• RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Every time I see his corrupt face I hope it made the frontpage because he stepped down, slipped and broke his neck or whatever.

    Disappointed once more.

  • ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    4 months ago

    Maybe personal beliefs shouldn’t be imposed on policy that affects different people of different faiths. Wish that was written down somewhere. We could use it as a guideline for how the founding fathers wished the country would be run.

    • fah_Q@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t know man, maybe slave owning people who lived 248 years ago didn’t have the best ideas, or the be all end all say in how a government should work? Maybe I’m nuts?

      • ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        But a guy who supposedly is the son of an imaginary guy born of miracle intercourseless birth who makes up arbitrary rules about how to treat others and life life does. We should let him decide about the binary ‘nature’ of gender. Got it.

      • Etterra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s a really broad brush you’re painting with. It’s almost as if the founding father is were complex human beings with complex issues that they had to compromise a lot on in order to even start the country we live in. I mean they kicked that slavery can down the road, where it landed and started the Civil War.

        That really is the problem with a lot of the Constitution and similar founding documents. Some of them were widely popular universally (such as banning the quartering of troops) at the time but have little real bearing on our lives today if any. Others were so divisive that they had no choice but to either leave them out entirely (slavery) or compromise messily (iirc that’s why we have the electoral college, but I’m rusty on the details).

        But no I mean let’s just hold them up as if they were demigods who could make no errors and knew everything. Because that makes fucking sense.

        • fah_Q@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          So you agree with me? What’s your point? Pretending things are the same as 200 years ago is willfully ignorant. Pretending the constitution is a sacred document like the ten commandments is dumb.

          • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, they agreed with you. Their point is that they agreed with you. Sometimes people just share their thoughts and aren’t trying to start a fight.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    4 months ago

    In 2019, Texan Zackey Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend and fired his gun at a witness. He was put under a domestic violence restraining order, which he violated by possessing a firearm—an infraction under a 1994 federal laws—which he fired at people on multiple occasions. In his defense, Rahimi argued that the restraining order’s gun ban violated his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

    The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed: there was no 18th century law analogous enough to the statute barring Rahimi from possessing a gun, and therefore under Bruen, that statute must be unconstitutional.

    Yo what the FUCK

    I can see why Texas is the venue that Republicans go to when they wanna get some crazy shit into precedent on a federal level

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        I could be wrong, but my assumption is that he’s in quite a lot of trouble and going to be in an extended limbo of custody and probation for quite a while going forward because of his other charges, whichever way the more minor issue of violating the protective order comes out (i.e. his lawyers are just mounting a vigorous defense as they’re supposed to do, and they found one of them that they can fight effectively through this weird little argument.)

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          But like, shooting at multiple people in the past is a felony unless it was judged to be self defense, right? I’m assuming it wasn’t self defense from the way it mentions him firing the gun at people. And if he’s under indictment for a felony charge or has been convicted of a felony he isn’t allowed to have firearms regardless of any other DV situation. What happened with the “firing at people” thing, did he get off?

          • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            4 months ago

            It’s Texas. He was probably shooting at a liberal. It’s de facto legal there. The Governor just pardoned a convicted murderer. This Uber driver had posted on line and in text messages that he wanted to kill racial justice protesters, then drove to a protest. He then found an armed protester (again, it’s Texas so of course there was one there), and got in an argument with him. Eventually, he got tired of waiting for the protester to point a gun at him so he could claim self defense and just shot the protester to death anyway. He was convicted and sentenced to jail. Abbott however, decided that that was unfair. He said, and this is a quote, “Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney.”

            So you see, in Texas, shooting at people, even killing them, isn’t apparently against the law if the people you are shooting at are liberals.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Firing “at” people could be attempted murder or all the way down to negligent discharge or something, depends on the details of the circumstance (what “at” means) and any plea deals and how vigorous the DA wants to be about it. And this could have all happened before everything wound it way through the courts and he was found guilty of attempted murder even if it was the felony route. It’s hard to say just from that much how fucked he really is (well, until the next time he does something like this which sounds fairly likely to happen as his life continues on its present course).

            The fact that they’re going after him for having the firearm under the protection order instead of for being a felon makes it likely to me that he wasn’t a felon at the time he was doing all these shooting-ats.

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              It certainly does seem that way, but frankly I think it’s a major oversight to not indict or convict him of a felony charge, it leaves him still able to purchase and he has clearly demonstrated he is a danger to himself and/or others. Again, that’s completely ignoring the DV too which is just further proof, but the court decided not I guess, still though they could have had him on some other charges it seems and IMO it was a failure of them not to.

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                it’s a major oversight to not indict or convict him of a felony charge

                I don’t disagree with you in any respect. For reasons that aren’t really clear to me, courts commit major oversights of charging people every single day. Except drugs! For some reason they really like fucking people because of drugs. Punching your girlfriend and firing a weapon near some people who shouldn’t get hit with bullets strikes me as exactly one of those things that someone might some way-too-large minority of the time look at and go “you know what it’s hard to say what happened and it might be tough to prosecute, fuck it, 8 months probation, let’s go have a beer it is Friday.”

