It kind of seems like they recognized it as an individual right at least as far back as 1857. Chief Justice Taney wrote in the Dred Scott decision, "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Yeah... those random folks on Twitter talking about how this was an FBI scheme or Uvalde was a false flag event certainly give better information.
Thats weird because according to the majority in Heller v. DC - which is considered to have first invented the individual right, it was the first time the court ever considered the question. "This case represents this Court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment..." Perhaps you can request a rehearing of the case and clarify that the court secretly invented these rights in 1857 in Dred Scott v Sanford - and that this secrecy extended to..not mentioning or citing Dred Scott at all in Heller.
It is considered by you to have first invented the individual right. Clearly Dred Scott was not an "in-depth examination of the Second Amendment" because it was actually an in-depth examination of the Fugitive Slave Act. Regardless of not being an in-depth examination, clearly the court recognized the individual right contained in the second amendment, just as it did the individual rights contained in the first amendment. I should request a rehearing to have the court find the same result but cite Dred Scott? Why? The court didn't secretly invent anything. The bill of rights was written and ratified and plain as day they wrote the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Then nearly 60 years later they still pretty clearly understood that yes, individual people have a right to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
And by everybody else other than a few dorks like you who make magical claims that originalism or whatever nonsense formalism happens also to neatly coincide with whatever the MAGAterian policy position du jour is, 200 years after the fact citing... Dred Scott lol. Obviously Dred Scott didn't have anything to do with the second amendment and didn't invent the individual right like Scalia did in 2008, but anyway why is not even cited in passing by the majority or the concurrence? Doesn't seem like you've read Heller recently (i liked peeking at heller because while i generally don't give a ****, Justice Stevens using kooky originalism to reach the opposite conclusion as Scalia nonsense is a pretty sick burn on ASS if you care about that type of thing) - if you had you'd see there's an entire section called Pre-Civil War Case Law and it doesn't mention Dred Scott v. Sanford (it just mentions a bunch of rando state court cases ). I mean it couldn't be more clear that the individual right is being created for the first time,lol, that was the whole point of the case: It should be unsurprising that such a significant matter has been for so long judicially unresolved. Spoiler alert: he then resolves it, by inventing the individual right, new permutations and expansion of which have been invented each year since. Alternatively we could accept your explanation that Dred Scott v. Sanford first invented the individual right - a proposition that literally nobody believed or believes to be true.
A Nation of Hostages - The Atlantic Losing Faith We do not yet know why a shooter opened fire on a crowd in Illinois yesterday. Given what we know about the suspected killer, I think it is unlikely that the massacre in Highland Park was part of an organized terror plot, but rather yet another case of a young male loser attacking his own community. Nonetheless, the effect of these mass shootings is the same as terrorism: They rob us of a general sense of safety and turn us into a nation of hostages. ... Such feelings are corrosive and depressing. They undermine our faith in our system of government. (This is often the goal of terrorist violence.) Worse, mass shootings undermine our faith in one another. And that loss of faith leads me to a thought I cannot escape: There is nothing we can do about such events. They will keep happening. ... So what can we do? We can choose not to despair. We can, as an act of will, keep faith in our society and our institutions. Just as we do not give up on living when we are ill, we cannot give up on ourselves because of these monstrous acts. We can do this concretely by demanding more changes to our laws, but we can also exert social pressure on an irresponsible gun culture. After all, we managed as a nation to make smoking a legal but socially unacceptable habit in everything from movies to public spaces. Do we really think we can’t collectively start pushing back against gun culture the same way? This sounds anodyne, almost ridiculous, on a day like this. The guns will not disappear and another such attack is a near certainty. But we can and must try to mitigate the danger—and the damage to our democracy—by refusing to surrender to the anguish, by insisting that our fellow citizens come to their senses, and by affirming our faith that a great democracy can heal itself from even the most grievous wounds.
Does seem to be a case of mental illness. So the State Police said there wasn't a pending FOID to revoke... was there not a process to not grant a FOID? What we know about Robert 'Bobby' Crimo III, the suspect in Highland Park parade massacre - ABC News (go.com) Lake County Sheriff's Office officials said at a news conference Tuesday that the investigation alleges that Crimo planned the attack for several weeks and opened fire on paradegoers from the roof of a business he accessed by an affixed ladder. Police alleged that Crimo fired more than 70 shots during the episode. He was dressed in women's clothing, apparently to blend in with the panicked crowd as he made his getaway, said Lake County Sheriff's Sgt. Christopher Covelli. Covelli said Crimo legally purchased the high-powered AR-15-style rifle he allegedly used in the attack in Illinois. Covelli said a second rifle, also purchased legally, was found in the car Crimo was driving. He said Crimo also legally bought three other weapons, including two pistols, that investigators seized from his father's home. He said police checked on Crimo after he attempted suicide in April 2019, but no action was taken. Covelli said police were called to Crimo's home in September 2019 by a family member who claimed Crimo allegedly threatened to kill everyone in his house. He said no charges were filed in the incident, but police seized 16 knives, a dagger and a sword from Crimo and reported the incident to the Illinois State Police. Sgt. Delilah Garcia of the Illinois State Police said no action was taken against Crimo in the September 2019 incident. She said at the time Crimo was not in possession of any firearms and did not have a firearms owner identification card or a pending application for one to revoke. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which monitors and analyzes extremist content online, said in a briefing statement that it appears Crimo had an extensive online presence and that posts allegedly associated with him included mental health issues, hatred and a gravitation toward far-right and neo-fascist thoughts and ideologies. "He was not just crying out for help, he was screaming out for it,” said John Cohen, an ABC News contributor and the former acting undersecretary for intelligence and counterterrorism coordinator at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
How deep do background checks go? I understand the records of underage people aren't easily accessible, but that dude attempted suicide and threatened to slice and dice his family at 19. Is that not on background checks? Is it only criminal records not psychological records? Is there some existing laws that would keep that type of information private?
