The Supreme Court will decide if abusive spouses have a right to own guns
Girlparts@kbin.social to 
News@kbin.social – 46 points – 
vox.com
The justices are forced to confront the gun policy disaster that it created.
You are viewing a single comment
Girlparts@kbin.social to News@kbin.social – 46 points –
I know no one wants to hear this, but due to the fact that the current SCOTUS leans Right and the US Constitution specified that firearm ownership "Shall not be infringed", the most likely outcome will be that spouse abusers will be allowed to continue to own guns.
I don't begrudge you for saying out loud like this, but I'm not sure who was at all under the delusion that this would ever be anything other than the worst outcome possible.
Yeah I'm not holding my breath that they will do the right thing. I mean if it shall not be infringed how are felons denied the right to firearms.
The US Constitution states that you can have your constitutionally protected rights stripped by due process of the law.
not exactly what it's saying, there.
the 2a a) recognizes that a well regulated militia(*) is necessary and b) the people need to be allowed to keep arms to allow that to happen.
That's it.
* "The Militia" is probably referring to, what we could consider today to the be national guardsmen (during this time period, the 'militia' was just men of a certain age- military age. it was also common for towns to muster their own militia for the purpose of things like law enforcement.)
That said.... yeah. they're probably going to fuck up on this one too.
Conservatives never read the whole thing. They just repeat the bits they like -- like a bible.
FWIW, it also says, "the people" not "a person." When the constitution is enumerating an individual right, it typically does so with different language.
I decided to look into what the Illinois state constitution says about all this. Enshrined in said constitution is a clause which basically says that all able-bodied adults who are citizens of the State of Illinois are militia members. This is obviously to dovetail with the US Second Amendment.
So, being an able-bodied adult who is a citizen of the State of Illinois, I contacted my state representative and senators, asking what were my rights and responsibilites as a member of the Illinois state militia. One person actually called me back, but the voicemail he left was very dismissive, saying that he could look into it, if I wanted to waste his time.
This does not suggest that the "militia" in Illinois is "well regulated."
It honestly sounds like you could finagle a free annual day at the range to shoot and plink all expenses paid by daddy Illinois gov. Because a militia is obligated to train and maintain their arms to remain "in good working order" which is what the modern translation of "well regulated militia" means.
Or....once a week. I mean... you know. gotta stay sharp, in case them redcoats come back.
I would love for you to record the conversation... when you called him back and asked him to look into it. he is, after all, you're representative. you're his boss.
This was many years ago (like ... 15?), and I didn't call him back. I didn't feel that the conversation would be productive. I don't remember specifically who the rep was at the time, but for reference, Dennis Hastert was my representative when he was in office. That should tell you all you need to know about who gets elected around here.
@Flaky_Fish69
It's not a mysery, we don't need psychics or time travellers to figure out what the founders meant. James Madison kept extensive notes on the Constitutional Convention. The intent behind the 2a is in there, as well as several earlier revisions of the final wording. All the modern court rulings are insane when you understand the founders' real intent.