Gun control is a pretty cut-and-dry topic with me. I’m an absolute supporter of the Second Amendment, and I oppose all gun control. I figure that the evil folks who want to start shooting would weed themselves out of the gene pool pretty quickly if Constitutional carry were nationwide.
Having said that, when you come across evil people (or, at least, people who have been accused of doing evil things), you can kind understand how some people might think that gangbangers or people convicted of violent rape, for example, shouldn’t be allowed to have firearms. Understanding how they may come to that conclusion and agreeing with that conclusion are two different things, though.
Having said that, the Supreme Court Of The United States recently agreed to take an extremely controversial court case that will have people on both sides of the gun argument paying attention. Jack Phillips writes,
The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on whether people under domestic violence restraining orders have the right to possess firearms, announcing Friday that it will hear a case on the matter during its next term.
The court on Friday agreed to review an appeal by President Joe Biden’s administration of a lower court’s ruling that found that the law ran afoul of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms” because it fell outside “our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The case involves a Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, charged with illegal gun possession while subject to a domestic violence restraining order after assaulting his girlfriend. Rahimi challenged the law after being charged under it in 2021.
So, what do you do with this case? Rahimi sounds like he’s a violent criminal, and, for all I know, he may be. Does that mean that he shouldn’t have the right to have a firearm?
I would argue that, no, it doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t have a firearm. I would also argue that peaceful, law-abiding people like you and me should have firearms everywhere.
Why?
Because when people who are criminals decide to use their firearms in a criminal manner, they’ll find out pretty quickly that it doesn’t work in their favor anymore because everyone can, and is willing to, shoot back.
Note how when an accident happens they go after the driver, when an airplane accident happens they go after the pilot, when an incident happens at sea they hold the captain responsible. But now when a crime happens with a gun they go after the gun. Note any erosion of responsibility there. 2nd point since when has a gun gone to jail for its actions? 3rd Our constitution and the second amendment was written by Americans that were invaded by a foreign country and its leanings are to deter that from happening again however they were just as wise to the sell outs. Since we have not been invaded in 150 years Its easy to forget its importance and last, Ukraine gave up its arms and then were attacked by the same guarantor of their treaty. That goes to show what given up self reliance can do. More masses of people have been murdered by rogue governments than criminals on the street. Millions more
CMc – they don’t just “go after the gun” – they go after everyone else’s guns. Makes about as much sense as them going after my car because my neighbor drives drunk (afaik none of them do).
Maybe if we locked up people who commit domestic assault (or heck any assault) that would solve the problem? I also have mixed feelings as it is often easy to accuse and (fortunately in this country) hard to convict people.
Yeah, I remember the “me too” movement to even support that for convicted folks absent conclusive photographic and preferably video evidence.
Kind of like how the rape epidemic is so bad Rolling Stone and everyone else has to fake it for a story.
Everyone should have the right to carry a firearm. If or when a person carrying a firearm commits a crime, he or she should be locked up for the crime they were committing plus 5 – 10 years more for being in possession of a firearm. No early release. You do the crime, you do the time. Make belonging to a gang a crime. Arrest all gang members and violent crime will go way down in cities. Gangs are criminal organizations, similar to the mafia. Lock them up using RICO laws.
TP – not bad suggestions overall but shouldn’t USING a gun in commission of the crime vice merely being in possession of one be the deciding factor?
And those criminal gangs definitely include the Biden Mafia
Seeing as how LE will arrest folks for nothing I don’t see why carrying a gun or saying a prayer or any other exercise of a Right should result in more time. Using a weapon is one thing. Possession is another.
How do we define a gang? Club? Guild? Let’s not violate the 1A Right to free association and focus on actual criminals committing actual crimes with actual victims.
This case will divide even 2A Supporters, with one side saying keeping a gun out of a violent person’s hands is OK, and those of us that are 2A Absolutists saying no, removal of the Right is wrong, if it’s a bad actor you remove the bad actor from society, as the Founders Intended.
