Guns

[Editorial]

The Lewiston murders there were signs that the person was mentally unstable, but Maine laws made it hard to do anything about it.

The Republican mantra is “Keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.” to that end Connecticut was one of the first states to pass what is called a “Red Flag” law and now those laws are being challenged in court.

A blockbuster gun rights case lands at the Supreme Court. Here are three justices to watch.
The controversial case tests the limits of a blockbuster Second Amendment decision that requires gun prohibitions to be grounded in the nation's history.
USA Today
By John Fritze
November 6, 2023

With the nation reeling from the deadliest mass shooting of the year, the Supreme Court this week will hash out a Second Amendment dispute that could have enormous consequences for victims of domestic violence.

On Tuesday, the court will hear oral arguments about a law banning people who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order from owning a gun. Studies indicate that women are five times more likely to die from domestic violence if a gun is present.

The case centers on a Texas man involved in five shootings between 2020 and 2021 who pleaded guilty to a federal crime: possessing a firearm despite being the subject of a domestic violence restraining order. His appeal to the Supreme Court could have sweeping implications for other gun prohibitions.

That's because his attorneys are relying on a blockbuster Supreme Court decision from just over a year ago to challenge the constitutionality of the federal law he was charged with violating. In that case, the court ruled that gun regulations must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" to survive court challenges. Justice Stephen Breyer, who has since retired, noted a study in his dissent about the increased risk for domestic violence victims when guns are present.

Stop right there!!!!!

"Consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" what that is suppose to mean?

Does that mean only muskets are allowed?

Does that mean the laws before the Reagan court struck the guns laws down?

To me it sounds like the justices think we are living in the 1700s.

The encyclopedia Britannica says,

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939).

And from there gun rights advocates had a field day with bring gun cases to court to where are today.
AP News wrote;

Why one survivor of domestic violence wants the Supreme Court to uphold a gun control law
By MARK SHERMAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST
November 6, 2023

Ruth Glenn knows from harrowing personal experience the danger of putting a gun in the hands of a violent spouse or partner, the issue at the heart of a case before the Supreme Court.

On a beautiful June evening in 1992, Glenn was shot three times, twice in the head, and left for dead outside a Denver car wash.

The shooter was her estranged husband, Cedric, who was under a court order to stay away from Glenn. But there was no federal law on the books at the time that prohibited him from having a gun.

[…]

The high court is hearing arguments Tuesday in a challenge to the 1994 law. The closely watched case is the first one involving guns to reach the justices since their landmark Bruen decision last year expanded gun rights and changed the way courts evaluate whether restrictions on firearms violate the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.”

Glenn, the president of Survivor Justice Action, is allied with gun control groups that are backing the Biden administration’s defense of the law.

Gun rights organizations are supporting Zackey Rahimi, the Texas man whose challenge to the law led to the Supreme Court case.

Question: Conservatives say we have to keep the guns out of mentally ill people then we are they supporting the overturning of “Red Flag” laws?

But supporters of Rahimi said the appeals court got it right when it looked at American history and found no restriction close enough to justify the gun ban.

They also object to the hearing process under which restraining orders can be issued as insufficiently protective of the rights of people like Rahimi.

I thinks that they talk out of both sides of their mouths, they are saying we have to keep guns out of the mentally ill people hands but on the other side they are trying to get those laws thrown out!

In another AP article…

Abuse victims say gun surrender laws save lives. Will the Supreme Court agree?
By MARYCLAIRE DALE
October 31, 2023

As Janet Paulsen prepared to leave her husband, who had become increasingly volatile over their 15-year marriage, she slipped down to his gun safes one night while he slept to try to change the combination locks.

“There were 74 firearms in my house,” said Paulsen, who was stunned by how many guns she found, but could not figure out how to change the codes. “When I went to get my protection order, I brought pictures of all of those firearms with me.”

