Why doesn't the DOJ Civil Rights Division defend the 2nd?

[woodwork201]

/——/ The military is tightly controlled by Congress and POTUS. That is why the COC is a civilian. No military leader has the authority to act on his or her own. The military protects us from foreign invaders and to defend our interests outside our border.
It was set up this way because King George used the red coats to counter British citizens at his will.
More info: The President and the Domestic Deployment of the Military: Answers to Five Key Questions

What's a COC?

That link is to a very interesting take on the Insurrection Act which might actually demonstrate why and how President Trump could have, and perhaps should have, sent in the military and even how he could have done it under his control rather than under the control of, or to the assistance of, the local or state police. When Trump was considering it, though, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, and General Milley, in what can only be termed as a military coup, all said they wouldn't do it in the event of an order to go.

According to the Constitution, the military does not get to choose whether to follow such orders and they must, if ordered, execute the orders fully and enthusiastically. If the orders are viewed as unconstitutional, then the Congress can step in to impeach and convict the President but, until that happens, the military does what the President orders, always - unless they just decide that they don't like the President's tweets, in which case, there must be a hidden clause that the Military no longer takes orders from the President.

 

[otto105]

/----/ That's gotta be the dumbest question of the last 5 years on USMB. Yes, Spanky. All the words in the amendments are important. You can't pick and choose. GEEEZE

So a well regulated militia…

 

[Auld Phart]

So a well regulated militia…

is only half the amendment.

stop being lazy

 

[otto105]

is only half the amendment.

stop being lazy

Every word matters.

 

[Auld Phart]

Every word matters.

then read every word.

 

[otto105]

then read every word.

I want to know where the regulations are in our gun violence country.

 

[Auld Phart]

I want to know where the regulations are in our gun violence country.

there are 20,000+ laws about firearms on the books.

enjoy

 

[otto105]

there are 20,000+ laws about firearms on the books.

enjoy

Does a domestic abuser have a right to own a gun?

 

[Auld Phart]

Does a domestic abuser have a right to own a gun?

IMO, no.

How long should the waiting period be before his victim can bring home a firearm to protect themselves?

 

[otto105]

IMO, no.

How long should the waiting period be before his victim can bring home a firearm to protect themselves?

According to the activist conservative court, can an adjudicated domestic abuser own guns?

I’ll give you another shot at it.

 

[Auld Phart]

According to the activist conservative court, can an adjudicated domestic abuser own guns?

I’ll give you another shot at it.

According to the activist

"activist"?

lame.

if the law says they can have a firearm, and the court adheres to the law. how is that 'activist'?

 

[woodwork201]

So a well regulated militia…

That's the preamble. I posted the history and legal effects of preambles in law. Basically, they're meaningless except for just information and have no bearing on the interpretation of the law.

 

[woodwork201]

Does a domestic abuser have a right to own a gun?

Everyone has a right to keep and bear arms, even you.

 

[otto105]

Everyone has a right to keep and bear arms, even you.

So, domestic abusers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Everyone has a right to keep and bear arms, even you.

Especially under the Bruen test.
The only routine exclusions to the ownership or firearms back then were blacks / slaves, Catholics and Indians.
Today, these exclusions would be overturned on the 14th Amendment alone, w/o reference to the 2nd.
So.... the "prohibited persons" disability created by the GCA1968 9as amended) is in trouble

This is a case of the conservative tendency to apply the law as read, rather than the liberal tendency to apply the law as you think it should be.