Rahimi case being heard at SCOTUS today. Listened to the US Solicitor, and she was very good. Whoever the attorney for Rahimi is, he appears to be an utterly incompetent moron. Anyone else here listening to this shit show?
The Rahimi attorney appearing at SCOTUS today appears to be a complete moron
- Thread starter VietnamEraVet
- Start date
Attorney Wright seems to be not even defending his client, and almost seems to be agreeing with the US Attorney opposing him. This seems to me to be some of the craziest shit I have ever heard in a SCOTUS verbal argument.
Last edited:
Yeah, but the SCOTUS took the case based upon a lower courts ruling.....................and regularly only takes cases based upon the issues, like the lower ct ruling...not an incompetent attys presentation.. this is going to be decided on the merits, the Constitution and the existing laws that may or may not be constitutional.
Fool attys exist..sotomayor had over 50% of her cases overturned as a lower, court jester--- imitating a Lawyer...same with Kagan and of course the new bone knawing savage.
Fool attys exist..sotomayor had over 50% of her cases overturned as a lower, court jester--- imitating a Lawyer...same with Kagan and of course the new bone knawing savage.
Some reporting on today's shit show at SCOTUS.
www.foxnews.com
Annnd, then, an alternative view...
Supreme Court appears likely to hand Biden DOJ a win on challenge to gun law
The Supreme Court seemed poised to support a federal law that bans guns from those subject to domestic violence restraining orders in a major Second Amendment case.
www.foxnews.com
Annnd, then, an alternative view...
Last edited:
While weighing carefully the total unjustifiable shit show that NYS is with blatant unconstitutional laws and the text of the 2nd, I'm fine with withholding firearms from assholes that beat women. And the few Bertha's that beat men. If your mental state is to beat the shit out of someone who can't defend themselves physically because you can't control your petty temper, buy a Nerf Gun. The legal system won't lock them up so it's not as though there are any other curbs to their loathsome behavior. REAL justice would be served if the abused could A) actually get a permit, and B) not have a fucking victim mentality and use the weapon. Sadly, too many accept the abuse and blame themselves until they're beaten into submission or dead.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The trick is how you get labeled as such.
If you really beat women, you should be in jail. People in jail can't have guns.
But, if you just raise your voice, should some deep state hack be able to declare your RKBA gone ?
Basically, if you identify some as too dangerous to carry guns on the street, then what you've really identified is someone too dangerous to walk free on the street.
Imagine the lunacy of identifying someone you think is about to commit a murder, then just taking their guns and pretending the problem is solved.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
That's what gun control is. They have no intention of addressing the real issues that lead to violence.
So while complaining about unConstitutional Laws you advocate for an unConstitutional law?
No one should ever lose their rights without first facing a jury of their peers and being able to defend themselves. Far too many atrocities would occur otherwise.
If there isn't evidence they actually committed a crime, then why would it lock them up?
If there is evidence but the perp isn't locked up (like our current white house resident), then there must be corruption in the local legal system, and THOSE people will end up out of work or locked up themselves.
The fix for our problems is not to crap all over the Bill of Rights, but to actually fix the damned system.
Rahimi's Attorney is a public defender.
The SCOTUS took the case because the Biden DOJ asked for Certiorari. Garland knew this would be a Trap case!
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
In reality, the ability of the petitioner to argue a case should be de facto irrelevant. The Supremes are charged with taking the law in question, as it is written and holding it against the constitution, as written.
Seems either way, we always lose ground in the guarantee of our Liberty under the Bill of Rights.
Robin
Seems either way, we always lose ground in the guarantee of our Liberty under the Bill of Rights.
Robin
dean3690
.357 mag
Mark Smith, The Four Boxes Diner has a positive outlook on the case.
I get your point - and this recent video posted is very good in highlighting "DUE PROCESS" for restricting physically violent, dangerous individuals. In that context of course I support restrictions. But an arbitrary "red flagged" person by a means lacking due process - your point is 100% correct. Fix the damn system. But it's the system that the Progressives want and they'll use every single means possible to ensure that it's not fixed, and that it becomes even more obscure. What sucks is the real violent ones where their victims won't press charges - so then you do have psychotics with guns that become Gun Control Poster Children when they snap. Regardless, you cannot legislate morality. That's another evil rabbit hole. So you have to swallow the Red Pill and hope the legal rabbit hole eventually does catch them.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
The Tragic Story of Carol Bowne | GOA
The Tragic Story of Carol Bowne Anniversaries are usually a time for celebration. But that won’t be the case for the Bowne family this year. Last June, Carol Bowne was murdered outside her New Jersey home by a violent felon who had threatened her on several occasions. The 39-year-old...
www.gunowners.org
if there dangerous .. then keep them the Fk in jail .. he didn't need a gun .. just a kitchen knife ..
fk the need to have a permit and all that gun control BS spewing crap ..
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
The Justices were up to something here at SCOTUS... did they just tip their hands..?
you gotta watch this ..
you gotta watch this ..
Last edited:
Thank God Justice Thomas has the foresight to see that the Dems are attempting to scheme up Minority Report / Thought Police.
If this got overlooked it would have laid up a bad precedent to come. I'm sure even if they expose all of this, these law defying liberals still won't uphold Supreme Court decisions.
If this got overlooked it would have laid up a bad precedent to come. I'm sure even if they expose all of this, these law defying liberals still won't uphold Supreme Court decisions.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
and that right there is the problem ..
and how to fix that .. is the issue
Scotus made up Qualified Immunity ..
Maybe they can make up something else so they get punished hard
when they disobey Scotus ..
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I've never understood the logic of:
"We think this guy is going to murder his girlfriend. So we took his guns away and sent him home"
Like, what's *that* supposed to do ?
"Thank God he just beat her to death, it could have been so much worse if he had a gun".
ManualF150
.308 Win
I go by the saying... if someone is going to do something really bad, guns are the least of the problem.
I remember a video I watched a few years ago, that the police took a murderer's guns away, and the murderer said they had more thrill slaying the victim with a machete.
Sick people, will find a way and it's usually worse for the victim.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
ban rocks ..
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
One of these cases the DOJ kept repeating the word responsible ...Seemed like a dozen times .. Thomas asked her if you don't lock your guns up would you be considered a responsible person ... Subject to losing your 2nd right. ... Who determines if you are a responsible person ?... Our Governor or State Police ? Local town cop .. ?
All I am stating is The word responsible is the new word entering the lexicon in the gun debate. Right up there with assault weapon.
If one drinks a cup of coffee while driving ... Would this mean one is not a responsible driver thus losing the ability to drive ? .. Or buy a gun ..
All I am stating is The word responsible is the new word entering the lexicon in the gun debate. Right up there with assault weapon.
If one drinks a cup of coffee while driving ... Would this mean one is not a responsible driver thus losing the ability to drive ? .. Or buy a gun ..
Yes, and it's being bandied about by those who have proven, time and time again, they are NOT responsible.
If it weren't for their hypocrisy, they wouldn't even HAVE standards.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
It's like I said before. They could not care any less that people are dying from X, Y, or Z reasons. They only care to use it as an excuse to disarm America. It doesn't matter to them that a person who wants to hurt someone could still commit murder without a gun or that even after banning every weapon on earth and vanishing them out of exisitence people would still find ways to kill each other. They.just.want.us.disarmed
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
sense there playing word games .,.
where are the responsible politician's ??
where are the responsible politician's ??