Supreme Court upholds bar on guns under domestic-violence restraining orders
(www.scotusblog.com)
Comments (23)
sorted by:
Within this ruling, they also ruled that a jury must be unanimous in its findings on criminal convictions and sentencing enhancements cannot be arbitrarily implemented by judicial fiat.
That could have implications for Trump's NY trial verdict.
It also addresses the federal judges who have said they would implement sentencing enhancements if their J6 rulings are challenged in the event 1512c is struck down by the SC.
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1804159968108552545
Exactly, important people understand this. We could see this as you have stated with the NY case or later in another stolen election where the Military makes the decision. By the book.
Including police officers, law enforcement and military men and women who have problems in their personal lives
If you like to knock around your wife or girlfriend you have more than mere “problems in your personal life”
'Red flag' laws are no different than 'civil asset forfeiture' laws.
Both require 'belief', not criminal conviction by jury.
This is not the country I grew up in ...
Take a look at the red flag laws and how unfair they are, in many states you have no recourse if accused and will end up disarmed for potentially years while you fight it in court. At least in mine the one we got stuck with actually made it also a crime to make false accusations trying to get someone flagged.
I understand the concern. But my question is this. How many examples have we seen of this while the Founding Fathers were around ? Appears SCOTUS frgot about the ruling prior to this one.
But illegals can own firearms? I can hear the snickering at the Vatican from here.
Anyone can own a gun (if they have the means to purchase it. Now, owning it legally is the issue. I don't think illegals can own guns legally, can they?
in Illinois some judge claimed that they can, which has blown up in a big discussion about the already unconstitutional permits in general.
Exactly, please include terrorists crosiing our borders.
Um, it sure does violate the constitution. Saying it doesn't makes it mental masturbation of considerable vigor. Opens the door for too many other special reasons to abandon the constitution. It's laughable these people are presented as the most capable legal minds in America. They have bias against the Constitution they don't belong in the job period.
Amen, but also remember a certain agency conducted spy operations on Congress and SCOTUS. They are famous for finding leverage on people and using it for their agendas.
Agree sister
I am a Brother. LOL
Great... They just gave motivation to the deep state to persue more bogus domestic violence claims...
Exactly my thoughts also. Removes and ignores presumption of innocence.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Quote by: Marbury vs. Madison Source: 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Quote by: American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition Source: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256
"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." - Quote by: Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Source: Federalist Papers #78, See also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762, Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178)
"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." - Quote by: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841-1935) US Supreme Court Justice, also known as "The Great Dissenter" Source: 1902
Amen, hopefully many people read and become aware of this. Have mentioned this in the past.
This is a travesty. Our Rights are absolute, period. This ruling is bogus, biased, unconstitutional, and to be ignored like all other unconstitutional laws. They are null and void being contrary to the constitution.
Another example why the Military is the only way. They do it by the book and not the crook. They will make the correction.