Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession

Morning Call ^ | 2/24/2009 | David G. Savage

[Red in Blue PA]

The Supreme Court today upheld a broad federal gun control law which strips gun rights from the many thousands of people who have been convicted of any domestic-violence crime.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices said the federal ban on gun possession was intended to keep "firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The law covers not only those who have felony convictions, she said, but also misdemeanors involving an assault or beating against a former or current spouse or a live-in partner, as well as a child, a parent or others who live together in the home.

"Firearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination nationwide," Ginsburg wrote.

She cited a report from the National Institute of Justice which found that about 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by a spouse or partner each year. Many more such offenses are never reported, the report found.

[Past Your Eyes]

She has been called "Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg". That's an insult to Ruth Buzzi.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Small consolation — they used the words “convicted” rather than, as is sometimes applied locally, “accused of” or “alleged”.

[screaminsunshine]

They will take your guns through administrative laws. Insurance requirements. Registrations etc. All the while saying they uphold the 2nd amendment.

[houeto]

Crappy ruling. I heard, but have not verified, that it also includes any person that has ever had a restraining order filed against them.

[Edizzl79]

Very true, until people like myself with sparkling records lose their guns.

[Red in Blue PA]

How many restraining orders are falsely made each year?

[Gondring]

And like we’ve seen in many places, this just means we get bogus charges and more violent encounters (”I’m gonna lose my guns anyway...”)

[OldMissileer]

Since our anti-male, feminazi loving society, Government, and courts have stacked the deck so a woman can have her husband or boyfriend arrested without showing cause, and then the man must prove himself innocent instead of the other way around, this is one of the avenues the commies (our politicians) will take our firearms away.

[Gondring]

Small consolation — they used the words “convicted” rather than, as is sometimes applied locally, “accused of” or “alleged”.

Problem is, by making it misdemeanor, they can file multiple charges and plea down to where it's still a ban.

[PurpleMan]

Have yet to read the opinion.

Query: How does this affect members of the military?

[Gondring]

Since our anti-male, feminazi loving society, Government, and courts have stacked the deck so a woman can have her husband or boyfriend arrested without showing cause, and then the man must prove himself innocent instead of the other way around, this is one of the avenues the commies (our politicians) will take our firearms away.

Exactly.

For true cases, it makes sense...but in practice, this is abused.

[Dead Corpse]

Hhhmmm... I thought only a felony resulted in loss of certain Rights. I guess they feel okay about heading down that slippery slope.

What's one more trip down the waterslide after all the other crap we've let ourselves be saddled with.

[MileHi]

7-2? For a misdemeanor?

These domestic cases are often dubious at best. This ruling may nullify Heller.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

I heard, but have not verified, that it also includes any person that has ever had a restraining order filed against them.

California law does call for confiscating the guns of any person with a restraining order against them. Since a person has no right to defend themselves against a restraining order this constitutes a violation of the due process clause of the fifth amendment.

I guess from the liberals' point of view, why stop with the second amendment when you can trample the entire bill of rights.

[longtermmemmory]

next it will be first amendment rights.

if your employer accepts federal funds you can’t post comentary. If your employer has a left wing owner then these sites are forbiden for you to have membership...

[CholeraJoe]

In some states every divorce filing contains a restraining order against both parties forbidding them from selling, destroying or transferring joint assets. Are these going to count?

[longtermmemmory]

in some states poor wording of a divorce settlement agreement will do the same thing.

agreed crappy ruling and she is the next liberal to be replaced.

Obama is already looking for a woman to replace her. It is just a matter of whether or not she was married in massachusetts.

[freekitty]

No, this ban is intended to take the guns of law abiding citizens. Judge Bader; we are not all abusers like people who abuse the law.

[ml/nj]

I wouldn't have any problem with this as long as it could apply to other rights that convicted criminals could lose as e.g. the right to have the government pay for their lawyer when they commit their follow-up crime.

ML/NJ