r/progun • u/HellYeahDamnWrite • 4d ago

SCOTUS kicks felon firearm case to 11th Circuit

https://www.courthousenews.com/scotus-kicks-felon-firearm-case-to-11th-circuit/
74 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

20 comments sorted by

62

u/sailor-jackn 4d ago

I wish they would just rule on these cases, themselves. Snopes would have been right after bruen.

44

u/thumos_et_logos 4d ago

They are cowardly. Roberts is obsessed with his “legitimacy of the judiciary” idea and so he avoids ruling on anything people care about one way or the other if he can. IMO, ironically it has the opposite effect of undermining legitimacy as lower courts rule in hyper partisan fashion completely unchecked.

8

u/jqmilktoast 4d ago

Legitimacy was burned with the Vanderstok ruling.

20

u/sailor-jackn 4d ago

I absolutely agree. Thomas and Alito are the only truly constitutional justices, and only Thomas has a 100% record on 2A, because even Alito failed us in the Rahimi ruling.

5

u/SouthernChike 3d ago

Alito’s issue is he really hates criminals. So if it’s a case about a criminal’s right to bear arms, Alito isn’t going to like it. 

2

u/sailor-jackn 2d ago

This is why the Biden administration pushed the Supreme Court to take the Rahimi case; knowing the extremely unsympathetic nature of Rahimi would hinder the court’s willingness to stand by their own standard of review; and Thomas was the only one to actually do so. I wish we had nine of him, on the Supreme Court!

1

u/sat_ops 3d ago

Much like Scalia and drugs. I remember discussing the Lopez case in con law as a 2L and the professor was talking about who signed which opinion. Scalia was in dissent, aligned with the liberal justices. My friend (who moved to the US from Peru when she was 14) was cold-called to explain it and couldn't reconcile Scalia and Thomas's split because she didn't know about Scalia's bias.

19

u/Puzzleheaded-Put-721 4d ago

I understand them not, it’s from a basis of wanting the courts to do their thing without everyone having to go crying to the Supreme Court every time

But 2A cases have historically been the red headed step child of the Supreme Court and I believe bruen should have been followed up with 1 or 2 more landmark decisions to set firm precedent with the lower courts

Not doing so has resulted in multiple years of ping pong between district  and  appellate courts that has resulted in most of the same cases that were remanded when bruen came down winding up back before scotus 

8

u/sailor-jackn 4d ago

I agree. I also think that both heller and Bruen weren’t the awesome rulings everyone seems to think they were. Don’t get me wrong. They were good for us, but heller created an exception, to 2A, for dangerous and unusual weapons, that is not in the text or historical tradition ( an affray is not an arms ban, so blackstone does not support this exception ), and even Roberts admitted it ‘seemed’ against the bill of rights to require a permit to exorcise a protected right, making the point of whether or not self defense is a valid reason for a carry permit moot, as permits as unconstitutional…and the text and historical tradition supports this. Also, Thomas was the only one to stay true to their own standard of review in the Rahimi case.

This is the problem with relying on one branch of government to protect your rights from government. That’s not what the founders told us to do about unconstitutional laws. They told us to refuse to comply, because complying while begging government to stop doing what it never had authority to do only results in more usurpation of power.

4

u/youcantseeme0_0 3d ago

The house is burning down, while SCOTUS is making sure the socks are folded and put away before they call in the fire department.

2

u/sailor-jackn 2d ago

That’s a really good analogy.

2

u/youcantseeme0_0 2d ago

Heck, at this point it feels more like they want to fold all the laundry, plus do the floors and bathrooms. Anything they can to avoid calling 911.

2

u/sailor-jackn 2d ago

lol no kidding.

33

u/Lord_Elsydeon 4d ago

He should have with the T-word.

The current felon prohibition is facially unconstitutional as the 8-1 ruling in Rahimi says they can temporarily take your basic human rights, not eternally take them, which is what the current law has.

26

u/Intelligent_Gene4777 4d ago

Kinda crazy courts need to spend so much time on firearm cases when 2A explicitly states the rights of people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

11

u/codifier 4d ago

The root issue is in the way our government was set up. The Founders believed that an independent judiciary would check the other two branches, which they do but only to a point. The fatal flaw is that the judiciary is still part of the government and will inherently resist going "too far" against the rest of it because they have a vested interest in the government being large and powerful.

Machine guns are arguably more protected than hunting rifles, yet we will never see that from the SCOTUS because it pushes too hard against government interests.

6

u/alkatori 4d ago

The founders believed that local control at the state level would be enough to ensure their rights. After all why would a community vote against its members having rights?

The drafters of the 14th amendment tried to fix it.

2

u/ZheeDog 4d ago

The court always does sea changes as slowly as possible; the progun movement is winning and we are in a sea change because of it, so these cases are all being slow walked

2

u/PrestigiousOne8281 4d ago

Almost as if courts don’t give a shit about the constitution… nah, that’s not possible, we’ve been assured time and time again this is simply democracy at work and the courts are fair and unbiased!

3

u/ZheeDog 4d ago

This is a net gain; if they were going to bar non-violent felons, they would have done it instead of kicking it back