So I’m reading Rahimi and the conclusion I have after reading the first few pages of the opinion of the Court is that the Second Amendment is overrated. You cannot convince me that there is any credible purpose to this guy having a gun even BEFORE he shot at his girlfriend and child.
Yes yes I know not everyone shoots at girlfriends, children, random passers-by, and many others, but really WHY do we have to put up with this shit at all?
So the conservative assholes can use their armament to threaten our elected leaders because they get mad?
Sounds bad both ways.
Anyway, if you want to know why we have a domestic violence rule on guns, this is why: because people who direct violence at their girlfriends and children shouldn’t be armed with anything more dangerous than a butter knife.
Oh man I’ve come to the point in the opinion where John Roberts is going to explain that originalism doesn’t mean rules are “set in amber” but only that it means what they said in Brien, which happens to be that the rules are set in amber.
GOOD LUCK AND GOD SPEED JOHN ROBERTS.
John Roberts: somehow basically everyone applying Bruen came to the conclusion that this man had a second amendment right to a weapon? *chuckles softly*
You fools. You absolute imbeciles. We explained it already; now let me say it in different words that end up saying a completely different thing.
I just skimmed Kavanaugh’s concurrence and I feel like he needs an editor. He literally could have made this point in 4 pages, but instead there’s this wordy mess that includes a card-sized Constitution.
Kavanaugh could have written that point in zero pages, mostly because it was like “here’s my theory on the entire Constitution! I write to say, yes, Constitutions!”
By contrast, Justice Jackson says more in her first paragraphs than Kavanaugh managed in all 24 pages: I would not have joined Bruen. Bruen has been a mess in the lower courts. It was a fuck-up of an opinion, and I’ll use the word “we” but I reminded everyone in paragraph one that I wasn’t here.
Jackson’s opinion is a banger. She’s like “so can we all recognize what a fuck-up Bruen is? Nobody knows what it means. Everyone is wildly inconsistent. And lower courts trying to apply this don’t get reams of amicus filings and have no historical training. Is this maybe a sign of a bad standard?”
Oh, and now we hit Thomas.
Shorter Thomas: actually the thing the majority fails to understand is that we loved arming dangerous people in early America.
I rule that we all must die at the hands of gunmen.
Having spoken to a friend who works on Bruen progeny cases & watched her argue one, I would say that Jackson is exactly right. The standard is unworkable because it is detached from reality, and the lower courts have no hope of applying it "correctly."
Of course, "correctly" is "wait till it inevitably reaches the Supreme Court, then see which right wing asshole's turn it is to make shit up this time"
Remarkably, she isn't. She got Roberts and Kavanaugh on board for her Texas v. New Mexico water rights opinion yesterday. I have no doubt there'll be more consequential examples later on (maybe not next week).
(Please please everyone ignore that the author of Bruen is vociferously dissenting to this opinion, and raving about how Bruen doesn’t allow us to reach this result)
