Judge Carlton Reeves
Courtesy Jackson State University
Previous Post
Next Post

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case finding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, the court asserted that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” In concurring opinions in Bruen, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh made similar assurances.

Other courts — the government cited 120 post-Bruen cases — have relied on that to find the federal ban on felons possessing firearms passes constitutional muster. [US District Judge Carlton] Reeves disagreed, as did the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in a ruling last month involving old, nonviolent offenses. The government, Reeves said, had failed to meet its burden of proving, as required by Bruen, “that there is a historical tradition of disarming either the violent or the dangerous.”

Among the issues judges will now have to decide, Reeves noted: Does the ban on felons possessing firearms cover all felonies in the modern penal code or just those that existed at the founding? Does the felon ban cover all felonies or just crimes involving violence? Is it temporary or does it last a lifetime? In other words: Bruen has created quite the mess. The justices might launch the cleanup — or make things even messier — next term; on the final day of this term, they agreed to hear a challenge to another part of federal gun law, preventing those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having guns.

But Reeves, having trashed Bruen and then followed it, wasn’t done. He went on to question the court’s seemingly skewed priorities — elevating the Second Amendment to its meaning two-plus centuries ago above others to which it applies a far more cramped reading.

“We have one Constitution. All of it is law. It has been enforced today as best as this Judge can discern the Bruen Court’s holding and reasoning. And, one hopes, a future Supreme Court will not rest until it honors the rest of the Constitution as zealously as it now interprets the Second Amendment.”

Then he turned to originalism, questioning whether “founding-era Americans collectively agreed that for time immemorial, their descendants would be bound by the founding generation’s views on how the Constitution should be read” and whether “ceding this much power to the dead hand of the past is so wise.”

— Ruth Marcus in How Long Will Americans Put Up With the Court’s Originalism?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I would love to see text and tradition applied to the 1st, and 4th especially. But would make our warrantless surveillance of law abiding citizens through multiple means public and “private” a bit tricky. With that said yeah they are chomping at the bit to get the court back.

  2. “The Bruen Ruling Cedes Too Much Power to the ‘Dead Hand of the Past’”

    In other words the usual left-wing ‘Fu*k the Constitution”

  3. Grace,

    I appreciate you doing the research and bringing this type of article to our attention. Knowing who our adversaries are and how they “think” is paramount in combating them and their insidious ideologies.

    Ruth Marcus is a journalist who strongly identifies as Liberal. She is a product of Yale and Harvard (double whammy in Liberalism). However, in an attempt to somewhat preserve her credibility she is registered as an Independent.

    • Another article making the Second Amendment the center of attention while its nemesis Gun Control skates by.

      Because History Confirms Gun Control is Rooted in Racism and Genocide the Surgeon General should require a Warning Label that precedes the never ending articles intended to sway the reader to buy into Gun Control. After all History Clearly Confirms Gun Control is Hazardous to Your Health.

  4. Part of the way modern day gun control works is to make everything possible a felony but then take it back by turning around and letting those “felons” serve a tiny fraction of their sentence. The problem with the whole concept is that part of the punishment lasts the rest of that persons life, and this was never contemplated by the founders. If the crime was truly horrific then it should be a capitol crime and punished in that way or they should remain in jail until they die. If you give a felon his freedom then he should be free to persue his life as best as he is able.

    • “Part of the way modern day gun control works is to make everything possible a felony…”

      Something tells me that is why they elected to take that case next term. For years here I have predicted if we win big on gun rights (and, did we ever with ‘Bruen’!), they will do everything possible to make someone a legally a prohibited person.

      Justice Thomas isn’t stupid, based on ‘Bruen’. He’s playing 4-D chess with them, and I’m cautiously optimistic he bitch-slaps them so hard their pointed heads will spin… 🙂

      • Turn them upside down and paint their asses with the pride flag and use them as a top. That’s all they are good for.

      • @Geoff,

        From the article:

        “Does the felon ban cover all felonies or just crimes involving violence? Is it temporary or does it last a lifetime?”

