Excellent. Another 6-3 decision in the wings.
...shall not be infringed.
Take out a restraining order — and get a gun.
I understand that someone may be afraid of their partner. But they limit the partner’s movement with the restraining order (seems acceptable to me) but they should not ALSO take away a Constitutional right. Get yourself a gun and take responsibility for your own situation.
My former wife took out a restraining order against me after and . A woman judge (California) found that there was no domestic violence, but rather a disturbing the peace charge. She also agreed my ex was a loose cannon. But because of the restraining order, I have not been able to own a gun for the last twenty years.
It’s a complete deprivation of rights without due process.
No right is absolute. If you are imprisoned, for example, you can’t carry. If you are in a crowd you can’t incite a riot. No weapons may be a condition if your parole. You can’t use your freedom of speech to arrange a crime.
Domestic violence is a terrible thing but the subject of a restraining order has not had a trial with a jury of his peers. While I am sure that objectively some who have restraining orders placed on them are horrible and dangerous people, they have not been convicted of anything. We can’t have a society where anyone can accuse you of possible violence and your enumerated right vanishes.
How it should work is that the one under threat should be allowed to defend themselves by shooting the abuser on sight.
Per the Constitution Rights can be taken away .... after due process of law. A convicted person is not allowed to have his gun while serving time inside. It is Constitutional to take away guns after conviction.
If in road rage a drive yells at another driver it is not reasonable to take away the gun. But if in road rage a driver shoots at the other driver and misses, it is reasonable to take away his gun.... after due process of law.
Just as a jail sentence is for a certain period of time, so the gun punishment would reasonably be for a period of time dpenending the severity of the offense.
It does. There’s no “yes, but” in the second amendment.
Lots of guys will plead guilty to domestic violence rather than risk going to prison for 5-10 years.
Plead guilty and they let you go with a misdemeanor, no jail time, and give up your right to own a firearm.
Makes no difference if you are innocent or guilty, even if your wife says her husband didn’t hit her.
It does.
People also lie to get DV orders. Especially if they are fighting for custody in a divorce.
A long time ago I had a stalker. We never called law enforcement. He never bothered me again.
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”.
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.