit on the discussion? Where can this RULING apply!!!?????
Hey it's that muppet lady
Whom are you talking about?
The Constitution is really just a bunch of words like a Harry Potter book.
Womp womp
Not surprising at all. SCOTUS has always based it gun/arms ruling upon norms of society. Machine guns, explosives and even revoking the Washington DC handgun ban all included mention if the item was both dangerous and rare/unusual in common society. Basic jurist insight.
MEDIA GIANT?! ok.
You guys are not invincible. Nothing is. I click on a random video here and there after canceling my membership and am still just as annoyed ateveryword you say, Fran should really separate herself from this org. Or Anna can step down from the "home of progressive s" since she left the left
I’m pro gun, I own a lot and conceal carry a Glock 17 every day. I’m all for more gun control in the us! In my state you can legally carry without a permit. All you do is go to the store choose whatever gun you want and fill out a 4473(that’s the federal background check) and wait for either proceed, delay, or deny. So no you can’t just walk in and buy a gun there is a background check involved…..however….if for whatever reason they don’t give a answer in three days the firearm dealer can legally transfer the firearm… that’s kinda messed up, also to the yee yee sHaLl NoT bE iNfRiNgEd people…when e constitution was signed we had what black powder rifles and cannons….tech advanced over the years…pretty sure I can’t go to bass pro shop and pickup a ICBM with my back of beef jerky….we need responsible gun control in this country
You reason like Cenk Uygur. When the first amendment was adopted we did not have the internet, television and radio. Should the first amendment be restricted because of modern, technological advancements?
And before you preach about gun control, while living in a state where you can easily exercise your 2nd amendment freedom, first try living in a state like California where gun ownership has been made expensive, inconvenient and, nearly, illegal.
they don’t give a answer in three days the firearm dealer can legally transfer the firearm… that’s kinda messed up,
-It's a digital system, it's near instantaneously. The 3 day cutoff is to incentivize the FBI to be timely.
, also to the yee yee sHaLl NoT bE iNfRiNgEd people…when e constitution was signed we had what black powder rifles and cannons….tech advanced over the years
-So does that mean you'd be cool with what you just wrote being a jailable offense because you wrote it over the internet and not with quill and parchment?
retty sure I can’t go to bass pro shop and pickup a ICBM with my back of beef jerky….we need responsible gun control in this country
-"We need more gun control because a thing that's absurd and doesn't occur is unreasonable and should be prohibited" is an odd train of thought.
@@18661873 Soo you’re saying we should be able to buy intercontinental missiles??? Times change and the laws change and adapt to it. Do I agree with all of it? Absolutely not but the things people did 40-50 years ago aren’t acceptable now. A gun is a tool but it’s a tool designed to kill there’s no way around it, yes they were adapted to sport and tons of people do it for a sport myself included but to change the item cars: cars were created to replace horses as a means of transportation. Plenty of people enjoy modifying cars and taking them to a track but NO cars are a means of transportation and utility only but we allow people to build race cars because times change and we adapt to it. I remember hearing about the kids with rifle racks in their trucks in high school, they were responsible enough to not shoot each other but after generations and generations of people collectively getting stupider do we really want to give everyone a gun or should there be some kinda entry point so the people who want to learn actual gun safety and respect for firearms have them?? I don’t wanna see some California or NYC gun restrictions that only wealthy people can carry but I also hate this state where cleatus and the yee yee twins can walk around carrying guns and have no clue how to use them…the amount of good ole boys that I talk to about guns that don’t really know about them but because Dey Ben shootin paws .22 rifle since they were 3 years old it makes them a master armorer…
You are correct in purchasing a hand gun . Forgive my ignorance but when purchasing a shotgun or rifle I believe you can walk out the same day with it.... correct?
@@johnathoncastro at least when I bought them it’s the same thing, any gun no matter if a pistol rifle or shotgun you have to fill out the 4473 and wait for the background check, the only difference i noticed was the check came back much faster for a rifle or shotgun but that may have been a coincidence
The right to have a gun shouldn’t also mean the right for someone to build em for you and sell em to you.
