Whoa

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 18, 2024

*** is wrong with these judges.

Justice Jackson Says 1st Amendment Is "Hamstringing The Government" In Efforts To Censor Speechhttps://t.co/1D0jpnggtzhttps://t.co/1D0jpnggtz

— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) March 18, 2024

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You people told us guns made us safer. You people told us an armed society is a polite society. Guns don't kill people, people do.

So what is the issue? Are you finally realizing we should vet people before giving them stopping power? Welcome to America, if you don't want to live with whack jobs carrying guns, go to Japan.

---

You are either being intentionally dishonest or you don't know the process involved with buying a firearm.

But if we must - and to the extent that gun crime is tied to immigration...our collective historical culture is part of what enable(s/d) guns to be prevalent safely. Allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter as well as the cultural change of no longer expecting immigrants to assimilate into existing culture really changes the equation.

I would also argue that technology / social media is having a similar effect in our culture with everyone, regardless of nationality. We have way less interpersonal interactions, far fewer friend networks, etc. In years past if someone was troubled they'd talk to a priest or go have beers / coffee with a friends and talk it out. That had a mitigating effect on criminality. Now people announce bad intentions on SM, grab a gun and do terrible things.

---

Minot, who is a smart guy, posted an idiotic take. The reason this is happening is not because democrats want undocumented immigrants (or anyone else) to have guns, it's because the radical right wing SCOTUS made it so.

As you are well aware, in 2022, SCOTUS ruled in Bruen that any gun regulation had to fit in with America's historical tradition of gun regs. In the case at hand the same "liberal" judge had originally ruled the person could not lawfully possess a gun and then was asked to reconsider the case post-Bruen.

Don't take my word for it, here's what a gun nut blog says. To be fair, it's not your typical gravy seal team 6 gun nuts, but more focused on "sober, serious reporting on - as well as analysis of - firearms policy and politics."

Just because SCOTUS likes to pick and choose when it takes history into account, doesn't mean you get to call me intentionally dishonest or lacking awareness of the process involved in buying a firearm. The entire purpose behind Minot posting an inaccurate inflammatory take, which was spoonfed to him through conservative ownership of social media properties, was to mislead people into thinking that having undocumented people carrying weapons is part of some democrat agenda to convey rights. Nothing could be further from the truth and I think you know it.

This ruling was a direct consequence of "our collective historical culture" and is exactly what your conservative SCOTUS (brought to you by the NRA, Leonard Leo and billionaires) wanted to happen. Don't like it? Move to a country that doesn't put guns first.

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

I would rather illegal immigrants own guns than mentally insane or violent criminals. But the second amendment protection, which addresses people (e.g., laws that do not require immigration status still protect illegal immigrants - for example, a person could not kill or rape an illegal immigrant and not be criminally prosecuted) is not conditioned upon immigration / citizenship status.

We are a nation of laws. If the second amendment is to be interpreted to allow anyone to possess guns with limited ability to conduct background checks, immigration status may not be adequately screened and second amendment rights will be interpreted broadly.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

If those drafting amendments had wanted to limit rights to only American citizens, they would have written the amendments to say "citizens" instead of "people". So, unlimited gun rights may well be biting us in the butt. Sometimes you reap what you sow.

---

When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. You got on a boat and came here. The second you stepped off the boat, you were an American (unless you were black, and then you weren't even human) or were here first (Native Americans).

Genocide Joe said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

If those drafting amendments had wanted to limit rights to only American citizens, they would have written the amendments to say "citizens" instead of "people". So, unlimited gun rights may well be biting us in the butt. Sometimes you reap what you sow.

---

When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. You got on a boat and came here. The second you stepped off the boat, you were an American (unless you were black, and then you weren't even human) or were here first (Native Americans).

---

The pilgrims were illegal immigrants.

I think the important element is that there are certain laws that apply to all people (unlawful seizure would apply to all people), certain laws that discriminate based on immigration / citizenship status (e.g., voting, ability to run for officer), and certain laws that apply only to states.

If the second amendment is intended to be interpreted broadly when it applies to all people, then it would be hard to argue that it discriminates based on immigration status.

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

If those drafting amendments had wanted to limit rights to only American citizens, they would have written the amendments to say "citizens" instead of "people". So, unlimited gun rights may well be biting us in the butt. Sometimes you reap what you sow.