Infringing upon the Right should never be allowed. If a person’s so violent, we have to restrict that Right, then they shouldn’t be in society. Incarcerate or Execute. That’s what has changed, we don’t Punish the offender, the Left makes excuses for their Bad Behavior instead. The Left would rather strip everyone of a Right, than admit their lackadaisical Progressive approach to Crime and Punishment is a Failure.
No, the man was not Convicted of any Crime yet, when his 2A Rights were Infringed. Whether he went on to commit more crime after that is irrelevant, and only supports my argument, that if he was that dangerous, why was he released in the first place?
If someone’s that violent, Bail Laws need to change to cover that, or a flat our refusal of Bail due to their Violence potential.
Same thing goes for discharges. At the time of the 2nd’s Ratification, upon completion of sentence, Rights were restored. If they were too violent to have their Rights restored, they weren’t released. Murderers were executed, along with a whole litany of offenses that threatened the public’s welfare.
Couldn’t agree more.
When I was in Vietnam no one EVER said one word about gun violence. Responsible folks know what a weapon is for and how to use it SAFELY! I have grandkids both male and female who know how to handle a weapon safely.
The ATF and all gun laws should be removed. They are all unconstitutional. These Commies won’t quit till they succeed in disarming “we the people”. The only way to fight all this crap going on is to go all out. You fight fire with fire like the left does and go to the exact opposite extreme. Otherwise we are only pissing water down a garden hose for a building fire. The repub’s won’t do it as the only all out warfare they like is in another country with naive youngsters in the military who don’t understand how they are being used. AND, no bad comments as I’m a vietnam vet.
The problem here is anyone can get a restraining order they need not have committed a crime. It’s simply too easy to take ones rights away.
I got a question has anybody know this the timeline between the criminals shooting guns and at the same time they don’t go after the criminal they go after the rights of people or innocent people that own guns in their home to keep them safe I have noticed that timeline and maybe this is a hunch or a gut feeling and that is I think they get paid for it so that they can try to go to the courts or federal court or supreme Court and still try to take away the American people’s rights I think that’s stupid
Great sensible comments ya’ll.
Would anyone argue that people who are legally insane, have a profound mental condition — like aggressive autism — should not be able to vote? In fact, a person found by a court not compentent to vote is ineligible to vote. By the same reasoning, if a person has already acted violently toward another, and the person has been found guilty of the violent act, and might even have a restraining order against them, why would anyone want to dillute the protection offered to the injured party by allowing them access to any weapon? Do they really have to die first, before an action is taken? Hold what I will term a “2A” hearing, similar to the mentioned cometency hearing. Three questions need to be asked of the party desirous of owning a weapon: (1) Were you found guilty of assault (or similar, if anyone quibbles with the language)? Since the answer is known to be “yes,” that is strike one. (2) Is there a restraining order against you to prevent you from having contact with the person(s) you assaulted? Since that answer is also “yes,” then that is strike two. (3) Are you willing and able to obtain a bond in an amount set by this court, which will be immediately forfeit in the event you ignore the restraining order against you by approaching and/or harming the person(s) whom the order is intended to protect? There are two possible answers to this question. The person desiring to own a weapon otherwise permitted under the 2nd amendment is unable to find any bonding agency willing to risk financial loss by providing a bond. In such case, the answer is “No,” and that is the 3rd strike. The party desiring to own a weapon is “out.” He is prohibited from weapon ownership. If a bonding agent is found, first the premium for the bond is likely to be prohibitively expensive, but second, the bonding agent is very likely to take steps to assure that the person so bonded does nothing to cause financial loss to the agent. In such case, the person may own a weapon, but the bonding agent could require that it be locked in their custody during the term of the bond. In other words, the intent of the 2nd amendment is not diluted, negated or compromised, but the chance of injury or death of an intended victim(s) by the person seeking a weapon is low enough to be of negligable risk.
Comments are closed.