You cannot deprive rights from a person who has not been convicted of a crime.
‘this Court explained in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens,’” DOJ wrote’
Sorry, but a restraining order isn’t sufficient to demonstrate that someone isn’t law-abiding or responsible. All you need in order to obtain a restraining order is an allegation, and a willing judge. That’s not due process.
Since when does the Just Department get to ask SCOTIS to change?
Of course many women are abused,assaulted and threatened by men.But OTOH courts today automatically approve any petition filed by a woman. Accusations aren’t always justified.
A misdemeanor should not prohibit you from owning a firearm for the rest of your life.
Boy, with FJB’s agenda, that is one busy DOJ . . .
They also need to repeal or revise the “Lautenberg Amendment” to ensure people are not unjustly deprived of their 2A rights. It is standard procedure to coerce men accused of misdemeanor domestic violence to accept “anger management classes”, counseling or some other deal to avoid going to court. They have no idea that accepting such a “deal” means permanent loss of 2A rights.
Political grandstanding. Bruen very clearly lit the way for the Left to follow on this. An order of protection does not need to establish that someone has done anything wrong. But if it IS established in a court of law that someone has demonstrated that theyy are a danger, they can be forced to pay an attainder.
Why is the DOJ circumventing procedure. If they lose before a 3 judge panel aren’t they supposed to ask for an en banc review instead of petitioning the SC?