---

When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. You got on a boat and came here. The second you stepped off the boat, you were an American (unless you were black, and then you weren't even human) or were here first (Native Americans).

---

The pilgrims were illegal immigrants.

---

Counselor, I look forward to you citing which law the pilgrims broke

Another Trump LOSER Peter Navarro is about to begin his 4-month prison sentence.
Hope me makes a lot of nice friends!

Two counts of criminal contempt of Congress.

Genocide Joe said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

If those drafting amendments had wanted to limit rights to only American citizens, they would have written the amendments to say "citizens" instead of "people". So, unlimited gun rights may well be biting us in the butt. Sometimes you reap what you sow.

---

When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. You got on a boat and came here. The second you stepped off the boat, you were an American (unless you were black, and then you weren't even human) or were here first (Native Americans).

---

The pilgrims were illegal immigrants.

---

Counselor, I look forward to you citing which law the pilgrims broke

---

I intended that as a joke, which failed moderately.

However, if I wanted to get technical, I believe the pilgrims violated the no foreign disease clause of the third amendment to the Native American constitution.

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

I would rather illegal immigrants own guns than mentally insane or violent criminals. But the second amendment protection, which addresses people (e.g., laws that do not require immigration status still protect illegal immigrants - for example, a person could not kill or rape an illegal immigrant and not be criminally prosecuted) is not conditioned upon immigration / citizenship status.

We are a nation of laws. If the second amendment is to be interpreted to allow anyone to possess guns with limited ability to conduct background checks, immigration status may not be adequately screened and second amendment rights will be interpreted broadly.

---

This is true. But it is probably also true that the US government likely has no way of obtaining criminal and psychiatric information about people who have lived nearly their entire lives in another country at the point of purchase.

FYI Re the background check system
- required by federal law for all purchases from gun dealers.
- nearly every state prohibits private party sales to prohibited persons
- about 1/2 the states put teeth behind that prohibition with some form of background check

The above cited case is in an Illinois Federal Court. Almost certainly the firearm purchase occurred in Illinois, in which case the background check was required regardless of private party or gun dealer transaction.

It is difficult to discuss the case without getting too in the legal weeds. Suffice to say, I see multiple probable paths within the Bruen construct where this decision easily could have easily gone the other way.

---

I agree with you 100%.

I guess my point is that the constitutional argument some folks make to protest any restraint on gun ownership would also work against their pleading that illegal immigrants should not own guns.

I see this type of speaking out of both sides of the mouth too often here., Many on the left and the right here all too often want to apply or ignore the constitution and its interpretation depending on the end result they want as opposed to the applying it consistently as a nation of laws should do. Was really a comment on lack of principles as opposed to interpretation of the case law.

calbear93 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

I would rather illegal immigrants own guns than mentally insane or violent criminals. But the second amendment protection, which addresses people (e.g., laws that do not require immigration status still protect illegal immigrants - for example, a person could not kill or rape an illegal immigrant and not be criminally prosecuted) is not conditioned upon immigration / citizenship status.

We are a nation of laws. If the second amendment is to be interpreted to allow anyone to possess guns with limited ability to conduct background checks, immigration status may not be adequately screened and second amendment rights will be interpreted broadly.

---

This is true. But it is probably also true that the US government likely has no way of obtaining criminal and psychiatric information about people who have lived nearly their entire lives in another country at the point of purchase.

FYI Re the background check system
- required by federal law for all purchases from gun dealers.
- nearly every state prohibits private party sales to prohibited persons
- about 1/2 the states put teeth behind that prohibition with some form of background check

The above cited case is in an Illinois Federal Court. Almost certainly the firearm purchase occurred in Illinois, in which case the background check was required regardless of private party or gun dealer transaction.

It is difficult to discuss the case without getting too in the legal weeds. Suffice to say, I see multiple probable paths within the Bruen construct where this decision easily could have easily gone the other way.

---

I agree with you 100%.

I guess my point is that the constitutional argument some folks make to protest any restraint on gun ownership would also work against their pleading that illegal immigrants should not own guns.

I see this type of speaking out of both sides of the mouth too often here., Many on the left and the right here all too often want to apply or ignore the constitution and its interpretation depending on the end result they want as opposed to the applying it consistently as a nation of laws should do. Was really a comment on lack of principles as opposed to interpretation of the case law.

---

Yup. The problem is that if you want to argue illegal immigrants shouldn't own guns, then you are now arguing that there SHOULD be more restrictions on gun ownership, which would seem to be a problem for the 2nd Amendment fans. Can't have it both ways here.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

I would rather illegal immigrants own guns than mentally insane or violent criminals. But the second amendment protection, which addresses people (e.g., laws that do not require immigration status still protect illegal immigrants - for example, a person could not kill or rape an illegal immigrant and not be criminally prosecuted) is not conditioned upon immigration / citizenship status.

We are a nation of laws. If the second amendment is to be interpreted to allow anyone to possess guns with limited ability to conduct background checks, immigration status may not be adequately screened and second amendment rights will be interpreted broadly.

---

This is true. But it is probably also true that the US government likely has no way of obtaining criminal and psychiatric information about people who have lived nearly their entire lives in another country at the point of purchase.

FYI Re the background check system
- required by federal law for all purchases from gun dealers.
- nearly every state prohibits private party sales to prohibited persons
- about 1/2 the states put teeth behind that prohibition with some form of background check

The above cited case is in an Illinois Federal Court. Almost certainly the firearm purchase occurred in Illinois, in which case the background check was required regardless of private party or gun dealer transaction.

It is difficult to discuss the case without getting too in the legal weeds. Suffice to say, I see multiple probable paths within the Bruen construct where this decision easily could have easily gone the other way.

---

I agree with you 100%.

I guess my point is that the constitutional argument some folks make to protest any restraint on gun ownership would also work against their pleading that illegal immigrants should not own guns.

I see this type of speaking out of both sides of the mouth too often here., Many on the left and the right here all too often want to apply or ignore the constitution and its interpretation depending on the end result they want as opposed to the applying it consistently as a nation of laws should do. Was really a comment on lack of principles as opposed to interpretation of the case law.

---

Yup. The problem is that if you want to argue illegal immigrants shouldn't own guns, then you are now arguing that there SHOULD be more restrictions on gun ownership, which would seem to be a problem for the 2nd Amendment fans. Can't have it both ways here.

---

Not MORE restrictions on gun ownership, just reasonable restrictions on such. I agree with background checks for gun purchases, and you can't do such when someone is here illegally.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

I would rather illegal immigrants own guns than mentally insane or violent criminals. But the second amendment protection, which addresses people (e.g., laws that do not require immigration status still protect illegal immigrants - for example, a person could not kill or rape an illegal immigrant and not be criminally prosecuted) is not conditioned upon immigration / citizenship status.

We are a nation of laws. If the second amendment is to be interpreted to allow anyone to possess guns with limited ability to conduct background checks, immigration status may not be adequately screened and second amendment rights will be interpreted broadly.

---

This is true. But it is probably also true that the US government likely has no way of obtaining criminal and psychiatric information about people who have lived nearly their entire lives in another country at the point of purchase.

FYI Re the background check system
- required by federal law for all purchases from gun dealers.
- nearly every state prohibits private party sales to prohibited persons
- about 1/2 the states put teeth behind that prohibition with some form of background check

The above cited case is in an Illinois Federal Court. Almost certainly the firearm purchase occurred in Illinois, in which case the background check was required regardless of private party or gun dealer transaction.

It is difficult to discuss the case without getting too in the legal weeds. Suffice to say, I see multiple probable paths within the Bruen construct where this decision easily could have easily gone the other way.

---

I agree with you 100%.

I guess my point is that the constitutional argument some folks make to protest any restraint on gun ownership would also work against their pleading that illegal immigrants should not own guns.

I see this type of speaking out of both sides of the mouth too often here., Many on the left and the right here all too often want to apply or ignore the constitution and its interpretation depending on the end result they want as opposed to the applying it consistently as a nation of laws should do. Was really a comment on lack of principles as opposed to interpretation of the case law.

---

Yup. The problem is that if you want to argue illegal immigrants shouldn't own guns, then you are now arguing that there SHOULD be more restrictions on gun ownership, which would seem to be a problem for the 2nd Amendment fans. Can't have it both ways here.

---

You have it exactly backwards. The challenged federal statute that prohibited illegal aliens from owning(?)/possessing guns has been on the books for years (well, technically, I think it has; I am not inclined to look it up). Believing Illegals should not have guns is a position that retains the volume of gun laws/restrictions exactly as they've been. The court decision eliminates an existing gun law, meaning anti-gun types are in favor of having more gun ownership.

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

If those drafting amendments had wanted to limit rights to only American citizens, they would have written the amendments to say "citizens" instead of "people". So, unlimited gun rights may well be biting us in the butt. Sometimes you reap what you sow.

---

When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. You got on a boat and came here. The second you stepped off the boat, you were an American (unless you were black, and then you weren't even human) or were here first (Native Americans).

---

The pilgrims were illegal immigrants.

---

Counselor, I look forward to you citing which law the pilgrims broke

---

I intended that as a joke, which failed moderately.

However, if I wanted to get technical, I believe the pilgrims violated the no foreign disease clause of the third amendment to the Native American constitution.

---

No. You were spot on. Remember: the pilgrims were seeking religious freedom, because back in England they dared to believe in a different version of the bedtime story from the Royally sanctioned version of the same bedtime story. This made them criminals in England if they wanted to continue practicing their beliefs as they felt their version of the story told them to.

So they traveled to the new world so they could read their story in peace, and eventually force the people who already lived in the new world to believe in the bedtime story - because these heathens had completely different and obviously heretical bedtime stories.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

I would rather illegal immigrants own guns than mentally insane or violent criminals. But the second amendment protection, which addresses people (e.g., laws that do not require immigration status still protect illegal immigrants - for example, a person could not kill or rape an illegal immigrant and not be criminally prosecuted) is not conditioned upon immigration / citizenship status.

We are a nation of laws. If the second amendment is to be interpreted to allow anyone to possess guns with limited ability to conduct background checks, immigration status may not be adequately screened and second amendment rights will be interpreted broadly.

---

This is true. But it is probably also true that the US government likely has no way of obtaining criminal and psychiatric information about people who have lived nearly their entire lives in another country at the point of purchase.

FYI Re the background check system
- required by federal law for all purchases from gun dealers.
- nearly every state prohibits private party sales to prohibited persons
- about 1/2 the states put teeth behind that prohibition with some form of background check

The above cited case is in an Illinois Federal Court. Almost certainly the firearm purchase occurred in Illinois, in which case the background check was required regardless of private party or gun dealer transaction.

It is difficult to discuss the case without getting too in the legal weeds. Suffice to say, I see multiple probable paths within the Bruen construct where this decision easily could have easily gone the other way.

---

I agree with you 100%.

I guess my point is that the constitutional argument some folks make to protest any restraint on gun ownership would also work against their pleading that illegal immigrants should not own guns.

I see this type of speaking out of both sides of the mouth too often here., Many on the left and the right here all too often want to apply or ignore the constitution and its interpretation depending on the end result they want as opposed to the applying it consistently as a nation of laws should do. Was really a comment on lack of principles as opposed to interpretation of the case law.

---

Yup. The problem is that if you want to argue illegal immigrants shouldn't own guns, then you are now arguing that there SHOULD be more restrictions on gun ownership, which would seem to be a problem for the 2nd Amendment fans. Can't have it both ways here.

---

You have it exactly backwards. The challenged federal statute that prohibited illegal aliens from owning(?)/possessing guns has been on the books for years (well, technically, I think it has; I am not inclined to look it up). Believing Illegals should not have guns is a position that retains the volume of gun laws/restrictions exactly as they've been. The court decision eliminates an existing gun law, meaning anti-gun types are in favor of having more gun ownership.

---

I think the point that is being made is that when the knee jerk desire for unfettered access to any type of guns by everyone clashes with hatred of illegal immigrants, hatred of illegal immigrants wins, and the same folks suddenly are horrified that there aren't more restrictions on gun ownership. Nothing more nuanced than that.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

I would rather illegal immigrants own guns than mentally insane or violent criminals. But the second amendment protection, which addresses people (e.g., laws that do not require immigration status still protect illegal immigrants - for example, a person could not kill or rape an illegal immigrant and not be criminally prosecuted) is not conditioned upon immigration / citizenship status.