        TPTB are certainly making all things felonies by definition, specifically to place blocks to gun ownership/possession and cast that net as wide as possible, and for life whenever available.

      • oldsht…What do you mean by, “We?” News for you, “We” did not vote for democRats in 16, 20 or will in 24…By your own repeated slander against POTUS DJT and his voters you were and are a Shill in 16, 20 and 24 for the democRat Party…Prove it otherwise.

        • Debbie — no one on this forum has to prove anything to you.

          If you have proof of what you say, you can post it or shut up about it. I’d prefer that you just shut up.

        • Widdle debs-

          You need a gas-powered vibrator, you menopausal idiot.

          Get one, and a spare, in case the first one fails.

          Have you noticed yet you have no one sticking up for you? Doesn’t that bug you, even a little? No, it doesn’t, because the vapid space between your ears is incapable of logic.

          Every time I ask myself how you can possibly be that stupid, you set a new record.

          Go away, you are not wanted here… 🙂

        • Dear Lord Debbie what the hell happened to you? I support your message why are you fighting with those that on the most part agree with you?

      • Let me just get this in ahead of time: Clarence Thomas didn’t kill himself.

    • I’ll do you one better. Just the mere arrest for a felony will destroy a life. It’ll preclude housing, professional licensing, and employment opportunities, trust me. Regardless if the case was dismissed, or even prosecutorially nolo 5 minutes after the arrest happened. Now to be fair, part of this is due to the predominant idiot class of this country which cannot differentiate an arrest from a conviction. However, city, state, and federal law doesn’t do much to clarify and codify these matters much and leaves innocent people at the mercy of the morons who arrested them in the first place, put their records for eternity online, and those whom “review” those records.

  5. Oh, the pearl-clutching, rosary bead rubbing, and hand-wringing the Leftist Scum ™ are in.

    If I was that wound-up about a country I was in, I’d leave for a better one. Since they get hard/wet over how Europe does things, why aren’t they immigrating in mass hoards?

    Who are they kidding? That’s the same crowd that proudly announces each election if their candidate doesn’t win, they will renounce their American citizenship and move to Canada.

    And then they don’t… 😉

  6. Funny how “progress” always means less freedom and more government to these people.

    • Cancer is progressive, that’s all you need to know about the political party with the same outlook… 🙁

    • That sounds wonderful to spiteful and envious people who want to stick to the Right, and get free stuff in return.

  7. The constitution is a legal document from which government receives its consent to govern from WE THE PEOPLE. They can’t simply change the terms of a contract because they don’t like those terms and declare that this gives too much power to those who signed said contract.

    Human rights -especially god-given individual rights are not negotiable and do not change or diminish over time. This traitor wants to take from us our god-given human rights and should be given the reception that any such traitor traditionally receives.

    • Well said. Those old dudes from the past were much wiser than today’s stick my finger in the air to to see what will get me the votes/money to get elected wishy washy uppity politicians of whom 99.999 percent till be irrelevant as time marches on unlike the founders.

  8. felons were not barred from gun ownership until 1968, about the same time that abortions were legalized and phone taps were barred without search warrent.

    • Felons are still not barred from gun ownership.

      They are barred from purchasing them retail and they are barred from being caught with them in their possession.

      I think any reasonable person knows that this is in no way an effective means of ensuring that convicted felons do not own guns.

      Ask any parole officer or bounty hunter.

    • “felons were not barred from gun ownership until 1968“

      Our English-speaking civilization has a long history of banning the possession of firearms by violent people, to pretend otherwise is just more conservative revisionist history:

