Posted on 06/30/2023 3:29:23 PM PDT by Libloather
The Supreme Court will take up a major gun rights case next term when it considers if banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from having weapons violates the Constitution.
The justices decided Friday that they will rule on 1994 federal law that forbids abusers from possessing firearms in what could be the third major Second Amendment decision since 2008.
They took up the case on the last day of the term, where the struck down President Joe Biden's $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan.
Justices will hear cases again when the court's next term begins in October.
The bench agreed to hear President Joe Biden's administration of a lower court's ruling that found that the law ran afoul of the Second Amendment's 'right to keep and bear arms' because it fell outside 'our nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.'
The case involves a Texas man charged with illegal gun possession while subject to a domestic violence restraining order after assaulting his girlfriend.
The court will hear the case during its next term, which begins in October.
The United States, with the world's highest gun ownership rate, remains a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence including frequent mass shootings even as the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, takes an expansive view of Second Amendment rights.
The court in June 2022 expanded gun rights in a landmark ruling called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, striking down New York state's limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home.
That ruling declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. It also set a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It does.
People also lie to get DV orders. Especially if they are fighting for custody in a divorce.
Yup.
This is why gynosocieties are horrible. And we live in one. Women lie about things all the time because they suffer no consequences for it.
In biblical times if you lied about someone and it was disco ered, the liar got the max punishment for the crime they tried to frame the innocent person for.
Needs to go back to this for all liars.
Men lie all the time too!
I think the biblical two parent design is the ideal and that we should forbear much to keep it solid. But sometimes even the Bible allows for divorce (adultery, attempted murder) and sometimes moms (or dads) get abandoned.
Oh, and widowed.
So it’s rather cruel to just slap single moms around as a single group.
Restate the problem.
Perpetrator first disarms their victim by getting a fraudulent restraining order.
THEN, they attack their victim.
A long time ago I had a stalker. We never called law enforcement. He never bothered me again.
Imagine the lawsuits by people who had firearms taken away due to angry ex wife during divorce proceedings.
Are people under a “domestic violence restraining order” somehow ineligible to servce in the militia?
I don’t think this is a good case or will have a good outcome for us. As I read about this earlier, I really suspect that Supreme Court, which apparently reviewed this in conference twice, chose to hear it because of the three liberals, maybe as consolation for the rulings this week. Further, I bet they’ll use this to lay out some limits on the second amendment.
Simple: If you use your gun to intimidate, threaten, injure or kill other than in self-defense, you should be punished appropriately. It’s no one’s business what type or how many you own as long as you behave yourself.
But merely owning one makes you intimidating and threatening in the feeble minds of snowflake libs, I guess. Look for more “swatting”.
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ― Ayn Rand
Hold everyone to the same standard. I can live with that.
That's the basis for overturning it all. If the right to bear arms is a civil right, the it cannot be infringed by a judge's whim.
People who are institutionalize whether for reasons of crime or reasons of mental or emotional inability.
People who are in "half way" houses.
People on early release.
People who are on probation.
No one else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.