Exactly. “Keep and bear” doesn’t mean “buy, sell, transfer, alter, produce, or use.”
Why shouldn't it? What other piece of property that you own cannot be made or sold? 9th amendment would also defend such rights since if you can own it, you can make it, and if you can own it, you can sell is ubiquitous.
@@elisawhitman8526 9th amendment states things not explicitly stated are still protected rights. The ability to buy and sell are basic rights and critical to be able to own since people are inherently born in no possession of anything.
@@thinkharder9332 🤔 Interesting how the Ninth Amendment didn’t stop a right wing Supreme Court from overturning Roe…
More to the point, it’s absurd to think that the second amendment (in conjunction with the ninth) somehow gives Americans the right to buy and sell whatever they want. If that were true, then all Americans would have a right to buy & sell nukes and bio weapons… since they qualify as “arms.”
Just for comparison in my country we can ride around with machine guns and ak-47's without notifying any authorities and yet the difference in gun crime violence is 6730.77% greater in America, i wonder why? Is it at all viable to Americans to comprehend that their own government creates the conditions that exist?
You cannot believe the lies of the government controlled main stream media!
They finally did something right.😮
And dont forget its only affective if you have a restraining order once the order is up its free game baby
NRA probably promised Clarence Thomas some cash and an exotic vacation.
He's definitely a man who can be bought.
Cool conspiracy theory, too bad it makes literally no sense.
Dreadlocks is wrong …. He clearly doesn’t know anything about Massie. One of the few that hates AIPAC .
🍺🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴😁🥴🍺
when SCOTUS makes this ruling we shouldn't be so excited because they made so many bad ones.
No it's just you don't agree with them.
You guys only became mad because they ruled wacking your kid in the womb isn't a constitutional right nor in the Constitution at all thus is delegated down to the states. Ever since the left has hated the SCOTUS.
Scotus is just protecting those chrged with harassment and their victim's become traumatized.
If only criminals followed the laws then this would really mean something
Well gee, why did they take the case and vote with near unanimity if they weren't going to change anything?
It's selfish to think that is the problem.
We could go back to 1700s and there would be no supreme Court which could be better. Sad but true
The Supreme Court was created with the constitution, it has existed since America was founded.
When the Constitution was written, mankind's understanding of electricity was "that lightning stuff seems to be attracted to metal."
Going by original constitution standards, the country can only have an army and a navy. Yet here we are with five and a half branches of the armed forces instead of just two.
Cenks' favorite issue; the Constitution explicitly cites bribery as an impeachable offense, yet this alledged Constitutional purist Supreme court proudly declares giving money to politicians is just free speech.
Don't even get started about how they're complete hypocrites on states' rights.
The founders intended for us to learn and grow as a country. Constantly make improvements. They absolutely did not want us to remain locked into the understanding of the late 1700s. In fact, staying locked in the understanding of a nation's origins, being unwilling or incapable of learning and adapting is what leads to the fall of empires.
And that is a good thing in your view?
@@peterlustig8778 could you be a bit more specific, please?
@@DarthServo To make out of the constitution a piece of toilet paper with the argument that the nation has "learned" something.
Specifically i was referring to this part: "Going by original constitution standards, the country can only have an army and a navy. Yet here we are with five and a half branches of the armed forces instead of just two."
I definitely feel having one army and navy and cutting down the deep state would have been so much better.
So no i don't feel that deviating from the constitution does any good. And it plays no role what the understanding of electricity was back then.
The rules of powergreedy politicians have surely staid the same for 10.000 years.
@peterlustig8778 My primary point was about the utter hypocrisy of the republican party claiming to be Constitutional purists when nearly everything they do proves they don't give a crap about the constitution.
The point about electricity was to demonstrate how ignorant people were back then.
But nice false dilemma fallacy you got there, acting as if the only choices were stay in 1789 or throw it all in the toilet. Even though one of the great improvements of the Constitution over the flopped Articles of Confederation was it was easier to amend the thing.
@@DarthServo Nah this whole reinterprating things got us into the whole we are today. "this learning"-idiocy does not help. A constitution is not science. As i wrote the rules of powergreedy politicians are the same for the last 1000 years.