      “Part III explores the history of laws prohibiting categories of people from possessing arms. Section A explores disarmament efforts throughout England’s history. England had a long tradition of disarming dangerous persons, especially those disloyal to the government. Section B surveys laws from colonial America. Consistent with English tradition, colonial disarmament efforts focused on those perceived as posing a dangerous threat, including Loyalists to the British Crown, slaves, freedmen, and Native Americans. Section C summarizes the proposals from the ratifying conventions of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. All three proposals are most reasonably read as allowing only dangerous persons to be disarmed. Section D provides examples of when prohibited persons could have their arms rights restored in the founding era. Unlike the lifetime bans that typically apply today, prohibited persons in the founding era could often regain their rights once they were no longer perceived as dangerous. Section E focuses on the nineteenth century, in which slaves, freedmen, and tramps were regulated most severely. Section F surveys the increasingly prevalent prohibitions in the twentieth century. The majority of these applied to non- citizens and are examined in Section F.1. The others applied to violent criminals and are examined in Section F.2.“


  9. Has he even read the thing?

    Constitutional Originalism – Article V – if you think something is outdated or it just upsets you that people have certain rights protected by the Bill of Rights you are absolutely free to do your damnedest to pass an amendment altering that portion of the Constitution.

    Stop crying. Amend it if you can. If you can’t, get over it – not enough people agree with you.

    • This was my first thought.

      What he’s doing is playing a game that’s loved by many. If they can’t change the wording they “reinterpret” the meaning of the words to create a situation where whatever it is that they want to do is acceptable.

      Which is why ceding linguistic territory is, IMHO, a no-go. Play that game at all and you will lose because it’s a game designed for the people who made it to win no matter what.

      If you’re not better than they are at such games, and 90% of people are not, then it’s best to just set he hard rule of staying away from the game entirely and the appropriate answer becomes “Fuck you, no” to just about everything they say. They say “assault weapon” you don’t come back with “it’s a modern sporting rifle”. You just say “No, it’s not. Also, fuck you for lying”.

      If questioned on your choice of words the proper response is then “Because that’s a lie and that person’s a liar, by which I mean that what they’re saying is not true and they know it. No, I will not retract the “fuck you” I expressed to that propagandist because they have openly shown themselves to be intentionally less than truthful in their public speech and such people do not deserve respectful language until they change their behavior because respect is earned and they have done nothing to earn it. Also, if you keep asking me to show respect to the openly disrespectful, then fuck you too”.

      Now the question in the air is “Wait, they’re a liar? What did they lie about?” and the ball’s in your court, not theirs. You will garner attention because your behavior is outside the expected pattern. Which is exactly how Alex Stein does what he does.

      When they use your preference for respectful discourse against you, change your preference.

      Politics isn’t a game of grabass. It’s a knife fight in a telephone booth.

      • Thanks Styych9. Very thought provoking. I didn’t realize that just calling someone a liar may not be enough. Sometimes a judicious us of profanity can set the tempo

  10. “Then he turned to originalism, questioning whether …”

    Perhaps it’s time to “update” the First Amendment. Shouldn’t we have something to say about Judge Reeves’s remarks and the way he’s spreading them by using communications technology that wasn’t available when the Constitution was written?

  11. There really shouldn’t be much debate here. Insert the word “dangerous” into this quote, and all is well: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by dangerous felons and the mentally ill.” That would cover the violent felons, no problem, and allow non-violent felons to exercise their second amendment rights.

    This would introduce a problem for the courts, in that, they will have to decide which violent felons should have their rights restored, and the criteria by which they may be restored, or denied. But, non-violent felons should never lose their rights. They generally pose no danger to life and limb of the general populace.

    • “They generally pose no danger to life and limb of the general populace.”

      Theft can often turn violent. Also, some people end up committing suicide when they’re left with financial ruin after “white collar crime” theft.

      • Well, when a theft turns violent, then the criminal loses his 2A rights. You don’t deny one man’s rights based on what some other guy did.

        Suicides? Not a problem for the courts to solve. Suicide is between the “victim”, his family, his shrink, and his God. It is little business of yours, or of mine.

        • You said they didn’t pose a danger to life and limb. I disputed that. I never said it was a problem for the courts to solve. You’re attacking a straw man.

      • Technically, theft isn’t violent and literally can’t be. It is simply the unlawful transfer of property from one to another. In and of itself the act cannot be violent.

        Which is why the law, and English language in general, make the distinction between “theft” and “robbery” which are not synonyms no matter how much some people want them to be.