Georgia, where she lives, is not among the 21 states with gun surrender laws that can force people to relinquish their weapons while they are deemed a risk to themselves or others. So Paulsen’s husband, whom she accused of threatening and erratic behavior, was only ordered to stay away from her and their 13-year-old twin boys until a court hearing.

[…]

“It took me five years to get up the courage to divorce him, because I knew I would pay a price. And you know what happened when I did? He shot me,” said Paulsen, 53, a former property manager and endurance athlete who was left partially paralyzed in the 2015 shooting.

And that is what the conservatives want to over turn!

If Paulsen endured those threats in Seattle today, not only would her husband’s cache of weapons be moved to police storage, a judge would hold a hearing within days to grill him about his access to other firearms. Does anyone else in your family have a weapon? Do you have access to guns at work? What happened to the gun listed in your firearms purchase history?

A federal appeals court, in a Texas case, deemed the practice unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the issue on Nov. 7 — but no one knows if it’s to overturn the Fifth Circuit ruling or double down on it.

And the court case is having a chilling effect in other states as they try to pass “Red Flag” laws.

Meanwhile, some state courts are loosening firearm bans for other reasons. Gun surrender orders are on hold in at least five counties in Washington after a state appeals court said they violated a man’s Fourth Amendment right protecting individuals from improper search and seizures and Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

That worries advocates who point to new data that show gun seizures could reduce the nation’s 2,500 or more annual domestic violence deaths — more than half of which involve guns — by 10% or more. The most dangerous time for victims is when they try to leave a relationship, long before their abuser would be convicted of anything.

The next time you hear a Republican politician say we have to keep guns out of mentally ill people asked them about “Red Flag” laws if he is in favor of the Supreme Court overturning the laws?

 

---

The other gun case that is going to the Supreme Court… Bump stocks.

Do you know what they are? They are a conversion kit that converts a semi-automatic weapon to a fully-automatic weapon.

Supreme Court will rule on ban on rapid-fire gun bump stocks, used in the Las Vegas mass shooting
AP News
By MARK SHERMAN
November 3, 2023

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether a Trump era-ban on bump stocks, the gun attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, violates federal law.

The justices will hear arguments early next year over a regulation put in place by the Justice Department after a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.

Federal appeals courts have come to different decisions about whether the regulation defining a bump stock as a machine gun comports with federal law.

[…]

The new case is not about the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms,” but rather whether the Trump administration followed federal law in changing the bump stock regulation.

The ban on bump stocks took effect in 2019. It stemmed from the Las Vegas shooting in which the gunman, a 64-year-old retired postal service worker and high-stakes gambler, used assault-style rifles to fire more than 1,000 rounds in 11 minutes into a crowd of 22,000 music fans.

It is my right to have automatic weapons!!!!! That is the rallying cry of the far-right.

“The definition of ‘machinegun’ as set forth in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote for the 5th Circuit.

But a panel of three judges on the federal appeals court in Washington looked at the same language and came to a different conclusion.

Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that “under the best interpretation of the statute, a bump stock is a self-regulating mechanism that allows a shooter to shoot more than one shot through a single pull of the trigger. As such, it is a machine gun under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act.”

The New Republic magazine wrote,

The NFA also provided the first and current legal definition of what counts as a machine gun. Congress defined one as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” The full definition also covered any components that can be used to easily build a machine gun, as well as “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun.”

Judge Jennifer Walker Elrodwas appointed by President George W. Bush.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which is responsible for the NFA machine-gun registry, had previously concluded that some bump stocks did not fall under the law’s definition of machine-gun parts. After the Las Vegas shooting, however, it changed course as the devices came under considerable criticism and scrutiny. Even the National Rifle Association said after the shooting that it believed that bump stocks should be “subject to additional regulations.” The new ATF rule, which defined all bump stocks as machine-gun parts, went into effect in 2018.

And this is why the case is before the Supreme Court.

 

My guess is that the court will let stand the bump stock Executive Order and the "Red Flag" is any bodies guess.

[/Editorial]