This past week saw a huge win for gun rights, in that SCOTUS the Fifth circuit struck down a part of the GCA that was added during the Clinton administration– making eliminating a provision of the law that prohibited persons out of people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. AWA over at GunFreeZone did an excellent post on the ruling, and I won’t attempt to recreate that here.

There are those who oppose that ruling and are claiming that there will be domestic abusers lining up to kill their former partners over this. I don’t think that there will be any big changes. Those who want to kill their partners just aren’t deterred by a piece of paper saying that killing someone is illegal, even if signed by a judge. The left always assumes that criminals are simply honest people who gave in to a moment’s impulse, and each of us is equally likely to give into an impulse to kill others. An interesting insight into the leftist mind, eh?

My opinion on these DV orders is that they are bullshit aimed at men in an attempt to give women another arrow in their lawfare quiver. About ten years ago, I was the subject of one of those orders. It was sought and granted without me even being present, with the initial order not even having my correct name on it, by a woman that I hadn’t even seen in months, and in that order she alleged that I did things in stalking her that were impossible because I was not even in the country when they were alleged to have happened.

David Letterman was once subject to a DV order that was obtained by a woman who lived thousands of miles away, after the woman alleged that they were in a secret affair and that Letterman was sending her secret messages using his top 10 lists as a code. Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying.

 Here are the disturbing statistics:

The decision that is the subject of this post fixes some of that. That isn’t how the left, or apparently Brett Kavanaugh, sees it. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the Bruen case, arguing that sometimes we have to weigh in on whether or not a law is a good idea.

That’s where he is wrong.

The Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “… unless you have a really good reason to do so.” The Supreme Court isn’t there to decide whether or not a law is a good idea. The court is there to decide whether or not a particular law comports with the Constitution. Deciding whether or not a law is a good idea is the job of Congress. All of the authority of the government derives from the Constitution. Any power or authority that the government takes upon itself that is outside of that authority is nothing more than tyranny, an unconstitutional power grab that is based upon the principle of “might makes right” that flies in the face of the principles upon which the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” was built upon.

There are those who would try and make the case that there is some balancing act to be done, but that isn’t how our government is supposed to work. Thomas sees that. Scalia, although a pragmatic sort of man, saw that as well. Kavanaugh does not.

The left, well, they don’t see the Constitution as anything more than a piece of paper containing words that can be worked around, as long as the words are pretty enough.

Fuck them. Not one more inch. This decision is proof to me that the jury box isn’t completely dead. The war continues.


Steve S6 · February 4, 2023 at 10:11 am

“This decision is proof to me that the jury box isn’t completely dead.”

Look up random intermittent reinforcement.

EN2 SS · February 4, 2023 at 11:06 am

Surprising that kavanaugh thinks that way, after the shitshow the leftists put him through. All three of President Trumps SCOTUS picks have made a big difference in the court, but all three have made some ridiculous decisions, also.

Balloons Uber Alles · February 4, 2023 at 3:03 pm

Comrade lefty loves by any means necessary and then expects a metal sign or piece of paper signed by a minion of the state to be gospel etched on a stone tablet.

O/T-Aggregator is saying a Fang Fang balloon has been shot down off of North Carolina

    Divemedic · February 4, 2023 at 3:57 pm

    Yep. Saw that.

Anonymous · February 4, 2023 at 9:14 pm

All of the authority of the government derives from the Constitution.

Then by the same argument, the 20th century dictatorships had authority because they had constitutions, too? Some group of founding lawyers writes some document and then everybody has a moral duty to obey it? This is just ‘Simon Says’. Simon Says pay taxes. Who is Simon and why do I have a moral duty to obey him?

    Divemedic · February 4, 2023 at 9:54 pm

    Having taken power doesn’t grant authority. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. It’s a basic tenet of our system of government. Seizing power is not the same as having authority.
    So, as the document says, when any government becomes destructive to the ends of their just powers, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it.

      Anonymous · February 5, 2023 at 3:03 pm

      I didn’t consent, and my ancestors can’t consent for me. I think the legal idea you’re describing is not ‘consent’, it’s ‘sold into slavery’. Reduce the white male middle class to the legal status of Sally Hemings, and for the same reasons. That’s why the Constitution describes a power structure which is a clone of the British government.

        Divemedic · February 5, 2023 at 4:48 pm

        I think you will find the answer you are looking for in the writings of Rousseau.

