Legal gun owner definition updated

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,531
5,758
136
Under Judge Cory Wilson’s opinion in United States v. Rahimi, people with a history of violent abuse of their romantic partners or the partners’ children now have a Second Amendment right to own a gun, even if a court has determined that they are “a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child.”

The republican dream coming alive.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,869
6,784
126
I would assume it will also be legal for people who are related to victims killed by such people who obtained and used them to still be allowed to also purchase guns after threatening the life of that judge.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,630
33,209
136
  • Wow
Reactions: igor_kavinski

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,297
47,673
136
Bruen was just a totally idiotic decision. Americas jurists are not equipped to play amateur historian even if they all tried to do so honestly.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,244
136
More responsible gun ownership by the right. If GQP is trying to prompt more gun sales for women to defend themselves against threatening boyfriends/spouses it won't help black people.

In a so called stand your ground state a black woman tried to protect herself from a boyfriend that threatened to kill her by firing a warning shot. She was thrown in jail.
Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - CBS News

Based on what I read in that article, I think she has at least an even chance of prevailing on appeal. Principally because the judge did not allow witnesses to testify as to his past abuse. Which would have been directly relevant to her state of mind at the time she brandished the gun and fired the shot.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
Few thoughts on this.

This applies to those with restraining orders, not criminal convictions.

Its fair to question where the appropriate threshold for losing constitutional rights should be, since the level of proof is much lower for a civil order, only "good cause" is needed, whereas a criminal conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt" of course.

While I lean towards protecting rights, this is concerning for women. I think law enforcement will need to be more willing to charge abusers to ensure they are restricted, rather than settle for restraining orders. These charges need to be felonies as well.

I think this is also a blow against red flag laws as the underlying logic is the same.

Lastly, this guy was a real duck nut, and should have been charged with some crime along the way and had these rights removed

"Rahimi was subject to a February 2020 civil protective order after an alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. In December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was accused of several shootings. They included instances in which he allegedly shot at a driver and a car after a car crash. In another incident, he allegedly fired shots into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant."
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Vic
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
More responsible gun ownership by the right. If GQP is trying to prompt more gun sales for women to defend themselves against threatening boyfriends/spouses it won't help black people.

In a so called stand your ground state a black woman tried to protect herself from a boyfriend that threatened to kill her by firing a warning shot. She was thrown in jail.
Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - CBS News

It won't help any women. Even white women get sentenced to prison for self defense against abusive partners.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,661
17,258
136
Few thoughts on this.

This applies to those with restraining orders, not criminal convictions.

Its fair to question where the appropriate threshold for losing constitutional rights should be, since the level of proof is much lower for a civil order, only "good cause" is needed, whereas a criminal conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt" of course.

While I lean towards protecting rights, this is concerning for women. I think law enforcement will need to be more willing to charge abusers to ensure they are restricted, rather than settle for restraining orders. These charges need to be felonies as well.

I think this is also a blow against red flag laws as the underlying logic is the same.

Lastly, this guy was a real duck nut, and should have been charged with some crime along the way and had these rights removed

"Rahimi was subject to a February 2020 civil protective order after an alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. In December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was accused of several shootings. They included instances in which he allegedly shot at a driver and a car after a car crash. In another incident, he allegedly fired shots into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant."

It’s not a constitutional right and that’s where the problem starts.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Few thoughts on this.

This applies to those with restraining orders, not criminal convictions.

Its fair to question where the appropriate threshold for losing constitutional rights should be, since the level of proof is much lower for a civil order, only "good cause" is needed, whereas a criminal conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt" of course.

While I lean towards protecting rights, this is concerning for women. I think law enforcement will need to be more willing to charge abusers to ensure they are restricted, rather than settle for restraining orders. These charges need to be felonies as well.

I think this is also a blow against red flag laws as the underlying logic is the same.

Lastly, this guy was a real duck nut, and should have been charged with some crime along the way and had these rights removed

"Rahimi was subject to a February 2020 civil protective order after an alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. In December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was accused of several shootings. They included instances in which he allegedly shot at a driver and a car after a car crash. In another incident, he allegedly fired shots into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant."
Agreed. The real problem is that the reason restraining orders are requested is often because of unprosecuted crimes.
The solution is to increase pressure on domestic violence reporting and prosecution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
It’s not a constitutional right and that’s where the problem starts.
First, it unquestionably is a constitutional right.

And second, the problem is that restraining orders are ineffective. Too often the abuser just violates the order anyway.

What's really needed is the full force of the law, and I believe women are entitled to that.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,661
17,258
136
First, it unquestionably is a constitutional right.

And second, the problem is that restraining orders are ineffective. Too often the abuser just violates the order anyway.

What's really needed is the full force of the law, and I believe women are entitled to that.

It is only because we have an extremist court that ignored precedence, the historic record, and the constitution itself when it ruled in 2008 that the 2nd was an individual right. Pack the court and change the ruling and these bull shit rulings go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv and hal2kilo

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,869
6,784
126
As believers in reason it is easy for liberals to lose touch with reality by believing that morality is merely a subjective opinion of what is or is not moral. Those liberals infected with this disease can't comprehend the understanding of our forefathers who understood via enlightenment that morality is inherent and inalienable to the human species and that it is human nature itself that determines morality.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The founding fathers understood well what Safety and Happiness demand as having a primary emphasis on self preservation that demands the ability to self defend.

Democratic fascists, liberals empty of foundational moral beliefs, will gladly take your right of to defend yourself in favor of their fear that you are so equipped. Having surrendered that intention for themselves in favor of a police state, they demand you also surrender the right to bear weapons. But any and all who understand that self preservation is a billion year old instinct will preserve for him or herself the right to such defense.

Can gun regulation be rational. It can, but that isn't what liberals in general or conservatives in many cases aim for.

Thus we are divided into those who want to take all guns and those who want absolutely unlimited access to any weapon anytime. The war of the brain dead.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,869
6,784
126
It is only because we have an extremist court that ignored precedence, the historic record, and the constitution itself when it ruled in 2008 that the 2nd was an individual right. Pack the court and change the ruling and these bull shit rulings go away.
We could also pack the court and get back King George. They could rule there are no rights and we are British slaves. Anything is possible when there is no truth. But there is.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,661
17,258
136
We could also pack the court and get back King George. They could rule there are no rights and we are British slaves. Anything is possible when there is no truth. But there is.

I’m not getting your point, especially considering the truth is on my side so if anything the current events are showing that truth is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv and hal2kilo