We are a nation of laws. If the second amendment is to be interpreted to allow anyone to possess guns with limited ability to conduct background checks, immigration status may not be adequately screened and second amendment rights will be interpreted broadly.

---

This is true. But it is probably also true that the US government likely has no way of obtaining criminal and psychiatric information about people who have lived nearly their entire lives in another country at the point of purchase.

FYI Re the background check system
- required by federal law for all purchases from gun dealers.
- nearly every state prohibits private party sales to prohibited persons
- about 1/2 the states put teeth behind that prohibition with some form of background check

The above cited case is in an Illinois Federal Court. Almost certainly the firearm purchase occurred in Illinois, in which case the background check was required regardless of private party or gun dealer transaction.

It is difficult to discuss the case without getting too in the legal weeds. Suffice to say, I see multiple probable paths within the Bruen construct where this decision easily could have easily gone the other way.

---

I agree with you 100%.

I guess my point is that the constitutional argument some folks make to protest any restraint on gun ownership would also work against their pleading that illegal immigrants should not own guns.

I see this type of speaking out of both sides of the mouth too often here., Many on the left and the right here all too often want to apply or ignore the constitution and its interpretation depending on the end result they want as opposed to the applying it consistently as a nation of laws should do. Was really a comment on lack of principles as opposed to interpretation of the case law.

---

Yup. The problem is that if you want to argue illegal immigrants shouldn't own guns, then you are now arguing that there SHOULD be more restrictions on gun ownership, which would seem to be a problem for the 2nd Amendment fans. Can't have it both ways here.

---

Not MORE restrictions on gun ownership, just reasonable restrictions on such. I agree with background checks for gun purchases, and you can't do such when someone is here illegally.

---

Agreed on gun control, and also agree that we need to avoid incentivizing illegal immigration while being humane to those who are here. Difficult balancing act, but making legal immigration process smoother is a good start.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You people told us guns made us safer. You people told us an armed society is a polite society. Guns don't kill people, people do.

So what is the issue? Are you finally realizing we should vet people before giving them stopping power? Welcome to America, if you don't want to live with whack jobs carrying guns, go to Japan.

---

Excuse me, but aren't you the one who said when discussing at least the San Francisco crime rate, that rate was on the decrease, and even put up some stats to back up your statement?

Can you understand that if it is decreasing, one factor just might be that the general populace might be more armed now? There has been a sizeable increase in gun sales over the last few years, I believe. Many people have guns in their homes, solely to defend themselves and their property from break-ins. Along with guns, many of our population has put an iron gate over their outer doors, and iron bars over all their windows. If breakins are decreasing, those are the reasons. I would challenge you to drive or bike, or walk down any street in the Sunset District, a formerly extremely peaceful, district, and count the number of houses you see with no iron bars over their outside doors and 1st floor windows. On most of the streets, you can go through block after block, and not come across a single house without iron bars and gates.

The government (City, State, Federal) has de-fanged the police with all their laws and rules in favor of the criminal. And can you understand that many criminals won't attack someone if he suspects that his victim might be armed and shoot back at him? There are people, and I'd guess the number is growing, who carry a concealed weapon for protection. That could be a big part of the reason crime is down in SF, if that is true.

SFCityBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You people told us guns made us safer. You people told us an armed society is a polite society. Guns don't kill people, people do.

So what is the issue? Are you finally realizing we should vet people before giving them stopping power? Welcome to America, if you don't want to live with whack jobs carrying guns, go to Japan.

---

Excuse me, but aren't you the one who said when discussing at least the San Francisco crime rate, that rate was on the decrease, and even put up some stats to back up your statement?

Can you understand that if it is decreasing, one factor just might be that the general populace might be more armed now? There has been a sizeable increase in gun sales over the last few years, I believe. Many people have guns in their homes, solely to defend themselves and their property from break-ins. Along with guns, many of our population has put an iron gate over their outer doors, and iron bars over all their windows. If breakins are decreasing, those are the reasons. I would challenge you to drive or bike, or walk down any street in the Sunset District, a formerly extremely peaceful, district, and count the number of houses you see with no iron bars over their outside doors and 1st floor windows. On most of the streets, you can go through block after block, and not come across a single house without iron bars and gates.

