Update from the Sunland
No.1171
17.6.24 – 23.6.24
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- After the terrible Supreme Court Cargill decision—Garland v. Cargill [602 U. S. ____ (2024); No. 22–976] [1170]—a long-time friend and contributor to his humble forum sent the following URL:
“Supreme Court gun ruling stuns Las Vegas shooting survivors”
by Kayla Epstein,
Published: 14 June 2024
BBC News
To which I replied:
Far more than the survivors were stunned by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cargill. We could add many other modifiers—flabbergasted, gobsmacked, staggered, incensed ad infinitum. It was a ridiculous ruling—not the first, and probably not the last from these justices.
Nonetheless, life goes on . . . one foot in front of the other.
Then, we have the Republican state government in Louisiana that dictated the Ten Commandments must be prominently displayed in every public school classroom from kindergarten to college despite the body of Supreme Court jurisprudence prohibiting such displays of religious bias in public places. Just a few of those cases:
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States [143 U.S. 457 (1892)]
Lemon v. Kurtzman [403 U.S. 602 (1971)] [362]
Zuni Public School Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Education [550 U.S. 81 (2007)]
Carson v. Makin [596 U. S. ____ (2022)]
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District [597 U. S. ____ (2022)]
among others.
In a public statement, Governor Jeffrey Martin ‘Jeff’ Landry of Louisiana virtually begged an aggrieved party with standing to file suit against the new state law. I imagine he is betting the current rendition of the Supremes will abandon stare decisis again, as they did in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization [597 U. S. 215 (2022)] [1067, 1068]. Louisiana’s gamble may well succeed. I expect the lower courts to abide by Supreme Court precedent. I am not so confident regarding the Supremes, if the potential case gets that far. God only knows what this panel of Supremes will do with this one.
There is zero doubt in my little pea-brain that President Jefferson was spot-on correct, and Louisiana is dead wrong. This republic is not and has never been a Christian nation. The Founders / Framers sought freedom of worship for all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs or paucity of faith. Yes, history records the religious persecution so rampant in Europe and drove so many to endure the rigors of a trans-Atlantic passage acted in reverse in the New World. Fortunately, the Framers had the wisdom to avoid religious-based strife in the new nation. I also acknowledge and appreciate that Protestant Christians feel their sway and influence over the politics of this republic are waning, but that does not justify any action like or resembling Louisiana’s foolish, unconstitutional initiative. The Supremes should have no choice but to declare the Louisiana law unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Another friend and frequent contributor along his article:
“Biden should welcome their hatred - Advice for Joe in his first debate with the convicted felon — one week from tonight”
by Robert Reich
Published: JUN 20 [2024]
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/biden-must-welcome-their-hatred
To which, I responded:
Once again, I think Robert Reich got it spot on correct—robber barons indeed. Reich got the history correct, and I agree with his assessment of history as it applies to our current situation.
Just a word of caution: the presidency is one issue. We must never forget that democracy is on the line. However, both chambers of Congress are the essential battleground. We must prevent MAGAts from returning to Capitol Hill. Everyone must vote.
. . . and this follow-up comment:
“Cap, I understand your concern with propaganda. However, that could be countered with progress that people like me could perceive, as properly marketed. Biden's not addressing our concerns out here.”
. . . with my follow-up response:
Agreed. That is the heart of the problem. If only . . .
On Friday, the Supreme Court issued its 8-1 decision in another Second Amendment case—United States v. Rahimi [602 U. S. ____ (2024); No. 22–915]. The respondent, Zackey Rahimi, was a repeated domestic abuser and known for violent conduct. His girlfriend sought and received a judicial restraining order against Rahimi to protect herself and their child together. As a consequence of the restraining order and his history of violence, Rahimi was ordered to relinquish his firearms and was prohibited from possessing, holding, using, or otherwise operating any form of firearm. He protested that the order was a violation of his 2nd Amendment rights. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion and concluded, “[We] conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Associate Justice Thomas offered the only dissenting opinion [of course he did!]. The essence of his dissent was the fact that the respondent had not been convicted of a crime. Thomas sought to replace his judgment for that of Congress and the courts. A judicially applied restraining order was not sufficient; he wanted a conviction in a court of law, which is not the threshold established by Congress and the law—Bipartisan Safer Communities Act [PL 117-159; 136 Stat. 1313; 25.6.2022] [1067, 1069].
While Rahimi is a very narrow ruling and is only a teeny-tiny step forward, it is a good decision and as it should be. I will not bore you with recounting Rahimi’s violent and threatening behavior since it is too long for this humble forum. Rest assured, Rahimi may well be a textbook case of appropriate firearm confiscation and restriction. Despite the numerous 2nd Amendment rulings I have read, I will say it was interesting to take another pass through the history going back to English common law. This is what the physicists call progress by jerks.
Comments and contributions from Update no.1170:
Comment to the Blog:
“The ‘long arm of the law’ finally has reached a few high places. Bravo!
“I agree the Supreme Court decision on bump stocks is ridiculous. I’ve seen a local news video showing one of those in action in a crime, and it shows a function exactly like an automatic weapon regardless of the engineering distinction.
“Speaking of law enforcement in high places, hints have come through my feeds that people are working on un-redacting the Epstein Island evidence. Let’s hope that happens.”
My response to the Blog:
Bravo, indeed! We can only hope the other cases get prosecuted as well.
Yes, exactly! Like Justice Sotomayor so accurately stated, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.” You look at any one of numerous videos about bump stocks, you clearly see what they are intended to do—kill people. The Cargill ruling joins so many other bonehead decisions in recent years.
I have not heard that, but the public deserves to know the accessories to Epstein’s crimes. We shall see.
Another contribution:
“Being an ‘external’ friend I have developed one or two questions on your ‘bump stocks’ article. I take it to be an assault weapon? Do send me some details please Cap.”
My reply:
No, precisely, but effectively, yes. The standard AR-15 is, by definition, not an assault rifle. Modification of the standard AR-15 with a bump stock transforms that standard rifle effectively into an assault weapon, i.e., automatic fire, multiple shots with a single trigger pull.
I tried to find a good, technical, illustrated document to explain the operation of a bump stock—no joy. This article may help a little:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock
Hope this helps. If not, ask away.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Happy Monday, Cap,
Posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is in fact an “establishment of religion” violation of the Constitution.
United States v. Rahimi had a well-chosen defendant and situation. I’m glad we’ve made some progress in controlling the availability of firearms, however small it may be.
Have a nice day,
Calvin
Good morning to you, Calvin,
Quite so! It will be interesting to see how the district court, the 5th Circuit, and potentially the Supreme Court work through their contortions to avoid declaring the Louisiana law unconstitutional, as it should so condemned. It will likely take years to grind through the judicial system to invalidate that law.
Rahimi is a poster child for exactly who should be prohibited from being anywhere near any type of firearm or other weapon for that matter. Fortunately, the Supremes got it right in the Rahimi decision. That said, the Thomas dissent is chilling to read.
Have a great day. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment