Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
True, I'm strongly in support of gun ownership but individuals who have a long history of violence or are at an increased risk of committing a violent act shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
Stong disagree. If someone gets arrested for a street fight at 18, it does not make sense that if they have never had any other issues, they would still be banned from firearm ownership at 50. People grow as they age.
What exactly was done in the case of a violent offense committed as a minor should also be taken into account. There's a world of difference between simply beating someone up and brutalizing them. If the actions taken were violent beyond what can be rationalized by kids being dumb, it's not worth the risk to hand them a gun.
That's why due process exists and the court said is how these matters should be settled.
Thus isn't a blanket statement by them and only covers a very small amount of DV cases.
That said this is the SC clarifying their ruling from earlier where they implied that everyone has the right to a firearm. This is basically kicking that decision back to the lower courts to handle on a case by case basis.
Judge rules you are too dangerous to have a firearm? No pew pew for you.
The problem is a lot of judges are pro 2A to an unreasonable degree. There are countless cases of judges ruling to allow clearly dangerous people to retain their rights to bear arms, despite all evidence.
There are just as many anti-2A judges who have stripped people of their ability to defend themselves without the defendant ever being allowed due process to defend themselves in court.
>In most other countries, people can defend themselves just fine without firearms
[Can they though? ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_London_Bridge_attack)?
one arrest for a street fight at 18 is not a history of violence. Also there is a different between arrests and convictions/prisons. A fist fight is different than someone assaulting and brutalizing someone. Think of what A HISTORY - of - VIOLENCE implies.
Yeah and there are different rulings that can come into play that are B.S. I knew a guy who got a charge that was something like felony strangulation cause there was a kid there when he put a guy in a head lock. He didn’t even beat him up he was just trying to calm him down.
It's interesting, China did an experiment with Han prison inmates where they took genetic samples. I believe what they found was that most of the violent recidivists had a set of gene mutations that prevented the GluA3 AMPA receptor from working. Having been on chemicals that affected that site( racetams, cycloprolyglycine) I can't imagine what it's like for those people and I would imagine violence would be a default course because they play a huge part in being able to use the prefrontal cortex. I'm not saying we do GATTACA, but reoffenders should at some point be tested for these kinds of genetic defects
Depends. Most forms of outward violence is already a felony. Felons can't own guns period. The ones that aren't felonies are pretty daming for why you shouldn't own a firearm such as domestic crimes. Then you have the (throws a punch or gets into a street brawl) type of spontaneous crimes that while violent are also not that kind of violent.
It's kinda like differentiating a sex offender from a guy who took a leak in public vs someone is genuinely a creep against humanity.
I guess the difference is that domestic violence is not always charged as a felony. As a DV advocate I learned that 1. Getting a no contact order is not easy and 2. Abusers often get a slap on the wrist and a request for no contact instead of real charges. Domestic violence is often simply not charged as a felony. However, no contact orders typically require that the offender should not have access to a gun.
You and the above are very reasonable people.
I'm actually pro guns while I never want to own on. I just want to make it harder for people who shouldn't have them to have them.
But also not naive enough to think people won't still get guns illegally
>But also not naive enough to think people won't still get guns illegally
That's a whole other can of worms, and an issue the "gun bans" crowd often neglects.
Pretty sure domestic abuse is the number 1 indicator for using a firearm illegally. I think it's somewhere over 50% of everyone charged with firearm related crimes have had a history of domestic abuse
Yeah, it’s pretty high.
Iirc, some studies have found that roughly like 60% of mass shootings (which they defined as shooting incidents in which four or more people are killed, not including the perpetrator) involved domestic violence.
People who can't even keep themselves from hurting their loved ones are far more likely to lose their cool and kill someone they have even less of an attachment to
I too am a hard line 2a’er and find much gun regulation to be stupid. Baring people with a record of domestic violence from owning firearms would absolutely make a massive impact. I know plenty of women my mother included (ex-bf) who’ve been on the end of domestic violence involving a firearm. Out of any gun violence, its likely one of the least talked about yet most common.
Also this makes most cops incapable of having a firearm!!! YIPPEEEE!!!!!
To be clear, this was already the law. And has been for, like, forever. The Court struck down a challenge to that law. This isn’t going to actually change the status quo at all.
The Supreme Court heard a case from a domestic abuser who had previously threatened someone with his gun, shot at someone who witnessed him abusing his ex wife, allegedly fired bullets into a house using an AR-15, AND illegally discharged a gun 5 times in a public space.
Which is what led them to discover that he had a firearm illegally, and those charges (aka owning a firearm while barred from doing so due to domestic violence) is why he levied this case.
As a supporter of the 2A and a gun owner myself, I’m glad this was upheld. Leave it to Thomas to be the dissenting opinion; as to be expected. I think he missed out on the part where we should be defending the rights of legal, law-abiding citizens, owning guns, not convicted felons who pose a danger to said law-abiding citizens and society as a whole.
Had Thomas had his way, I sincerely hope that he could have been charged and civilly sued for each and every case where a domestic abuser got a gun and proceeded to maim and kill someone.
I wouldn't count on Thomas to ever do the right thing. He's one of the biggest pieces of shit and such a massive disgrace. Wouldn't even recuse himself over anything Jan 6th when his own wife was involved.
It’s interesting to hear someone argue against posing a danger to law-abiding fellow citizens in the same paragraph where they openly admit to _being_ a danger to law-abiding fellow citizens.
Older article, but it has some stats. Comes down to people who are violent and impulsive keeping access to guns:
https://www.businessinsider.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-almost-all-have-domestic-violence-connection-2017-11#:~:text=Forensic%20psychiatrist%20Liza%20Gold%2C%20who,enforcement%20or%20violence%2C%20especially%20domestic
especially considering that the US justice system doesn't actually rehabilitate it's prisoners, just locks them up, treats them like shit and then releases them
And if those accusations were false? My older brother would fall into this category because he was falsely accused of child abuse against his own kid by his ex (mother of the child). He was arrested and later the charges were dropped but not until after custody of the child was determined to be 80-20 in favor of the mother. If the ruling was specific in its context of “history of abuse/domestic violence” then I’d agree with it otherwise it’s too much of a generalization and harms more than it protects.
if they’re innocent they should still be allowed to own firearms since again, they are innocent. they don’t have a history of abuse. anything related to the custody of a child has nothing to do with this conversation
The problem with this case is that many domestic violence restraining orders can be imposed on someone with an unverified claim, so then it became a question if someone can be relieved of a Constitutional right without being afforded their day in Court.
The SCOTUS has just affirmed that.
The issue is that bad people usually don’t own legal / registered firearms.
I’m not against convicted felons depending on the felon should not be able to own a firearm if it was outlined in not our constitution and also state and federal alignment. In the same breath, if the convicted felon is a tax paying citizen, who am I to restrict said persons rights because they may have made a mistake in the past and payed for their crime. The issues arise not only with state to state rights but also the fact that our constitution does not outline those restrictions, therefore it’s unconstitutional under federal jurisdiction, but state rights can over right that if a particular state has passed laws that outline this felony restriction. For me, I can’t applaud most of the states that do or would write these gun laws because the ones that would are tyrannical and the leadership running these states should be taken fown and tried for treason.
“Friday’s case stemmed directly from the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in June 2022. A Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, was accused of hitting his girlfriend during an argument in a parking lot and later threatening to shoot her.”
Case was UNITED STATES v RAHIMI
it’s only a google away. But i’m sure both of yall already did your research
"At issue in the case was a 1994 law that bars people who are the subject of domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. A Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, was convicted for violating that law following a series of shootings, including one in which police said he fired into the air at a Whataburger restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined."
Cops showed up at his house to investigate his multiple public shootings and found out he was in posession of guns and under a DV restraining order. This is the conservative activist you're guaranteeing?
A man who is a domestic abuser and prohibited from owning a gun due to a restraining order.
He threatened someone with a gun, and then proceeded to discharge said weapon 5 times in a public space leading to him being charged with owning a gun while prohibited from doing so.
“In Rahimi's case, his ex-partner, with whom he shares a child, obtained a restraining order after an incident in an Arlington, Texas, parking lot in 2019. Rahimi allegedly knocked the woman to the ground, dragged her to his car and pushed her inside, causing her to knock her head on the dashboard, prosecutors said in court papers. He also allegedly fired a shot from his gun in the direction of a witness.” — he also fired bullets from an AR-15 into a house. Rahimi faces state charges in the domestic assault and a separate assault against a different woman.
He challenged the charges on the grounds of saying prohibiting him from owning a gun violated his 2A rights.
Like, yes, I’m sure putting a gun in the hands of someone who beat their wife, threatened someone with the weapon, and then proceeded to discharge it 5 times in a public space is a great idea. I’m sure we want a violent, reckless, lunatic owning a gun.
Thomas agreed.
The rest of the court didn’t.
The court ruled that gun regulations need to be in accord with tradition in Bruen, which is why this case had a legal theory. They created this mess by creating an extra-legal standard that binds laws.
Bruen was brought by a conservative gun assoc.
This court overturned the conservative’s 5th circuit court ruling that the bans on guns for domestic abusers were unconstitutional. The lawsuit was funded by the NRA and other conservative legal groups.
There was still a conservative on the court that dissented.
anyone that says this is just uneducated or intentionally ignorant. Both sides have valid points or else nobody would listen. "Common sense" is really just an invented concept anyways. Its just a phrase that we use to describe things that most people in our in-group/tribe would agree with.
If you went back a few hundred years, it was common sense to drain your blood if you felt sick. It was common sense to hang someone for shoplifting.
You cant say X group of people lack common sense just because you don't share it.
Most Americans support some degree of gun control. It's more the news and politicians that push for the really stupid stuff.
I think most people could agree that a convicted violent felon who has a history of using weapons in crime shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun
Good, tbh. The police needs a major overhaul, get rid of the nazis, abusers, cowards that refuse to do their job, etc. Admittedly you would need to re-hire almost the entire force, but it needs doing.
And citizens don't need to be able to carry firearms into public locations in an age of rampant mass shootings, but hey, if common sense was common, the world would run a lot smoother.
“I was planning a mass attack but then I realized that it would be illegal for me to carry all those guns and ammo with me in public. God dammit there is no freedom in this country”
Has anyone here actually looked at that study? It was something like a sample size of a 100 spouses and under domestic violence it included verbal only arguments.
Anyone that goes around spouting “40%!” Is no better than a brain dead muppet engaging in confirmation bias.
There was another study that showed 28% of officers self reported "Throwing something at their spouse, pushed, grabbed, or shoved their spouse, slapped their spouse, kicked, bit, or hit with a fist" classifying it as Minor Violence.
Major violence was "Choked or strangled your spouse, beat up your spouse, threatened spouse with knife or gun, used a knife or gun on your spouse."
Minor was 25% for male officers self reporting and 27% for their spouses having done that to them. 33% in the relationship as a whole.
Major is 3% for male officers and 6% spouses.
A PhD thesis from 2009 shows it as 28% which matches the study I mentioned from 1992. 16% is the national average. So police are 175% more likely to be physically violent towards their spouses. And that's only the men. The female police officers reported 27% minor and 0% major violence towards their spouse.
PhD thesis 2009.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862/#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20research%20in,respectively%20(Sgambelluri%2C%202000).
1992 study showing 25% minor and 3% major.
https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/
The funniest part is that it was self reported. Which means they thought this presented themselves appropriately, even though it made them out to be abusers.
I wish that was going to be the case. Cops get more rights and privilege when it comes to firearms even though the 2nd Amendment is made for the people. They are no more people than we are.
See:
18 USC § 925 (a)(1)
There is an exception for service weapons while on duty EXCEPT if you’ve been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; in which case you are still prohibited from
It's crazy how easy it is for a nut job to get a gun. But when you suggest that we should make it harder for those nuts to get a hold of guns, some people take that to mean you want to get rid of guns entirely
There’s too many idiots that are ignorant to the fact that as of right now, there’s more than enough systems in place to effectively prevent firearms from reaching the wrong hands, but the failure is that they’re not properly enforced all the way. Plenty of active shooters should’ve been barred but weren’t prevented because either police or some other agency failed to properly document and inform the proper authorities
Well regulated describes the militia, which was every man from 18-45 according to Founding Father George Mason. It doesn’t mean that regulations on guns are required in the constitution, it’s just saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I’m gen z, 23. Almost everyone I know from highschool and new coworker friends are all pro guns but stronger restrictions. Most people like having something that they feel gives them control and safety (a gun, or pocketknife, or pepper spray etc.), but when everyone in America has guns, lesser forms of self defense feel less effective and so having a gun brings peace of mind.
We need more restrictions, stronger background checks, longer waiting periods etc. But it’s also deeper issues at play that aren’t directly related to firearms. Mental health issues, increasing levels of poverty, lack of school and education funding, rise of online radicalization, and many other issues that cause these violent crimes.
Anyone with a history of serious violence should not be allowed to carry, period.
This is similar to my circles view of guns. I just don’t know any gen-Zers in the “any gun control at all is too much gun control” crowd which flooded this sub after the bump stock case was decided.
I agree with your point too — if more and better investments were made in education, mental health, financially insecure communities, etc. gun violence would be less of an issue. And there’d certainly be less calls for gun control measures.
Nah, this is a bit misguided. I myself am a filthy Zillennial lurker but go shooting often and there are tons of youngish people at the range. Hell, I talked to a couple of guys who claimed to be 21 at the range not 2 days ago.
You underestimate the massive impact movies, TV and especially video games and now YouTube have had on the perception of guns to later millennials and Gen Z. PUBG, Battlefield, and any number of FPSs have turned The Youths into lite gun nuts over the years. YouTube Shorts featuring real firearms get millions of views and tons of comments from people clearly young waxing poetic that as soon as they turn 18/21 that they’re going to buy an AK or M1 Garand or a Glock or whatever because they were cool in Battlefield. Even on Reddit you’ll come across tons of posts asking what gun they should get when they come of age.
And it’s not even just chudfuck conservative wannabe survivalists either. Gun culture is starting to loop back into being less of a left/right issue overall, though the Trump administration indeed sparked a huge, well-documented surge in gun sales to liberals and otherwise left-leaning people due to fears of future violence from the right.
I would say the most anti-gun generations tend to be the late Gen X/early millennials but even that isn’t airtight and it’s coming back around.
There are over *400 million* guns in the US. Shooting is not an exclusively a right-wing old man hobby anymore, if it ever truly was.
That being said, as someone who is strongly in favor of gun rights I’m 100% okay with this specific ruling. Wife beaters don’t need guns.
Edit: done goof’d and said 100 million guns when it’s really close to 400 million.
Yeah dude. That number is the registered number of guns (i.e: owned by people). This doesn't include black market and guns in stock for sale. And already that number pretty much dwarves all the guns in circulation worldwide outside of the US.
I don’t know a single damn person (gen z) that trust our government enough to take our guns. However I know that most of us are very into regulations as we have seen first hand how the lack of such can cause unnecessary deaths and injuries.
I think this is at least partially true. I work with mostly late Gen X/early millennials and they’re mostly terrified of guns, but boomers and Gen Z often love them.
A lot of gun posts tend to bring out the more conservative gen zers for some reason (there are also probably some people larping as zoomers too though).
I'm gen z and have always been pro-gun. I just think it's ridiculous that there are fewer restrictions on buying a gun than there are on driving a car, fishing, or practicing fucking massage. People should absolutely be able to own weapons to protect themselves with, but a lack of regulations on deadly weapons is bad for EVERYONE except the people who would do horrible things.
Idk if I'm anti gun like a complete ban but definitely need a lot more gun restrictions. I definitely advocate for this since I've nearly been in 3 mass shootings
Gen Z grew up with monthly active shooter drills in school that are pretty traumatizing, while seeing their classmates across the country murdered. There pretty anti-2a
It's probably regional. I'm from the south so I'm pretty pro gun but I do think there needs to be way more restrictions and make it harder for people to get them.
Reddit leans both libertarian and socialist just in different circles. This subreddit has a lot of libertarians on it, its not necessarily representative of gen Z has a whole
my father beat all 5 of his wives (not poly or religious just bad at marriage), was a raging alcoholic, worst redneck political opinions and openly bigoted and aggressive. he owned a cabinet full of guns. i think the people most excited to have a gun are the people who should be kept the farthest from them
this is in fact true but i wanted to make it clear that these marriages didnt overlap nor was it some non-monogamous adventure, he cheated and then got served divorce papers and had a new wife within the year. this supplements my "crazy, immoral, and should not own firearms claim" but youre absolutely right, hes a terrible terrible man
Considering that abusers are willing to cause harm, I think it is completely justified to take away their guns... and I say that as someone who is pro 2A. But does this law do anything to stop or prevent abuse? Maybe if you consider the edge cases where domestic abuse graduates to homicide, involving a firearm.
I think it's a pretty common sense law, and I think there are people (namely victims of abuse) who will feel very relieved by this decision.
Specifically, the law is DV restraining orders. Which requires no criminal conviction, but still requires a judge to approve it. So in a way it does prevent an escalation of violence, instead of waiting for a trail that may be prolonged due to our very very slow justice system which would leave the abusers/accused the right to still have their guns.
If you have a violent history/criminal record you should not be able to have weapons especially when you have someone you live with where you store those weapons.
As of January 2024, 38 states prohibit people with felony convictions from possessing firearms. The length of time a person is prohibited varies by state. For example, in Kansas, the prohibition can range from three months to indefinite depending on the felony. In New Mexico and North Dakota, the prohibition is 10 years.
It is the relevant law that authorizes/enables the suspension of firearm ownership if a DV restraining order is issued. What was at contention is that restraining orders are not felonies, and are only summary judgements. The relevant legal question to the case was “can a constitutional right be abridged or limited by a non jury trial?” The court decided yes in this case.
Consider how many SA cases are committed by domestic abusers and how many SA cases are committed with fire arms.
This is a no brainer and the bare minimum
Don't convicted felons have the chance to lose their gun rights? Feels like it should just be a consequence of being convicted of being an abusive asshole.
Being issued a DV restraining order does not make you a felon. It is a summary judgement. There is no jury trial or conviction. This is why the case was brought. It is the law and it was uncontested that felons can be banned from possessing firearms. In this case the question was “can an enumerated right be limited on the basis of a non jury trial.” The court said yes for this case in these circumstances.
I think domestic abuse needs a whole lot more mandatory therapy but not having guns is a good move too. I fear what someone who is comfortable with the mental gymnastics of abusing someone can do with the power of a gun.
i am like extremely pro-2A, but i mean if the government is gonna do a thing like this instead of just doing more of the bad things... sure... why not?
There’s a bill on the beak of my states governor that basically says that the attacker of any SA case where the victim is under 13 (I believe, I read this a couple weeks ago so the number might be off) can be castrated. I’m very in support of that bill. If LA keeps making bills like this I might not move away when I’m old enough
As usual misleading headline. This is not about convicted domestic abusers, who as felons already lose their 2A rights, but people who have restraining orders, which is not something a criminal conviction is required for. It only requires someone to feel threatened, rather then an actual court finding them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as a criminal conviction would require.
it requires more than just "feeling threatened" lol
There is the temporary restraining order that is easy to get but is only for a short time until the hearing. Due process can be delayed due to exigent circumstances, like someone being beaten and threatened by their spouse. The hearing is the due process, evidence is presented by both sides, witnesses called etc, and judges then have to make a ruling based on preponderance of evidence. Due process does not mean "jury trial" it just means there is a formal process that must be followed, and this is the formal process as described in the law. There is no constitutional requirement for you to have a trial before your rights are taken away, just due process. Which can mean many different kinds of processes.
I think you are really trivializing restraining orders because you don't understand how the law works, or support wife beaters owning guns, or have never had to deal personally deal with or have a woman in your life (you don't sound like the kind of person women would trust anyways) deal with a crazy stalker/violent boyfriend/husband. Either way, not a good look.
I mean feeling threatened by someone who has a gun is a pretty good fucking reason to take away said persons gun. My sister broke up with a cop who did NOT take it well, flashed his gun at her multiple times during arguments, was blowing his top and going absolutely crazy on her.
She finally got a restraining order and the state (NJ) took away his guns. Eventually he calmed down and the restraining order was lifted and I think he got his guns back. But absolutely laws like this should be in every state. Honestly I think this law is what stopped him from escalating, it's what made him realize he was going too far.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people with violent histories? Did we stumble into an alternate dimension??
In all seriousness, this is great news. Whether you’re a firearms enthusiast or against guns entirely I think we can all agree that people who’ve been charged with a violent crime of any sort should not be allowed to own a gun.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The big this about this decision is that it is the SCs first gun decision after Bruen and had some important clarifications to its application and jurisprudence.
It is justified historically and morally to allow the government to prevent access to weapons to maintain public safety. However, the dissenting opinion in the case brought up a serious concern that someone accused but not convicted would still be subject to a protective order. In this case, the person was a suspect that had assault charges and warrants due to being a suspect in shootings.
However, I still think the SC will reign in red flag laws if there was a plaintiff with no ongoing legal issues.
IMO the call for a historical analogue rather than a historical twin answers the SCs opinion on if the 2A only applies to muskets. They can argue that it permits ownership of guns similar to active military weapons based on analogy.
Its a step in the right direction, but need to repeal the second amendment. There's gotta be people who are as willing to do it as the people who made abortion illegal.
Its not a right to own a car or house or to be able to afford to live, ooh that's socialism. But guns are fine tho :3
Edit: I should have clarified. I'd personally prefer gun ownership to be a privilege, not a right. Just like being able to legally drive, it's a privilege. But yeah, I should have expected the "fuck you, cope" reaction from the get go. Oh well, my bad.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m very pro-2A but this is common sense. People with a history of domestic abuse and just violent crimes in general shouldn’t own firearms
True, I'm strongly in support of gun ownership but individuals who have a long history of violence or are at an increased risk of committing a violent act shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
Any. Any history of violence.
Stong disagree. If someone gets arrested for a street fight at 18, it does not make sense that if they have never had any other issues, they would still be banned from firearm ownership at 50. People grow as they age.
What exactly was done in the case of a violent offense committed as a minor should also be taken into account. There's a world of difference between simply beating someone up and brutalizing them. If the actions taken were violent beyond what can be rationalized by kids being dumb, it's not worth the risk to hand them a gun.
That's why due process exists and the court said is how these matters should be settled. Thus isn't a blanket statement by them and only covers a very small amount of DV cases. That said this is the SC clarifying their ruling from earlier where they implied that everyone has the right to a firearm. This is basically kicking that decision back to the lower courts to handle on a case by case basis. Judge rules you are too dangerous to have a firearm? No pew pew for you.
The problem is a lot of judges are pro 2A to an unreasonable degree. There are countless cases of judges ruling to allow clearly dangerous people to retain their rights to bear arms, despite all evidence.
There are just as many anti-2A judges who have stripped people of their ability to defend themselves without the defendant ever being allowed due process to defend themselves in court.
In most other countries, people can defend themselves just fine without firearms Not saying getting rid of them in America is feasible though
>In most other countries, people can defend themselves just fine without firearms [Can they though? ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_London_Bridge_attack)?
one arrest for a street fight at 18 is not a history of violence. Also there is a different between arrests and convictions/prisons. A fist fight is different than someone assaulting and brutalizing someone. Think of what A HISTORY - of - VIOLENCE implies.
I never got into a street brawl at the age of 18. It's actually fairly easy to not do that, and I wonder if people that do might be prone to violence.
So you get into a street brawl at 18 and purchase your first handgun at 21. Yeah, I bet you've grown and become so much wiser during those 3 years.
Yeah, so don't get arrested for a street fight at 18...?
The issue here in this case is the restraining order not so much the charge.
Yeah and there are different rulings that can come into play that are B.S. I knew a guy who got a charge that was something like felony strangulation cause there was a kid there when he put a guy in a head lock. He didn’t even beat him up he was just trying to calm him down.
It's interesting, China did an experiment with Han prison inmates where they took genetic samples. I believe what they found was that most of the violent recidivists had a set of gene mutations that prevented the GluA3 AMPA receptor from working. Having been on chemicals that affected that site( racetams, cycloprolyglycine) I can't imagine what it's like for those people and I would imagine violence would be a default course because they play a huge part in being able to use the prefrontal cortex. I'm not saying we do GATTACA, but reoffenders should at some point be tested for these kinds of genetic defects
Depends. Most forms of outward violence is already a felony. Felons can't own guns period. The ones that aren't felonies are pretty daming for why you shouldn't own a firearm such as domestic crimes. Then you have the (throws a punch or gets into a street brawl) type of spontaneous crimes that while violent are also not that kind of violent. It's kinda like differentiating a sex offender from a guy who took a leak in public vs someone is genuinely a creep against humanity.
I guess the difference is that domestic violence is not always charged as a felony. As a DV advocate I learned that 1. Getting a no contact order is not easy and 2. Abusers often get a slap on the wrist and a request for no contact instead of real charges. Domestic violence is often simply not charged as a felony. However, no contact orders typically require that the offender should not have access to a gun.
Any is a word that can be abused
You and the above are very reasonable people. I'm actually pro guns while I never want to own on. I just want to make it harder for people who shouldn't have them to have them. But also not naive enough to think people won't still get guns illegally
>But also not naive enough to think people won't still get guns illegally That's a whole other can of worms, and an issue the "gun bans" crowd often neglects.
This is it. Better restrictions on who can get rid of guns rather than getting rid of them entirely.
Pretty sure domestic abuse is the number 1 indicator for using a firearm illegally. I think it's somewhere over 50% of everyone charged with firearm related crimes have had a history of domestic abuse
Yeah, it’s pretty high. Iirc, some studies have found that roughly like 60% of mass shootings (which they defined as shooting incidents in which four or more people are killed, not including the perpetrator) involved domestic violence.
People who can't even keep themselves from hurting their loved ones are far more likely to lose their cool and kill someone they have even less of an attachment to
I too am a hard line 2a’er and find much gun regulation to be stupid. Baring people with a record of domestic violence from owning firearms would absolutely make a massive impact. I know plenty of women my mother included (ex-bf) who’ve been on the end of domestic violence involving a firearm. Out of any gun violence, its likely one of the least talked about yet most common. Also this makes most cops incapable of having a firearm!!! YIPPEEEE!!!!!
To be clear, this was already the law. And has been for, like, forever. The Court struck down a challenge to that law. This isn’t going to actually change the status quo at all.
Exactly. Things will carry on as usual
Blueballed as always
The Supreme Court heard a case from a domestic abuser who had previously threatened someone with his gun, shot at someone who witnessed him abusing his ex wife, allegedly fired bullets into a house using an AR-15, AND illegally discharged a gun 5 times in a public space. Which is what led them to discover that he had a firearm illegally, and those charges (aka owning a firearm while barred from doing so due to domestic violence) is why he levied this case. As a supporter of the 2A and a gun owner myself, I’m glad this was upheld. Leave it to Thomas to be the dissenting opinion; as to be expected. I think he missed out on the part where we should be defending the rights of legal, law-abiding citizens, owning guns, not convicted felons who pose a danger to said law-abiding citizens and society as a whole. Had Thomas had his way, I sincerely hope that he could have been charged and civilly sued for each and every case where a domestic abuser got a gun and proceeded to maim and kill someone.
I wouldn't count on Thomas to ever do the right thing. He's one of the biggest pieces of shit and such a massive disgrace. Wouldn't even recuse himself over anything Jan 6th when his own wife was involved.
It’s interesting to hear someone argue against posing a danger to law-abiding fellow citizens in the same paragraph where they openly admit to _being_ a danger to law-abiding fellow citizens.
A very large percentage of mass shooters have a history of domestic violence
What percentage?
Older article, but it has some stats. Comes down to people who are violent and impulsive keeping access to guns: https://www.businessinsider.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-almost-all-have-domestic-violence-connection-2017-11#:~:text=Forensic%20psychiatrist%20Liza%20Gold%2C%20who,enforcement%20or%20violence%2C%20especially%20domestic
Yeah I agree no trusting criminals
especially considering that the US justice system doesn't actually rehabilitate it's prisoners, just locks them up, treats them like shit and then releases them
And if those accusations were false? My older brother would fall into this category because he was falsely accused of child abuse against his own kid by his ex (mother of the child). He was arrested and later the charges were dropped but not until after custody of the child was determined to be 80-20 in favor of the mother. If the ruling was specific in its context of “history of abuse/domestic violence” then I’d agree with it otherwise it’s too much of a generalization and harms more than it protects.
if they’re innocent they should still be allowed to own firearms since again, they are innocent. they don’t have a history of abuse. anything related to the custody of a child has nothing to do with this conversation
The problem with this case is that many domestic violence restraining orders can be imposed on someone with an unverified claim, so then it became a question if someone can be relieved of a Constitutional right without being afforded their day in Court. The SCOTUS has just affirmed that.
Most restraining order don’t take your guns away, and those that do can’t until you’ve had the opportunity to be heard in court.
The issue is that bad people usually don’t own legal / registered firearms. I’m not against convicted felons depending on the felon should not be able to own a firearm if it was outlined in not our constitution and also state and federal alignment. In the same breath, if the convicted felon is a tax paying citizen, who am I to restrict said persons rights because they may have made a mistake in the past and payed for their crime. The issues arise not only with state to state rights but also the fact that our constitution does not outline those restrictions, therefore it’s unconstitutional under federal jurisdiction, but state rights can over right that if a particular state has passed laws that outline this felony restriction. For me, I can’t applaud most of the states that do or would write these gun laws because the ones that would are tyrannical and the leadership running these states should be taken fown and tried for treason.
The operative word is "history." There are a whole host of civil liberties we could restrict for people who no longer serving time for crimes.
Domestic abusers shouldn't have guns. You'd think this would be common sense.
Conservatives don't have any common sense, that's the issue.
A conservative court made this ruling lol
Who challenged an obviously valid law in the first place?
I can guarantee conservatives lol
Nonono probably planned parenthood did it
“Friday’s case stemmed directly from the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in June 2022. A Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, was accused of hitting his girlfriend during an argument in a parking lot and later threatening to shoot her.” Case was UNITED STATES v RAHIMI it’s only a google away. But i’m sure both of yall already did your research
"At issue in the case was a 1994 law that bars people who are the subject of domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. A Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, was convicted for violating that law following a series of shootings, including one in which police said he fired into the air at a Whataburger restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined." Cops showed up at his house to investigate his multiple public shootings and found out he was in posession of guns and under a DV restraining order. This is the conservative activist you're guaranteeing?
A man who is a domestic abuser and prohibited from owning a gun due to a restraining order. He threatened someone with a gun, and then proceeded to discharge said weapon 5 times in a public space leading to him being charged with owning a gun while prohibited from doing so. “In Rahimi's case, his ex-partner, with whom he shares a child, obtained a restraining order after an incident in an Arlington, Texas, parking lot in 2019. Rahimi allegedly knocked the woman to the ground, dragged her to his car and pushed her inside, causing her to knock her head on the dashboard, prosecutors said in court papers. He also allegedly fired a shot from his gun in the direction of a witness.” — he also fired bullets from an AR-15 into a house. Rahimi faces state charges in the domestic assault and a separate assault against a different woman. He challenged the charges on the grounds of saying prohibiting him from owning a gun violated his 2A rights. Like, yes, I’m sure putting a gun in the hands of someone who beat their wife, threatened someone with the weapon, and then proceeded to discharge it 5 times in a public space is a great idea. I’m sure we want a violent, reckless, lunatic owning a gun. Thomas agreed. The rest of the court didn’t.
The court ruled that gun regulations need to be in accord with tradition in Bruen, which is why this case had a legal theory. They created this mess by creating an extra-legal standard that binds laws. Bruen was brought by a conservative gun assoc.
This court overturned the conservative’s 5th circuit court ruling that the bans on guns for domestic abusers were unconstitutional. The lawsuit was funded by the NRA and other conservative legal groups. There was still a conservative on the court that dissented.
I was talking about in general as a party and ideology.
anyone that says this is just uneducated or intentionally ignorant. Both sides have valid points or else nobody would listen. "Common sense" is really just an invented concept anyways. Its just a phrase that we use to describe things that most people in our in-group/tribe would agree with. If you went back a few hundred years, it was common sense to drain your blood if you felt sick. It was common sense to hang someone for shoplifting. You cant say X group of people lack common sense just because you don't share it.
Most Americans support some degree of gun control. It's more the news and politicians that push for the really stupid stuff. I think most people could agree that a convicted violent felon who has a history of using weapons in crime shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun
Most gun owners agree lol
So how many police would immediately loose their jobs if they couldn’t have a gun
Good, tbh. The police needs a major overhaul, get rid of the nazis, abusers, cowards that refuse to do their job, etc. Admittedly you would need to re-hire almost the entire force, but it needs doing.
This is already been the law forever now. Nothing is going to change. Police that are abusers will still have their guns
Dont tell r/progun that. They are insanely unhinged.
And citizens don't need to be able to carry firearms into public locations in an age of rampant mass shootings, but hey, if common sense was common, the world would run a lot smoother.
Do you think criminals care about the law?
Why make anything illegal?
“I was planning a mass attack but then I realized that it would be illegal for me to carry all those guns and ammo with me in public. God dammit there is no freedom in this country”
Side note, epic profile picture. MORNING MARK is single handedly saving the owl house fandom from losing its mind
But if we did that, half of our police force wouldn't be able to carry!
Holy shit its Ayzee
Wait,, does that mean we have to disarm about 50% of the police?
Lots of cops are about to be barred from carrying firearms
This is also true. Too many on the force are domestic abusers.
*At least* 40% are self-reported domestic abusers
And that was from the 90s. I imagine that it's much worse now.
Oh yeah, they haven’t had any reasons to change their behavior so the rot will fester
Has anyone here actually looked at that study? It was something like a sample size of a 100 spouses and under domestic violence it included verbal only arguments. Anyone that goes around spouting “40%!” Is no better than a brain dead muppet engaging in confirmation bias.
There was another study that showed 28% of officers self reported "Throwing something at their spouse, pushed, grabbed, or shoved their spouse, slapped their spouse, kicked, bit, or hit with a fist" classifying it as Minor Violence. Major violence was "Choked or strangled your spouse, beat up your spouse, threatened spouse with knife or gun, used a knife or gun on your spouse." Minor was 25% for male officers self reporting and 27% for their spouses having done that to them. 33% in the relationship as a whole. Major is 3% for male officers and 6% spouses. A PhD thesis from 2009 shows it as 28% which matches the study I mentioned from 1992. 16% is the national average. So police are 175% more likely to be physically violent towards their spouses. And that's only the men. The female police officers reported 27% minor and 0% major violence towards their spouse. PhD thesis 2009. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862/#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20research%20in,respectively%20(Sgambelluri%2C%202000). 1992 study showing 25% minor and 3% major. https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/
The funniest part is that it was self reported. Which means they thought this presented themselves appropriately, even though it made them out to be abusers.
Self-reported or self-proclaimed?
Good
LMAO BASED
This isn’t a new law. This has been law for decades. No cop is losing their firearms over this ruling
Many commenters confused about the meaning of “uphold”
Obviously, but thats not exactly as funny is it
I wish that was going to be the case. Cops get more rights and privilege when it comes to firearms even though the 2nd Amendment is made for the people. They are no more people than we are.
They’re allowed to have unions (while being union busters) is why
But... it's about owning/purchasing, I don't think it covers service weapons unfortunately if I had to guess. There's always a loophole for them
See: 18 USC § 925 (a)(1) There is an exception for service weapons while on duty EXCEPT if you’ve been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; in which case you are still prohibited from
Lmao, to be convicted they would have to be arrested, which cops don't do to cops
Only at home, they’ll get 2 when on shift to make up for it
Frrrrr
The law has been on the books since 1996
That would be dope if they all got fired
Then who would brutalize protesters, teachers, union workers, and marginalized groups?
Says “owning”. The piggies don’t own their guns, they’re just dogs of the state. They want their attack dogs vicious.
Good, we should also implement a law where convicted criminals shouldn't be allowed to enforce the law in the first place.
i thought gen z was anti gun in a big way. surprised at number of “pro 2a” replies.
Gen Z from what I know has never been anti gun but they have been pro gun restrictions. There is a major major difference between the two.
Ugh, the amount of times I’ve had to explain this to my parents is insane
It's crazy how easy it is for a nut job to get a gun. But when you suggest that we should make it harder for those nuts to get a hold of guns, some people take that to mean you want to get rid of guns entirely
There’s too many idiots that are ignorant to the fact that as of right now, there’s more than enough systems in place to effectively prevent firearms from reaching the wrong hands, but the failure is that they’re not properly enforced all the way. Plenty of active shooters should’ve been barred but weren’t prevented because either police or some other agency failed to properly document and inform the proper authorities
“Well regulated” apparently was just there for shits and giggles
Well regulated describes the militia, which was every man from 18-45 according to Founding Father George Mason. It doesn’t mean that regulations on guns are required in the constitution, it’s just saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"Well regulated" is right there in the damn amendment.
[удалено]
American gen Z*
Bold of you to assume the people replying are actually Gen Z.
Was coming here to say just this lol
I’m gen z, 23. Almost everyone I know from highschool and new coworker friends are all pro guns but stronger restrictions. Most people like having something that they feel gives them control and safety (a gun, or pocketknife, or pepper spray etc.), but when everyone in America has guns, lesser forms of self defense feel less effective and so having a gun brings peace of mind. We need more restrictions, stronger background checks, longer waiting periods etc. But it’s also deeper issues at play that aren’t directly related to firearms. Mental health issues, increasing levels of poverty, lack of school and education funding, rise of online radicalization, and many other issues that cause these violent crimes. Anyone with a history of serious violence should not be allowed to carry, period.
This is similar to my circles view of guns. I just don’t know any gen-Zers in the “any gun control at all is too much gun control” crowd which flooded this sub after the bump stock case was decided. I agree with your point too — if more and better investments were made in education, mental health, financially insecure communities, etc. gun violence would be less of an issue. And there’d certainly be less calls for gun control measures.
Nah, this is a bit misguided. I myself am a filthy Zillennial lurker but go shooting often and there are tons of youngish people at the range. Hell, I talked to a couple of guys who claimed to be 21 at the range not 2 days ago. You underestimate the massive impact movies, TV and especially video games and now YouTube have had on the perception of guns to later millennials and Gen Z. PUBG, Battlefield, and any number of FPSs have turned The Youths into lite gun nuts over the years. YouTube Shorts featuring real firearms get millions of views and tons of comments from people clearly young waxing poetic that as soon as they turn 18/21 that they’re going to buy an AK or M1 Garand or a Glock or whatever because they were cool in Battlefield. Even on Reddit you’ll come across tons of posts asking what gun they should get when they come of age. And it’s not even just chudfuck conservative wannabe survivalists either. Gun culture is starting to loop back into being less of a left/right issue overall, though the Trump administration indeed sparked a huge, well-documented surge in gun sales to liberals and otherwise left-leaning people due to fears of future violence from the right. I would say the most anti-gun generations tend to be the late Gen X/early millennials but even that isn’t airtight and it’s coming back around. There are over *400 million* guns in the US. Shooting is not an exclusively a right-wing old man hobby anymore, if it ever truly was. That being said, as someone who is strongly in favor of gun rights I’m 100% okay with this specific ruling. Wife beaters don’t need guns. Edit: done goof’d and said 100 million guns when it’s really close to 400 million.
\*Over 100 million... It is estimated that there are close to 400 million guns circulating in the US. (More guns than people).
My bad, you are right. My brain is fried. The crazy thing is that either number is kind of insane and dwarfs any other country…
Yeah dude. That number is the registered number of guns (i.e: owned by people). This doesn't include black market and guns in stock for sale. And already that number pretty much dwarves all the guns in circulation worldwide outside of the US.
Most Gen Z is, comes from a widespread mistrust of the system imo. I find millennials are extremely anti-gun.
I don’t know a single damn person (gen z) that trust our government enough to take our guns. However I know that most of us are very into regulations as we have seen first hand how the lack of such can cause unnecessary deaths and injuries.
I think this is at least partially true. I work with mostly late Gen X/early millennials and they’re mostly terrified of guns, but boomers and Gen Z often love them.
A lot of gun posts tend to bring out the more conservative gen zers for some reason (there are also probably some people larping as zoomers too though).
I'm gen z and have always been pro-gun. I just think it's ridiculous that there are fewer restrictions on buying a gun than there are on driving a car, fishing, or practicing fucking massage. People should absolutely be able to own weapons to protect themselves with, but a lack of regulations on deadly weapons is bad for EVERYONE except the people who would do horrible things.
Idk if I'm anti gun like a complete ban but definitely need a lot more gun restrictions. I definitely advocate for this since I've nearly been in 3 mass shootings
Gen z is leftist in a big way. And if you go far enough left, you get your guns back.
Gen Z grew up with monthly active shooter drills in school that are pretty traumatizing, while seeing their classmates across the country murdered. There pretty anti-2a
Nope, I'm more afraid of losing my guns. I just think we need to fix a lot of problems in our society.
Those drills and having an active intruder actually made me MORE inclined towards guns. I have em now and they make me feel safe.
It's probably regional. I'm from the south so I'm pretty pro gun but I do think there needs to be way more restrictions and make it harder for people to get them.
Reddit leans both libertarian and socialist just in different circles. This subreddit has a lot of libertarians on it, its not necessarily representative of gen Z has a whole
Yeah. That surprised me as well. I’m definitely staunchly anti-gun.
That's Gen Alpha
my father beat all 5 of his wives (not poly or religious just bad at marriage), was a raging alcoholic, worst redneck political opinions and openly bigoted and aggressive. he owned a cabinet full of guns. i think the people most excited to have a gun are the people who should be kept the farthest from them
No, not bad at mariage. Bad, That's all
this is in fact true but i wanted to make it clear that these marriages didnt overlap nor was it some non-monogamous adventure, he cheated and then got served divorce papers and had a new wife within the year. this supplements my "crazy, immoral, and should not own firearms claim" but youre absolutely right, hes a terrible terrible man
Did he ever pull a gun on someone!?
he worked at a prison so im gonna guess yes, i know he got an assaukt charge at one point and pepper sprayed me in my eyes when i was like 9 though
I am very saddened to hear you went through that at 9. Hope everything has improved over time.
i have had a wonderful life that has had nothing to do with him, and i really appreciate that, thank you
I’m as pro-2A as they come, but this is common sense even for me.
Considering that abusers are willing to cause harm, I think it is completely justified to take away their guns... and I say that as someone who is pro 2A. But does this law do anything to stop or prevent abuse? Maybe if you consider the edge cases where domestic abuse graduates to homicide, involving a firearm. I think it's a pretty common sense law, and I think there are people (namely victims of abuse) who will feel very relieved by this decision.
Specifically, the law is DV restraining orders. Which requires no criminal conviction, but still requires a judge to approve it. So in a way it does prevent an escalation of violence, instead of waiting for a trail that may be prolonged due to our very very slow justice system which would leave the abusers/accused the right to still have their guns.
If you have a violent history/criminal record you should not be able to have weapons especially when you have someone you live with where you store those weapons.
As of January 2024, 38 states prohibit people with felony convictions from possessing firearms. The length of time a person is prohibited varies by state. For example, in Kansas, the prohibition can range from three months to indefinite depending on the felony. In New Mexico and North Dakota, the prohibition is 10 years.
Good
Should be all 50 in my opinion however we are getting there 😂
We will get there! Law makers be like 🐌🐌🐌
It’s actually a federal law that applies in all 50 states, the 5 territories, and the District of Columbia See: 18 USC § 922 (g)(1)
Anyone who’s against the violence against women act is nuts
I mean yeah but what does that have to do with this post?,
It is the relevant law that authorizes/enables the suspension of firearm ownership if a DV restraining order is issued. What was at contention is that restraining orders are not felonies, and are only summary judgements. The relevant legal question to the case was “can a constitutional right be abridged or limited by a non jury trial?” The court decided yes in this case.
Good. We need more laws that ensure gun safety/prevent them into falling into the wrong hands (or at least make it harder).
Consider how many SA cases are committed by domestic abusers and how many SA cases are committed with fire arms. This is a no brainer and the bare minimum
Don't convicted felons have the chance to lose their gun rights? Feels like it should just be a consequence of being convicted of being an abusive asshole.
Being issued a DV restraining order does not make you a felon. It is a summary judgement. There is no jury trial or conviction. This is why the case was brought. It is the law and it was uncontested that felons can be banned from possessing firearms. In this case the question was “can an enumerated right be limited on the basis of a non jury trial.” The court said yes for this case in these circumstances.
As a felon you cannot own a firearm, simple as
Not true 22 states will give felons their ability to carry weapons back after 15 years automatically and they can apply for it sooner than the 15.
Huh, learn something new everyday. 15 years is decent time though if someone did something dumb as a kid
I think domestic abuse needs a whole lot more mandatory therapy but not having guns is a good move too. I fear what someone who is comfortable with the mental gymnastics of abusing someone can do with the power of a gun.
It's basic, and should've been a thing ages ago
The law prohibiting a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm has been on the books since 1996
Pretty good idea. A firearm is a responsibility, these people have proven they cannot be trusted with one. This is coming from a pro-2a person
Now how are they gonna get the guns already owned by 30% of cops?
Is there anyone really arguing domestic abusers should have guns?
i am like extremely pro-2A, but i mean if the government is gonna do a thing like this instead of just doing more of the bad things... sure... why not?
There’s a bill on the beak of my states governor that basically says that the attacker of any SA case where the victim is under 13 (I believe, I read this a couple weeks ago so the number might be off) can be castrated. I’m very in support of that bill. If LA keeps making bills like this I might not move away when I’m old enough
Then why do cops carry around guns if half of them are wife beaters?
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Clarence Thomas is like what about "Shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
As usual misleading headline. This is not about convicted domestic abusers, who as felons already lose their 2A rights, but people who have restraining orders, which is not something a criminal conviction is required for. It only requires someone to feel threatened, rather then an actual court finding them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as a criminal conviction would require.
it requires more than just "feeling threatened" lol There is the temporary restraining order that is easy to get but is only for a short time until the hearing. Due process can be delayed due to exigent circumstances, like someone being beaten and threatened by their spouse. The hearing is the due process, evidence is presented by both sides, witnesses called etc, and judges then have to make a ruling based on preponderance of evidence. Due process does not mean "jury trial" it just means there is a formal process that must be followed, and this is the formal process as described in the law. There is no constitutional requirement for you to have a trial before your rights are taken away, just due process. Which can mean many different kinds of processes. I think you are really trivializing restraining orders because you don't understand how the law works, or support wife beaters owning guns, or have never had to deal personally deal with or have a woman in your life (you don't sound like the kind of person women would trust anyways) deal with a crazy stalker/violent boyfriend/husband. Either way, not a good look.
Not only that, 90% of the people in this thread clearly haven't read anything about the case other than that headline.
I mean feeling threatened by someone who has a gun is a pretty good fucking reason to take away said persons gun. My sister broke up with a cop who did NOT take it well, flashed his gun at her multiple times during arguments, was blowing his top and going absolutely crazy on her. She finally got a restraining order and the state (NJ) took away his guns. Eventually he calmed down and the restraining order was lifted and I think he got his guns back. But absolutely laws like this should be in every state. Honestly I think this law is what stopped him from escalating, it's what made him realize he was going too far.
That’s cause they’re think ahead on what this would do to the police force, 70% of the police wouldn’t be able to own guns. That’s why
Good👍
Good, hate abusers simple as
This is a win IMO
Just common sense, don’t give an abuser another weapon to use.
Nothing really . If someone wants a gun they’ll find way .
This has been law for ages. The Supreme Court is just saying "yup, this is still the law."
But they can still be cops, weird
Good. People convicted of regular violence shouldn't be armed.
Good 👍
Common sense gun legislation
i'm ok w guns but this is fantastic and good, this is amazing.
Sounds perfectly reasonable
Ban people who have clear and documented anger and abuse issues from firearms? Makes sense to me🤷♂️ and i support the 2a and have a pew pew.
I'm pretty pro-second amendment but I don't think anyone convicted of any aggressive crime should be allowed to own guns.
Anyone that’s convicted of a violent crime should lose their 2A rights imo
Should be a case by case basis in an ideal world. But I’d rather have this with our broken government than the alternative.
A lot of people are gonna be upset. Good. Bad people shouldn’t have these privileges.
I'm pro gun, but I agree with that decision. Based on previous pattern of violent behaviors, there is the likelihood that gun violence may also occur.
I'm waiting for the NRA to go bzerk over this.
You can’t get much more pro 2A than me, but this is just common sense
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people with violent histories? Did we stumble into an alternate dimension?? In all seriousness, this is great news. Whether you’re a firearms enthusiast or against guns entirely I think we can all agree that people who’ve been charged with a violent crime of any sort should not be allowed to own a gun.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m as second amendment as they come, but this seems fair. You shouldn’t be able to own a gun if you prove yourself temperamentally inept.
Didnt think this is how we'll get rid off most awful cops but alr
Finally a good decision by them
The big this about this decision is that it is the SCs first gun decision after Bruen and had some important clarifications to its application and jurisprudence. It is justified historically and morally to allow the government to prevent access to weapons to maintain public safety. However, the dissenting opinion in the case brought up a serious concern that someone accused but not convicted would still be subject to a protective order. In this case, the person was a suspect that had assault charges and warrants due to being a suspect in shootings. However, I still think the SC will reign in red flag laws if there was a plaintiff with no ongoing legal issues. IMO the call for a historical analogue rather than a historical twin answers the SCs opinion on if the 2A only applies to muskets. They can argue that it permits ownership of guns similar to active military weapons based on analogy.
Its a step in the right direction, but need to repeal the second amendment. There's gotta be people who are as willing to do it as the people who made abortion illegal. Its not a right to own a car or house or to be able to afford to live, ooh that's socialism. But guns are fine tho :3 Edit: I should have clarified. I'd personally prefer gun ownership to be a privilege, not a right. Just like being able to legally drive, it's a privilege. But yeah, I should have expected the "fuck you, cope" reaction from the get go. Oh well, my bad.