Clarence Thomas Grills Attorney On Gun Ownership Restrictions: Define ‘Law Abiding And Responsible’
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лис 2023
- Earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the US Solicitor General on the implications of gun ownership restrictions during the oral arguments for the United States v. Rahimi case.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
The second amendment limits government, not The People
Yes. And it specifically limits the government by giving it the directive that “the people shall not be infringed”
The entire US Constitution is a limit on the US Government.
They forget the WE THE PEOPLE part the damn government didn't write the constitution the people did
She assumes that criminals will obey the law. How many gun crimes have been perpetrated by people who already have felony convictions?
Over 95%!
Especially in the Democrat states where they are being released over and over.
99%
I can personally attest that my abusive ex husband delights himself in law breaking..if you must know if he still has access to guns yes does he drive with out a license or insurance yes. Is still using drugs yes...so please tell me how more laws will stop this man
Felony conviction means prohibited from owning firearms, so she is arguing a moot point
So if you keep a loaded gun in your house for protection you would be irresponsible ? WTF , you sure don't want to run and unlock a safe and try to load it when someone breaks in locked and loaded.
Very good comment she can say if you don't keep the gun locked in one cabinet the the bullets locked in another another cabinet you could be considered irresponsible
whut? your fort doesn't have someone 'on watch duty' at all times? (sarcasm).
New York city was forcing people who own guns to dismantle them and keep them locked in a safe. Which is obviously in constitutional because you can’t use it in an emergency.
So, I would imagine someone who has a loaded gun in every room of the house, must be really, really, really, irresponsible! :O
I guess because I don’t lock my guns up and my grandkids are around that I’m irresponsible. I have news for them my kids were taught to never touch my guns and my grandkids were taught the same thing. You put the fear of God in them they don’t touch my guns. It would take the sheriff’s 45 minutes to get to my farm by then it’s over.
She received better grades in her Debate classes, than in her law interpretation classes.
She just said they (DOJ) hold that banning slaves and Native Americans from possessing firearms pre-Civil War was legal and appropriate for the context of the law at that time. Did you all catch that?
@@LRRPFco52Yeah, I kinda threw up in my mouth a little bit.
@@EskayDuro Imagine the headlines if we had a truly independent press:
UNBELIEVABLE!!! DOJ attorney explains to Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, "gun laws based on banning slaves and Native Americans are ok."
Her historic knowledge doesn't go back very far. At the time of the ratification in 1791 the only time people were deprived of 2A rights, occurred when they were incarcerated.
The 2A doesn't read "the right of responsible, law-abiding" people. It reads "the right of the people".
Their right to keep and bear arms was restored once they were released from prison. Unless it was a crime involving the use of a firearm.
@@darrenwerner1829 That's my point. You only lost your right if you were incarcerated or hung.
The “rights of the people”, in this case before the court, is more about depriving “the people” of property without due process. It is not about the 2nd amendment, per se, but the “due process” clause in the 5th and 15th amendments.
"The people" when the constitution were also only white land owners... so that was thing.
Not that I agree with gun control, but temporary restrictions or removal of firearms from dangerous individuals does have a history and tradition. Then it gets into a balancing act of due process, duration, etc.
@@DimiSan94that is conflating separate things. The People didn’t include only white land owners.
This is a problem, she assumes we are all stupid and violent in a argument.
People are.
@@SovereignTroll your name says it all
That's how dems view us...
@@SovereignTroll Especially leftists.
@@SovereignTroll Troll was outsmarted by a move 26 years old. Men in black.
"A person is smart. People are dumb..."
Her take on storage history is ignorant as ignorant gets. Safes designed for guns and powder are a modern invention.
You also have the right to BEAR arms which means they can be loaded in AND out of your home so the storage is BS altogether to make us unarmed. Same with the powder BS. If they win there then they will say ammo has power so therefore you can't have it unless locked up the way they see fit and use THEIR judgement on that.
They kept powder out of city limits for fire safety. She's being deceitful.
@@rfborden4854Only in massive quantities.
She is insulting their intelligence.
@@rfborden4854 The central powder store for the local militia, but not individual supplies. If she wants to argue for a law prohibiting federal agencies from storing over a certain quantity of ammunition inside city limits, I might support that.