        A thief, by definition, uses stealth to effect the illegal transfer of property while a robber uses force to effect it. The transfer of property may be abetted by either but the transfer itself is not violence.

        A failed theft can turn into a robbery, thereby making the clumsy thief into a robber but at that point he’s no longer a thief, he’s a robber.

        In another circumstance if he drops, or otherwise abandons the property in question and then moves to violence in an attempt to escape, it’s now an attempted theft which has ceased and a separate action that is some class of violence against another. Though, for simplicity’s sake in court, that may be simply charged as “attempted robbery” because it’s a failed illegal transfer of property that was, at some point, backed by violence. But that’s not technically correct and, honestly, we shouldn’t accept it as such. We should demand a charge for attempted theft and another for the violence associated with the attempted escape.

        Similarly, when you park a car and get out you’re no longer a driver. You can’t be said to be guilty of “reckless driving” because you drove and parked properly before you went running down the sidewalk and knocked over a grandma. The acts are separate and distinct.

        Further the fact that a theft could degenerate into a violent encounter doesn’t make it acceptable to charge every thief as if they’re a violent robber any more than charging everyone who gets into an argument at a bar with assault and battery because arguments can turn violent. This is exactly the gun control argument. We have to ban guns because they could be misused.

        To do any of this undermines the concepts of both self determination/free will and Rule of Law.

        • But I wasn’t talking about gun control. I was specifically replying to his idea that felons who haven’t yet been convicted of a violent crime pose no physical danger. You know like the guys that we see convicted of assault, attempted murder, or murder with long *non-violent* rap sheets? To pretend that the potential for violence doesn’t exist when someone is taking something from you against your will is a liberal line of thinking that gets you California. Usually, the potential for violence when someone is taking something from someone’s house or property is the difference between them happening to be home or not. This is an important concept which is why I replied in the first place.

        • “To pretend that the potential for violence doesn’t exist when someone is taking something from you against your will is a liberal line of thinking that gets you California.”

          No one’s doing that. I’m saying that you don’t get to charge people or craft law based on what “could happen” and then use that against people for whom it did not happen. That’s a bullshit abuse of authority directed towards a singular goal: A police state.

          To pretend that “theft is violence” is to be exactly like those who claim that “words are violence”. It’s an identical conflation, a Motte and Bailey, and the people doing it tend to know they’re doing it.

          Principles can sometimes create thorny issues. In matters such as this, a lack of principles always creates police states. And very, very rapidly after such a system is set up it will be turned against those who asked for it.

          Ask the French. It’s happening to them right now.

          California’s problem has zero to do with pretending that theft can’t lead to violence. It has to do with a complete and utter abdication of law enforcement statewide for the specific purpose of creating a crisis so that you’ll beg them to shove a police state dick up your ass just to make it stop, which it won’t, you’ll just get bent over and fucked while the petty criminal is ignored. As designed.

          If you play the game the Left sets out for you, you will lose. Because that’s why the game was designed in the first place. Heads they win, tails you lose. Get overrun by criminals or trade away your legal protections so they can come after you at their leisure. They’re following Lenin’s playbook to a T.

          You can, and must, pull a trick from their playbook and create a third way. The alternative, along one timeline or another, is nothing short of killing fields.

        • I’m not playing any games. You’re attacking a straw man as well. I never said theft is violence. Paul said “non-violent felons…pose no danger to life and limb of the general populace.” I have a major problem with that. Felonies are crimes that are punishable by more than one year in prison. It’s supposed to be serious to get a felony. If you’re willing to steal enough of someone’s property to get a felony, then you are a dangerous person, and should be punished as such. You probably do pose a risk to life and limb. Remember the two teen girls who carjacked a guy recently? He ended up dying because he was caught in the car or something, and they wrecked. Did those girls set out to kill anyone? Thieves create dangerous situations. I’m not saying theft is violence. I’m saying it’s a very serious crime that shouldn’t be overlooked just because the charges don’t claim any violence took place.

