The Dims, with their compliant Repugnant cronies, have developed a new source of green, renewable energy.
Slip a generator drive belt around spinning-in-his-grave James Madison.
For one-hundred ninety-two years, there was no general precedent for disarming a class of people, other than some discriminatory and racist laws banning the arming of Blacks and Indians, and the occasional religious group; I hope no one wants to bring that back. But I’m not too sure.
Even criminals would only have their Second Amendment right to arms restricted during apprehension and detention. Once their sentence was complete, and they were released from prison, they were again free to exercise that right, unless and until they committed another crime. If they remained “law-abiding” thereafter, they could buy and possess firearms.
Fifty-four years ago — upsetting nearly two centuries of tradition — that changed with the Gun Control Act of 1968. Felons — those convicted of crimes with a potential sentence in excess of one year — lost their 2A rights for life, retroactively; in short, any felony conviction came with a life sentence.
At best, a previously convicted felon, with a clean record thereafter, could beg to have his 2A rights restored. Contrast that with the common post-incarceration practice of automatically restoring a felon’s right to vote, upon completion of sentence.
Two rights which the Supreme Court says are fundamental, constitutional, individual rights, are treated differently.
But somehow this is perfectly acceptable to many because that loss of rights doesn’t affect the “law-abiding;” only “criminals” past and present.
Until 1994, when America abandoned centuries of presumed innocence jurisprudence. The instant a “law-abiding” person walks into a gun store with the intent of purchasing a firearm she becomes a presumed felon. She must then preemptively prove her innocence with a background check… and pay for the dubious privilege.
Oddly enough, too many, that presumption of guilt of “law-abiding” people is still acceptable, because it’s only a right denied for a few business days. What could possibly go wrong in a few days?
In 1997, the powers that be decided that, in addition to being “presumed felons,” would-be gun buyers were also presumed to be wife beaters, or other domestic violence offender. Until that background check — at your expense — proved otherwise.
For two centuries, Americans thought that anyone who could trusted to walk around free, could be trusted with a gun. Then America decided that those who committed serious crimes could no longer be trusted at all… except to vote. Then we upped the ante, and those who committed minor crimes that didn’t warrant lengthy detention, or no detention, were likewise untrustworthy… except to vote.
And you, despite never being arrested or convicted for anything, are one of those untrusted criminal until you pay to prove otherwise.
And it’s still cool, because wife beaters bad, eh?
Fast forward to 2022, when we “wisely” decided to expand the definition of domestic violence to include “dating partner,” defined so vaguely that no knows what it means until courts tell us.
And to some it’s still all good, because wife/SO/girlfriend/date beaters bad, eh?
If only that were all that “domestic violence” encompassed.
Have you ever been trolled and harassed on social media by some girl you dated? She’s a domestic violence offender. Twitter trolling is annoying, but it hardly seems worth depriving someone of her fundamental, constitutional, individual rights for life. Just block her.
Imagine James Madison hearing about what we’ve done to the Bill of Rights in the 21st century.
You deprive citizens of their god-given right to arms for mean letters?
Hang on, Jimmy. It got worse than that; and King George would have been proud of this one.
Assuming everyone is a criminal, not “law-abiding,” until they can prove their innocence wasn’t quite enough. We now have something called red flag laws.
Now, Mr. Madison, you might think that it’s a bit contrary to the quaint 18th century notions of your Bill of Rights, but these days a person can go to the courts and say that you might do something. In the future. The judge can then schedule a hearing. You hire, at your own expense, a lawyer and go to that hearing and tell the judge that are not going to do something criminal in the future. If the judge finds this pre-crime accusation credible, you lose your fundamental, constitutional, individual Second Amendment rights. If the credible threat was bad enough, the judge might issue a warrant for your arrest; you being so dangerous that they can’t let you run around loose, at least until the docs check you out.
And that’s not a red flag law; that’s what our degenerate court have already been doing. It sucks, but since you get a hearing before you lose your rights, they call that “due process.”
I know, Jim, I know. But save your rage for the next part. It gets far worse.
Red flag laws, allegedly being for “emergencies,” dispense with the court hearing before your rights and guns are taken. “Due process” get redefined as “We’ll schedule a hearing for a few weeks after we take your guns, and tell you about it when we take them.” The very point of red flag laws is to not let the subject have a hint that something is up. But it leaves the accused — probably pretty angry now — free.
Say, didn’t y’all shoot some government agents when they tried to confiscate arms without notice?
That red flag order gets entered into NICS so future-evil you can’t buy replacement guns.
If a good “law-abiding” citizen wants to walk into a gun store and buy a gun, he doesn’t merely need to prove that he’s not a felon, not a misdemeanor domestic violence offender, not a Twitter troll…
…but that he isn’t going to do bad things in the future.
The federal government is going to pay the States to implement red flag laws.
Sounds a bit like the Intolerable Acts, doesn’t it, Mr. Madison?
Now, Mr. Madison, for the punch line. What; you thought I was done?
Red flag laws, the domestic violence offender expansion (and much more) were passed just days after the Supreme Court issued a decision explicitly stating that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, constitutional right that is not subject to restrictions merely for an alleged “compelling government interest.”
Outraged howler monkeys inside and out of government immediately declared the Supreme Court to be illegitimate, and their intent to violate the Second Amendment anyway. And passed S.2938.
(More Tip Jar Options) |