The method people used to use for "storage" of firearms was above the mantle, or standing ready in the corner of the kitchen. Parents taught kids to have a healthy respect for firearms and were trained in their use when they were deemed ready to accept such a responsibility.
im sure plenty of kids ate a bullet by playing with a loaded revolver or musket when their parents werent looking. And by history and tradition, were those parents treated as responsible for the death of their child? No. It was an accident. So by history and tradition, the negligent storage cant be a thing. We can argue "we think its negligent TODAY THOUGH", but now you're ignoring history and tradition when its not convenient.
Even more so at that period. All firearms were one way or the other muzzle loading. They tended to be stored with powder and ball in the barrel, with a small wax plug over the vent hole. To bring the gun to ready, the wax was removed, a pick was run into the vent hole to connect to the chamber and the priming charge was loaded into the pan, with the frizzen being closed to bring the gun to full ready.
In a way, I pity this woman, she has been handed an impossible task, that being to try to do enough song and dance in front of the court to make them believe that something that did not exist was in place. There was no history of convicted felons being bared from arms on the federal level and for that matter the state level. But she is doing her best to sell that idea. She of course is also committing treason in the process, as part of her oath of her office is to uphold the constitution.
@oldfarthacks very well thought out comment. The Founders were extremely deliberate in how they constructed the 2A. They knew through first-hand experience how tyrannical governments treat their citizens. That's why they came here in the first place!
2:58 then any judge could come along and say you’re “irresponsibly” storing your guns. That’s what this whole thing is all about.
Yes, or the 3 letters or locals that come in the house and use their own call before taking them and going to the judge is what they want.
@@johnpoole8321 And they "Law Enforcement" are known to call it in themselves and call it Anonymous.
So don't store and instead carry at ALL times. But cover gun in plastic bag or it will get rusty after a few showers 😂😂😂😂
Irresponsibly is very subjective, so the court needs it defined specifically in a circumstance. Having firearms on display isn't irresponsible. I would define irresponsible as leaving firearms unattended, in easily accessible areas, where a home has children under 18 living. By Unattended I mean not within sight or reach
Winner winner chicken dinner
That someone can be declared "irresponsible" without a full trial by jury opens up a Pandoras box of potential issues. For example, what if a legislature were to declare the very act of purchasing a firearm to be "irresponsible?" This could set a very dangerous precedent and open up a major loophole for the deprivation of rights.
Red flag laws are this exact thing
The reckless misuse of the term is already in the works through China's Social Credit System. We're on the way there if we let the government.
Well we could just deem all politicians irresponsible and conclude that any laws written by them are not enforceable.
they trial ballooned gun ownership as a threat to public health in 2020 or 2021 along with racism, because then other governing bodies can make "noncongressional regulations/laws" about who can be taken by the legal system for "guns" or "racism"
@@gerneticut You maybe on to something
Notice she mentions "loyalists and rebels". In the hyper partisan-culture of today and how things seem to be going, what is to prevent those who belong to the opposite political party of whoever is in charge at the time to be labeled a "loyalist" or "rebel"?
Nothing. And those terms are already applied to Trump supporters today.
Not to mention the main purpose of the second amendment is and always was to give the rightful citizens the means to overthrow the government should they become tyrannical.
I believe it was George Washington who said
“the citizens ought to be armed with sufficient arms and munitions to maintain a state of freedom from any and all who might abuse them INCLUDING THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT”
A loyalist and a rebel is the same ? Then that means everyone else is the enemy. If your loyal then your a rebel. Being unloyal to the United States of America mean treason. I'm confused....
I like how she said congress has authority!!! We the people have the authority not congress
It seems strange that nobody remembers the historical definition of a felony. And that included some form of first-degree murder, treason against your country, and desertion in the face of the enemy.
Not like the case just decided today in third circuit merely forgetting to file your incidental income when you're applying for food stamps.
I have always felt the expansion of felonies by the law is meant to try to strip rights and protection from people.
Require everyone be 'responsible', yet the same person will get to define what being 'responsible' is.....no chance this would be a continually sliding scale to be leveraged against the people.........
Exactly 💯
From the same side that can't define what a woman is.
This
Of course not. She seems like a very reasonable person who would only have your best interests at heart. She thinks it okay for slaves and Native Americans to not own guns back in the day, so I'm sure her future thinking is good.
Her voice is highly irritating, & her argument comes across as vague based upon words that she uses. One can see how her words would be abused to attack the Rights of innocent citizens.