          How often do you think prosecutors take felons to trial? Have you heard of the trial penalty? Prosecutors offer you a deal to throw out some of your charges if you plea guilty and avoid trial. If you go to trial to defend yourself, they punish you just for making them go to trial. This means that so-called “non-violent” felons are often literally violent felons that had certain charges dismissed. Federal criminal defendants go to trial 2% of the time!

          “I’m saying that you don’t get to charge people or craft law based on what “could happen” and then use that against people for whom it did not happen.”

          But I never said you should charge people for things that didn’t happen. You’re misunderstanding me and arguing past me against something else. My entire point was that certain crimes are very serious. I’ve noticed that people will tend to give them a pass when they’re “non-violent.” As I noted above you don’t even know that they’re non-violent because plea deals are almost always happening. Stealing creates dangerous situations. That should be taken into account when punishing someone. I would get punished more for going 80 mph in an active school zone than I would on an interstate. I didn’t hit anyone, so what’s the difference? The difference is the greater potential for bad things to happen. My entire point was that we can’t dismiss things like so-called “non-violent” stealing because that’s how you end up with California.

    • If one is too dangerous for the Government to “allow” them to posses a gun, then one could argue that they are too dangerous to be a member of society and should be incarcerated.

      The right of self-defense applies to all as a natural right, even those who pose a danger to themselves, or others.

  12. The Leftists can’t seem to grasp the concept that the Constitution is to be followed as written.

  13. “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”

    And yet ANOTHER court ruling which completely ignores the actual meaning of this quote from Heller.

    This short phrase was clarified by a critically important footnote, which reads: “We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples”


    This is the most ignored and reviled footnote in the history of the Supreme Court.

    Heller was about one thing and one thing only: Does an individual have the right to keep an operable firearm in their own home? As we all know, the answer was “YES!”

    All other questions, including that list of presumptively lawful restrictions, were OUT OF SCOPE of Heller. Heller did not rule EITHER WAY on their Constitutionality.

    But facts never stop the gun-haters from misreading and propagandizing their false narrative.

    Heller specifically left the fate of those other measures for FUTURE cases to decide. And that is EXACTLY what Bruen did.

    Don’t let them deceive you, there are no conflicts between Heller and Bruen. Bruen is simply the natural progression of an honest court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment FINALLY starting to right the decades of damage done by progressives before them.

  14. SCOTUS does not make law. That is the job of Congress primarily. Bruen was a ‘decision’ of interpretation of existing law. It is not the responsibility of these judges to clean up whatever mess is there as a result of congressional inaction. Doing that is judicial activism and is what the left has become so used to seeing out of the Supreme Court. That’s why Biden claims that this is not a normal court. Returning SCOTUS back to what it was meant to be is the point to the idea of originalism.

    My thoughts on felons having guns are essentially that if this is such a concern then they should still be behind bars. Mainly due to the fact that they have the access to everything they need to kill people by whatever means they so choose as long as they are in the general population. Dangerous people are dangerous regardless of access to guns. The single biggest problem here is that the left does not want criminals locked up. This is not a SCOTUS problem. It’s a problem with the Democrat left turning communist.

    • Prndll, “My thoughts on felons having guns are essentially that if this is such a concern then they should still be behind bars.”
      BINGO! Prndll has it correct. All felons are not violent and violence is a term easily defined and applied to any crime. The courts have so many choices and a decision could be laborious, but there is really no reason the courts should have major problems, after all decisions is what the courts are suppose to be in the business of doing daily. The courts simply need to do their job,

  15. My errant nearly 46 year old son got a felony for wandering into a house. After more or less being invited in. Got a year in an Indiana jail. And he was having a psychotic episode. I talked to him about getting his rights back but he won’t even try. I also have a brother-in-law who was railroaded to prison but I’m not at all sure of his guilt or innocence. And way back over 40 to 45 years ago I could have got a marijuana rap. .Gov is a harsh mistress! Especially with “for profit” prison’s🙄

    • Not all states run prisons as such but they do exist and the incentive to use them in such cases is concerning.

