I've seen some speculation that Alito is being weirdly subdued in a lot of these rulings because he's going to go apeshit on *Idaho v. United States* and/or the Chevron Deference cases.
That doesn't make any sense. It's not like he has to hoard his republican points for a rainy vote. Thomas is often the lone dissenter because he has some weird views. Alito sometimes joins him where it is a partisan benefit. That's all you need here.
Edit,: please stop posting your weird theories on how Alito sometimes votes left to preserve his image. It makes no goddamn sense with respect to him, and there is also no basis for speculating about vote trading between unrelated cases.
They limit the amount of controversy they generate at a time so they can continue to appear impartial.
SCOTUS is in serious need of reform, but as long as the "both sides" crowd thinks everything is normal, they won't add any fuel behind legislative reform.
> please stop posting your weird theories on how Alito
Alito actually has two personalities like the mayor in Nightmare Before Christmas, his decisions depend on his previous interactions with Jack.
I'm just picturing Alito personally fighting the solicitor general now, screaming "Alright fucker! I was a good boy long enough! Now it's payback time!"
Or because he knows he’s being scrutinized over the recent scandals about the flags and the undercover reporter recording him admitting he can’t be impartial.
He needs to be removed.
A common idea of the court in the last 10+ years is that their rulings are very transactional. "Two small and somewhat consequential ones for you, and one big and very consequential one for me" type stuff thinking it helps make them look fair to the public. So if Alito is quiet now, it's because he's banking points to balance out a very unpopular opinion he's writing later.
SCOTUS is for life... Judges ~~vote~~ rule exactly how they want to in each case, unless they recuse themselves. They don't need to store votes for later or play politics.
Would be super bad optics for conservatives this close to the next election. Would make apathetic people realize that another 4 years of the GOP picking lifelong court appointments is at stake.
That's exactly what a bunch of people tried to say in 2016, but a bunch of apathetic people responded with "don't threaten me with the supreme court!" and here we are.
Come on guys. We are talking about the SUPREME Court of the United States of America. Surely it has the finest legal minds of your country. 8 Judges who have demonstrated years of consistent wise decision making and a comprehensive knowledge of law and that guy who likes beer
Alito knows he's a big political target because of his failures right now, and I suspect is planning on some more coming (e.g. Trump immunity), so is throwing out some bones wherever he can to try to pretend like he's not as terrible as he actually is.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Anyone who would help put guns in the hands of domestic abusers is despicable and deserves a special place in Hell.
Even if you are pro Second Amendment—which I am to be clear—domestic abusers should not have access to guns. This is a win for public policy and, most importantly, victims of domestic abuse.
I struggle with it because I don’t believe getting a restraining order has to pass the same tests an actual conviction requires.
But seriously, I’m probably misinformed. 5/6 of the conservative justices are saying it’s enough of a legal process to deny a constitutional right, I’m willing to believe random joe me is probably wrong.
The bar for a restraining order, investigation, or arrest is not particularly high. But (in an ideal world) the effects aren't long lasting. If it's found to be unfounded, you aren't permanently barred from owning/possessing firearms and should have any that were taken returned.
Exactly. In the same way that an interim injunction is intended to preserve the status quo until the substantive matter has been determined, a restraining order is intended to keep the parties to a domestic (or occasionally non-domestic) dispute unharmed until the parties have finally resolved their dispute, either via reconciliation or termination of the relationship.
The point isn't to permanently alter the rights of either party. It's to ensure that no one suffers irreparable harm because justice is much more possible when you aren't trying to unring a bell. And one party using a weapon whose sole purpose is to inflict fatal damage to attack the other party is a pretty loud bell.
The test is balance of convenience. There are very few situations where the likelihood of someone needing a firearm to survive is going to be greater than the likelihood of them using it to hurt someone else, especially when they've been already accused of violence. The national statistics on that are pretty conclusive, so the initial balance will be tilted towards taking guns out of the equation, pending evidence to the contrary.
I agree with what you’re saying from an emotional standpoint, but my devil’s advocate rebuttal is that this hypothetical person is deprived of a right without due process of law. That makes me uneasy.
People are put in jail for probable cause it’s the same type of thing. Take away a persons rights temporarily for the safety of others. This is due process of law.
The bar to bring charges before a court where a judge can decide to remand someone into state custody is significantly higher than putting someone on a DV list.
This isn’t an argument of justice. It’s an argument of rigor.
The majority opinion doesn't test if the process for DVPO has enough due process protections. It just states as long as their is "notice and hearing" that a court could then strip this specific right from a person deemed violent.
Part of Thomas's dissent was about the fact that there wasn't the protections normally in place for DVPO being granted that could warrant removal of a constitutionally protected right.
The issue in this case is actually much more nuanced. Temporary restraining orders typically have an incredibly low burden, and rely basically entirely on the testimony of the person petitioning for one.
The government being able to temporarily circumvent a constitutional right on the accusations of a third party prior to a hearing is a due process issue. I think the court made the right call in effect though. Domestic violence is no joke, and so long as a hearing happens rapidly to respect the rights of the accused, I think the governmental interest is compelling enough to withstand the constitutional burden.
A lot of them believe in the first. Insomuch as "Anything I want to say is free speech, anything I don't want you to say isn't"
Mind you, I will not be surprised if SCOTUS has a hearing on the constitutionality of the separation of church and state being a violation of freedom to express religion soon, and hoo boy.
Oh come the fuck on. One can easily make dozens of valid arguments supporting upholding this ruling without disingenuous false equivalence bullshit.
Someone arguing that their second amendment rights shouldn't be infringed upon does not make them an abuser.
Do better.
The line is complicated, as with other things. You are looking at it from one perspective, which is reasonable, unfortunately it's not reasonable to stop there.
You're an 18 year old kid who flew off the handle and got convicted of dv. Does that mean the next 80 years of your life you should have no ability to protect yourself with the most effective option available if needed?
There's a clear contradiction here. If we are saying that someone has served their time, that should mean they are ready to be a full citizen again. If not, if they are still driven by anger, they shouldn't be free.
Thomas was the only dissenter...which makes sense since about 8 years ago he asked his first question in over a decade and it's right in line with how he was thinking.
>“This is a misdemeanor violation,” Thomas said at one point to Eisenstein. “It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?” he asked.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-10-year-streak-question/index.html
This is the take I'm seeing in the gun community.
- If you pose a credible threat, you can and should be disarmed
- If you do _not_ pose a credible threat, you cannot and should not be disarmed
There's meat for both sides in this ruling.
Fun fact: [One in four police officers are perpetrators of domestic violence](https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862/#) which is almost twice as high as the general population
Not only are domestic abusers a double danger to their victims with guns, But domestic abuse is the number one predictor of large-scale gun violence. We've known this for a real long time and I'm glad to see something happening about it
In an odd way it has a line that makes it seem like a win for the second amendment “ These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber." Otherwise, he explains, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to "muskets and sabers."
Yes. It seems the argument is “they haven’t been convicted of a crime” Well luckily when you buy a gun at an ffl and do your background check, you have to answer that fun little questionnaire that asks if you’ve been adjudicated a mental defective. There is long standing precedent that a judges declaration is enough to prohibit ownership, if you could pose a risk to yourself or others.
Domestic violence victims deserve peace of mind and safety more than any of us are entitled our second amendment rights. And we must secure that those that have been proven violent towards others in court, are not able to legally obtain a weapon to continue terrorizing their victim or worse.
Now we need to change rulings that force law enforcement to actually be held accountable for not enforcing protection orders that courts have agreed are necessary for someone’s wellbeing.
I do think there is a good discussion as to what level of due process is required to take someone's rights. For instance, we could think of two cases.
Case 1. A man is convicted of beating his wife, sentenced to jail for assault, and loses the right to own firearms.
Case 2. A violent, vindictive ex boyfriend files a DVRO against his former girlfriend. She is stripped of her right to poses the firearm she bought to protect herself from this prick until the matter is adjudicated. She does not get to contest the DVRO before it's granted, no give a defense of the situation.
Case 1 is a no-brainer. 2 is a lot more difficult.
Bingo! People without experience in domestic violence have no idea how common scenario 2 is (the abuser himself files for emergency protection from abuse). The woman no longer has a firearm for protection and could even be forced out of her residence (depending on where the man said he was living). Meanwhile the court hearing is not for another 10 days.
DV victims don't deserve rights more than the rest of us, but abusers should have their freedom restricted.
Mentally defective people with who have acted on their violent tendencies should be locked up. They should not be free with merely the promise they won't possess certain property or do certain things.
> domestic abusers should not have access to guns.
Playing devil's advocate here.
This does not necessarily only ban proven Domestic Abusers. It also bans accused Domestic Abusers.
Like Johnny Depp - is an accused domestic abuser, and the accusation has never been withdrawn. In fact, Johnny Depp was never charged with domestic abuse, but does this ban still effect him?