So you think if an abuser wants to get a gun to harm their loved one, they will find it or get another tool to get the job done. The person being abused should be able to arm themselves but we all know you want to disarm the vulnerable too.
Do we Know that??
Most people here agree responsible people should have access to firearms for protection. However, there should be limitations. You don't need an AR15 with a bump stock for protection. That's just ridiculous. Same as allowing someone with a history of violence to stagger into a gun store and purchase a firearm.
@@FaaaaaaaQ2banning the AR15 because it scares you is a lot different than preventing a criminal from legaly purchasing a firearm.
We are supposed to make crime hard to commit, not easier. Your argument is immature and mute.
They may find another tool, including an illegal firearm.
But that's no reason to make it convenient for the offenders.
yeah sure. well your going to have to **prove** someone lied on the form before you can do anything. practical effect will be just about nada. this is a very silly reach
How do you create and insert graphics into a video like this?
Knives are also arms...
That's why some jurisdictions ban the carrying of knives more than a few inches long (3 inches in most states).
Common sense isn't so common with the current SCOTUS bench.
If only lawmakers followed the law , then this would mean someting
Was them ppl killed by legal gun owner with a legal gun ?
In Kansas a few years ago a husband chased down his wife who had a restaining order against her husband who she was separated from and in the process of getting a divorce. He chased her down in her car while she was on 911. He pulled in front of her got out of his car and shot her multiple times leaving her four children orphans !! He should not have had his guns !!!!!! 😢
In domestic violence situations, it very often is a legal gun owner with a legal gun who turns to homicide.
@@judymcgowan2881You can't legally own guns and have a restraining order against you. It's a disqualifier.
So no, not a legal owner in that instance.
And of course there’s Thomas saying “no historical regulation or ruling supports this.”
If it is impossible to pass a law or strike it down without historical precedent - if anything can only be because of something that came before - the WTF is the point of SCOTUS?? It is their ACTUAL JOB to decide whether a law or regulation that has never existed before can be reconciled to the Constitution.
It is their ACTUAL JOB.
It's a defense for amendments and rights defined in them.
If there was a push to restrict digital communications under the pretense that the 1st only applies to speech, then it can be countered with the fact there was no precedent of such.
Claims regarding the 2nd like "it was only meant for militias" are false and can be proven because there's literally never been a law where you had to be in a militia to own and that owning outside of one was criminal.
The terrible Muriels
Has happened numerous times in the past years around the area where I live?
Police say a car can be a deadly weapon.
ban cars liberal logic
Thank you for citing your sources in your report.
I agree with them regarding convicted domestic abusers. Violent felons should not have access to firearms. That said, an 'ex parte' restraining order arguably violates due process and Thomas was the only one who got it right. 8 of the justices did not. If someone is a 'credible threat' enough where they need this ex parte order, then should they not be in jail? Rights becoming limited for 'safety' is concerning, especially when due process can be disregarded.
You contradicted yourself. Putting someone in jail who's a threat but hasn't committed a crime also violates due process. If there is a record of 911 calls, hospital visits, violent texts, etc, that's reasonable enough for a restraining order, not a violation of due process.
But yet you didn't commit a gun crime Where's the crime!
It’s not particularly fair when the majority of domestic violence misdemeanors are caused by family members defending themselves from out of control siblings suffering from mental illness. in this scenario the sibling files charges but even when the sibling comes to their senses and tries to drop the charges they can’t. because as soon as there’s charges the County takes over, and if the defendant tries to fight it he’s stuck with a $50,000 bill. So he plead no contest and takes probation. This is how screwed up our justice system is. Not to mention unlike other countries this band lasts forever instead of 5 to 10 years.
Got any proof of that?
03:56: Sorry Francesca, NYSRPA v Bruen established the judicial methodology by which gun laws may be determined to be constitutional or unconstitutional. There would be no disarray if the lower courts followed this methodology.
It's sad how badly Cenk and TYT misunderstand the majority decision, the dissent, and the Bruen standard. A lot of points that they made in this video are refuted by the *majority* decision that they are agreeing with. This ruling is also not shocking. Many of us were predicting this exact outcome after listening to oral arguments. It is clear that Cenk and company either did not actually read any of the decisions, or did not understand what they were reading.