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Well drugs is a revenue generating scheme for them that also lets them overcharge POC with felonies to prevent them from getting guns, that’s by design of course. Drugs should be legal (at least not a felony to posses and treatment rather than prison and idt the treatment should even be compulsory) and violent criminals need to be charged accordingly. It would honestly help a lot more than many other things people want to do like feature bans, who cares what features the violent guy can have on his gun, he shouldn’t have any gun if he’s proven himself a danger.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        If someone’s fundamental rights are violated in the process of enacting the law the trial conviction is considered invalid. So he’s kind of has been under shrodinger’s conviction for a federal crime, neither considered a vaild nor invalid convict until this box was opened.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          But had he been charged with a felony for shooting at people before this incident even took place, he wouldn’t have had his rights anymore already.

          Basically I mean if he shot at people and got charged with a felony and got his guns taken as a result,

          and then beat his GF and got a DV charge banning him from possessing the guns he was already banned from owning,

          and then he sues on the grounds of the DV conviction banning him from having guns,

          even if he wins, he is still barred from having guns because of the previous felony banning him from having guns, which would be separate from the DV.

          Also even if he’s awaiting trial on felony charges, he is still not legally allowed to possess a gun.

          Unless you mean the police or prosecution violated his rights (like the right to counsel) during the original trial for shooting at people non-DV related, and so that case was dismissed, which is a possible explanation for why he got off without a felony for shooting at people. Could be, and that’s another reason to add to the list for “why they shouldn’t violate people’s rights during trial,” because if so that let this dickhead go free.

          • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            So… The law isn’t static. With the previous Supreme Court ruling lending more power to the constitutional right to own and carry guns all those laws that you mentioned that originally banned him no longer have rock solid ground for existing at all.

            Basically a state can pass any law it likes, it’s only once it gets used against someone that it can go through the process of being tested as a valid law by punch testing it’s capacity as constitutional violation. If there is a change to the precedent of the Constitution then then anything still in the appeals process can invoke the law as long as they can bring up reasonable proof that a current trial can support questions of constitutional violations.

            His defense was basically capitalizing on a change in the law to bring into question every gun law on the books that was, prior to the new Supreme Court ruling was considered fairly standard… If the Supreme Court judged the state law in conflict with the new established constitutional interpretation basically the arrest isn’t valid and the persecution would have to reconstruct the case from scratch and re-trial… And creating a domino effect potentially destroying all state gun restrictions. It’s not surprising that they ruled how they did. They’d get so much kickback…

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      The 18th century analogy standard was widely misused. Probably because SCOTUS didn’t make it clear and it’s a strange standard anyway. But yeah, the fifth circuit is a wild one

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 months ago

        I mean it’s basically a gateway to bad laws

        “If there’s any dispute between how it used to be and how it is now, we want to make it so how it used to be wins”

        “Wait isn’t there usually a reason they changed it?”

        “I said no questions”

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Did you read the article? It’s mostly about how Rahimi relates to Bruen and why that makes it so problematic. Nowhere do they condemn the outcome

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        So it’s more bullshit take on the Bruen ruling that anti-2a groups are still salty from? This has nothing to do with the Rahimi ruling at all…

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I read the article, it’s exactly as I described it, bitching from the anti-2a crowd about Bruen

            You all can down vote me all you want. That’s literally what the article is. The 2nd isn’t going anywhere, you’re a minority of people who want it repealed. And your group got even smaller now that people on the left are becoming gun owners more and more.

            • turmacar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              People don’t take issue with Bruen because they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They take issue with Bruen because it’s an insane precedent.

              Bruen argues that there hasn’t been meaningful discussion or growth of laws and rights for 200 years. It’s a really dumb test. The constitution and amendments are really short. Not because they were written by divine geniuses, but because it is the founding document, it was never meant to be the entire body of law. That’s why it sets up 3 bodies of government to continue to govern and not just a judiciary to impose the constitution like divine mandate.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                People don’t take issue with Bruen because they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They take issue with Bruen because it’s an insane precedent.

                Lol no that’s bullshit. Plenty want it repealed, usually the loudest do. It’s also not an insane precedent, there has been zero gun control laws that have actively helped drive down crime. It’s all been feel good legislation that’s done nothing but try and kick the can down the road for meaningful progress.

                Bruen argues that there hasn’t been meaningful discussion or growth of laws and rights for 200 years. It’s a really dumb test. The constitution and amendments are really short. Not because they were written by divine geniuses, but because it is the founding document, it was never meant to be the entire body of law. That’s why it sets up 3 bodies of government to continue to govern and not just a judiciary to impose the constitution like divine mandate.

                They’re really short because convoluted laws don’t do shit but target those who can’t hire expensive lawyers and lobbiest to avoid them. They’re rules for the working class not for the ruling class.

                • turmacar@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Laws are complicated because people are complicated.

                  “Everyone should have the tools to defend themselves from aggressors” is a good sentiment.

                  This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don’t overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that’s impossible because 100 guys didn’t think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.

                  There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That’s why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns. It’s why “arms” doesn’t include suitcase nukes and howitzers.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    4 months ago

    Some folks are trying to spin this ruling as good news for Hunter Biden and I don’t see it.

    The court ruled it’s OK to deny gun rights to domestic abusers.

    People really think they’ll deny abusers but allow crack addicts? 🤔