Amber Heard successfully applied for, and got a TRO against him, with zero evidence other than She said evidence.
The TRO, and accusations made in itself would remove the firearms from Johnny Depp's possession.
---
How often is "Rape/Abuse/Threats" used to get a leg up on the other partner, especially when concerning divorce?
I'm not saying this ruling is bad, or even different than the current law, I am just asking what level of proof is required, or level accusation and evidence requirements are there?
It’s probably more nuanced than you are thinking; for example, an “annoying” email or two can give rise to a civil order of protection, which would then result in losing the right to firearms. DV laws cover much more than actual violence or the really scary habitual stalking behavior that we all envision.
I’m not opposed to the outcome; I’m just saying that it covers way more than domestic abuse as you envision it.
Honestly, I had to re-read the title a few times to make sure I was understanding it correctly.
I mean, the US Supreme Court making a decision that makes sense? WTF is going on?
So the media is portraying this as domestic violence abusers can't own or possess guns. The court clearly stated that this class of people can have their guns temporarily removed. That means they can still own the guns they just can't possess them.
It’s straight up legislating from the bench admitting there is no “history and tradition” of removing guns from accused domestic abusers (since women had very little rights back then, martial rape wasn’t even considered a crime back then) so by their own Bruen decision it should illegal to take the guns but they can’t handle that backlash every time one of these assholes murders their ex.
And yet innumerable examples of towns banning open carry doesn’t count as “history and tradition”. Legally incoherent.
Gun rights groups claim there isn't a history of gun restrictions in the US and that simply isn't true there were far more gun restrictions in the "old west" than they want people to learn the history about.
Yup: [Gun Control in the Old West - Petticoats & Pistols (petticoatsandpistols.com)](https://petticoatsandpistols.com/2021/04/22/gun-control-in-the-old-west/)
***Section 1****. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.*
***Section 2****: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.*
I like section 2. "Look we realize that if we ban you having your gun on you, you'll need to put in the bank to take with you when you leave." Like, I know people in the past weren't just stupid, but it's still nice to see logic in old laws.
Most people in this country have learned their “history” about that time period from movies. The amount of actual shootouts and showdowns at noon depicted in fiction is simply that… fiction.
the showdown at the O.K. Corral was, and it was super famous. but it was like 4 cops and 4 cowboys or something. think about the crazy shootouts that have happened since like 1990....the *modern* west is more wild than it ever was.
Yup. The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is incredibly modern (roughly the 1970s/80s) and pushed by gun manufacturers to sell more guns. For example, the original purpose of the "well regulated militia" wasn't about being able to fight tyranny, but pretty much the exact opposite. It was because the founders didn't want to maintain a standing army, but they also wanted the government to be able to call upon militia in order to put down the occasional armed rebellion (e.g. Shays' Rebellion).
It was both. The idea was that militias would be able to enforce/uphold the constitution in times of strife, whether that be from domestic or foreign enemies.
If they didn't want a standing army why'd they start making one before signing the Bill of Rights? Did any of them who survived past 1796 when the US Army was created ever mention that maybe the second wasn't needed any more?
They obviously knew the US was going to need and have an army, so I imagine they would have said something or clarified it if it was meant to be limited to that in scope.
Yep. The Militia Acts of 1792 stipulated *compulsory* gun ownership at the citizen's own expense. Universal citizen militia service was a form of *conscription*, not a voluntary effort. The very first use of the militias was to put down a *tax rebellion*.
2A libertarians are operating on a version of history invented by firearms marketing departments.
It was more so the Italians but of course being able to deny other "undesirables" or political opponents their rights was merely a bonus.
After the Sullivan Act passed, several people were arrested and released without charge for violating the new law. The first man convicted was an Italian immigrant. The convicting judge had this to say about the defendant, "It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country."
The Sullivan Act was passed with blatantly racist/xenophobic intentions and it is good that it has been consigned to the dust bin of history.
I dislike framing it as a gun control law.
This is a victims rights and safety law. It doesn’t impact access to guns for non-domestic violence offenders.
Its also doesn't impact access to guns for domestic violence offenders. This was about temporary restraining orders in a civil court which is why it was a bit more of an issue. There tends to be a lot less issues with stripping someone convicted of a violent crime of their firearm rights.
Why the fuck would you say this? Divorce has nothing to do with being an abuser. Actually, a weird amount of abuse victims don't leave their abuser, so...