    • Former, If you were doing marijuana, you should have gone to jail.
      Your 46 yr old son was “invited in”? Kinda hard to believe. And you worry about a brother ln law you are not sure of his guilt or innocence? (Rolling my eyes)
      For your edification most states do not have “for profit” prisons. As a matter of fact, in NYS they are outlawed.

    • .Gov is a harsh mistress!

      Well said.

      Use of the feminine to ascribe aspects of passive aggressive behavior is dead-nuts on and a deft turn of phrase.

      Government’s behavior is nearly exactly that of a crazy ex. She hates you but wants your money, doesn’t want to see you but wishes to control your behavior and will send guys to rough you up as soon as she has an excuse.

      • This is for Safe: Look up John Burge in Chiraq. Tortured black men into “confessions”. And a myriad more examples. Not limited to white cops. I heard a lot of evil from retired black cop’s over the years at the gym(I would routinely be the best guy working out. They respected me). No I’m not interested in fixing Chicago. Just leaving!

        • Some things are beyond fixing and can only have attention brought to them that they may collapse under the weight of their corruption or at least grind to a halt exposed in the light of day trying to find a rock to scurry under. Get somewhere good and preserve your family’s legacy for the next generation.

  16. The recent SCOTUS Bruen ruling has garnered attention as it only partially restored the Second Amendment, it still allows infringements on all manner of arms by federal and state, local governments. Over the multitude of decades, of infringements regarding the 2nd Amendment enacted by unconstitutional elected and unelected individuals who hold anti-American sentiments and have an aversion to firearms (hoplophobes). Additionally, there have been instances where those responsible for upholding the law have failed to honor their oaths, eroding public trust; looking at law enforcement and district attorneys own abusive behaviors.

    Regarding the article titled “The Bruen Ruling Cedes Too Much Power to the ‘Dead Hand of the Past’,” it is important to consider the only alternative approach to address this issue without resorting to further unconstitutional ‘infringing’ measures or relying on what judicial activism masquerading as constitutional judicial review. This “one and only” solution involves a constitutional amendment that modifies the Second and Tenth Amendments, granting either the federal government and/or state and local governments the authority to regulate certain aspects of Americans’ civil liberties.

    It is worth noting that, If SCOTUS had truly honored their own oaths to the US Constitutional they could have taken a comprehensive approach by declaring all gun control laws unconstitutional, leaving no room for exceptions or carve-outs. Such a decision would have provided a clear and unequivocal stance on the matter.

    • Just curious…
      Has this current SCOTUS been given a case that directly challenges the 1968 GCA or the National Firearms Act of 1934?

      • As Mark said, “No.” On thing Breun does though, is it gives us the ammo to challenge both.
        The NFA is egregiously Unconstitutional, as it was a response to Asinine Policies and Legislation Congress had enacted years earlier with Prohibition, the direct result of which, increased Crime and actually aided and abetted in Organized Crime achieving more power than they had prior to Prohibition.

    • Chris, I agree, but would add, that if someone is such a threat to the Welfare of the People that they must have a Right Abridged, then they are too dangerous to release period.
      That’s how it was when the 2nd was Ratified, and that’s what the Law needs to return to, as time after time, case after case, far too many return to Crime immediately following release.

    • Yes, but apparently the gun-grabbers have nightmares about people like Martha Stewart being armed.🤷‍♀️

  17. “Reeves: The Bruen Ruling Cedes Too Much Power to the ‘Dead Hand of the Past’”
    “Dead Hand of the Past.:
    Is merely Reeves saying that he and those like him believe the Constitution is an old document that has no relevance in the present time.
    Reeves and those like him strongly desire to ignore the Constitution because it is over 200 years old.
    Or even worse, they desire to ditch it entirely. They don’t respect the Constitution unless they can place a BUT within it any where they please. When they say “I support the 2A BUT”, not only do they not support the 2A but they also desire to trash the Constitution. It isn’t just the 2A they hate.