Like listening to an angry teenage Valley Girl.
Heavy vocal fry and upspeak.
So annoying...it oozes condescension..
Her words are based upon her opinions, which legally are irrelevant.
That is EXACTLY why she is using vague terms like responsible, it leaves the definition wide open.
Someone needs to tell her that more people are killed with hands or other household items than firearms
She knows.
but then she cant use "muh wahmen r dying!" as an argument by emotional appeal.
Very true. Knives are always readily available
law-abiding is easier to define. Irresponsible is a matter of subjective opinion. I wish Justice Thomas would simply as her, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"
"Oh, he parked his car illegally. He is not law abiding. Confiscate his guns."
@@downburst3236 That's the end goal. Get a traffic ticket? You can't operate a two-ton vehicle safely so therefore you're too irresponsible to have guns. Get a jaywalking ticket? You're too irresponsible to use a crosswalk and cross the street safely so therefore you're too irresponsible to have guns. They want to make "irresponsible" as broad as possible.
To her or her type of individual that question is inconceivable. They want to infringe the hell out of you. Like a socialist hoa.
@@bwofficial1776exactly my point! "Law-abiding" is just as subjective as "irresponsible" and neither should disqualify your 2A rights.
@@downburst3236agreed that’s exactly what Bryan Range argued in Range v. Garland
The issue isn't whether dangerous people can lose their right. The question is what process is required to make that determination. A DV protection order does not result from a trial. No one has to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused. The accused is not afforded the level of due process that ought to be necessary before revoking their Constitutional rights. That is the issue.
Nailed it. Their argument, though, is that ‘The Government’ is afforded predictive judgement in the case of violent action - in this case, domestic violence. To them, awaiting due process against someone accused of domestic violence is akin to tacit sanction of violent action with a firearm.
Forget the fact that all sorts of deadly weapons are available and in common use in the household - I do not believe that government actors are forcing the surrender of steak knives, baseball bats and tire irons, etc… in a domestic violence household.
Thus, the specific and special rules around seizure of firearms (as property) is predicated on a false understanding of rights. The government cannot use their predicative judgment to seize a property explicitly (or even implicitly) demarcated as the Right of the People. If so, the government could use predicative judgement to seize your real property today because in 30 years they might need to widen a street or run a light rail system. Or, more immediately, the government cannot seize your property without due process because a hurricane is expected to make landfall in two days.
The issue is that Constitutional rights can't be revoked. At least, not by any Constitutional means.
@@johngregory4801 - they aren’t arguing to limit the right to bear arms… they are arguing to limit time and place, using predictive standards. And that is something that is well-established by precedent. I don’t agree with it, but it is an argument that must be addressed from the perspective of due process
@@arctain1 It's still unConstitutional, no matter what precedent they quote.
@@johngregory4801 - no… time and place restrictions are NOT unconstitutional. This is completely settled law. This attitude is why we lose rights - “They can’t tell me whut ta do!!!” The point is to win based on the Constitution taking in ALL precedent.
Restraining orders can be used for retribution. I know my ex tried to put one on me. Because I wanted to see my children on my biweekly luckily the court sided with me and didn’t give it to her.
You mean hanging your rifle over the mantle is irresponsible? That is an American tradition.
She keeps using the courts terms of “history and tradition”. The USA is not quite 250yrs old and for the last 125yrs people have been driving pickups with rifles in a window gun rack. She’s calls this “improper storage”. She knows this law will be abused by false accusations under CIVIL law, but she doesn’t bring that up and keeps mentioning CRIMINAL law.
“History and tradition” refers to the founding era, which could reasonably be argued to be 1792-1825. The left is now trying to argue that it includes the entirety of the 18th century, so that they may cite Jim Crow to support their nonsensical arguments.
To be clear the historical text and tradition test refers specifically to regulations on the books and enforced during the founding era in 1791. History afrr the early 1800s is irrelevant entirely.
I would use her own argument and say that, luckily for the victim, often the difference between a living victim and a dead victim is the presence of a gun (aka... the victim's own firearm used in self-defense!) It goes both ways, sweetheart.
Criminals don't care about the law.
Exactly
This is why the majority of gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.