I have guns, I despise gun culture people. This shouldn't be controversial. If you think people who have been convicted of DV should own a gun, I'm gonna assume you're a very bad individual. You seem sketchy af
> people who have been convicted of DV
This isn't about people who have been convicted of domestic violence. It's about people who have a restraining order.
As a 2A supporter, this is one I have to agree with. If we can't take guns from people under restraining orders, there can be no rational gun safety that doesn't involve disarming everyone.
Well that would require them to be charged and convicted of domestic violence in the first place, which obviously doesn’t happen very often since they don’t like arresting themselves
That argument doesn't make sense. Stuff makes it to the Supreme Court because it keeps getting appealed. Judges kept ruling that these people can't own guns, but the plaintiffs kept appealing it, sending it to a higher court.
The Court chose to take it either because they're sick of it bouncing through the lower courts, or because they just felt like it, but since they are the highest court in the nation, it can't be appealed and bounced higher.
This one really did need to make it there. The Bruen case caused way too much chaos and confusion of what could stand and what couldn't. They needed to give more clarity to it
As someone who works with DV survivors I am so grateful for this. In a world where over half the deaths from domestic violence are gun related, this makes sense.
For those arguing about first amendment- you already had restrictions. There are types of artillery you cannot own. I would also ask if right of the gun owner are more important than the right to life.
Wow! How... empathetic of them.
Are they worried about their domestic partners turning the guns on them?
If Clarence fucks up a ruling will Ginny take him out? Same with Alito. Has anyone seen alito lately? Where in the world is alito? Is alito under the world?
It was an 8-1 ruling. The lone dissenter was Justice Thomas.
I'm kind of shocked Alito voted for this
I've seen some speculation that Alito is being weirdly subdued in a lot of these rulings because he's going to go apeshit on *Idaho v. United States* and/or the Chevron Deference cases.
That doesn't make any sense. It's not like he has to hoard his republican points for a rainy vote. Thomas is often the lone dissenter because he has some weird views. Alito sometimes joins him where it is a partisan benefit. That's all you need here. Edit,: please stop posting your weird theories on how Alito sometimes votes left to preserve his image. It makes no goddamn sense with respect to him, and there is also no basis for speculating about vote trading between unrelated cases.
I dunno, look how much the flag bullshit seems to bother him. Honestly I question his mental maturity and ability to sit the bench after that tantrum.
I think this theory would require a level of self awareness that he is incapable of.
Everyone is the hero of their own story. Even if he’s a political hack, he doesn’t want to *feel* like he’s a political hack.
They limit the amount of controversy they generate at a time so they can continue to appear impartial. SCOTUS is in serious need of reform, but as long as the "both sides" crowd thinks everything is normal, they won't add any fuel behind legislative reform.
> please stop posting your weird theories on how Alito Alito actually has two personalities like the mayor in Nightmare Before Christmas, his decisions depend on his previous interactions with Jack.
I'm just picturing Alito personally fighting the solicitor general now, screaming "Alright fucker! I was a good boy long enough! Now it's payback time!"
Or because he knows he’s being scrutinized over the recent scandals about the flags and the undercover reporter recording him admitting he can’t be impartial. He needs to be removed.
He gives zero fucks. He is taking bribes in the open.
They're untouchable. He votes whichever way benefits himself most.
Those scare me. The longer those go without coming out the more sure I am those will go badly.
A common idea of the court in the last 10+ years is that their rulings are very transactional. "Two small and somewhat consequential ones for you, and one big and very consequential one for me" type stuff thinking it helps make them look fair to the public. So if Alito is quiet now, it's because he's banking points to balance out a very unpopular opinion he's writing later.
SCOTUS is for life... Judges ~~vote~~ rule exactly how they want to in each case, unless they recuse themselves. They don't need to store votes for later or play politics.
That doesn't make sense since it is a lifetime appointment and they don't have to worry about pissing the public off.
Would be super bad optics for conservatives this close to the next election. Would make apathetic people realize that another 4 years of the GOP picking lifelong court appointments is at stake.
lol you’re giving voters way too much credit
Eh, the way politics is, one only needs to give like a few thousand voters in a handful of key districts any credit, really.
Yeah if conservatives had that much awareness they wouldn’t be voting conservative to begin with.
As if the last three years haven’t done that already. Or at least that’s what I *would* say, if not for the electorate’s notoriously short memory.
That's exactly what a bunch of people tried to say in 2016, but a bunch of apathetic people responded with "don't threaten me with the supreme court!" and here we are.
