Posted on 06/21/2024 7:28:00 AM PDT by Coronal
WASHINGTON ā 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 ā 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 ...
A guy can muck up a woman’s rights too, you know. He can get a restraining order against her and PFFT her civil rights are gone.
Bad decision by the courts. But it’s not against men. It’s against all of us. No due process, no jury of our peers.
I agree that upon lawful conviction our rights are taken away. One hardly has freedom of association or assembly or press while in prison. In some instances, our lives can be taken.
But there is no due process here. This is not a convicted person. This is simply an accused person. That is why it is wrong. Anyone can accuse anyone for any reason at all.
Being “subject to a DV restraining order” isn’t being convicted of a crime. Taking someone’s constitutional rights away from them — any of them — should be persuant to a criminal conviction, not subject to a decision by one judge who can make that decision solely on the application of the (potential!) crime victim without any crime having actually occurred.
“Ted Bundy has moved in next door to you. Rumor has it that he’s got one or two Glock 19s...and and thousand rounds. Are you concerned? “
Yes. But the Glocks aren’t the problem. Bundy could kill me with his bare hands. Or a rope or a knife or his car or any number of ways.
I’d like to have my Glock? And not have it taken from me because some liar accused me of domestic violence.
My advice get several Glocks yourself with two thousand rounds. After all that is what our government does when a belligerent neighbor builds nukes we just make sure we have more and bigger. Well I think that is what we used to do can't swear that we don't spend all that money on red high heeled shoes or gender care therapy now.
That’s racist.
See Post #27
Wonder if you're permitted to buy "Glocks for hire" for round the clock personal protection AND bill the liar (once legally proven), or the state (per the 5th as compensation for their temporary taking), for it, while under duly processed disarmament. Mandating the latter as a default option, coming out of their budgets, would certainly cramp the style of public officials wanting to abuse the process. End encourage the process to be resolved quickly.
Agreed. I’m absolutely a gun rights/2nd amendment defende, though perhaps not as pure & animated as my husband (that confirms a slight male/female divide). I think the legislation is over-broad as written. They should have limited its application to those under restraining order with case histories of murder, criminal violence, battery, stalking, rape, child abuse & documented threats of violence & murder š
It is not the worst we could have had. It is definitely bad.
Thomas dissent, on the other hand is clear and well argued. Clarence Thomas is a national treasure.
Now we are stuck with reforming how restraining orders are issued. State by state.
I don't think so. After further reading and study, this decision (Rahimi) is very, very narrow.
It was the worst case for the facts and the defendant we may expect, which is why the Biden administration pushed it to the front of the line. They failed to destroy Bruen as a method of judging Second Amendment cases.
As a practical matter, it was probably the best we could get given the make-up of the court.
For example, the case does not touch on due process in restraining orders, because Rahimi stipulated the facts of his violence and agreed to the restraining order.
Therefore, Rahimi has little precedential value for any restraining order cases where the facts are disputed, and the defendant does not agree to accept the order.
I hope that is correct. Restraining orders are far too easy to have issued.
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.