    Anonymous · February 5, 2023 at 11:17 pm

    (Constitution vs. British government): ‘The king/president is not of one genetic line’ is so that the Kennedy or Bush dynasties can’t lock each other out. Remember when the presidential contestants were two fraternity brothers (Bush vs. Kerry)? Instead of thinking Animal Farm, you should think Animal House. Bohemnian Grove is Burning Man for Republicans.

    Aesop · February 6, 2023 at 10:56 pm

    @Anon 9:14P
    You skipped a few logical steps in jumping from apples to pineapples.

    The Constitution’s power derives from the consent of The People.
    Dictator-authored “constitutions” can suck it.

    The Constitution conveys no moral duties.
    It enacts laws of conduct, and empowers lower governments acting according to the same principle.
    Violation of the former is not a sin. It’s a felony.

    One is the province of priests and pastors.
    The other comes with guards and bars.
    One of these things is not like the other.

    Simon Says pay taxes.
    Welcome to the Graybar Motel.
    Change those laws. Or move.
    No third option there.

    Staying within the jurisdiction of the law is implied consent.
    Refusal to obey it is a criminal act.
    Thoreau didn’t pay his taxes either. He went to jail.
    (Only his friends cared enough to bail him out and pay the tax he wouldn’t.)

    Morality is between you and your conscience, and/or your god. Not anyone else’s problem.
    Choose wisely.

    Don’t like that social contract?
    Can’t be bothered to comply, or change the system, within the lines?
    Get moving. DLTDHYITAOYWO.

    And of course your ancestors can consent for you. Try moving back into the house your parents sold, and tell the class how that experiment works out for you.
    Then violate the laws against speeding, robbery, child molestation, or murder, all passed by people hundreds of years before you reached majority.

    Then go look up stare decisis. And/or FA,FO.
    If you seriously think the world begins and ends with you, Baby Duck, you’re nothing but a sophomoric entitled anarchist.
    There’s a medal for that:

    Hopefully, I’m not the first one to clue you into that.
    If not, then you’re simply trolling.
    You should probably look that up too.
    And note that trolling is not the same thing as thinking.

    Just saying.

Jonathan · February 4, 2023 at 10:33 pm

I found it interesting to read the actual text of the federal law in the linked article.
What struck me was that federally (state may be different), a protective order can only revoke gun rights if the defendant was aware of the hearing at the time it was held – it looks to me like the law guarantees a right to defend oneself which I’ve NEVER heard of actually being done.

NA · February 4, 2023 at 10:35 pm

FYI this was a 5th Circuit ruling this week, not SCOTUS.

Justice Kavanaugh’s take appeared in his concurrence in Bruen (joined by Justice Roberts) last June:

Otherwise your take is exactly correct, IMHO. “Innocent until proven guilty” is no more. The Second Amendment is not a right but a revocable privilege that leftist judges consign to the dustbin whenever they have an opportunity. Men are guilty until proven innocent. The “land of the free” line has been false since perhaps the 1980s. And the left isn’t nearly done yet. Look out ahead.

    Divemedic · February 5, 2023 at 6:16 am

    Thanks. Fixed.

AWA · February 4, 2023 at 11:23 pm

As NA says above, it was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that issued the opinion. Not SCOTUS.

Thank you for the kind words and link.


    Divemedic · February 5, 2023 at 6:16 am

    Thanks. Fixed

Aesop · February 6, 2023 at 10:34 pm

DV restraining orders are one thing.
Turning them into constructive felony convictions is quite another, and should have been stricken down as illegal infringments the minute they were inked.

Violating Constitutional rights is like allowing any random woman to ask that you be gagged and handcuffed to the plumbing forever because she’s afraid you might say mean things, or type mean tweets. It’s the polar opposite of “due process”.

There’s already a process for alleging and proving such a case.

Court order to stay away from her/him, and don’t contact her, on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations? Okay, fine, within very strict and short limits.

Revoke the Constitution from applying to you because of her unsubstantiated feels?
F**k that noise.

Kavanaugh not getting that is proof he’s not very bright. After being publicly lynched for confirmation, he’s now got Stockholm Syndrome, and is white-knighting for the exact @$$holes that think the Constitution grants rights, rather than restricts government from infringing on inalienable rights.

He’s another black-robed fucktard, and thus part of the problem.

Comments are closed.