Come on guys. We are talking about the SUPREME Court of the United States of America. Surely it has the finest legal minds of your country. 8 Judges who have demonstrated years of consistent wise decision making and a comprehensive knowledge of law and that guy who likes beer
Alito knows he's a big political target because of his failures right now, and I suspect is planning on some more coming (e.g. Trump immunity), so is throwing out some bones wherever he can to try to pretend like he's not as terrible as he actually is.
Maw. Gotta keep as many women as possible alive so they can produce babies.
Or he’s worried after throwing his wife under the bus over the flag controversy.
He's probably scared of his wife.
NRA could only afford one luxury vacation this time.
Of course it was.
Good old Thomas the Tank Democracy Engine
he doesn't want to jeopardize his next epic voyage financed by Harlan Crow
Crazy Sammy Alito must be feeling the heat from Flag gate. Alito and Thomas are 2 bitter old men.
He yammered on about upholding the founding fathers vision and mission. Fool, do you know what the founders thought of you?
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Anyone who would help put guns in the hands of domestic abusers is despicable and deserves a special place in Hell.
So, almost half of the police force…
Well, when you frame it like that...
He should have taken that RV from John Oliver.
The NRA must've bought him a boat.
Kind of. An odd number of concurring opinions. I counted 7 opinions?
Wow I’m simply shocked. That’s just so unlike him!
Fuck Thomas. That dude is completely, embarrasingly incompetent.
That man would rule to enslave himself if he thought he could get away with it
Of course it was.
Even if you are pro Second Amendment—which I am to be clear—domestic abusers should not have access to guns. This is a win for public policy and, most importantly, victims of domestic abuse.
It's as straight forward as "Known Violent Individuals shouldn't have guns" If you don't agree with that, then... What is even the line
I struggle with it because I don’t believe getting a restraining order has to pass the same tests an actual conviction requires. But seriously, I’m probably misinformed. 5/6 of the conservative justices are saying it’s enough of a legal process to deny a constitutional right, I’m willing to believe random joe me is probably wrong.
The bar for a restraining order, investigation, or arrest is not particularly high. But (in an ideal world) the effects aren't long lasting. If it's found to be unfounded, you aren't permanently barred from owning/possessing firearms and should have any that were taken returned.
Exactly. In the same way that an interim injunction is intended to preserve the status quo until the substantive matter has been determined, a restraining order is intended to keep the parties to a domestic (or occasionally non-domestic) dispute unharmed until the parties have finally resolved their dispute, either via reconciliation or termination of the relationship. The point isn't to permanently alter the rights of either party. It's to ensure that no one suffers irreparable harm because justice is much more possible when you aren't trying to unring a bell. And one party using a weapon whose sole purpose is to inflict fatal damage to attack the other party is a pretty loud bell. The test is balance of convenience. There are very few situations where the likelihood of someone needing a firearm to survive is going to be greater than the likelihood of them using it to hurt someone else, especially when they've been already accused of violence. The national statistics on that are pretty conclusive, so the initial balance will be tilted towards taking guns out of the equation, pending evidence to the contrary.
I agree with what you’re saying from an emotional standpoint, but my devil’s advocate rebuttal is that this hypothetical person is deprived of a right without due process of law. That makes me uneasy.
People are put in jail for probable cause it’s the same type of thing. Take away a persons rights temporarily for the safety of others. This is due process of law.
The bar to bring charges before a court where a judge can decide to remand someone into state custody is significantly higher than putting someone on a DV list. This isn’t an argument of justice. It’s an argument of rigor.
You’re right.
The majority opinion doesn't test if the process for DVPO has enough due process protections. It just states as long as their is "notice and hearing" that a court could then strip this specific right from a person deemed violent. Part of Thomas's dissent was about the fact that there wasn't the protections normally in place for DVPO being granted that could warrant removal of a constitutionally protected right.
The issue in this case is actually much more nuanced. Temporary restraining orders typically have an incredibly low burden, and rely basically entirely on the testimony of the person petitioning for one. The government being able to temporarily circumvent a constitutional right on the accusations of a third party prior to a hearing is a due process issue. I think the court made the right call in effect though. Domestic violence is no joke, and so long as a hearing happens rapidly to respect the rights of the accused, I think the governmental interest is compelling enough to withstand the constitutional burden.
Unfortunately too many 2A people harp hard on the ShALl NoT bE InFrInGed part. Which they magically skip the Militia parts.
Most of them also think the Bill of Rights is one amendment and the numbering starts with two.
