In other words, even one of the modern era’s most conservative justices says gun enthusiasts are wrong when they claim that any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional. Government can place restrictions on firearms with the intent of protecting society.
Well, this is a lie to begin with because "gun enthusiasts" don't make the claim that "any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional." This is an outright fabrication and falsehood.
And no, outlawing these items isn’t barred by the Second Amendment. In 2013, Sunnyvale, California, banned high-capacity magazines. The NRA sued in federal court, which—citing Heller—ruled these magazines “are hardly crucial for citizens to exercise their right to bear arms.” Thus, the court concluded, the potential right to a high-capacity magazine was outweighed—for the same reason the First Amendment doesn’t protect bomb threats—by a strong government interest in public safety. An appeals court agreed and the Supreme Court refused to consider the issue further.
No, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, which is absolutely meaningless with respect to the strength or weakness of the federal court's ruling. Denial of cert can NEVER be cited as supporting the lower court's ruling, it is merely denial of cert. The Supreme Court is asked to consider hundreds if not thousands of cases each session and it denies cert to most of them due to time constraints and having nothing whatever to do with the facts of the case or the correctness of the lower court ruling.
The Supreme Court is free to take up another case on the same subject in the future and overrule the lower court any time it pleases. And it likely will, probably when a conflict arises between the federal circuit courts, which it is highly likely to do because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is THE most left-wing liberal circuit court in all of the US and it is ALSO the most overruled circuit court in the US. When and if another circuit makes an opposite ruling this will create a conflict in the federal courts that leads to uneven enforcement of federal laws which threatens the application of due process, and that is when the Supreme Court usually steps in to resolve the dispute.
...That is why the laws on private sales are absurd. While the NRA “demands” that guns be kept out of the hands of criminals, it has always blocked the only means of doing so: universal background checks on private-party sales. Polls show overwhelming support for checks—as much as 92 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll from last year, including 86 percent of Republicans.
The problem is of course that the reason the NRA opposes "universal background checks on private-party sales" is because such laws are both unenforceable and ineffective in achieving the intended purpose, which violates one prong of the "strict scrutiny" test, making such laws unconstitutional.
This is the Big Lie that leftist anti-gun pundits like this one like to tell and retell in hopes that it will become the perceived truth through Marxist repetition.
Unfortunately, the NRA has been working for years to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible.
This is yet another bald-faced lie.
After the deadliest shooting in American history took place at Virginia Tech (32 dead), Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. When introduced, the legislation called on states to submit mental-health records to national databases maintained by the FBI. The NRA declared this violated the Second Amendment and, through intense lobbying, limited the definition of mental illness only to people institutionalized or found by a court to be a danger. Even if a psychiatrist believed a patient posed a threat, nothing could be done to keep a gun out of that person’s hand.
Like all the other lies in this "article," this is yet another one. It's a lie of omission that elides the REASON that the NRA, and many other people, objected to this provision.
The reason that this provision is unconstitutional, and extremely dangerous to liberty and the rights of individuals is because "mental health records" is an utterly undefined term in the statute that "called on states" to submit private medical records to the FBI without any standards or restrictions on the information provided.
Further, it gave the FBI unlimited authority to determine what "mental health" issue disqualified a person from possessing a firearm.
The specific intent of the democrat-majority Congress that passed the law was to induce states to rat-out their citizens, any citizen who ever had any sort of "mental health issue" of any kind, from temporary situational depression successfully treated to violent paranoid schizophrenia, and to potentially treat all of them the same way with respect to their ability to pass a NICS background check. This agenda was intended to maximize the government's ability to deny people their fundamental right to keep and bear arms based on a "mental health issue" that would not necessarily be of a nature that would create the sort of substantial risk that constitutionally justifies stripping someone of their RKBA.
It was, and is, a sub-rosa gun-ban scheme wrapped up in the vague and undefined wrapper of "mental health." The democrats who passed it, without a single bipartisan vote that I know of, wanted to add one more way of denying gun rights having little to do with actually preventing truly dangerous mentally-ill people from getting guns. Even in the case of the Virgina Tech shooting, the shooter did not have a disqualifying mental-health history and had neither been adjudicated to be mentally defective by a Virginia Special Justice in 2005, nor was he required to be reported to the Virgina Central Criminal Records Exchange as a person not eligible to own firearms.
Whether he should have been so reported is hindsight speculation, but what it shows is that the "mental health" system is hardly reliable enough either in its diagnoses or it's level of care to be used as an excuse to deprive people of their civil rights without an official adjudication of mental defect made after a due-process court hearing and a judicial ruling,
which is the existing federal (and all-states) standard for depriving someone of their RKBA.
So, the objections of the NRA were based upon the constitutional due-process rights of citizens and their right not to be deprived of their civil rights arbitrarily by some bureaucrat in the FBI NICS section meddling in someone's "mental health" records.
Another lie is the final sentence, "Even if a psychiatrist believed a patient posed a threat, nothing could be done to keep a gun out of that person’s hand." This is another outright lie because there are very specific steps that have been in place for decades for psychiatrists or doctors, or police officers or other officials who have verifiable and reasonable beliefs
that a person poses a danger to himself or others. It's called a "72 hour mental hold" and can be instituted by any police officer or licensed physican
at any time. The person can then be involuntarily held for up to 72 hours, during which time a psychological assessment must be performed, and if medical evidence is found that the person is a danger to himself or others, that person can be brought before a judge for an involuntary commitment to a mental health facility, which, by the way, according to federal law (unconstitutionally) deprives the person of his or her gun rights for the rest of his or her life.
The patient doesn't even have to be diagnosed or adjudicated to be permanently mentally defective. Even if the person is admitted involuntarily for the rather common event of clinical situational depression that is successfully treated with therapy and medication and the individual is certified as having recovered and is released, the simple fact that he/she was involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility,
which can be something as simple as their being unconscious and unable to respond to a psych evaluation during the 72 hour hold, deprives that person (unconstitutionally) of his or her gun rights FOREVER. There is not even any provision in the law for a person to be adjudicated as sane and be relieved of this disability.
And that is one of the reasons that gun owners who might need mental health counseling, including very significantly, police officers, avoid seeking help like the plague and try to deal with their problems secretly, and sometimes ineffectively, which sometimes leads to full-blown psychosis and awful acts because they were afraid to seek help because they would lose their jobs and careers merely by doing so.
So, the situation is much more complex than this fuckwit Newsweek reporter lets on, and the reasons for the NRA objecting to such laws, and the reason that many states themselves
refuse to participate in the program is because as written and intended to be used it is a tool and vehicle for arbitrary and unconstitutional derogation of a person's civil rights without due process of law.
That's why the NRA supports only stripping gun rights from people who have been afforded due process and been adjudicated to be mentally defective, which has been the law for a long time now.
Tests are coming Seth. You won't pass, too much anxiety.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.