The government (City, State, Federal) has de-fanged the police with all their laws and rules in favor of the criminal. And can you understand that many criminals won't attack someone if he suspects that his victim might be armed and shoot back at him? There are people, and I'd guess the number is growing, who carry a concealed weapon for protection. That could be a big part of the reason crime is down in SF, if that is true.

---

For purposes of clarity, I was being sarcastic. Of course I don't believe easy access to guns makes for a safer society.

And no, I didn't consider for even a second whether increasing gun ownership in SF might be leading to lower crimes. Mostly because it's obviously not true and no one has ever suggested such a thing. If you have evidence of increased gun ownership in SF and some connection to the continuing crime reduction, please share with the class.

calbear93 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

I would rather illegal immigrants own guns than mentally insane or violent criminals. But the second amendment protection, which addresses people (e.g., laws that do not require immigration status still protect illegal immigrants - for example, a person could not kill or rape an illegal immigrant and not be criminally prosecuted) is not conditioned upon immigration / citizenship status.

We are a nation of laws. If the second amendment is to be interpreted to allow anyone to possess guns with limited ability to conduct background checks, immigration status may not be adequately screened and second amendment rights will be interpreted broadly.

---

This is true. But it is probably also true that the US government likely has no way of obtaining criminal and psychiatric information about people who have lived nearly their entire lives in another country at the point of purchase.

FYI Re the background check system
- required by federal law for all purchases from gun dealers.
- nearly every state prohibits private party sales to prohibited persons
- about 1/2 the states put teeth behind that prohibition with some form of background check

The above cited case is in an Illinois Federal Court. Almost certainly the firearm purchase occurred in Illinois, in which case the background check was required regardless of private party or gun dealer transaction.

It is difficult to discuss the case without getting too in the legal weeds. Suffice to say, I see multiple probable paths within the Bruen construct where this decision easily could have easily gone the other way.

---

I agree with you 100%.

I guess my point is that the constitutional argument some folks make to protest any restraint on gun ownership would also work against their pleading that illegal immigrants should not own guns.

I see this type of speaking out of both sides of the mouth too often here., Many on the left and the right here all too often want to apply or ignore the constitution and its interpretation depending on the end result they want as opposed to the applying it consistently as a nation of laws should do. Was really a comment on lack of principles as opposed to interpretation of the case law.

---

Yup. The problem is that if you want to argue illegal immigrants shouldn't own guns, then you are now arguing that there SHOULD be more restrictions on gun ownership, which would seem to be a problem for the 2nd Amendment fans. Can't have it both ways here.

---

Not MORE restrictions on gun ownership, just reasonable restrictions on such. I agree with background checks for gun purchases, and you can't do such when someone is here illegally.

---

Agreed on gun control, and also agree that we need to avoid incentivizing illegal immigration while being humane to those who are here. Difficult balancing act, but making legal immigration process smoother is a good start.

---

It is hard to make the immigration process smoother when the only "immigration" bill provides 5x as much money to causes unrelated to immigration (Ukraine, Gaza) as opposed to providing that money to immigration while an old man yells at clouds and tries to dupe the American people.

calbear93 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

I would rather illegal immigrants own guns than mentally insane or violent criminals. But the second amendment protection, which addresses people (e.g., laws that do not require immigration status still protect illegal immigrants - for example, a person could not kill or rape an illegal immigrant and not be criminally prosecuted) is not conditioned upon immigration / citizenship status.

We are a nation of laws. If the second amendment is to be interpreted to allow anyone to possess guns with limited ability to conduct background checks, immigration status may not be adequately screened and second amendment rights will be interpreted broadly.

---

This is true. But it is probably also true that the US government likely has no way of obtaining criminal and psychiatric information about people who have lived nearly their entire lives in another country at the point of purchase.

FYI Re the background check system
- required by federal law for all purchases from gun dealers.
- nearly every state prohibits private party sales to prohibited persons
- about 1/2 the states put teeth behind that prohibition with some form of background check

The above cited case is in an Illinois Federal Court. Almost certainly the firearm purchase occurred in Illinois, in which case the background check was required regardless of private party or gun dealer transaction.

It is difficult to discuss the case without getting too in the legal weeds. Suffice to say, I see multiple probable paths within the Bruen construct where this decision easily could have easily gone the other way.

---

I agree with you 100%.

I guess my point is that the constitutional argument some folks make to protest any restraint on gun ownership would also work against their pleading that illegal immigrants should not own guns.

