Posted on 06/21/2024 7:28:00 AM PDT by Coronal
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.
The court ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which was defending the law — one of several federal gun restrictions currently facing legal challenges.
The ruling indicates that some longstanding gun laws are likely to survive despite the court's 2022 decision that expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment.
The 2022 decision, in a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, said gun restrictions had to be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms. As such, the decision raised questions about many existing gun restrictions that gun rights activists say are not anchored in historical tradition.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Most every divorce case immediately starts with a restraining order, denying gun rights right out of the box.
This is a horrible decision.
Going the other way on this issue would have been radical.
....and so it begins.
Then I am a proud radical.
This is a bad ruling since DV restraining orders are practically automatically granted....so now a person’s constitutional rights can be infringed upon without conviction or a finding of mental incompetence by a doctor.
Yep. Rights can be taken away by a vindictive woman who wants to muck up a guy’s life. All she has to do is go to the sheriff’s office and ask for a restraining order.
I’m curious as to where it says, “...shall not be infringed, as long as you don’t have a protective order against you.”
This was a bad case. They guy already misused a firearm on several occasions.
The SC seems to love to “split the baby”. They follow the bump stock with this. It’s almost as if they collaborate to “keep it even”.
Look, I don’t consider myself a racist, but I f***ing hate little greasy ******s and ****s and gaw-damn slop-eating, f***ing fat ******** **** and those ***** *** ****** are worse than ******ing *********** *****, but the absolute worse are the gap-toothed ****** **** ******* and creepy *** *** ***** ***** but the dripping-wet ** ****** are the worse and their women smell like *** ****** *****. And don’t get me started on the fake-ass **** ********* who have the IQ of a **** ****** **** and the common sense of a low-level ***** ****!!!!!”
Only the extremist radical Thomas dissented.
Yes,that’s true. I thought that this decision was for people *convicted*.
I disagree but saw it coming.
Just askin'....
A young man is a fool to get married nowadays.
Anybody can be “convicted”.
Many even cop a plea (conviction) just because they can’t afford to fight the charge or risk being separated from their family.
Should not ever mean you will now be defenseless for eternity.
So? American was founded by radicals.
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.