The red flag law abuse here in Florida is insane. It's used haphazardly county by county with Palm Beach County & Polk County the biggest offenders. I hope this case ends the nonsense.
Countless women make false accusations against men and commit perjury in court all of the time; DVROs are wrongfully issued all of the time. The family courts issue the DVROs against the men even though the woman is the abuser because the state and local governments are reliant on the federal money that they receive under VAWA and Title IV D of the Social Security Act. What is even worse is that women who are the perpetrators of abuse during the relationship up the ante when the man decides he wants out (to escape the abuse) by going to the police and court with their false accusations and then they use the police and courts to abuse the man farther, including restricting where he can go and taking away his right to defend himself. Although this video slightly alludes to the fact that women are sometimes the abusers, the tone of it generally fits the same old (false) stereotype that men are the abusers and women are the victims. More legal scholars really need to recognize that women are just as abusive, if not even more abusive than men.
Note, that as the Prof mentions making a false claim in many states is a crime in itself. But if the tone of the video felt overly gendered, we want to make clear that as you allude to, men are ALSO victims and as the Prof points out, DV happens in same sex couples too. So, we agree that men certainly shouldn't be painted as having a DV monopoly. But according to the stats we could find, while males are more likely to be homicide victims overall, the majority of victims of DV homicides are female and the majority of DV perpetrators are male. In NYC for example the data over the last 10 years, the breakdown is around 80% / 20%.
@@Talksonlaw 80/2 ?. And that is ‘reported’. 30% of entire states aren’t even reporting crime stats…..zero. This is in order to coverup real crime numbers.
I would question her scholarly advice if she thinks this pertains to 1791 and 1868. Since no one from the founding generation of our “founding fathers” were alive by 1868. So it would be mistake to take an interpretation from nearly 80 years after the bill of rights were passed. And this is not how SCOTUS (at least the current SCOTUS) would handle these questions either. It’s why they use dictionary from the founding era. Not from 1868, 1934, or 2021 to address definitions of words👍
Funny how the DOJ sped this case through the system, which has a petitioner with a horrible, demonstrated, proven violence history. Only someone insane would argue Rahimi should have a gun. But, it's a good case for the anti-gun crowd, who are claiming "gun rights advocates want violent abusers like Rahimi to have weapons." There's another case--the name escapes me--that has a more reasonable set of facts, meaning it would match circumstances where it would be reasonable that the defendant be allowed to keep his guns, that was slow walked by the DOJ.
You make a good point that Rahimi is not a sympathetic defendant if one was hoping to push the law towards less regulation. One clarification for others, only the Supreme Court justices themselves can decide whether or not to hear a case and the DOJ does not get a vote. Additionally, it generally requires at least four (4) of the nine (9) to clear a case to be heard on the merits at the court.
UNITED STATES MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"! When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
@@Talksonlaw Thomas a few years ago broke a decade of silence during arguments asking the gov what Right is lost for a misdemeanor ? Based on Bruen and Heller, though the the bench has a different makeup, there is no reason why Rahimi shouldnt be 6-3 in favor of 2A. Otherwise this will go back to lower court which is justice delayed. Fact is there are no such prohibitions on the books much less enforced regularly in late 18th century.
Left wing media :see there u go you heard it here she said wife gets out of line its unconstitutional not to give ger a back hand matter of fact she said ts your duty 😳
It is a man’s duty to disobey infringements to the 2nd amendment
No
The red flag law abuse here in Florida is insane. It's used haphazardly county by county with Palm Beach County & Polk County the biggest offenders. I hope this case ends the nonsense.
Whats the difference from assault to any person to dv? Nothing. So why make different rules
Countless women make false accusations against men and commit perjury in court all of the time; DVROs are wrongfully issued all of the time. The family courts issue the DVROs against the men even though the woman is the abuser because the state and local governments are reliant on the federal money that they receive under VAWA and Title IV D of the Social Security Act. What is even worse is that women who are the perpetrators of abuse during the relationship up the ante when the man decides he wants out (to escape the abuse) by going to the police and court with their false accusations and then they use the police and courts to abuse the man farther, including restricting where he can go and taking away his right to defend himself. Although this video slightly alludes to the fact that women are sometimes the abusers, the tone of it generally fits the same old (false) stereotype that men are the abusers and women are the victims. More legal scholars really need to recognize that women are just as abusive, if not even more abusive than men.
Note, that as the Prof mentions making a false claim in many states is a crime in itself. But if the tone of the video felt overly gendered, we want to make clear that as you allude to, men are ALSO victims and as the Prof points out, DV happens in same sex couples too. So, we agree that men certainly shouldn't be painted as having a DV monopoly. But according to the stats we could find, while males are more likely to be homicide victims overall, the majority of victims of DV homicides are female and the majority of DV perpetrators are male. In NYC for example the data over the last 10 years, the breakdown is around 80% / 20%.
@@Talksonlaw 80/2 ?. And that is ‘reported’. 30% of entire states aren’t even reporting crime stats…..zero. This is in order to coverup real crime numbers.
Males don't report abuse from females while in relationships. The stats would definitely change
I would question her scholarly advice if she thinks this pertains to 1791 and 1868. Since no one from the founding generation of our “founding fathers” were alive by 1868. So it would be mistake to take an interpretation from nearly 80 years after the bill of rights were passed. And this is not how SCOTUS (at least the current SCOTUS) would handle these questions either. It’s why they use dictionary from the founding era. Not from 1868, 1934, or 2021 to address definitions of words👍
Funny how the DOJ sped this case through the system, which has a petitioner with a horrible, demonstrated, proven violence history. Only someone insane would argue Rahimi should have a gun. But, it's a good case for the anti-gun crowd, who are claiming "gun rights advocates want violent abusers like Rahimi to have weapons." There's another case--the name escapes me--that has a more reasonable set of facts, meaning it would match circumstances where it would be reasonable that the defendant be allowed to keep his guns, that was slow walked by the DOJ.
You make a good point that Rahimi is not a sympathetic defendant if one was hoping to push the law towards less regulation. One clarification for others, only the Supreme Court justices themselves can decide whether or not to hear a case and the DOJ does not get a vote. Additionally, it generally requires at least four (4) of the nine (9) to clear a case to be heard on the merits at the court.
UNITED STATES MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.)
50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ...
All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY.
After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge )
Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1)
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"!
When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"!
- USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
Were there firearms prohibitions on mcdv in 1791 ? No. This is settled.
Do you think SCOTUS will decide in Rahimi's favor?
@@Talksonlaw Thomas a few years ago broke a decade of silence during arguments asking the gov what Right is lost for a misdemeanor ? Based on Bruen and Heller, though the the bench has a different makeup, there is no reason why Rahimi shouldnt be 6-3 in favor of 2A. Otherwise this will go back to lower court which is justice delayed. Fact is there are no such prohibitions on the books much less enforced regularly in late 18th century.
Lol. 1868 ? Way too late madame.
Left wing media :see there u go you heard it here she said wife gets out of line its unconstitutional not to give ger a back hand matter of fact she said ts your duty 😳