I see this type of speaking out of both sides of the mouth too often here., Many on the left and the right here all too often want to apply or ignore the constitution and its interpretation depending on the end result they want as opposed to the applying it consistently as a nation of laws should do. Was really a comment on lack of principles as opposed to interpretation of the case law.

---

I mean, it's all just made up. For example, we can probably all agree that it's reasonable for us to prevent unstable and dangerous people from owning firearms, but that's not what the constitution says and under a common sense read of the Bruen test, we would be done. But rather than do that, the courts rely on dicta from Scalia's opinion in Heller. Had he not said what he said (which wasn't super relevant to the holding of that case), Bruen would arguably impede a large number of restrictions which pretty much all reasonable people would agree.

But since it's all made up, none of this really matters. The law is what SCOTUS say it is and that is something that changes when they feel like changing it. Stare decisis and stability used to have some value to SCOTUS but now they look to cherry-picked interpretations of laws/common practice from the founding of the country, while alternatively ignoring or respecting anything that's happened in the last few centuries depending on how it maps to their pre-existing beliefs.

Here's a good take:

Quote:

---

Writing for the court in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia had described that right as belonging to "law-abiding, responsible citizens." He also added that the majority's ruling wasn't intended to cast doubt on "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." This broad language allowed numerous gun restrictions to survive Second Amendment challenges in the decade between Heller and Bruen.

Gould had argued that this portion of Heller amounted to dicta, a legal term for nonbinding commentary in a judicial opinion that doesn't form part of the actual ruling. Johnston rejected that claim and the argument that Bruen had overridden Scalia's exceptions in Heller. "Importantly, the Bruen Court characterized its decision as 'making the constitutional standard endorsed in Heller more explicit,'not abrogating or overturning it," Johnston noted.

When it came to Bruen's testfinding historical analogues to justify modern restrictionsJohnston acknowledged that there are no directly comparable laws from the founding era. The implied reason is that Americans have a much better understanding of mental illness in the twenty-first century than in that era. So Johnston noted that early Americans often imposed even harsher restrictions on people with mental illnesses, meaning that lesser ones like gun restrictions would have been acceptable, and that early American legislatures often banned ownership for those deemed "dangerous" at the time.

"As this court explained, 'history is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,'" Johnston wrote, quoting from another recent opinion on gun rights from the district court where he serves. "And 'common sense tells us that the public understanding of the Second Amendment at the time of its enactment, which allowed for disarmament of Blacks and Native Americans based on their perceived threat, would have accepted disarmament of people' who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution because they were part of 'a group found by the legislative branch to present a danger of misusing firearms.'"

---

Do we really think this is anything other than working backwards from the outcome they wanted to achieve?

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

And the losers that stormed our Capitol assaulting 143 police officers are called HOSTAGES and PATRIOTS.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

A foreign army invading the USA is now just "Refugees seeking redress of grievances"

---

I would rather illegal immigrants own guns than mentally insane or violent criminals. But the second amendment protection, which addresses people (e.g., laws that do not require immigration status still protect illegal immigrants - for example, a person could not kill or rape an illegal immigrant and not be criminally prosecuted) is not conditioned upon immigration / citizenship status.

We are a nation of laws. If the second amendment is to be interpreted to allow anyone to possess guns with limited ability to conduct background checks, immigration status may not be adequately screened and second amendment rights will be interpreted broadly.

---

This is true. But it is probably also true that the US government likely has no way of obtaining criminal and psychiatric information about people who have lived nearly their entire lives in another country at the point of purchase.

FYI Re the background check system
- required by federal law for all purchases from gun dealers.
- nearly every state prohibits private party sales to prohibited persons
- about 1/2 the states put teeth behind that prohibition with some form of background check

The above cited case is in an Illinois Federal Court. Almost certainly the firearm purchase occurred in Illinois, in which case the background check was required regardless of private party or gun dealer transaction.

It is difficult to discuss the case without getting too in the legal weeds. Suffice to say, I see multiple probable paths within the Bruen construct where this decision easily could have easily gone the other way.

---

I agree with you 100%.

I guess my point is that the constitutional argument some folks make to protest any restraint on gun ownership would also work against their pleading that illegal immigrants should not own guns.

