This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 06/21/2024 7:43:26 AM PDT by DoodleBob
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms, ruling that the measure does not violate the Second Amendment.
The court ruled 8-1 that a person who has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.
"When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect. Since the founding, our Nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms," Roberts wrote.
"As applied to the facts of this case, [the law] fits comfortably within this tradition."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Ping!...................
It did more than that... it established a “credible threat” doctrine. Now, if you are a “credible threat”, you can be deprived of your Rights.
Think J6 protestors and vocal dissenters on the Right. We are all a “credible threat”.
All it will take is a New York liberal judge and your Rights are GONE.
It might fit with tradition but it certainly doesn't fit with the 2nd amendment. Sigh.....
SCOTUS has a bad habit of siding with .gov way too much on powers.
How is that a federal issue? That is a STATE'S issue which was probably the basis of Justice Thomas' dissent.
Does not bode well for the Chevron re-visit.
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Thomas the only negative..
No. Its a 2nd amendment issue and therefore federal.
Any confiscation of firearms or other weapons is illegal and unconstitutional.
Any confiscation of firearms or other weapons is illegal and unconstitutional.
Appears that only SCJ Thomas understands this.
So, now what?
My first wife was having an affair and was trying to paint me as a violent person to justify her divorce. One night she ran out of the home while I was in the shower and I couldn’t find her all night. The next morning people were telling me that I should not have chased her with a shotgun...I found out that her lawyer had recommended that she do this to sully me. The stench of that false accusation followed me for years in gossip circles. This ruling should have been made with a caveat that if the person files this and is proved false, they should be put in prison for no less than ten years as this is the time that I had to suffer for the false accusation. She wouldn’t have thought twice about hurting me with a restraining order to affect me adversely. Nevermind she’d been embezzling money for the last year of our marriage and hiding it in a bank account out of town. F’in evil woman.
Think about it, commonsense says that a person who poses an immediate risk may be disarmed. That requires laws and a court. That implies and requires due process. The questions come in the application of commonsense--what establishes the threat is one issue, what court ruling a second, and lastly, the due process, e.g., when it ends, how to revisit.
And understand I own firearms, I am a firearms instructor, I shoot competitively, etc., so I'm speaking of direct personal interest. I believe in the Second Amendment. As well, I know there are some people that should not be allowed to buy, own, or possess firearms.
Anyone supporting DJT is now a credible threat.
One of those “feel good” laws that will protect nobody as the only people who will obey it are people who you never needed to worry about in the first place, you really think a domestic abuser who has decided to “off” his significant other is going to be deterred by some law saying he can’t possess a gun?
There are other State Red Law cases working their way through the Appeals process, that will hopefully define what due process is before denying someone their 2d Amendment rights. Nobody has a problem with felons and drug addicts being denied their gun rights. Hunter Biden is only one case. I do agree with Thomas in his dissent in the case. But you cannot have it both ways. After due process a judge orders guns temporarily removed. The problem that Roberts failed to address is what is due process. That will be different in every State. So, yes as I read this, a federal judge in DC could hold an hearing in DC and order your guns taken even though you live in TX. Roberts is a judicial coward of the first order.
But as I said this was a bad case to hang our hats on for many reasons and it broke the way most SCOTUS pro-2d pundits thought it would.
Yet there is (thankfully) no law prohibiting DV victims from obtaining a weapon to protect themselves.
When a violent thug is punching you in the face, would you rather waive a Restraining Order at him? Or just shoot him?
Rights are already gone if you live in the wrong area.
I support this ruling, oddly enough. One, it emphasizes that the prohibition is temp. Second, guns are special, which is why there is an Amend. Being special, special care/restraints are relevant. If some arshole is threatening their partner their having a special way to do harm is an issue — whether or not it pertains to a human right.
Also keep in mind the total ineffectiveness of a restraining order. If someone is enough of an arshole to try and hurt their partner an extra law upon them is meaningless. They will approach. Letting them approach with a legal gun in hand is a bit too much.
Will the commie trash tyrants use this to their advantage? Of course. When have they not?
Your sad situation is very common. Lawyers routinely tell the wives to get a restraining order. And claim they feel threatened.
Whatever it takes to get more child support and keep the house.
If it’s not bad enough to be imprisoned for, it’s not bad enough to be denied your rights for.
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.