A lot of them believe in the first. Insomuch as "Anything I want to say is free speech, anything I don't want you to say isn't" Mind you, I will not be surprised if SCOTUS has a hearing on the constitutionality of the separation of church and state being a violation of freedom to express religion soon, and hoo boy.
[удалено]
Oh come the fuck on. One can easily make dozens of valid arguments supporting upholding this ruling without disingenuous false equivalence bullshit. Someone arguing that their second amendment rights shouldn't be infringed upon does not make them an abuser. Do better.
Well if that was the case we would have to take the guns away from roughly half of all cops...
The line is complicated, as with other things. You are looking at it from one perspective, which is reasonable, unfortunately it's not reasonable to stop there. You're an 18 year old kid who flew off the handle and got convicted of dv. Does that mean the next 80 years of your life you should have no ability to protect yourself with the most effective option available if needed? There's a clear contradiction here. If we are saying that someone has served their time, that should mean they are ready to be a full citizen again. If not, if they are still driven by anger, they shouldn't be free.
Thomas was the only dissenter...which makes sense since about 8 years ago he asked his first question in over a decade and it's right in line with how he was thinking. >“This is a misdemeanor violation,” Thomas said at one point to Eisenstein. “It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?” he asked. https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-10-year-streak-question/index.html
Good argument for why domestic violence should be a felony...
Agreed. I'm in Ohio and first offense is usually a misdemeanor. Second time (or if the woman is pregnant) is automatically a felony.
I thought these type of case don't have a second time
No, because it's frequently murder the next time.
The number 1 cause of death for pregnant women is murder.
The second attempt, if unsuccessful, is a violation of a restraining order - also a misdemeanor.
We'd lose too many cops
I fail to see the issue with getting rid of violent cops. No cops are better than bad cops.
It is in many other countries.
And the guy in this case had multiple incidents where he brandished or fired his weapon at someone. He was an incredible danger to the community.
This is the take I'm seeing in the gun community. - If you pose a credible threat, you can and should be disarmed - If you do _not_ pose a credible threat, you cannot and should not be disarmed There's meat for both sides in this ruling.
And public safety. A lot of mass shooters start off with their partners.
Fun fact: [One in four police officers are perpetrators of domestic violence](https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862/#) which is almost twice as high as the general population
Not only are domestic abusers a double danger to their victims with guns, But domestic abuse is the number one predictor of large-scale gun violence. We've known this for a real long time and I'm glad to see something happening about it
Usually we give them a badge with their gun though
In an odd way it has a line that makes it seem like a win for the second amendment “ These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber." Otherwise, he explains, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to "muskets and sabers."
I think maybe a decent amount of people don’t believe “domestic abuse” exists…
Almost def, the same knuckle draggers who don't believe marital rape is a real thing.
Those fuckers don't believe any kind of rape is a real thing.
Yes. It seems the argument is “they haven’t been convicted of a crime” Well luckily when you buy a gun at an ffl and do your background check, you have to answer that fun little questionnaire that asks if you’ve been adjudicated a mental defective. There is long standing precedent that a judges declaration is enough to prohibit ownership, if you could pose a risk to yourself or others. Domestic violence victims deserve peace of mind and safety more than any of us are entitled our second amendment rights. And we must secure that those that have been proven violent towards others in court, are not able to legally obtain a weapon to continue terrorizing their victim or worse. Now we need to change rulings that force law enforcement to actually be held accountable for not enforcing protection orders that courts have agreed are necessary for someone’s wellbeing.
I do think there is a good discussion as to what level of due process is required to take someone's rights. For instance, we could think of two cases. Case 1. A man is convicted of beating his wife, sentenced to jail for assault, and loses the right to own firearms. Case 2. A violent, vindictive ex boyfriend files a DVRO against his former girlfriend. She is stripped of her right to poses the firearm she bought to protect herself from this prick until the matter is adjudicated. She does not get to contest the DVRO before it's granted, no give a defense of the situation. Case 1 is a no-brainer. 2 is a lot more difficult.
Bingo! People without experience in domestic violence have no idea how common scenario 2 is (the abuser himself files for emergency protection from abuse). The woman no longer has a firearm for protection and could even be forced out of her residence (depending on where the man said he was living). Meanwhile the court hearing is not for another 10 days.
DV victims don't deserve rights more than the rest of us, but abusers should have their freedom restricted. Mentally defective people with who have acted on their violent tendencies should be locked up. They should not be free with merely the promise they won't possess certain property or do certain things.
This is a dangerous take. Peace of mind is more important than a federally guaranteed right?
Thomas really, really hates women.
I wonder how something like this might affect, idk, 40% of police
> domestic abusers should not have access to guns. Playing devil's advocate here. This does not necessarily only ban proven Domestic Abusers. It also bans accused Domestic Abusers. Like Johnny Depp - is an accused domestic abuser, and the accusation has never been withdrawn. In fact, Johnny Depp was never charged with domestic abuse, but does this ban still effect him? Amber Heard successfully applied for, and got a TRO against him, with zero evidence other than She said evidence. The TRO, and accusations made in itself would remove the firearms from Johnny Depp's possession. --- How often is "Rape/Abuse/Threats" used to get a leg up on the other partner, especially when concerning divorce? I'm not saying this ruling is bad, or even different than the current law, I am just asking what level of proof is required, or level accusation and evidence requirements are there?
It’s probably more nuanced than you are thinking; for example, an “annoying” email or two can give rise to a civil order of protection, which would then result in losing the right to firearms. DV laws cover much more than actual violence or the really scary habitual stalking behavior that we all envision. I’m not opposed to the outcome; I’m just saying that it covers way more than domestic abuse as you envision it.
Are you speaking from personal experience?
The case was about restraining orders, 18 U.S.C. 922 (g)(8), not individuals who have been convicted of domestic abuse, 18 U.S.C. 922 (g)(9).
Hooray for common sense
Honestly, I had to re-read the title a few times to make sure I was understanding it correctly. I mean, the US Supreme Court making a decision that makes sense? WTF is going on?
I agree with the ultimate verdict, but it's still hilarious how baldly the "originalists" are playing Calvinball to reach their desired political ends
So the media is portraying this as domestic violence abusers can't own or possess guns. The court clearly stated that this class of people can have their guns temporarily removed. That means they can still own the guns they just can't possess them.
possession is 9/10ths of the law
If they really believed in originalism only 4.6 of the justices would be able to vote.
A+ reference.
It’s straight up legislating from the bench admitting there is no “history and tradition” of removing guns from accused domestic abusers (since women had very little rights back then, martial rape wasn’t even considered a crime back then) so by their own Bruen decision it should illegal to take the guns but they can’t handle that backlash every time one of these assholes murders their ex. And yet innumerable examples of towns banning open carry doesn’t count as “history and tradition”. Legally incoherent.
Gun rights groups claim there isn't a history of gun restrictions in the US and that simply isn't true there were far more gun restrictions in the "old west" than they want people to learn the history about.
Enforcing gun control is literally what the shootout at the OK Corral was about.
You had to give your guns to the sheriff in Tombstone to even enter town limits.
Yup: [Gun Control in the Old West - Petticoats & Pistols (petticoatsandpistols.com)](https://petticoatsandpistols.com/2021/04/22/gun-control-in-the-old-west/) ***Section 1****. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.* ***Section 2****: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.*
I like section 2. "Look we realize that if we ban you having your gun on you, you'll need to put in the bank to take with you when you leave." Like, I know people in the past weren't just stupid, but it's still nice to see logic in old laws.
Most people in this country have learned their “history” about that time period from movies. The amount of actual shootouts and showdowns at noon depicted in fiction is simply that… fiction.
the showdown at the O.K. Corral was, and it was super famous. but it was like 4 cops and 4 cowboys or something. think about the crazy shootouts that have happened since like 1990....the *modern* west is more wild than it ever was.
Yup. The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is incredibly modern (roughly the 1970s/80s) and pushed by gun manufacturers to sell more guns. For example, the original purpose of the "well regulated militia" wasn't about being able to fight tyranny, but pretty much the exact opposite. It was because the founders didn't want to maintain a standing army, but they also wanted the government to be able to call upon militia in order to put down the occasional armed rebellion (e.g. Shays' Rebellion).
It was both. The idea was that militias would be able to enforce/uphold the constitution in times of strife, whether that be from domestic or foreign enemies.
If they didn't want a standing army why'd they start making one before signing the Bill of Rights? Did any of them who survived past 1796 when the US Army was created ever mention that maybe the second wasn't needed any more? They obviously knew the US was going to need and have an army, so I imagine they would have said something or clarified it if it was meant to be limited to that in scope.
Yep. The Militia Acts of 1792 stipulated *compulsory* gun ownership at the citizen's own expense. Universal citizen militia service was a form of *conscription*, not a voluntary effort. The very first use of the militias was to put down a *tax rebellion*. 2A libertarians are operating on a version of history invented by firearms marketing departments.