I see this type of speaking out of both sides of the mouth too often here., Many on the left and the right here all too often want to apply or ignore the constitution and its interpretation depending on the end result they want as opposed to the applying it consistently as a nation of laws should do. Was really a comment on lack of principles as opposed to interpretation of the case law.

---

I mean, it's all just made up. For example, we can probably all agree that it's reasonable for us to prevent unstable and dangerous people from owning firearms, but that's not what the constitution says and under a common sense read of the Bruen test, we would be done. But rather than do that, the courts rely on dicta from Scalia's opinion in Heller. Had he not said what he said (which wasn't super relevant to the holding of that case), Bruen would arguably impede a large number of restrictions which pretty much all reasonable people would agree.

But since it's all made up, none of this really matters. The law is what SCOTUS say it is and that is something that changes when they feel like changing it. Stare decisis and stability used to have some value to SCOTUS but now they look to cherry-picked interpretations of laws/common practice from the founding of the country, while alternatively ignoring or respecting anything that's happened in the last few centuries depending on how it maps to their pre-existing beliefs.

Here's a good take:

Quote:

---

Writing for the court in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia had described that right as belonging to "law-abiding, responsible citizens." He also added that the majority's ruling wasn't intended to cast doubt on "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." This broad language allowed numerous gun restrictions to survive Second Amendment challenges in the decade between Heller and Bruen.

Gould had argued that this portion of Heller amounted to dicta, a legal term for nonbinding commentary in a judicial opinion that doesn't form part of the actual ruling. Johnston rejected that claim and the argument that Bruen had overridden Scalia's exceptions in Heller. "Importantly, the Bruen Court characterized its decision as 'making the constitutional standard endorsed in Heller more explicit,'not abrogating or overturning it," Johnston noted.

When it came to Bruen's testfinding historical analogues to justify modern restrictionsJohnston acknowledged that there are no directly comparable laws from the founding era. The implied reason is that Americans have a much better understanding of mental illness in the twenty-first century than in that era. So Johnston noted that early Americans often imposed even harsher restrictions on people with mental illnesses, meaning that lesser ones like gun restrictions would have been acceptable, and that early American legislatures often banned ownership for those deemed "dangerous" at the time.

"As this court explained, 'history is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,'" Johnston wrote, quoting from another recent opinion on gun rights from the district court where he serves. "And 'common sense tells us that the public understanding of the Second Amendment at the time of its enactment, which allowed for disarmament of Blacks and Native Americans based on their perceived threat, would have accepted disarmament of people' who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution because they were part of 'a group found by the legislative branch to present a danger of misusing firearms.'"

---

Do we really think this is anything other than working backwards from the outcome they wanted to achieve?

---

I could easily be misremembering it but my recollection is that nothing within a majority opinion is dicta; by definition it's the opposite of dicta.

For those with insomnia, read Bruen. IIRC Heller explicitly said it was not using Rational Basis/Strict Scrutiny/Intermediate Scrutiny for the 2nd Am cases. It basically offered no guidance and essentially said "we are deciding this specific issue only, we will get back to you with more guidance as new cases come to us." Bruen's notes discuss that lower courts were using some of those prohibited tests for 2nd Am cases. The Historical test can be seen as a construct to correct the lower courts and give the promised post Heller extra legal guidance.

FWIW Bruen also includes pretty clear direction for how to evaluate Historical precedent. One prong of that test includes looking for corollary laws where a modern law couldn't exist in the founder's times. The prosecution in the illegal alien case pointed to laws that disallowed British citizens (or was it former soldiers?) from possessing guns as evidence that there is historical precedent for prohibiting "undesirabbles" from owning guns. The court distinguished that historical parallel because the old law allowed the British subject to swear loyalty to the US whereas the current immigration law offers no such option. That is a pretty curious basis for the court to reach its decision; one that starts to look like it was searching for a justification for a predetermined result.

Sports Illustrated gets a new life liine as a new Publisher steps up and purchases the license.
10-year deal with Minute Media.

Sports Illustrated to live on, now with new publisher in tow - CBS News

movielover said:

---

Sacramento has approved a plan to give low-income Black and Native American families $725 a month, no strings attached

Caucasian poor need not apply.

---

It was approved by Sacramento COUNTY Board of Supervisors.

Duh.