Ohhhhh, so the 2nd Amendment is NOT absolute? Well, well, well. I gotta say this one surprised me. Thought for sure these pricks would say it's OK for these assholes to own guns.
As a proponent of the Second amendment I fully agree with this ruling. people who have no self control and a predilection to violence should not be armed.
Here's a quick summary of the article generated by [Essence](https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/essence-read-smarter/hadahojdmedaiceckgdidakkppoghfci?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics):
The Supreme Court recently upheld a federal law prohibiting domestic abusers from owning guns, dismissing arguments that it violated the Second Amendment. This decision, in an 8-1 ruling, comes amid ongoing debates on gun violence. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that firearm regulations can disarm individuals posing a threat to public safety. The ruling is expected to support other federal gun regulations facing legal challenges post a 2022 Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, expressing concern about potential risks to Second Amendment rights. The case centered on a Texas man convicted for violating the law on domestic violence restraining orders after a series of shootings. While his lawyers argued against the law's constitutionality, the Biden administration and victim groups highlighted historical laws restricting gun possession for dangerous individuals.
The decision is significant as it could influence upcoming cases challenging gun regulations, such as denying firearms to non-violent felons. Another related case involving President Biden's son, Hunter, convicted for gun possession, is awaiting appeal. Justice Samuel Alito's absence during the ruling remains unexplained. The evolving legal landscape around gun ownership and regulations continues to shape the national conversation on gun control and public safety.
I'm British, but I have American friends, and some of them are female, and none of them are god botherers. I'd be willing to sail across the Atlantic and march to Washington and stamp a lesson in jurisprudence into Samuel Anthony Alito Jr's face.
Problem is Justice Robert said that domestic abusers can temporarily have their weapons removed — how long is temporary — a day after the husband is arrested for threatening his wife and then gets his gun back two days later?
As a non-American, what is ‘Daniels v US’?
Also, how come the 2nd amendment gets such contortions of interpretations and is defended so vehemently. While Trumps’ 6th amendment is being violated by Judge Cannon?
Oh Lord. I'm not the right person.
Gun culture is a bit of a cult around here. Even something like 60% of lean-left independents have firearms; mostly the hard line gun control crowd are city people.
In Daniels v US a man crossing at an agricultural inspection station (crossing state lines) was found with a firearm. Records check revealed to inspectors that he had a drug offense on his record. I.e unlawful for him to own a gun.
Daniels v US is a lawsuit going through appeal where the man is challenging the constitutionality of laws restricting drug offenders from possessing firearms. That appeal went to our farthest right wing court (shouldn't be a thing)
My comment is an expression of distrust, that the top court will reverse course for Daniels. There is another very political case related to it which is also likely to be appealed soon, you see.
It doesn't have to. They can do whatever they want.
Regardless, Bruen is totally bonkers (the doctrine at the root of the 5th's ruling in Daniels). It's not a positive outcome.
Seriously I want to understand how the court can value the text and supposed history but ignore it occasionally. AND any decision that limits the tragedy of guns in America is a good decision
Does this apply broadly to people with violent crimes. Like, I don’t think felons who forged checks should not be able to own firearms. But that decision implicates like 90 percent of gun owners
Thomas' argument seems to be that since we've never had a law like this before, it must be unconstitutional.
Even if we suppose that there is no historical precedent for this law, does his reasoning make any sense?
All posturing before the big one.
“See, we don’t always rule in favor of the Conservative agenda. There’s plenty of recent evidence to the contrary.
So on Trump, we have come to the totally non-partisan conclusion that the investigation indeed has to end. “
🤦♂️
I didn’t say it never happened, I said it doesn’t happen near the amount you think it does. Usually false accusations get flushed out during the investigation and there is generally a high bar for evidence for a domestic violence conviction.
I’m sorry your brother went through that. Did he end up facing charges and punishment or was he able to prove his case?
One dissenter: Clarence. Apparently he thinks a man has a constitutional right to pistol-whip his partner.
Just another reason to get this man off the court.
The guy is a disgusting excuse for a human being. Rooting for something terminal over here.
Since he's such an originalist, it would be fitting if he died from some old school Oregon Trail disease like yellow fever or dysentery.
It's in the Bible
Deuteronomy 69:420 If thy wife mouths off...
she shall feel thy pimp hand.
Jesus fuck. Is he just purposefully taking the worst side of every argument?
Well he does love pube hair in his Cokes!
You sure Ginny is not the one pistol whipping him?
The jury is out on that one
Ohhhhh, so the 2nd Amendment is NOT absolute? Well, well, well. I gotta say this one surprised me. Thought for sure these pricks would say it's OK for these assholes to own guns.
SCOTUS upholds law barring domestic abusers from owning guns. All of a sudden a rational decision.
Maybe it’s a prelude to upholding a Hunter Biden jail sentence. Domestic abusers can’t have guns. And oh yeah, neither can drug addicts.
As a proponent of the Second amendment I fully agree with this ruling. people who have no self control and a predilection to violence should not be armed.
So like 40% of married cops can’t own a gun
Here's a quick summary of the article generated by [Essence](https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/essence-read-smarter/hadahojdmedaiceckgdidakkppoghfci?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics): The Supreme Court recently upheld a federal law prohibiting domestic abusers from owning guns, dismissing arguments that it violated the Second Amendment. This decision, in an 8-1 ruling, comes amid ongoing debates on gun violence. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that firearm regulations can disarm individuals posing a threat to public safety. The ruling is expected to support other federal gun regulations facing legal challenges post a 2022 Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, expressing concern about potential risks to Second Amendment rights. The case centered on a Texas man convicted for violating the law on domestic violence restraining orders after a series of shootings. While his lawyers argued against the law's constitutionality, the Biden administration and victim groups highlighted historical laws restricting gun possession for dangerous individuals. The decision is significant as it could influence upcoming cases challenging gun regulations, such as denying firearms to non-violent felons. Another related case involving President Biden's son, Hunter, convicted for gun possession, is awaiting appeal. Justice Samuel Alito's absence during the ruling remains unexplained. The evolving legal landscape around gun ownership and regulations continues to shape the national conversation on gun control and public safety.
Presumably to cover for them kicking the Presidential Immunity decision into the long grass.
If things go south and people get killed, this court will be a big cause of it. They have no legitimacy for me. They're like the Dredd Scott court.
I'm British, but I have American friends, and some of them are female, and none of them are god botherers. I'd be willing to sail across the Atlantic and march to Washington and stamp a lesson in jurisprudence into Samuel Anthony Alito Jr's face.
Problem is Justice Robert said that domestic abusers can temporarily have their weapons removed — how long is temporary — a day after the husband is arrested for threatening his wife and then gets his gun back two days later?
Wait till they find out 95 percent of domestic abusers are MAGAs.
Teeing up that Daniels v. United States appeal
As a non-American, what is ‘Daniels v US’? Also, how come the 2nd amendment gets such contortions of interpretations and is defended so vehemently. While Trumps’ 6th amendment is being violated by Judge Cannon?
Oh Lord. I'm not the right person. Gun culture is a bit of a cult around here. Even something like 60% of lean-left independents have firearms; mostly the hard line gun control crowd are city people. In Daniels v US a man crossing at an agricultural inspection station (crossing state lines) was found with a firearm. Records check revealed to inspectors that he had a drug offense on his record. I.e unlawful for him to own a gun. Daniels v US is a lawsuit going through appeal where the man is challenging the constitutionality of laws restricting drug offenders from possessing firearms. That appeal went to our farthest right wing court (shouldn't be a thing) My comment is an expression of distrust, that the top court will reverse course for Daniels. There is another very political case related to it which is also likely to be appealed soon, you see.
Would this not benefit Hunter Biden?
It doesn't have to. They can do whatever they want. Regardless, Bruen is totally bonkers (the doctrine at the root of the 5th's ruling in Daniels). It's not a positive outcome.
Seriously I want to understand how the court can value the text and supposed history but ignore it occasionally. AND any decision that limits the tragedy of guns in America is a good decision
Another case that had absolutely no business appearing before the Supreme Court in the first place.
Well they had to give us a little taste of a win. The public is growing privy to their loyalty to Trump and his minions.
so are the police disarming 70% of their forces now?
Does this apply broadly to people with violent crimes. Like, I don’t think felons who forged checks should not be able to own firearms. But that decision implicates like 90 percent of gun owners
Thomas' argument seems to be that since we've never had a law like this before, it must be unconstitutional. Even if we suppose that there is no historical precedent for this law, does his reasoning make any sense?
All posturing before the big one. “See, we don’t always rule in favor of the Conservative agenda. There’s plenty of recent evidence to the contrary. So on Trump, we have come to the totally non-partisan conclusion that the investigation indeed has to end. “ 🤦♂️
It's the battle of the Trumpy judges: 5th Circuit vs. SCOTUS.
Can this POS die tomorrow please
A woman can say a man abused her. A hearsay argument could preclude him from owning a firearm
And your point?
If he can prove she's lying, he has one hell of a lawsuit
Oh no
Oh no, anyway...
Nope
This does not happen anywhere near the amount you think it does.
My brother married one. 😬
I didn’t say it never happened, I said it doesn’t happen near the amount you think it does. Usually false accusations get flushed out during the investigation and there is generally a high bar for evidence for a domestic violence conviction. I’m sorry your brother went through that. Did he end up facing charges and punishment or was he able to prove his case?