But at the same time, he argues that guns offer an especially important measure of protection to minority groups usually identified with the left. “Our transgender, LGBT, African American members, they’ll talk about real oppression,” he says. “The police aren’t going to come. That’s meaningful defense.”
In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social
Services, (3) a boy, who was beaten and permanently injured by his
father, claimed a due process violation because local officials
knew he was being abused but did not act to remove him from his
father's custody. The Supreme Court concluded that the State
had no constitutional duty to protect the boy because the Due
Process Clause is a limitation on the State's power to act, not
a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security.
Further, according to the Court, the Due Process Clause confers
no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid
may be necessary to protect an individual against private
violence. (4) In doing so, the Court rejected the argument that
a duty to protect arose because of a "special relationship" that
existed, because the State knew the boy faced a special danger
of abuse and specifically proclaimed by word and deed its
intention to protect him against that danger. (5)
The Supreme Court on Monday deemed “straw” purchases of guns illegal, delivering a huge win to advocates of stricter gun controls. In a 5-4 decision, the court concluded that one legal gun owner may not acquire a firearm on behalf of another — a practice known as "straw" purchasing.
The case, known as Abramski v. United States, centered on a former police officer who sought to buy a Glock 19 handgun for his uncle. Though both men were allowed to own guns, Bruce Abramski claimed on forms that he was the “actual transferee/buyer” of the weapon and was later convicted of making false statements.
Abramski argued that federal gun law — intended to keep guns out of the wrong hands — did not apply to his transaction. The court, though split down ideological lines, disagreed.
Do you honestly believe that if they wanted to, the federal government would not be able to use those records in order to confiscate firearms? I'm not saying "Is there a political climate to confiscate" or even "Would they want to?" I'm asking, could they?
« Older Holt, Reinhart, and Winston published Amazons: An ... | "The concept is a staple of th... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt