The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims

[The Heretic]

The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence. In their first Second Amendment case since they expanded gun rights in 2022, the justices ruled 8-1 in favor of a 1994 ban on firearms for people under restraining orders to...

news.yahoo.com

Read More

 

[arakboss]

The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence. In their first Second Amendment case since they expanded gun rights in 2022, the justices ruled 8-1 in favor of a 1994 ban on firearms for people under restraining orders to...

news.yahoo.com

Sad day.

"Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others," Roberts wrote.


I wonder what various governments might consider a credible threat to the physical safety of others.

 

[Spitpatch]

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future"

Adolph Hitler, 1938

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future"

 

[bentoncity]

Another nail in the proverbial coffin by the courts. Can you say red flag laws?

That being said, domestic abusers need to be treated in a worse way than the way they're treating others. Maybe mandatory arming of the victim?

 

[Hawaiian]

If a guy beats his wife/girlfriend he does not have the mental capacity to control his temper or violent actions. I say F him, he does not deserve to have a gun to use in his uncontrollable fits of rage. What he does deserve is a good old fashioned ars whopping.

 

[Alexx1401]

Another nail in the proverbial coffin by the courts. Can you say red flag laws?

That being said, domestic abusers need to be treated in a worse way than the way they're treating others. Maybe mandatory arming of the victim?

Having worked in and around Medical all my life I have seen a LOT of women who have some Piece of ex. Everyone of them that has ever come to me for advice is told I will be happy to take you to learn to shoot and help pick out a gun. A lot of them of course do not want to and I just shrug. To the ones who want a piece of paper to protect them I have always said yes, get one. Only to show you tried in case you have to drop the scum. You can show the law you tried.
They get a LOT of hate here and again I don't own a piece of them as far as I know but I love the Byrna. Bought first one good while back for one kid who will NOT own a gun. In testing it I was so impressed I bought one for myself to keep for use on property. Ended up buying another short time ago. If some woman will not own and or carry a gun? They may save their life one day.

 

[Alexx1401]

If a guy beats his wife/girlfriend he does not have the mental capacity to control his temper or violent actions. I say F him, he does not deserve to have a gun to use in his uncontrollable fits of rage. What he does deserve is a good old fashioned ars whopping.

That part I have no problem with. What scares me is people "accused of" this kind of thing with no real evidence. This has for a good while become a common tool used by the woman who wants to get back at some guy. Its such a mess.

 

[Hawaiian]

That part I have no problem with. What scares me is people "accused of" this kind of thing with no real evidence. This has for a good while become a common tool used by the

I agree, there is truth in the old saying "Hell hath no fury like a women scorned.'
There does need to be due process prior to disarming someone.

 

[Koda]

This whole ruling centered around the Rahimi case. What I don't understand is how they could conflated the Rahimi case with simple court order (restraining orders) when Rahimi was already convicted of felony gun charges?

"He pleaded guilty to charges of violating the federal gun law and was sentenced to six years in prison. But he continued to press his constitutional challenge, and ultimately the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law is unconstitutional because there was nothing like it in the 1790s."

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/23/1252764853/supreme-court-guns

 

[arakboss]

I agree, there is truth in the old saying "Hell hath no fury like a women scorned.'
There does need to be due process prior to disarming someone.

There is a new due process. The government thinks you're a credible threat to others, no more firearms for you.

 

[arakboss]

That part I have no problem with. What scares me is people "accused of" this kind of thing with no real evidence. This has for a good while become a common tool used by the woman who wants to get back at some guy. Its such a mess.

The robes just handed governments across the land freedom to label whoever they like a credible threat to others and take their firearms. This is bad news.

 

[bradsteen]

How does the law define "credible"? Cornell University says:

Credibility is the capacity for being believed; the quality that renders something (testimony, evidence, a witness, etc.) worthy of belief; believability.

Evidence is logical, but testimony and witnesses are subjective and have a high potential for bias. So, seems kinda fuzzy.

 

[Jade Falcon]

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future"

Adolph Hitler, 1938

There's no evidence that Hitler ever actually said this, nor did this ruling have anything to do with registration.

In regards to the ruling, I don't have a problem with it. If you can't control your temper and not beat your GF or wife, then no you shouldn't have a gun. And probably be locked up too.

That does NOT mean that I don't believe that a person should have due process.....they absolutely should. And if they are innocent, they should have full rights restored. And the courts should consider restoring a person's rights if they have paid their debts to society.

But if you are actively using your significant other's face as a punching bag, then I'd hate to wonder what you are like around guns. And I don't want to be around when you pick one up.

 

[Indy62]

This whole ruling centered around the Rahimi case. What I don't understand is how they could conflated the Rahimi case with simple court order (restraining orders) when Rahimi was already convicted of felony gun charges?

"He pleaded guilty to charges of violating the federal gun law and was sentenced to six years in prison. But he continued to press his constitutional challenge, and ultimately the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law is unconstitutional because there was nothing like it in the 1790s."

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/23/1252764853/supreme-court-guns

I agree. It seemed strange to me that this would be the case the SC would use.

Look, nobody has any patience or sympathy for a man beating a woman...at least no real man does.

But, there are cases where mutual domestic situations happen. Many times it's the woman initiating violence on the man first, and in the process of defending himself, the woman may be injured 'more' than the man. We're not talking about punching, choking, kicking, gun present etc..just 'offensive touching' could be considered cause.

And because states have passed and enforced mandatory arrest/prosecution laws, one of them is going to be arrested and if possible prosecuted, even if in self defense. The judicial weight rests heavily on the side of the man being arrested..regardless.

So now you have someone denied their 2A rights...for life....even though no firearm may have been involved.

Now factor in the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, also known as the 'boyfriend loophole'. That law added 'dating' as a category that applies to domestic abuse 2A restriction. But, interestingly, it also added a clause that restored 2A rights to the 'abuser' after 5 years..if there had only been one incident.

But no such law change was made to other categories, such as spouse. And for the application of spouse, 'live in' partner is considered to be the same as spouse.

So the difference between having 2A rights taken away for life, or restored after five years, is whether the partners lived together or just casually dated.

Odd. You would think the SC would address that situation.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Miller, Heller, and all the way to Bruen , all depends on NFA, GCA, FOPA being " constitutional" in order to hold that "the 2A is not unlimited"

 

[Koda]

That does NOT mean that I don't believe that a person should have due process.....they absolutely should. And if they are innocent, they should have full rights restored. And the courts should consider restoring a person's rights if they have paid their debts to society.

The root of the debate here is do restraining orders qualify as due process? Remember a restraining order is not a conviction. The whole order is based on one persons bias, the judge. In blue states all it would take is an anti gun judge to learn someone owns firearms.
And the other issue is there really isnt a true process to get your guns back, other than the judges opinion on if your ready.

 

[arakboss]

This isn't about wife or husband beaters. They gave governments free reign to identify those they feel threatened by and take their firearms.

 

[arakboss]

Do you think somebody could have felt this couple was a credible threat to somebody else?

 

[CountryGent]

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future"

Adolph Hitler, 1938

There isn't any evidence that the Bohemian Corporal ever made that statement. And Germany already had firearms registration before his crew took over the government.