It looks like 7 Justices will at least partially walk back Bruen

[Samm]

@biggestal99

@Samm

Your lack of logic and reasoning is stunning,

i post facts and my lack of logic is stunning.lol.

We have had this conversation before Allan. Citing facts does not in itself constitute either logic or reasoning. So yes, in the face of facts, your lack of logic and reasoning is stunning.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@biggestal99

@conan

Problem is we all know you won’t stop there.

so the problem is where to draw the line with red flag laws.

Allan

Oh there’s a lot more wrong with red-flag laws.

Like there’s no punishment for filing a false report, to begin with.

[biggestal99]

@Samm

Citing facts does not in itself constitute either logic or reasoning.

i disagree. facts in posts are indeed logical in my way of thinking.

Allan

[Samm]

Key words there, “… in my way of thinking.”

Facts are meaningless if you can’t connect the dots. Your fact sheet looks like a target shot with buckshot at 50 yards.

[biggestal99]

@Samm

Facts are meaningless if you can’t connect the dots

facts are never meaningless.

Allan

[Smyrna]

@Samm

Your lack of logic and reasoning is stunning,

He reminds me of an old song. Feeeeelings…da, da, da, da, daaaa…nothing more than feelings

[Samm]

@biggestal99

@Samm

Facts are meaningless if you can’t connect the dots

facts are never meaningless.

Not a fact.

[Samm]

@Smyrna

@Samm

Your lack of logic and reasoning is stunning,

He reminds me of an old song. Feeeeelings…da, da, da, da, daaaa…nothing more than feelings

And random feelings at that.

[Smyrna]

@Samm

And random feelings at that.

His intentions are good but…

[STODR]

It is like being in the military. A minority could make a false claim against someone but no consequences. Why, because they didn’t want to deter actual real complaints.

[Safiel]

I was wrong.

It was 8 Justices.

United States v. Rahimi - SCOTUSblog

Only Justice Thomas dissented.

[Ben_Natuf]

is irrelevant to the right

[WuWei]

There are some problems with the wording of that holding.

[Safiel]

@WuWei

There are some problems with the wording of that holding.

Still reading and analyzing the ruling.

I will say I am shocked that Alito broke with Thomas on this.

[WuWei]

Government always wants a monopoly of force.

They did exactly what they criticize lower courts for frequently.

[EternalVigilance]

@Smyrna

That is common sense and a good thing but who determines who is “dangerous” is where the government overreach vs the 2nd has the potential to come into play?

It will be defined as “people who don’t vote Democrat.”

[WuWei]

@Smyrna

@Safiel

disarm dangerous people

That is common sense and a good thing but who determines who is “dangerous” is where the government overreach vs the 2nd has the potential to come into play? Give up an inch and will they then push for a mile? Once again it all boils down to risk/reward.

And “temporarily”

[biggestal99]

5th reversed once again.

who knew?

common sense previals.

Allan

[biggestal99]

@Safiel

I will say I am shocked that Alito broke with Thomas on this.

even alito aint this stupid.

Allan

[biggestal99]

@biggestal99

5th reversed once again

from the opinion.

“(4) The Fifth Circuit erred in reading Bruen to require a “histori- cal twin” rather than a “historical analogue.” 597 U. S., at 30. The panel also misapplied the Court’s precedents when evaluating Rahimi’s facial challenge. Rather than consider the circumstances in which Section 922(g)(8) was most likely to be constitutional, the panel instead focused on hypothetical scenarios where the provision might raise constitutional concerns. P. 16.”

Allan