Link to SCOTUS ruling that violated 2nd amendment of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
"Not an unlimited right" is a translation of "The state has the right to infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights of citizens."
The Constitution is in fact an UNLIMITED CONSTRAINT on the federal government.
Now, all the state needs to do is do what they with Q+ in rigged courts. They can rig juries and rig courts to result in "unanimous" verdicts of guilt against innocent people, falsely label them as "a threat to others", meaning, a threat to the totalitarianism of a totalitarian federal government, and then use that pretext as an excuse to violate the 2nd amendment constitutional rights of citizens, thereby preventing them from ever defending themselves against the tyranny.
SCOTUS JUST DESTROYED THE NATION
SCOTUS JUST MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR A CORRUPT FEDERAL BUREACRACY TO RIG THE COURTS TO PRODUCE PRE-SCRIPTED OUTCOMES OF SLANDERING CITIZENS AS 'THREATS' AND THEREBY DISARMING CITIZENS FROM DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM THAT VERY SAME COURT RIGGING FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY
Way to go retards. You just handed the mother of all adverse incentives to a corrupt federal bureaucracy.
How is it "wrong".
How is it "incorrect".
>you posted on the wrong link
What is the correct link if not this one:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
>They just clarified what was already established
That's all SCOTUS ever does you stupid moron. They don't make new laws. They ONLY either CONFIRMS, or DENIES, laws that are made in the lower court system.
By "clarifying" this blatantly unconstitutional law, they ENSHRINED it into federal law.
>So the government is not placing a blanket on all criminals, only violent ones.
Nobody is denying the details. The problem is that the federal state can and already is rigging courts to falsely declare innocent people of being ANY kind of criminal.
THAT is the point is that going over your head.
The problem is that the state is the arbiter of DEFINING whether a citizen is a "threat" or otherwise.
The Founders never said or intended or implied or even hinted at ANY "caveat" DEFINABLE BY THE FEDS whereby the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to this person or that person for this or that reason.
There were violent criminals at the time the 2nd amendment was written, but the founders never said "oh, except when the state deems the people a threat".
What happens when a future dictatorial state goes after the people en masse, and the people DEFEND THEMSELVES, AKA "become violent"…that future state can then define REVOLUTIONARY PATRIOTS as "violent threats", and refer back to this anti-constitutional law precedent as the pretext justifying ex post, "Hey we told you they were violent, now we can take their guns away".
Explain how the population can defend itself against a dictatorial federal government given that this new 'clarified' law DEFINES armed defense against state violence as itself threats of violence
Imagine the Brits in 1775 found George Washington guilty of 'threat of violence', and disarmed his entire army. THERE WOULD BE NO COUNTRY TODAY
Totalitarian laws ALWAYS start "small", and then metastasize over time as precedence begets precedence. How stupid are those SCOTUS justices. They are illicitly declaring future generations of federal state actors will NEVER falsely accuse and falsely convict any citizen of being a 'violent threat'.
Justice Thomas seems to be the only one who has a fucking brain.