Hoorah for the 6th USCC of Appeals - RKBA relief from disabilities

I finally had a chance to read this opinion over the weekend and then checked to see if there had been a thread on it...or if I had looked and couldn't remember.

It was an interesting opinion. I was rally surprised at the consternation they had with Intermediate vs Strict Scrutiny and which would apply here. They took 16 pages of a 48 page opinion to rationalize which one to use. I was glad they decided on strict. I believe their path to this conclusion will set the stage for more applied usage of strict, especially within the 2A realms.

I believe this was a very narrow decision, but eventually have bigger implications, especially when case comes through for a felon; i.e. violent vs non-violent. It could also very well open the door for evaluation of the 18-20 exclusion in purchasing a handgun. Only time will tell.

davidmcbeth said:

The libs will just say that anyone who even wants a gun has some mental defect....

Click to expand...

I've seen them attempt to apply this to all military veterans, as well as anyone who disagrees with them. In my estimation, that line of thinking is itself mentally defective.

Getting back on track:

Grapeshot said:

Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

In the first legal ruling of its type, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Thursday deemed unconstitutional a federal law that kept a Michigan man who was briefly committed to a mental institution decades ago from owning a gun.

A three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of Clifford Charles Tyler, a 73-year-old Hillsdale County man.

Click to expand...

Outstanding!

However, I still there's room for the very small group of people who, if they ever encountered a firearm might pick it up and shoot themselves or others without any understanding of the consequences. Clearly, they shouldn't be left alone, but in reality, some are on the streets. If one walks into a gun store, do you really want them buying a firearm?

I'm thankful for the ruling, as it appears to negate the blanket and rampant power of psych docs to disarm people who may have issues, but the safe and effective ownership, handling, and employment of a firearm isn't one of them.

Could there... or even should there be a specific class available in order to keep people like Loughner, Holmes, and Cho from legally purchasing a firearm?

According to Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, the ruling could give momentum to the gun-rights movement. “I wouldn't be surprised to see legal challenges to other parts of the [federal gun] law now,” he said.

Click to expand...

I'm in favor of that!

Mr. Winkler also said the ruling could prompt Republicans in Congress to move to set up a new “relief from disabilities” program that would allow people to prove they’re fit to own guns.

Click to expand...

In his dreams. The way our system of law works is that everyone at or beyond the age of maturity is fit to own a gun, unless proven otherwise. Anything else is an un-Constitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, an act specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" to all entities within the United States of America.

Given the potential for abuse, I'm slightly in favor of prohibiting any professional, medical or otherwise, from disarming a citizen. Let their loved ones keep them out of harm's way, or they might find themselves on the wrong end of an argument.

I have no problem with the Darwin approach.

since9 said:

--snipped--
However, I still there's room for the very small group of people who, if they ever encountered a firearm might pick it up and shoot themselves or others without any understanding of the consequences. Clearly, they shouldn't be left alone, but in reality, some are on the streets. If one walks into a gun store, do you really want them buying a firearm?

I'm thankful for the ruling, as it appears to negate the blanket and rampant power of psych docs to disarm people who may have issues, but the safe and effective ownership, handling, and employment of a firearm isn't one of them.

Could there... or even should there be a specific class available in order to keep people like Loughner, Holmes, and Cho from legally purchasing a firearm?

Click to expand...

With a total population of the USA at approximately 324,000,000, if we had 20 such incidents per year (we don't) that would yield a ratio of 0ne (1) per 16,200,000 or .000000617283950%, call that .0000006%. A miniscule amount to hopefully stop from accomplishing their misdeeds and in the process penalize the remaining 323,999,980 people.

There is risk in freedom. Some deviants are not seen/known until they strike. Please no "but if it saves one child" - that is a poor excuse for throwing the other 300 million+ people (many, many are children) to the wolves.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

The Constitution determines it. When you try to change the meaning of the english language, what is that? Try looking up the meaning of the word infringed as defined in the late 1700's.

What do you find?

The Supreme Court CANNOT change the Constitution or the meaning of words in the english language. Words of art excluded.

In my opinion, that line of thinking in this regard is flawed and is complicit with the people who think the Constitution is a "living breathing document" that should change with the times.

Read the words as written and don't try to interpret or change the english language. The words were chosen very carefully.

So, again, any law written that contradicts the Constitution in null and void. Period.

That includes flawed Supreme Court rulings. If anyone thinks that the Supreme Court is perfect and can't make a flawed ruling, that thinking is flawed. Dangerously flawed.

What would happen if all the conservative justices were killed in a terrorist attack and a left wing radical liberal president and congress appoints all far far left leaning radically liberal justices.

Now tell me the Supreme Court is the final word and can Fundamentally Change The Constitution!

Nay Nay Nay

Click to expand...

i am entering this a bit late, but I must say the first few lines of this quote says a lot. Where does the Constitution say that USSC has the power to "interpret" the meaning of the words in the Constitution? It simply does not. They should be using the meaning of the words as they were defined at the time of the writing of the Constitution and each one of the justices(?) knows this. This was the biggest power grab in the history of this once great America.

Find the most commonly used definition of the word "regulated" in 1787 and it will tell you a lot about what we have lost. I have looked at several of them and it was a great revelation.

The Constitution is dead and the Republic is lost.

The King's Tribunal does not interpret anything, they rule. The Kelo decision is all you need to know about what the Tribunal is doing where the US Constitution is concerned. The more recent "misunderstandings of law" ruling. Avoiding "shall not be infringed" at every opportunity. Narrowly focused...procedural bureaucratizing claptrap. The Tribunal is not a friend of the constitution by any stretch of the word.

No, the tribunal is not interpreting anything.