comment: >
  
  Can we protest at his house? This is ridiculous. Hold him accountable!
context: They don't always read their Federalist Society ghost written "decisions." Judge Cannon in FL cited evidence and arguments never submitted by the plaintiff. >
  
  You mean Trump Legal Team Member Cannon.  Because that decision made up facts. >
  
  Made use of “alternatives facts”* >
  
  This is what happens when we elect domestic terrorists. They appoint incompetent judges to help them to destroy our government's ability to function and to uphold the few laws they care about. >
  
  And until America begins removing domestic arms race participants, proponents, and apologists from elected office, playing whack-a-mole with the judiciary will have the same net effect on GSW deaths, injuries, and intentional acts of targeted gun barrel terror and intimidation it's always had: little if any at all. >
  
  Until Congress gets off their asses and starts impeaching + removing judges for bad conduct, this will keep happening. Judges in this country face zero accountability. They should fear public backlash. >
  
  There's no way 67 senators will vote against anybody for removal. >
  
  Too bad they didn’t kick out insurrectionist justices after Jan 6th. Democrats squandered two years. >
  
  They didn't have the 2/3 vote back then either. >
  
  Even then we barely had it. Thank fuck for Georgia. >
  
  Every day I still thank the voters of GA. And curse the voters of Maine. >
  
  I honestly think we need some kind of new "colonialism" where basically we have people from heavily blue states resettle depopulated red states taking over towns like Libertarians but not getting eaten by bears. >
  
  Bloomberg could totally give people stipends to move to purple and red areas. >
  
  The thing that makes this so insulting is the flagrant stupidity and ineptitude  of the judge who clearly doesn’t care if he gets caught >
  
  Why would he care? There won't be any repercussions. Judges pretty much think they are above the law these days. >
  
  
  Judges pretty much think they are above the law these days.
  
  Confirmation >
  
  
  Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas. On December 1, after selling narcotics to an individual, he fired multiple shots into that individual’s residence. The following day, Rahimi was involved in a car accident. He exited his vehicle, shot at the other driver, and fled the scene. He returned to the scene in a different vehicle and shot at the other driver’s car. On December 22, Rahimi shot at a constable’s vehicle. On January 7, Rahimi fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant
  
  Sheesh, we HAVE to let a maniac like this continue to have access to guns. Thems the rules. Guns are sacrosanct. By this line of thinking, inmates should have access to firearms. >
  
  How do we know he’s not a “good guy with a gun”® >
  
  5th Circuit stooge hangs "Will rape precedent for appointment" sign around neck and hits the conservative catwalk. >
  
  That and the "fuck them kids" line are so hot right now. >
  
  The goal isn't to be historically accurate. Just like with Dobbs, the goal is to put women "in their place". >
  
  Which is why they want to monitor the menstrual cycles of women in Florida now. How fucking sick >
  
  They not only want too, they are demanding it, and writing laws to ensure that it happens. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  So kudos to Judge Ho for trying to build a historical case! Unfortunately, neither of these cited opinions have much to do with the Second Amendment.
  Judge Ho appears to have seen "Unqualified command of the Second Amendment" and called it a day.
  How did something so sloppy end up in an appellate opinion? Obviously, there's a dearth of historical precedent for the proposition that the Second Amendment affords an individual right to gun ownership, but armed with AI-facilitated caselaw search tools all he could come up with for pre-2001 support is an opinion from 1961 that concludes the opposite way?!?!
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Amendment^#1 right^#2 Second^#3 gun^#4 court^#5 >
  
  Given that he's a member of the Federalist Society I'd assume he's read very few cases, let alone any appealed to the court he's on. The whole organization exists only to provide a way for lawyers who would struggle to maintain employment even at the cheapest cut-rate law firms to get posh jobs as federal judges by signing off a willingness to write anti-Constitutional, treasonous policies into their opinions. >
  
  I don’t think people quite understand how much less safe the world is for women now. 
  Zero abortion access in many states. 
  Very little justice for domestic violence, rape and assault. 
  Domestic violence perps can now have guns. 
  This isn’t going to work out well. >
  
  And kids. >
  
  Federalist Society judge, they're the Fox News of judicial societies. >
  
  Fox News is more credible
  
  !Don’t read too much into that, The National Enquirer has more credibility than either of them!< >
  
  Surprise, he's another Federalist Society nut put into an office under Trump to further undermine the institutions that the nation depends on. >
  
  Oh so the “activist judges” were right wing all along. Raise your hand if you’re remotely surprised >
  
  I can’t wait until they start letting criminals keep their guns with them when they go to prison. >
  
  I cannot imagine them ever doing that. There is too much profit to be made in the illegal provision and trade of arms in prisons. The guards would throw a fit if they lost this income source. At best we might see the sale of arms legalized under some tortured reading of the 2nd Amendment, but the guards would have to get a cut of the action. >
  
  Funny anyone thought this was anything but political. Wasn’t about guns. Wasn’t about abusers. Certainly wasn’t about victims. Was about how much money he could take home from the NRA >
  
