Good news - Wife beaters can get guns - Supremes base it on 1791 law

[packman]

Last edited Sat Feb 4, 2023, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

A man beating his wife was legal across the United States until 1871, when Alabama and Massachusetts banned it. That fact has new relevance in today’s gun laws thanks to the Supreme Court.

Following the logic of Justice Clarence Thomas’ 2022 opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a federal law banning the sale of guns to people subject to restraining orders in domestic violence cases. In striking down a New York law requiring proper cause for concealed handgun permits, Thomas explained that the law was illegitimate because it was not “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In other words, if there was no such law in 1791, it’s unconstitutional now.

https://crooksandliars.com/2023/02/5th-circuit-wife-beaters-can-own-guns-wife

Wonder why they stopped at 1791 ??

Shit - I'd laff if it wasn't so damn dumb

[The Unmitigated Gall]

1. Well hell, why stop at 1791?

There's some REAL good shit to cite in the Maleus Maleficarum.

Revanchist motherfuckers are getting lazy.

[Igel]

13. Because that's when the Constitution was approved.

It's like basing a free-speech case on the 1A. You're using a law from 1791.

Due process? 1791.

Don't want the military billeted in your living room? 1791.

In other words, the title is trolling.

[ck4829]

2. Now it's time for the fifth circuit to enforce it.

[NowISeetheLight]

3. Rights?

Did women have any rights at all back then? I seem to believe that they were subservient handmaids to their husbands will, and nothing more. If I’m wrong please correct me.

[old as dirt]

4. For reference, the 19th Amendment was enacted in 1920. (nt)

[MissMillie]

5. Well, abortion was legal too... but you know settled law only applies to the rights of men (n/t)

.

[Turbineguy]

6. Then they can stop being wife beaters

and become wife killers. That's a promotion.

Don't let your daughters grow up to marry republicans.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. By logical extension, the 2nd Amendment only applies to firearms available in 1791.

[milestogo]

8. THEY HATE WOMEN.

[ForgedCrank]

9. I believe

the issue is that one can get a protective order against someone even when they have not been charged with or convicted of any crime.
That leaves open the possibility of denying someone a protected right without a solid foundation.
We also can't start requiring a conviction in order for women to get a protective order, that would be even worse.

[Chainfire]

10. On the form that has to be filled out for a firearm purchase from an FFL

Question "E" on the form asks if you are a user of Marijuana and warns you that regardless of state laws, Marijuana use is illegal under Federal Law. Marijuana became illegal under Federal law in 1951!

So we will allow known domestic abusers to purchase firearms, but not a cancer sufferer who uses pot?

The logic of the court is just seriously flawed.

[edhopper]

11. In that case

why is Thomas a free man?

[Sky Jewels]

12. The right's War on Women must continue on.

After all, some of us females are still breathing.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

14. Blame Bruen and the state of New York. If they had just backed down instead of going to the

Supreme Court, this wouldn't be happening.