The problem is here is how easy it is to get a protective order against someone when there is honestly no valid reason to do so. Example is… some need protective orders, not because they feel unsafe, and are afraid of physical harm. But because they just don’t want them coming around and showing up and being a a nuisance. Doing nothing more than being a PITA. Should the rights be taken away then? The argument is that it should be a court, a judge that has the discretion to take away someone’s rights to a firearm based on the circumstances. NOT just some blanket law that indiscriminately covers every single person in every single instance. That’s what makes the law unconstitutional. The determination should be left up to a judge and court and possibly a jury of 12 peers to determine that at a hearing.
I want a government small enough to fit inside the constitution.
So the subjective call that native Americans were a risk was over time shown to be wrong but todays subjective judgement that someone is a threat with no proof is a justified call?
The biggest error with red flag laws is that the person who’s rights are being taken away is presumed guilty via a hearing that they were never allowed to confront their accuser or defend their innocence. The individual looses that right and then at a later time has to go to court to overturn a guilty verdict.
And anyone can red flag someone, including an agent of the government.
How could he not laugh in her face when she compared people storing their firearms to people storing gun powder.
Absolute ignorance or more likely malice to get their own way.
The fact that she included rebels is the most egregious part of all this. The first and foremost ultimate purpose of the second amendment is to give the rightful citizens the means to overthrow the government should they become tyrannical and everything else comes after.
She is arguing that a person is guilty of a crime prior to committing any crime, based solely upon another person's fear or desire to aggressively have the state perform an aggressive act upon an individual.
History and tradition. Theyre already trying like hell to bend those words to their will.
It's specifically referring to regulations on the books and enforced during the founding era. Nothing else.
I know of 3 Cops that have had their guns taken away and still found a way to kill themselves and their wives by other means and even with an illegal gun after their legal gun was taken from them. Last I checked no paper "Order Of Protection" stops someone from killing someone. They will use a Car, Bat, pipe, or a knife if the will is there.
Also anyone can make an accusation of being hit by a person, so they can spitefully cause them to lose their right to disarm them by Law Enforcement and Courts. Leaving it to a judge who fears the court of public opinion or his Political supporters is never good choice when it comes to judges discretion.
Imagine all of us losing our rights, jobs, etc over any accusation? That is what happens when stupid little laws like this can disarm a person over an accusation because she was probably cheating on him or wants him out of the house to bring in her new boyfriend. "Yes this also happens in real life people"
If we let them get away with this and they will bring on many many more rules for easy disarmament of your rights to bear arms.
Example Of A New Law in Place- Speeding Tickets will give law enforcement the right to take away your guns, because you had disregard for the life of others when going over 30mph over the speed limit on an empty highway at 2am with no other cars on the road, therefore you are not fit to carry a gun because you are careless for the life of others. Trust me it would be that easy and they would call that their tradition and history as well as Text.
He gets a gun. She gets a gun. What's the problem.
“Predictive Judgements…” That reeks of prior restraint and utter denial of due process.
I just read some paper on felonies and crime in the 18th and 19t centuries and in UK it was not uncommon for people found innocent of crimes to be subject to certain legal proceedings like fines or controls on thier life based on a judge predicting they might commit a crime in the future.
It sounds like she's trying to rewrite the "of good moral character" standard abolished by the Heller Decision.
We should not have to ask for "permission" if its a "right". Wake up countrymen.
As a retired lawyer, I have to ask: "Who talks like this?"
Exactly!!!! Same here. She sounds robotic. Its okay to be prepared and even rehearse for a hearing, but she takes it to a rediculous cyborg level. She has to hopped up on Adderol or something
She's got her history and tradition wrong!
Please strike down Illinois unconstitutional “assault weapon” ban next‼️
Anytime you hear the phrase “common sense” related to guns you immediately know the upcoming play.
Unless you have been proven to be a violent criminal with a felony conviction you should not lose your constitutional rights. Period. And this domestic violence crap needs to be restricted to people who have been convicted or there is actual evidence they threatened to hurt them. So many DV cases are someone calling someone else a name. That does not make you irresponsible. That means you were upset and used words not violence. And honestly sometimes those names are very accurate.
Define Infringement.
Anything that limits
Oh really?!? The firearm was on the pegs over the mantle, to keep it dry and easily deployed in an instant. There is your relevant analog.
Well, on the history of storage, Gunpowder was stored in a specific location that was designated as safe to help prevent the possibility of fire. Fire that could get out of control and burn down a city/town. This danger was reduced by storing said Gunpowder outside of a city/ town. This has nothing to do with storing firearms in a safe or even small amounts of modern powder, nor does it cause one to lack responsibility simply because they don't own or use a safe.
