Individual Right to Possess Firearms

[track 5]

Maybe I read that wrong from your post. Any white collar crime should be major problem. Taking money from folks? Fuck that shit. Period. It's the same as various crimes. Takin money that isn't yours. Now are they bangers that will kill over a pair of boots. No they are not. But they are stealing shit that is just wrong. I've seen some of the worst fuckers that would do some major shit to kids even. I lump them all in the same fucking bag. You take shit that isn't yours. Fuck you. Out.

[CaboChris]

Maybe I read that wrong from your post. Any white collar crime should be major problem. Taking money from folks? Fuck that shit. Period. It's the same as various crimes. Takin money that isn't yours. Now are they bangers that will kill over a pair of boots. No they are not. But they are stealing shit that is just wrong. I've seen some of the worst fuckers that would do some major shit to kids even. I lump them all in the same fucking bag. You take shit that isn't yours. Fuck you. Out.

But saying someone who embezzles can't exercise their 2nd Amendment right after serving their time is bullshit. That's not a violent crime imo. Ymmv.

Kidnapping at gunpoint. Pretty violent. You get no 2nd Amendment.

[Elwood P.]

Not really surprised that court sided with the law here. Was surprised that it was 8-1. That Thomas is a piece of work tho.

[bklynboy68]

Now that I don't agree with. A white collar embezzlement felony case shouldn't be treated the same as a felony kidnapping case.

Thomas' quote -

"The question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,"

He's spot on.

These protective orders give too much power to local governments in some cases. Locally, there was a girl who attacked her boyfriend and got hit with a protective order. She didn't own a gun, but her roommate whose name was on the apartment lease did. Guess what? Law enforcement was trying to seize her gun. Now, sometimes people need a lawyer in these cases because they don't know the law, and unfortunately, for some prosecutors it's about the win and not justice. This chick went to court herself and basically said 'No, you have no right to take my gun', The judge agreed and told them to pound sand. The girl told her friend to look for a new place and that was that.

[Dave's Dreidel]

If the protective order is not attached to a criminal conviction, I agree with Thomas.

[bklynboy68]

https://youtube.com/shorts/O-phLmc8B...OeOykPZRvj0y5Q

[The Rover]

All we're asking for is Common Sense Knife Control . . .

Four people were wounded at a Brooklyn subway station Sunday when police officers shot a man threatening them with a knife, and inadvertently sprayed bullets that hit passengers, authorities said.

https://apnews.com/article/nyc-polic...fe3528d7a6230f

[bklynboy68]

Minnesota Update: Eighth Circuit Court Strikes Down Minnesota’s Firearm Carry Age Restrictions

TTAG Contributor
September 23, 2024


The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate on September 20, officially shutting down the Minnesota Attorney General’s efforts to preserve the state’s ban on firearm carry for individuals aged 18 to 20. The decision follows a legal challenge backed by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

The challenge was brought forward by plaintiffs Kristin Worth, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson, who argued that Minnesota’s restrictions on carrying firearms for adults under 21 violated their Second Amendment rights. In April 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Menendez ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but delayed an injunction against the law pending appeal.

In July, a three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit had unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Circuit Court Judge William Benton, who wrote the opinion, noted that the language of the Second Amendment does not specify an age limit. He highlighted that while the Founders included age restrictions in other areas, such as running for political office, no such limits were placed on the right to bear arms.

“In other words, the Founders considered age and knew how to set age requirements but placed no such restrictions on rights, including those protected by the Second Amendment,” Benton wrote in the decision.

Following the panel’s ruling, Minnesota sought to have the case reheard, either by the same three-judge panel or by the full bench of the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court rejected both requests in an August 21 order, effectively setting the stage for the mandate that was issued on Friday.

With the mandate now in place, Minnesota must either revise its laws to comply with the court’s decision or appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Minnesota Attorney General’s office has not yet commented on whether it plans to pursue further legal action.

Following the mandate, the FPC celebrated the decision on social media.

“This formalizes our victory, and the ban is now officially dead,” the FPC wrote in a post. “If it wishes to continue defending its tyranny, Minnesota must take its tears to SCOTUS.”

The ruling represents a significant win for gun rights advocates in Minnesota, marking the end of a long legal battle over age-based firearm restrictions. For now, the state’s law barring 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying firearms is effectively nullified, pending any potential appeal to the nation’s highest court.



https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/mi...-restrictions/

[rocknblues81]

Minnesota Update: Eighth Circuit Court Strikes Down Minnesota’s Firearm Carry Age Restrictions

TTAG Contributor
September 23, 2024


The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate on September 20, officially shutting down the Minnesota Attorney General’s efforts to preserve the state’s ban on firearm carry for individuals aged 18 to 20. The decision follows a legal challenge backed by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

The challenge was brought forward by plaintiffs Kristin Worth, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson, who argued that Minnesota’s restrictions on carrying firearms for adults under 21 violated their Second Amendment rights. In April 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Menendez ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but delayed an injunction against the law pending appeal.

In July, a three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit had unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Circuit Court Judge William Benton, who wrote the opinion, noted that the language of the Second Amendment does not specify an age limit. He highlighted that while the Founders included age restrictions in other areas, such as running for political office, no such limits were placed on the right to bear arms.

“In other words, the Founders considered age and knew how to set age requirements but placed no such restrictions on rights, including those protected by the Second Amendment,” Benton wrote in the decision.

Following the panel’s ruling, Minnesota sought to have the case reheard, either by the same three-judge panel or by the full bench of the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court rejected both requests in an August 21 order, effectively setting the stage for the mandate that was issued on Friday.

With the mandate now in place, Minnesota must either revise its laws to comply with the court’s decision or appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Minnesota Attorney General’s office has not yet commented on whether it plans to pursue further legal action.

Following the mandate, the FPC celebrated the decision on social media.

“This formalizes our victory, and the ban is now officially dead,” the FPC wrote in a post. “If it wishes to continue defending its tyranny, Minnesota must take its tears to SCOTUS.”

The ruling represents a significant win for gun rights advocates in Minnesota, marking the end of a long legal battle over age-based firearm restrictions. For now, the state’s law barring 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying firearms is effectively nullified, pending any potential appeal to the nation’s highest court.



https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/mi...-restrictions/

Democrats don't think young adults have the right to defend themselves.

[The Rover]

ONCE AGAIN: America has VIOLENT PEOPLE PROBLEM.