All Things Second Amendment

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
When I apply my "charging grizzly bear" test to the concussed person, I believe that it would simply be immoral to deny the concussed person a weapon, and that even while concussed, in the case that they are being imperiled by a wild beast of some sort, we should reserve the concussed person's right to bear arms.


what if the nature of their "concussion" leads them to the paranoid, deluded belief that everyone around them, family, children, neighbors - is a threat?


I've been considering this subject while I work outside (beautiful day here :) ) in terms of dementia and the need to take away the senile person's autonomy, especially wrt driving, but also as it applies to firearms.
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
what if the nature of their "concussion" leads them to the paranoid, deluded belief that everyone around them, family, children, neighbors - is a threat?
I'd hold off if there's credible reason to think they are going to turn the gun on innocent people. Sounds like they should be confined until they either find their mind, or barring that, indefinitely.
I've been considering this subject while I work outside (beautiful day here :) ) in terms of dementia and the need to take away the senile person's autonomy, especially wrt driving, but also as it applies to firearms.
If a particular mentally handicapped person is going to likely cause a car accident, then it makes sense to deny them permission to drive a car on public roads. How to determine what "likely" means though? i d k
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
19 pages long, Justice Thomas dissenting with the Supreme Court in denying certiorari, which is legalese for whether the Court will hear a case a f a i k, to about 10 recent Second Amendment cases. Thomas writes a scholarly analysis i m o, referencing numerous Second Amendment cases heard by the Supremes, along with statutes from Old England, and a number of jurisprudential decisions in both America and in England, and concludes both that the Court should have heard at least one of these cases, and that the Second Amendment, if it does nothing else, guarantees that we can carry arms /guns openly.

It's a very good and fairly brief history lesson on the right to bear arms.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-824_2cp3.pdf

For example, right on the first page, Justice Thomas writes something that users on social media have basically been publishing for years:

This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights. And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
...Socrates’ scenario certainly prompts a question. What if a person is concussed, and not in their right mind? What then? Are we justified in infringing his right to bear arms, if he is concussed?

So on the one hand, and there are going to be three hands in this, there is what I call the war test. If we are at war with an invading army, and literally every American is a good guy unless there’s evidence to the contrary, would you in that war scenario, advocate that the person in question should be armed.
This is Ukraine's reality right now. Does anybody think that before a Ukrainian right now is permitted to "keep and bear" a gun, that they undergo any sort of "background check", or do you think it's much more likely that unless they are known criminals and mental defects, that they sure are going to be permitted to carry a gun?
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
Justice Alito concurred with Justice Thomas:

Justice Breyer in defense of his dissent said that he thought that the problem of gun violence should be solved by lawmakers and not by law courts.

I tend to agree with Breyer on this point, my disagreement with him is in his conception of the Constitution's regime here. The Supreme Court has the absolute power under the Constitution to judicial review, and so the Court's part to play as the third branch of our Constitution's regime is not to make laws, but to judge the Constitutionality of laws.

We can't have our legislatures making gun control laws repugnant to the Constitution is all. They must make only Constitutional laws. This is the bottom line of the SCOTUS's absolute power of judicial review. This is how the branches of our government balances the absolute powers in the other branches. This is how we can have absolute power in our government, without it collapsing into despotism of any kind, through the separation of powers like between the second and third branches of our government here.

The Supreme Court said to the legislature of New York (and California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc.): nono. You can't have "may issue". You must have "shall issue" gun permitting.
 
Top