The opinion is United States v. Chester, just decided today.
We cannot conclude on this record that the government has carried its burden of establishing a reasonable fit between the important object of reducing domestic gun violence and § 922(g)(9)’s permanent disarmament of all domestic violence misdemeanants. The government has offered numerous plausible reasons why the disarmament of domestic violence misdemeanants is substantially related to an important government goal; however, it has not attempted to offer sufficient evidence to establish a substantial relationship between § 922(g)(9) and an important governmental goal. Having established the appropriate standard of review, we think it best to remand this case to afford the government an opportunity to shoulder its burden and Chester an opportunity to respond. Both sides should have an opportunity to present their evidence and their arguments to the district court in the first instance.I think those government lawyers better get their act together and prove their case. What do you think?
Please leave a comment.
They lost any credibility at:ReplyDelete
(1) Historically accepted exceptions to gun rights (at least ones accepted as of the Framing, and perhaps some more) are constitutional.
Bollocks has made a cottage industry of revisionist history concerning the Second Amendment, which this is a glaring example. The debate was "how is our militia to be armed?" in relation to the Federal Militia powers given in Articles I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16.
I doubt he could provide actual citations to the debates which would contradict that point and point to gun rights existing outside of the militia context.
Of course, the mindless fail to ask why the concept of gun rights only exists in the US even though this tradition runs throughout the British influenced world.
Anyway, Bollocks calls himself Russian even though he was born in Kiev--which is the Capital of the Ukraine.
Explains his ignorance of Constitutional law even of his former nationality that allowed for similar "gun rights" under Article 63 of the Constitution:
Military service in the ranks of the Armed Forces of the USSR is an honorable duty of Soviet citizens.
The Dude's never actually practised law as I understand it, but he influences lawyers too stupid to think for themselves.
Add in Article 62 of the Soviet Constitution as well:ReplyDelete
Citizens of the USSR are obliged to safeguard the interests of the Soviet state, and to enhance its power and prestige.
Defence of the Socialist Motherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the USSR.
Betrayal of the Motherland is the gravest of crimes against the people.
Anyway, if you want to talk about personal gun rights at the time of the Constitution's drafting, the only texts which hint at a "personal right" are like this one from the Pennsylvania Minority:
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
That pretty much show the concern was for the militia and civilian control over the military, but even the right that did exist allowed for the right to be infringed "real danger of public injury from individuals."
Yep, those government lawyers need to get their shit together and do some real research on the Second Amendment's history and not listen to a load of Bollocks.
Laci = professional dead horse beater.ReplyDelete
I understand that you are disappointed that your revisionist collective rights theory that has been somewhat popular since the 1970's has been shot down by SCOTUS but now you are calling on the charter of a dead commie government to make your point? Which is?
My idea is the Supreme Court made a couple of wacky decisions which fifty years from now will be looked upon like Dred Scott.ReplyDelete
And, isn't "beating a dead horse" meant to refer to someone whose argument has already won?