BS.
@@Above-Ground Care to explain why?
Not awful.😮 wowzer
Nice stache! WTF?!?
Oh Clearance. The Poster Child of the House Nergo.
Racist much? Loser.
By that stupid logic, drunk drivers should not own cars!
Should they?
@@ansgarm.cordie9659 Drunk drivers should have their license revoked immediately so that's half the problem solved
And so it should be. That being said how many people out there honestly believe that they will have a gun anyway ..🤚
This is the prelude to something truly horrible that’s going to come from this garbage court.
NYSRPA v Bruen is the best 2a ruling we have had yet.
Thank you!
They better get the other ones right.
This isn't the win you think it is what it establishes is that a person must be adjudicated before action can be taken . A court hearing must happen and the accused gets a hearing facts must be present now . The qualified lay person is now gone .
Next, let’s get workplace bullies banned
Hell yeah.
That's totally the same, bro.
KYT stands for Karens You shouldn’t Tolerate.
9:20 ma'am, we had the puckle gun in 1791 and it was 100% legal to own a cannon (still is). Please learn some history.
100% correct but why learn history its " Feelings" that matter on the left.
Why don't they use the puckle gun today, if it's that efficient? Would an AR 15 redundant then?
@@ansgarm.cordie9659 the government ratified the second ammendment while we had access to high capacity rapid firearms like the puckle gun. If you're going to make an argument about them not predicting things becoming faster and more efficient/deadly, I'm just gonna come back with the how the first ammendment was ratified without knowing the internet would exist and the pen is far more deadly that the sword (January 6th would have been very difficult to pull off with only a printing press). Not my first rodeo my friend.
@@ansgarm.cordie9659 the point is the 2nd ammendment was ratified at a time when the government knew we had access to rapid fire high capacity firearms. If you're going to argue that the founding fathers couldn't have known about advancement in technology, I'm just going to say first ammendment, internet, and the pen is mightier than the sword. Do we really wanna do this?
@@ansgarm.cordie9659 so I've replied to this twice and the comment isn't showing up. I'm not gonna cry "conspiracy" yet, but I'm gonna leave this here; then comment again if it isn't mysteriously deleted.
Every video is a masterpiece. Keep doing what you're doing!
The adults are talking.
Cenk with the mic drop moment at the end!!!
Every time an issue gets to a court especially a Supreme Court it’s because society has not figured out how to manage a decision and so it’s new every time. Rulings are always fresh like that. Goes with the territory. Meant to be managed by highly skilled and moral people who understand changes is constant and interpretation of the constitution is necessary to apply to modern times
Congrats, you guys won. 🏆 because the Supreme Court upheld the constitution. The question is, how did you not see this coming. You should have been celebrating months ago.
wait the law is in the book and didn't make any difference and justices uphold that law. Makes sense
Such a captivating upload.
Don't see why this is a surprise, it's consistent with other recent 2A ruling - based on the text and legal tradition when the 2A was ratified. The ruling only allows temporary suspension of 2A rights of people proven to be and while they remain an immediate danger to others presumably after full due process in a court.
Thomas still dissented, but not surprising when he dissents on anything gun related.
Not California, my friend lost his 2a rights due to a lying girlfriend.
Like women, or men, wouldn't ever lie about their spouse.
Very slow clap for SCOTUS for simply _not_ breaking something that works and everybody wants. 👏 What low expectations we have now...
Well in fact if you look back the last 60 Years the approval rating of the court has remained constant. Between 40 and 43 % Approval. Yes there have been a few years where it was below and above but the average approval for the SCOTUS has remained constant. The change is not in the numbers but in who approves and who disproves. Since FDR the Court has pretty much been left leaning. And so the left were a big part of the Approval number. The Right has been a big part of the Disapproval number. Now the court and the people that approve has changed. So saying the Court has low approval is a scam. Since the truth is the approval/disapproval numbers have not changed much. If you doubt me do your own research.
Francesca!! I love you!
You owe me money