So, fun already here in VA:
Having spent the morning listening to the Scotus argument about denying 2A rights to people who are a danger based on civil commitment orders, this fellow strikes me as a prime target. (BTW, Hurtt is actually a nice fellow who doesn't get in people's faces; the guy was ranting when he went in, so Hurtt record when he came out). Also, you will all be pleased to know that my friend wrote in my name to be Commonwealth Attorney in place of our current Soros designee, Teresa ****ing-Asshole.
Speaking of the scotus argument, Some interesting nuggets from 2A argument...
- SG: 2A right can be curtailed if not "law abiding" (felony) or "responsible" (squishier); failure to store properly would constitute basis for precluding ownership under the latter
- CJ concern about potential breadth of 'responsibility'; SG says it's focused specifically on responsibility w/r/t firearm use or "dangerousness"
- ACB notes that domestic violence would seem to be satisfy dangerousness, and notes that specific factual predicate of dangerousness in the record
- KJB asking some cagey questions about dom violence protective orders which I suspect are actually designed to suggest that it doesn't even take dangerousness, even though she's not showing her cards
- SA asking about expiration/rights to challenge protective orders; SG says no federal rights, only state rights, and that curtailment only lasts as long as the protective order
[had to break for a call, but no hunter biden references yet!]
- Defendant counsel (fed public defender) emphasizes facial challenge; as I listen to this argument, it seems to me that he is probably not the ideal person to be doing this argument "for" the 2A; relatively poor preparation and confusing the court; he is definitely no Paul Clement
- NG asking about due process associated with protective order and counsel is fumbling
- EK asks if argument around facial challenge is simply that the G has to show a historical antecedent specific to domestic violence, per Bruen; counsel waffles and she ultimately says he seems to be running away from his argument
- SA seems to ask if in reality he's arguing that only the felony is really a disqualifier, and counsel argues no because it depends on whether the possession would result in serious penalties/danger
- SS asks about mental illness; counsel suggests yes
- BK asks whether, if he wins, the background check system would need to be modified; oddly, he says not necessarily, because state laws picked up by the system might have an allowable prohibition (which seems really weird to me) and because acquisition and possession may be different constitutionally
As much as people like to suggest that the court is in the bag on various issues, including guns, I'm pretty sure the G wins this one, for two reasons. First, there's enough of them who are still very cognizant of the real practical risks of dangerous people having guns. Second, counsel did a poor enough job imo that it would simply be too much heavy lifting on their own part to create a rule. I suspect what you'll get is something that says basically that if a person has been determined to create a risk of violence though a legal proceeding, they can have their 2A rights curtailed consistent with that risk.