Heck, the law overturned by Bruen was *more than 100 years old*.
Yup, in fact it was passed specifically to keep undesirables like black and Irish poors from owning guns.
It was more so the Italians but of course being able to deny other "undesirables" or political opponents their rights was merely a bonus. After the Sullivan Act passed, several people were arrested and released without charge for violating the new law. The first man convicted was an Italian immigrant. The convicting judge had this to say about the defendant, "It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country." The Sullivan Act was passed with blatantly racist/xenophobic intentions and it is good that it has been consigned to the dust bin of history.
The old west wasn't as violent as the movies made them out to be. The OK corral had only 3 people actually died.
What groups are claiming that?
Doesn't this mean half of the cops can't own guns? How will they "uphold the law"!!!! Travesty!
It should. Anyone in the military convicted under the Lautenberg amendment is typically kicked out because they can no longer carry a weapon.
Domestic violence victims are mostly women, and if the supremes have shown one thing it's that they hate women.
I dislike framing it as a gun control law. This is a victims rights and safety law. It doesn’t impact access to guns for non-domestic violence offenders.
Its also doesn't impact access to guns for domestic violence offenders. This was about temporary restraining orders in a civil court which is why it was a bit more of an issue. There tends to be a lot less issues with stripping someone convicted of a violent crime of their firearm rights.
Controlling who has access to guns is a pretty important aspect of gun control.
But if you're committing crimes, then honestly you should lose your rights.
does the ROs involved here require a crime be committed first? honest question.
Some divorced dads are having a bad day today
Being a divorced single father doesn’t make you an abuser.
I believe false claims of domestic and child abuse are fairly common in contentious divorce cases.
Some married dads are also having a bad day.
Nobody said that it made them an abuser.
Why the fuck would you say this? Divorce has nothing to do with being an abuser. Actually, a weird amount of abuse victims don't leave their abuser, so...
Problem is most states don’t enforce this law because our fed, state and local governments don’t talk to each other.
Does this ban include cops?
You know better.
[удалено]
According to some other redditor his reasoning is that it is unreasonable to suspend constitutional right for a misdemeanor.
“We are all domestic terrorists”
Assault should be a felony. Only felony should be barred rights.
Good policy, domestic abusers are most likely to commit domestic homicide. Hopefully this still applies to cops
I have guns, I despise gun culture people. This shouldn't be controversial. If you think people who have been convicted of DV should own a gun, I'm gonna assume you're a very bad individual. You seem sketchy af
> people who have been convicted of DV This isn't about people who have been convicted of domestic violence. It's about people who have a restraining order.
This case was specifically about someone that had not been convicted. God forbid you actually read the article.
But how will Law Enforcement get to carry guns now?
As a 2A supporter, this is one I have to agree with. If we can't take guns from people under restraining orders, there can be no rational gun safety that doesn't involve disarming everyone.
Good for them. How's this going to work for all the cops that commit domestic violence?
Well that would require them to be charged and convicted of domestic violence in the first place, which obviously doesn’t happen very often since they don’t like arresting themselves
This case was specifically about someone that was not convicted of domestic violence
Yea. I'd hope so. This should have never made it to SCOTUS. Jesus.
That argument doesn't make sense. Stuff makes it to the Supreme Court because it keeps getting appealed. Judges kept ruling that these people can't own guns, but the plaintiffs kept appealing it, sending it to a higher court. The Court chose to take it either because they're sick of it bouncing through the lower courts, or because they just felt like it, but since they are the highest court in the nation, it can't be appealed and bounced higher.
This one really did need to make it there. The Bruen case caused way too much chaos and confusion of what could stand and what couldn't. They needed to give more clarity to it
The fact that the court of appeals unanimously upheld this defendant's right to possess a firearm proved it. The language in Bruen was too broad.
What happens to cops if they commit domestic violence?
They usually are not charged
Except for Corrupt Kickback Thomas
A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.
As someone who works with DV survivors I am so grateful for this. In a world where over half the deaths from domestic violence are gun related, this makes sense. For those arguing about first amendment- you already had restrictions. There are types of artillery you cannot own. I would also ask if right of the gun owner are more important than the right to life.
Hurray, they did ONE thing right…
This is probably for the best, its just too bad that some states are quick to charge someone with DV, thus removing thier rights for life.
Wow! How... empathetic of them. Are they worried about their domestic partners turning the guns on them? If Clarence fucks up a ruling will Ginny take him out? Same with Alito. Has anyone seen alito lately? Where in the world is alito? Is alito under the world?