In America, the recognized constitutional rights by Supreme Court
decision before being taken into police custody, at arrest, and during
trial are generally based on facts and circumstances in which the
defendant is not only not sympathetic but likely committed the crime.
Our First Amendment rights to speech exist because someone wanted to
resurrect the KKK and speech and assembly because someone else wanted to
march Neo Nazis through a village filled with Holocaust survivors.
Freedom of the press? That had to overcome prior restraint based on
claimed national security implications.
Our law protects the civil rights based on bad facts to keep those who truly are innocent from being railroaded.
Here is a video made by a guy who wants federal courts to recognize more expansive Second Amendment rights but hates that the Solicitor General
keeps trying to appeal cases on behalf of bad actors. He thinks the
current Supreme Court is unsympathetic to those convicted of felonies
and I think he's looking for more widespread public acceptance.
Reminder about the current law: Bruen (2022) is the decision that in my
opinion is complete judicial activism by Clarence Thomas because the
appellants should have won on Due Process violations. Instead, Thomas
forced historical analysis as the main consideration for all 2A cases
going forward. There are serious problems with that as there is no such
thing as complete common law and plenty of common law decisions were
written based on the obvious prejudice the judge brought to the
proceedings. Furthermore, in the days before LexusNexus and WESTLAW,
legal research was very cumbersome and lack of indexing and key words
made it terribly difficult. Precedent wasn't always followed.
In the time of the Founding, gun rights might have been taken away
temporarily from debtors, but once fines were paid and the felon had
completed his sentence, he could be armed. Thieves, though, had
different considerations in permancnes of loss of rights.
I hate the way this guy talks. He talks so fast, I misinterpreted his
argument the first time.
The video maker would prefer that the Solicitor General stop challenging
the federal prohibited persons laundry list of those without gun rights.
He thinks the current Court is so unsympathetic to those whose felony convictions actually stand up and the public doesn't want at least some
of these people to be armed.
Cockerham was the case in which a man was a prohibited person for having
a felony conviction for failure to pay child support. He never went to
prison, though, but because he could have been sentenced to two years,
he was a prohibited person. He even made up the arrears. Cockerham won
his appeal at Fifth Circuit, which made a narrow ruling that the arrears
was analogous to being a debtor, so since he made up the arrears, in the historical analysis, he would have had his rights restored.
To defend the federal statute despite political misgivings, the
Solicitor General appealled. Cert was denied.
So we are left with the two law-and-order cases. Rahimi (2024) in which
someone actually dangerous could permanently lose the right to be armed.
This asshole was about as unsympathetic as one could be. He was under a
civil order of protection barring possession of firearms. There had been multiple shootings and he'd even shot at witnesses. Temporary disarming
is constitutional given the finding of a credible threat to another's
safety.
There isn't yet a decision in Hemani, in which illegal drug users are temporarily prohibited persons.
The video maker wants Hemani to expand 2A rights. I don't get how that
follows his dislike of legal precedent being set on behalf of impure
persons. Well, you take the appeal you can get.
In any event, he's guessing that Hemani will be a very narrow ruling interpreting the statutes in question and not expanding 2A rights.
Next term, he's claiming that all of the 2A cases will involved
sympathetic law-abiding gun users. The Roberts court will uphold the
rights of the little guy? Now, if we were talking about Hobby Lobby's
gun rights, it would be an expansive ruling.
We have an expansive First Amendment based on Klingon opera, not
beautiful love sonnets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DisvpHDyedM
--- PyGate Linux v1.5.15
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)