  ...from Putin, via the NRA. >
  
  these people are not jurists. they work backwards from the partisan conclusions they want to find the rationalizations they feel cover their asses. >
  
  More laws have been passed to restrict voting then to restrict gun ownership. America is pathetic. >
  
  Sauce? >
  
  The 5th circuit remains a threat to the Republic. >
  
  I wish Biden would speed up the process of getting Judges confirmed to the 5th circuit on an emergency basis. It's too imbalanced. >
  
  The fight for being the least informed judge is on! >
  
  Turns out “gun nuts” are, in fact, nuts. >
  
  Ho no he didn’t!!! >
  
  Ho yeah he diiiid!!! >
  
  Appointed by Trump , of course. >
  
  Turns out, if you allow a group of people the ability to just make up whatever they want, they will make up whatever they want. >
  
  Why would he bother. It's doubtful that he wrote any part of the opinion himself anyway. It was almost certainly written by the plaintiff's attorneys. >
  
  What an embarrassment to the Asian community. Looks like he’s too busy spending money on his ‘power” lunches. >
  
  If you want to maximize the sales of your guns, then i suppose endangering the public with reckless and irresponsible gun owners would be the way to do it. Everybody gets a gun! Small children, wife beaters, pets, guns get a gun. Look at the profits go through the roof (and  gun deaths)! >
  
  I’m still waiting for somebody to make the obvious leap and argue that all speech is protected.  If the first amendment was treated as absolute, the same way as the second, then kiddie porn should be legal; there’s definitely no way desantis’ ban on drag shows should be allowed to stand. >
  
  Check his accounts for NRA money yet?… >
  
  The judge basically argues no behavior can place restrictions on civil rights. So there's felony voting laws that need to go to this judge asap. >
  
  Donald Trump didn't appoint this Federalist Society member to the bench because he expected him to make fair ruling based solely on law and jurisprudence. >
  
  None of the recent pro-gun rulings have had any basis in the law.  It started with the Heller ruling, which magically changed the meaning of the second amendment over 2 centuries after it was ratified, and it's all been downhill from there.  Some states actually banned concealed carry in the early 1800s, when some of the founding fathers were still alive, but 200 years later, that is now unconstitutional.  It's absurd how the Trump-appointed judges have become dictators that overrule the people who are supposed to make laws, and no one is noticing. >
  
  What I don’t understand is why gun rights are the only right that can’t be limited in a way. >
  
  But they are limited. My ccw is going to cost me 1200 dollars. I’ll spend two years waiting. I have to take an 18 hour course, a drug test, finger prints, background check, four character references and a police interview. That sounds like there’s some limits. >
  
  That's because you don't live in one of the many states that permit concealed carry without a license.
  But this court will overturn those restrictions soon enough, because the only right that matters is the right to sell more guns. >
  
  Good. Remember everyone flipping out over 10 dollar voter ids? But somehow you think it totally fine to charge people 1200 every 3 years for a ccw. >
  
  Gee, I can't imagine why that would be the case, it's not like there's a history of charging people money to vote resulting in unequal access to voting or anything. >
  
  So it’s not fine to charge for 1 right but totally fine to charge 120 times more for another? >
  
  It's almost like your right to vote is a hell of a lot more important than your right to concealed carry a firearm or something. >
  
  Seems like a ridiculous unforced error. All the guy had to do was cite the latest spate of 2nd Amendment cases from SCOTUS and say, "Things have obviously changed at the top, so here at the next level down we have to account for that."
  It's tough when an obviously-broken clock is right. Shit's obviously broken, and that's embarrassing. We should be fixing it regardless. That doesn't change the fact that a court pushing back on the deprivation of rights pre-conviction would be hailed as a legally- and ideologically-consistent position, and maybe even just a "good" one generally, if it were about basically anything else besides guns. >
  
  The fact that he AGREED to it as a way to get out of a domestic violence charge should make it obvious that the court isn't "pushing back on the deprivation of rights pre-conviction."
  That argument is bullshit.
  But tell me, do you think these judges are against pre-conviction incarceration?  Or is their theory that the only real deprivation of rights is taking someone's guns, not taking their liberty? >
  
  “Heeee’s a Ho” >
  
  Some people look so unintelligent >
  
  A 'ho' in more ways than one >
  
  Is this the torture memo guy? >
  
  Nope, that guy is a professor at Berkeley. >
  
  No, it’s him. He’s a judge now. I looked it up after asking, which clearly was smart because based on the downvotes to my question, when I was correct, I shouldn’t accept second hand info from anyone here. >
  
  Dumb ass ho >
  
  Is he really a Ho tho? >
  
  Fo sho. >
  
  Did he also write, 'Hurtin for a Squirtin?' >
  
  To be fair, he’s a ho. >
  
  He's an insult to ho's >
  
  Terrible >
  
  This is like 16 year old me getting footnotes for my 11th grade half-year paper off wikipedia without reading them. >
  
  I’ve heard he is a communist Chinese plant…. >
  
  Pretty sure the only qualification a Trump judge needed was footage of them saying nice things about Trump on one of the  "news" outlets.