    • I don’t thin that is what he is saying at all. He is one of those “living constitution” types who think that the Constitution should be interpreted against the backdrop of our current society, its needs, and its issues.

  18. What a dolt.(the author of the referenced article)

    The cold dead hands of the founders created the means to alter the constitution, as a vehicle to adjust to changing circumstances.

    What is wanted is a nation governed by majority rule legislation; adjusting the Constitution to address contemporary matters is just too hard, for people absorbed by temporal matters of the current moment.

    Truth is, about half the nation (maybe even more) wants a king/ruler who will accommodate change, almost instantly, in ways that will meet with the transitory approval of whatever the mob.

    • “What is wanted is a nation governed by majority rule legislation…”

      I believe this is correct. Ohio Issue 1 would revert our amendment process from the current simple majority to the former requirement of 60% plus one. Leftists are putting up an almighty fuss, claiming that it will mark the end of the world. They’re in a panic because it will take more support to pass their looney tunes.

  19. The cold dead hand of the founders created a nation with too much individual freedom and liberty, and not enough top-down government control.

  20. US District Judge Carlton Reeves – being an Obumer affirmative action appointee, could hardly much of him.

  21. Everyone can make money now a days very easily…dd…..I am a full time college student and just w0rking for 3 to 4 hrs a day. Everybody must try this home online job now by just use… This Following Website.—–>>> http://Www.EarnCash7.com

  22. So, if someone is convicted of whatever felony crime, serves their sentence and completes any other court ordered punishment/restitution/fines, should that person not have the ability to live and prosper without the conviction hanging over their heads the rest of their life?
    Some kid got busted with a baggie of weed should be considered as a permanent danger to society?
    If someone commits a violent crime that would make a reasonable person consider them a danger to society, they should either be kept from that society, or removed from the gene pool with extreme prejudice.
    You did the time. You paid the price and received your punishment for your crimes. If released, you should be square with the world and have your rights restored without question.

    • oldmaninAL, they took the easy way by making All felons adhere to no guns.
      Otherwise they would have been forced to use their brains and logic to determine which felons should be denied. Simply put, they made it simple and easy for them while reducing a portion of the people to “no guns for you class”.

  23. What is the expiration date on a Constitutional Amendment? Too many members of my extended family paid so dearly to end slavery that i will not allow the 13th Amendment to expire. Or any of the others.

  24. Reeves said, “questioning whether “founding-era Americans collectively agreed that for time immemorial, their descendants would be bound by the founding generation’s views ” ”

    This is pure BS for illiterate and ignorant masses. Unless, of course, Reeves himself doesn’t know about the portions of the Constitution that define how to amend it, or to call a constitutional convention to rewrite it.
    All Reeves has to do is get an amendment passed and approved. That’s all.

  25. the democrats are just as responsible for bringing bruen into existence
    -and dobbs for that matter-
    as the democrats and rinos both were
    in bringing about the presidency
    of donald j trump
    instead of crying like babies
    and squealing like stuck pigs
    they should man up
    and just own it already

  26. “The government, Reeves said, had failed to meet its burden of proving, as required by Bruen, “that there is a historical tradition of disarming either the violent or the dangerous.””

    Where’s the historical tradition of disarming minors? Sergeant Martin was 15 when he joined the Connecticut Militia.

  27. It is time to bring back full frontal lobotomies for leftists. It eliminates any aggression and that is what the idiots need.

  28. Chris, I agree, but would add, that if someone is such a threat to the Welfare of the People that they must have a Right Abridged, then they are too dangerous to release period.
    That’s how it was when the 2nd was Ratified, and that’s what the Law needs to return to, as time after time, case after case, far too many return to Crime immediately following release.

  29. @Dude

    Interestingly, whether pro-2A, or anti-2A, the operating theory behind denying “gun rights” of felons is the same: once denied, felons will not find other tools to create violent crimes and thus society is safer. I.E., “it’s guns”. Yet, POTG will argue that criminals do not obey laws.

    And this is not to mention that pre-crime punishment has no constitutional basis.

Comments are closed.