Quite frankly I'm not concerned with how she thinks I should store my firearms
What I didn't hear was how that comports with the "unqualified command," "shall not be infringed."
they assume once a criminal always a criminal which implys rehabilitation is impossible and they have failed at their stated goals
Fun fact: In the State of Washington the Rules of Evidence "Need not" apply in protection order cases. We don't need cross examination either.
Loyalists? You mean people who are loyal to our nation and the constitution?
Only to a lawyer could "Shall not be infringed", mean something other than....can't touch this.
Govt's somehow strangely believe that only THEY should possess weapons and attempt to come up with restrictions all day long...
All judges are state officials,all senators and congressmen are state officials, therefore they have no legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to pass or enforce any gun control laws under article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment,14th amendment section 1.
14th amendment section 1
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
All gun laws are unconstitutional infringements therefore illegal null and void.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, she said that part, however, she forgot to mention that she will not be infringed.
These orders are not only about domestic violence! The same paragraph, 922(g)(8) is used in Ohio within the law for Civil Stalking Protection Orders, ORC 2903.214. Deputies of the Hocking County Sheriff's Dept have been using said orders as instruments of retaliation and an excuse to "seize" firearms collections! This is supposed to be a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary county!
I would hope someday that a Supreme Court Justice would ask these lawyers for the state who exactly are they arguing their case for. All new and frivolous and infringing gun control laws are put forth by wealthy sponsored Gun Control lobby like Everytown America who is financed by Billionaire Michael Bloomberg and Corporations many of whom are Foreign based companies and involved with Authoritarian regimes. Why are we the citizens not protected from having our rights withheld and delayed by these lobbies and those who finance them?
A better question is why are the supreme Court and lower courts not upholding and enforcing the legal law and arresting, charging, and prosecuting the anti second amendment gun control groups and those government officials and citizens who work with and aid and abett them for felony crimes in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, Title 18 U.S.C. sections 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, Title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection (5).
She thinks that, NO SHE DOESN'T THINK. She doesn't know how gun powder burns, it doesn't explode.
30 yrs ago i got a felony since then i have not been arrested again, i have raised 2 great boys own a house pay taxes and have been given my right to vote back so why am i still considered irresponsible and a danger to society committing a non violent crime should not be a life time sentence and if i pay taxes and vote am i not part of "We The People"? I shouldn't have to pay the government money to get back a right after I have paid my debt to society especially a right that was meant to protect me from that same government.
The AG wants government to define irresponsible citizens and not protected by 2A. Not a chance.
So anyone who speeds can't own a gun because they are irresponsible?
“Shall not be infringed” is pretty clear and needs no further interpretation. Next!
I thought criminals were convicted of crime? In civil court, are you convicted of a crime? So how can your rights be taken away, without a criminal conviction!
Conflating black powder storage with leaving a gun on your nightstand requires a level of intellectual dishonesty only a gun grabbing democrat could pull off.
🤮🤮🤮🤮 that government attorney makes me ill.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson.
Karens should not be lawyers
This is the woman who will take away the right for a LEGAL GUN OWNER (victim) to own a gun but the criminal (WHO DOES NOT FOLLOW LAWS) has a gun to hurt or even worse..
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....
Is it truly a hearing if the individual is not there to defend their 2nd Amendment rights? As I have read, many of these "hearings" are taking place without notice.
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless." -Jeffrey R. Snyder
To require you to have papers on you as a free person to show to the law is to say that the freedom of the innocent to privacy should be curtailed because of the conduct of the guilty as well. Same for laws regulating what you can own on your property, what you can put in the air, etc.
Who determines someone has not stored their weapons correctly? Storing gun powder loosely is much different than requiring people to their weapon up and taking the firing pin out. If a person has been convicted of a felony, they need to have their 2A away until they have done their time. If their right is restored and they violate it again then they lose it for life. One of the biggest problems is these laws that are reducing felonies to misdemeanors.
Law abiding? You mean obedient and compliant.
So if I have someone file a “civil” case against me which has a much lower evidentiary threshold than ‘criminal’ felony charges. Even so much it can be done WITHOUT due process… yes you do not get to respond nor defend yourself. I then automatically & forever lose my INALIENABLE right to defend my home, family and persons with a firearm? For good. With no means for recovery as long as the order is renewed.
