DoJ Begs SCOTUS to take case.

858 Views 19 Replies 10 Participants Last post by Shark1007, 2 mo ago

1911_Kid

Discussion Starter · 2 mo ago

If SCOTUS takes up this case, then we have an issue with SCOTUS.

The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to allow a federal law stand that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to own firearms.

In February, a three judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans declared that the ban was unconstitutional, saying it violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms. It was the latest victory for gun rights advocates since a Supreme Court ruling last June granting a broad right for people to carry firearms outside the home.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/guns-domestic-violence/2023/03/21/id/1113078/

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

longarm

· #2 · 2 mo ago

They are reaching - and overreaching.

My fondest wish is that they demand and overreach one time too often and the Supremes lower the boom on every.damned.word that's been legislated to override 2A. Roll it alllll back. Make them relitigate ALL of it.

The howls and screams would be music to enjoy as we drink their sweet, sweet tears.

Reactions: 4

Shark1007

· #3 · 2 mo ago

Sometimes you’ve got to pick your case to make your 2A stand, as I recall, this is the guy who sold dope to somebody, then shot up their house. Then he got in a car wreck and jumped out and shot at the other driver, and then came back in another car shot at them some more. He shot a police officers car, and then he got angry at a Whataburger restaurant because his friends credit card was declined so he fired multiple shots into the air.

I think he had assaulted a girlfriend with a weapon in the past, and had entered into a voluntary domestic violence injunction. I’ve seen these kinds of cases up close where the dirt bags come back and kill their spouse or girlfriend. I think it’s a bad case for a challenge, and this guy is a poster boy for someone who ought not to have a firearm. Given his behavior, I can’t think of any way to defend him.

longarm

· #4 · 2 mo ago

He's either a FELON, and ends up losing his 2A (which I disagree with anyway), or he ain't..

They need to **** or get off the pot.

Boge

· #5 · 2 mo ago

Shark1007 said:
...and then he got angry at a Whataburger restaurant because his friends credit card was declined so he fired multiple shots into the air...

If he would have stated the Whataburger Bidenflation prices drove him to that I would have voted not guilty on that count.

Reactions: 1

dsk

· #6 · 2 mo ago

I thought the leftists were ignoring the Supreme Court now? I guess as long as they side with them on a case it's OK...

Reactions: 1

Biscut

· #7 · 2 mo ago

Typical pick of an emotional case. Can't blame DOJ for wanting this one. Politically if they win they look strong to their (Dem) base and if they lose no real harm as it would cause emotional outrage from the masses and be spun to the 10th degree. Hopefully Supreme Court does not take the case. Clearly cherrypicked.

How about they convict em and then he won't be legally able to obtain weapons? Ahhh politics and common sense don't quite give.

Reactions: 1

Shark1007

· #8 · 2 mo ago

dsk said:
I thought the leftists were ignoring the Supreme Court now? I guess as long as they side with them on a case it's OK...

That’s fairly typical of human nature. People are generally pleased with courts as long as they are saying something they like, angry with them when they say something they don’t like. When Miranda versus Arizona was announced in the mid 60s, the criminals, and the criminal defense lawyers celebrated the decision that clarified the fifth amendment as requiring warnings for an in custody interrogation. Cops and prosecutors said “great, more stuff we’ve got to do and now we gotta carry that stupid little card around and read stuff to a bunch of lowlifes“

As an example, we love the Bruen decision, but in legal circles, the esteem of the Supreme Court has faltered in the last number of years and there is a sense of too much political influence. Over the years, the pendulum swings back-and-forth.

SFC Rick

· #9 · 2 mo ago

Accusations are just as good as convictions in some circles, so taking the Rights away from the accused is justifiable? What could go wrong?

Shark1007

· #10 · 2 mo ago

I haven’t actually seen a statue that makes a mere accusation sufficient, but I guess there could be somewhere.

Decades ago, I was embarrassed while representing a police officer who was arrested for domestic violence. I asked to approach the bench and told the court that he was a police officer, had a good reputation, The judge should release him on his own recognizance, so he can get back to work.

The judge said he wanted a psychological workup before deciding whether to take his guns. I told him I thought it was unnecessary and, taking guns away from a police officer would effectively end his career. The judge whispered to me “Roger, were you out of the country, the last couple weeks or asleep, Judge xxx ROR’d a guy who drove home and killed his wife with the gun they didn’t take?”

My guy had the psychologist interview first thing. he passed and deputies met him at his home, and supervised his getting his stuff out, he got a divorce, a reduction in rank and kept his job. Her blackeye healed, and I talked to her a decade later, she was in another relationship, but still afraid her ex would show up some night.

In this particular case, I don’t think there’s going to be a groundswell of support for the second amendment rights of a dope dealing guy that shoots up somebody’s house, shoots up a police car, gets in a wreck and shoots up the other drivers car, and then the infamous Whataburger incident. All these cases are fact dependent to some degree and the more innocent seeming your client is the more likely you have a chance of success.

If you haven’t worked one as a law enforcement officer or haven’t had personal experience, it’s difficult to appreciate just how dangerous these whack job guys are, who can’t control themselves and attack their wives.

See less See more

longarm

· #11 · 2 mo ago

Remember: this Domestic Abuse garbage is a Misdemeanor - not a Felony.

They want to remove 2A rights for misdemeanors, (and they'd prefer to just remove the Right on a whim).

Reactions: 1

USMM guy

· #12 · 2 mo ago

Shark1007 said:
Sometimes you’ve got to pick your case to make your 2A stand, as I recall, this is the guy who sold dope to somebody, then shot up their house. Then he got in a car wreck and jumped out and shot at the other driver, and then came back in another car shot at them some more. He shot a police officers car, and then he got angry at a Whataburger restaurant because his friends credit card was declined so he fired multiple shots into the air.

