Originally published at: Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops short of letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by…
2 Likes
Clarence Thomas: as predictable as he is vile.
42 Likes
Uncle Thomas would vote for the restoration of Slavery.
28 Likes
Sorry, kitteh. No gunz for yew!
35 Likes
I had no idea Harlan Crow owned a firearm manufacturing company.
24 Likes
Transl.: Bruen was stupid. We regert the erra.
25 Likes
Held: When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
Under our precedent, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin the Nation’s regulatory tradition. Bruen, 597 U.S., at 26-31. When firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 597 U.S., at 24. A court must ascertain whether the new law is “relatively similar” to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, “apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.” Id., at 29, and n. 7. Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. As Bruen explained, a challenged regulation that does not precisely match its historical precursors “still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.” Id., at 30. Pp. 5-8.
It’s still 2nd Amendment Calvinball on the Court, but at least they recognize how damaging it would be to let domestic abusers keep their guns.
40 Likes
Good lord. Clarence really is for everything violent. I guess he would have voted for Hunter being able to buy while addicted…
22 Likes
Madness!! Sheer madness!!!
2 Likes
The difference between Roberts and Thomas as I see it is that while both agree guns have more rights than people, Roberts at least recognizes that people do have some rights.
25 Likes
Oh they aren’t so bad, see? jklol
2 Likes
Nah, man. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about Hunters.
9 Likes
I am guessing that Clarence Thomas does not want to piss off his wife, or suffer a “gun accident” in his own home. That plus billionaire money.
10 Likes
More table crumbs - yum yum.
Thank you oh wise ones for saying that people who beat, maim and kill women shouldn’t be armed legally while still making sure that every single one of them can get a gun if they want to.
17 Likes
Roberts just realizes that the Court’s name is mud and is placating us for the worse rulings. Thomas is so enraged that people dare criticize him, every ruling is another middle finger to the public.
23 Likes
Clarence Thomas: filling the mold shaped by Roger Taney.
9 Likes
The domestic abusers in my neighborhood comprise a very well regulated militia. One may see them practicing their close order drill on the village green every Saturday morning, and many weekdays as well. Most of them postpone their first quaff of hooch until well after the sun is over the yardarm. The right honorable Clarence was the only one of the nine to recognize and protect these abusers’ consitutional and, might I say, God given rights.
15 Likes
Despite being aligned with the conservatives of the court, he is still something different. One of those people if you spend anytime with them, you end up realizing they are complete freaks. And not in a good way.
14 Likes
Conservative SCOTUS gets a cookie. Except for Clarence.
1 Like
Seems like it.
The Fifth Circuit erred in reading Bruen to require a “historical twin” rather than a “historical analogue.” 597 U.S., at 30.
11 Likes