Supreme Court rules in favor of firearms owners in major 2nd Amendment case;

[SnakeBoy]

I don't even think you're tongue in cheek. You're all in on burning the country down. That's why you're gonna vote Trump again.

That and just to pwn teh libs

Oh that's not true Blake. I'm voting Trump again because he's going to put ya'll in camps.

[Ef-man]

Yam Tits will put all libs in “camps!” The things magas believe!!!! :lmao :lmao :lmao

[SnakeBoy]

The things Effy will believe :lmao

[clambake]

Yam Tits will put all libs in “camps!” The things magas believe!!!! :lmao :lmao :lmao

He’s just kidding about that.

However, he is pure 100% chickenshit.

[Thread]

He’s just kidding about that.

However, he is pure 100% chickenshit.

You as well, clammy, you have hen house ways.

[Blake]

Oh that's not true Blake. I'm voting Trump again because he's going to put ya'll in camps.

Pwning teh libs one camp at a time from his jail cell

[Ef-man]

He’s just kidding about that.

However, he is pure 100% chickenshit.

Who knows what he believes as Snaks described Yam Tits as a rino.


I've never said he's a conservative, he's a democrat (old school like Biden, not muh progressive).

[Thread]

Pwning teh libs one camp at a time from his jail cell

But by God that old man nailed Hunter's crack head to the barn door, bub...for his dad to see.

Trump did that...using that 3-D chess board you'd forgotten about in your zest to separate his head from his body.

[Thread]

Who knows what he believes as Snaks described Yam Tits as a rino.

Effy is upstairs in the stacks looking up Snake's old shit...middle a June.

[benefactor]

Pretty big win for Dems. Keep chasing issues like abortion and gun control. Nothing but more campaign ammo. Just before the debates too

[Thread]

Pretty big win for Dems. Keep chasing issues like abortion and gun control. Nothing but more campaign ammo. Just before the debates too

How's this gun stock reversal good for the Dems, bene?

Looks like Trump set it up and it came to fruition. He banned it, we appealed, SC reversed it. Gun stocks legal now.

Trump did that using the 3-D chess board.

[Ef-man]

Vote was 8-1, so guess who voted against it?

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.

In his dissent, Thomas stuck to his view that the history of similar laws at the time of the nation's founding is determinative. "Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue," Thomas wrote.

[Thread]

Vote was 8-1, so guess who voted against it?

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.

In his dissent, Thomas stuck to his view that the history of similar laws at the time of the nation's founding is determinative. "Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue," Thomas wrote.

We can't give an inch, Effy. You'd take 10 miles. He's right. Keep nagging him on those plane trips though, son. Chop/chop.

[Winehole23]

The concise Rahimi majority opinion (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf) cited two types of old weapons laws that provided appropriate historical analogues: “surety” laws and “affray” laws. Dating to the Middle Ages, surety laws allowed magistrates to require those who were “suspect of future misbehavior” to post a bond that would then be forfeited if the suspect misbehaved. Those failing to pay could be imprisoned. Misuse of firearms was commonly addressed through surety laws.


Affray law punished those who carried weapons “to the terror of the people” or that otherwise disturbed the peace. Thomas, the lone dissenter in Rahimi, rejected both types of laws as insufficient, opining that defenders of the domestic abuse law did “not offer a single historical regulation that is relevantly similar.”


While the court cited several specific examples of affray laws, my decade-long research on old gun laws reveals that what are also known as weapons-brandishing and display laws were in fact common (as were surety laws). From the 1600s to the end of the 1800s, at least three-quarters of the states (https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2944&context=ulj) had laws that punished such public weapons displays. About half of these state laws punished those who displayed weapons publicly in a threatening manner, but the other half punished the mere public presence of weapons — that is, the mere appearance of weapons-carrying in public was sufficient grounds for legal action.




These two types of laws aside, I have catalogued other types of old weapons laws where the penalty was, as with modern domestic violence laws, gun confiscation.


For example, between the 1600s to the early 1900s, at least 35 states penalized those who illegally carried concealed weapons by confiscating those weapons. During the same time period, at least nine states enacted hunting laws where the penalty for a violation — including such offenses as hunting on private or restricted lands, at restricted times or hunting certain types of protected game — was forfeiture of the person’s gun. In addition, old weapons laws were enacted to keep or take weapons from those deemed vagrants, tramps and those of “unsound mind.”




And when it comes to old gun laws, the historical reality is that, in many respects, guns and other weapons were more strictly regulated (https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp) during America’s first 300 years than during the last 30.https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4735890-the-supreme-courts-gun-rights-decision-deepens-the-cracks-in-originalism/