But I can use any other weapons right? Even a cannon, rocket, flamethrower, black powder guns and even a taser!
Just make it illegal to use a gun to kill a domestic partner! What?
It’s already illegal? Oh so I have no criminal record nor conviction but still can’t even buy, possess nor use any firearms…
"predictive judgment" , that's the key word!
Is anyone responsible at all times? That's what they want to use to disarrm you.
She sounds educated, but never once sited a source, reference or specific example. Laws should not be based on opinion or speculation. IMHO
Oh and cop’s poss dangerous risks everyday are you gonna disarm them to?
Shall not be infringed..,get it?
She mentioned Miners, after the Pinkerton security agency massacred said Miners striking working conditions, mine owners went to paid judges and had firearms removed so they could just beat them with clubs to break up strike.
Somebody tell the "Supreme Court" that we're tired of the Government trying to bypass the restrictions placed on the Government to infringe our Rights. She doesn't get to decide anything. As well they should ALL be reminded that "Authority" is derived from the CONSENT of the governed. And I revoke any perceived consent to be governed. I reserve and assert the Right to abolish
Law abiding citizens exists nowhere in the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.
0:05 All too often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun. Unfortunately, they all too often do NOT have one contrary to the founder's intention!
“Rebels”
You can NEVER deny a person ANY constitutional right without a conviction in a court or law.
Loyalist and rebels. WTF. Basically she is saying if you disagree with the lefts point of view you shouldn't be able to own a firearm.
She acts like guns are the only weapons that can end a person's life. If they arm the woman at least she will have a fighting chance.
It's pretty simple. It says "shall not not infringed". It doesn't say "shall not be infringed unless the government decides in certain cases it should be. There's nothing in the constitution that grants the government restrictive powers. The government has invented the concept of their power under the guise of "safety", and yet that's not listed anywhere in the constitution. It's a government work around they invented to limit the people's rights. Now, I'm open to having someone from the government show me where they were granted the ability to limit our rights under certain conditions. ANY rights in the bill of rights. Still waiting because they can't. They invented that power.
Narrator overlooks that DV restraining orders can be issued in an "ex parte" hearing - the accused is not present, nor represented. The constitution guarantees that you have the right to confront your accusser, subpoena witnesses in your defense, and to be tried by a jury of your pears. DV orders violate all of these constiutional rights.
Our 2nd Amendenand does not WXPIRE YOUR HONOR!!!
America has fallen.Welcome to the police state
Thomas was not fooled. The issue is how one defines "responsible", and who gets to decide. I have read the Bruin decision, and it sounds like she is intentionally misinterpretation it, which is pretty bold, considering she is using Clarence Thomas's statements on the subject.
Irresponsible is such a vague term to determine a person being removed of any constitutional right
Her voice makes a chalkboard sound less annoying and more intelligent.
The solicitor general does not represent the views of the common citizen...
She sounds like she just walked out of Starbucks holding a latte.
Grills? Sounds like a couple of adults calmly having a conversation.
"Draw lines and make predictive judgements"
Remember when the whole "future crime" thing was Sci-Fi?
There is a difference between violate felonies and NON violate felonies. You do not throw everyone in the same bucket!
Did she really compare not storing guns "properly" today to not storing guns "properly" in the 1800's when powder could explode? SMH...
The 5th Circuit's ruling should not be disturbed. The Solicitor General's argument is erroneous because it's unfathomable that a judge in 1776 would have the power to revoke a person's right to bear arms based on speculation and conjecture. It's much more likely that a court in 1776 would have sentenced a person to death for committing homicide via firearm, but you don't see the Biden Administration arguing to reinstate the death penalty to deter criminals from committing crimes with guns. This law should be struck down because is not narrowly tailored and there are other reasonable alternatives available to keep guns out of the hands of violent offenders that do not require a judge to subjectively determine whether to revoke an individuals right to bear arms.
That was such an eloquent dialog between two brilliant legal scholars. THIS is a demonstration of how our nation excels above ALL others. You may not agree with the premises presented, or the subsequent decision, but the process was an illustration of American jurisprudence at it's best.
What? If you are Indigenous or black this does not apply? Or am I not hearing this correctly.? Are they trying to divide the people into different groups?