I think he had assaulted a girlfriend with a weapon in the past, and had entered into a voluntary domestic violence injunction. I’ve seen these kinds of cases up close where the dirt bags come back and kill their spouse or girlfriend. I think it’s a bad case for a challenge, and this guy is a poster boy for someone who ought not to have a firearm. Given his behavior, I can’t think of any way to defend him.

So I guess that the real question here would be what is this guy doing running around loose anyway? if he was found guilty of assault with a weapon before then why is he not doing hard time already? It would appear that he would at least be prohibited as a convicted felon from having a gun at any rate. Maybe I am missing something here.

1911_Kid

Discussion Starter · #13 · 2 mo ago

Shark1007 said:
I haven’t actually seen a statue that makes a mere accusation sufficient, ....

The one on Liberty Island NY ?

Reactions: 1

Biscut

· #14 · 2 mo ago

longarm said:
Remember: this Domestic Abuse garbage is a Misdemeanor - not a Felony.

They want to remove 2A rights for misdemeanors, (and they'd prefer to just remove the Right on a whim).

Well, in New Yorkistan a Driving While Ability Impaired arrest is enough for Westchester County to suspend your pistol permit. For those who are not aware in NY a DWAI is NOT a DWI. DWAI is .04% while a DWI is .08%. And the permit suspension is pre-conviction. Now that is an example of yanking a "privilege" like a driver's license NOT an actual enumerated right.

That is the elitist anti-2A mentality. It is not a right it is a privilege we allow you. THis practice remains despite recent SCOTUS rulings. Where is the NRA on these issues? Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

1911_Kid

Discussion Starter · #15 · 2 mo ago

Biscut said:
Well, in New Yorkistan a Driving While Ability Impaired arrest is enough for Westchester County to suspend your pistol permit. For those who are not aware in NY a DWAI is NOT a DWI. DWAI is .04% while a DWI is .08%. And the permit suspension is pre-conviction. Now that is an example of yanking a "privilege" like a driver's license NOT an actual enumerated right.

That is the elitist anti-2A mentality. It is not a right it is a privilege we allow you. THis practice remains despite recent SCOTUS rulings. Where is the NRA on these issues? Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

So why no lawsuits? Challenge BS judge rulings all the way to SCOTUS.

kenenz

· #16 · 2 mo ago

Shark1007 said:
Sometimes you’ve got to pick your case to make your 2A stand, as I recall, this is the guy who sold dope to somebody, then shot up their house. Then he got in a car wreck and jumped out and shot at the other driver, and then came back in another car shot at them some more. He shot a police officers car, and then he got angry at a Whataburger restaurant because his friends credit card was declined so he fired multiple shots into the air.

I think he had assaulted a girlfriend with a weapon in the past, and had entered into a voluntary domestic violence injunction. I’ve seen these kinds of cases up close where the dirt bags come back and kill their spouse or girlfriend. I think it’s a bad case for a challenge, and this guy is a poster boy for someone who ought not to have a firearm. Given his behavior, I can’t think of any way to defend him.

This guy is the exact type the libs want out roaming around free-range. Either lock him up, or allow him to carry a gun, so they can be afraid of him.

Biscut

· #17 · 2 mo ago

1911_Kid said:
So why no lawsuits? Challenge BS judge rulings all the way to SCOTUS.

You're asking the wrong guy for the answer to that. One reason I directly know is the backlash that comes to any attorney that would file. An indy attorney in NY must walk the tightrope not to piss off the court(s) too much or they will exact revenge. It would have to be a firm or attorney at a pretty insulated level to take something like this on. And most importantly, someone has to pay that bill!

longarm

· #18 · 2 mo ago

And, we've got the Bar Associations across the country are disbarring and censuring Lawyers that are at all involved in challenging election-fraud. Waddaya think they will do if they rattle the 2A cases too much?

Old Grumpy

· #19 · 2 mo ago

kenenz said:
This guy is the exact type the libs want out roaming around free-range. Either lock him up, or allow him to carry a gun, so they can be afraid of him.

There is a lot of truth to this idea. Liberals want criminals out on the street committing crimes so they can use the crimes as a reason to take away Constitutional Rights from law abiding citizens. A guy uses a gun in all sorts of crimes, but the liberals keep him out on the street to pad the numbers of gun crimes, which gives them more data to support their goals.

Grumpy

Shark1007

· #20 · 2 mo ago

longarm said:
And, we've got the Bar Associations across the country are disbarring and censuring Lawyers that are at all involved in challenging election-fraud. Waddaya think they will do if they rattle the 2A cases too much?

There’s a reason lawyers are getting disciplined for filing bogus suits. It’s not just all the courts finding that the allegations were baseless in election fraud cases only. The rules of judicial administration generally state that when the lawyer files a lawsuit, or a pleading, his or her signature on the pleading is his or her guarantee that there is a legitimate factual basis for what they allege.

The lawyers can get in trouble a number of ways for these kinds of things if the court finds that there is no basis for their lawsuit. They can be punished by having to pay the other side legal fees, which has happened a great deal and they can be disciplined by their own state bar association like the emergency suspension that happened to Rudy Giuliani.

I don’t think any lawyer is going to be disciplined for filing a second amendment case, especially in light of Bruen. That gives them enough substance to make the argument.

Some of my brethren in the legal profession do tend to change their tune. Sidney Powell, as an example changed tunes when she got sued by Dominion for defamation over all the things she said about dominion and election fraud. In response to that lawsuit, her lawyer responded in court pleadings something like” no reasonable person would ever believe what Sidney Powell was saying was the truth”

See less See more

1 - 20 of 20 Posts