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 ...
Anyone that dangerous should maybe be separated from society rather than allowed to walk among us, because guns aren’t the only thing such a person could use to cause great harm to others. Furthermore it is galling to make each of the rest of us prove we aren’t them, e.g. when trying to buy guns, rather than placing the burdens on them for being so dangerous.
I suspect SCOTUS neuters Chevron limiting agencies powers to effectively create laws and remands the Immunity case back to the lower courts. They will say that Presidents have immunity while performing their duties as President. Lower courts will have to explain why a charge is not considered Presidential duties. Then that will be appealed, effectively killing the cases against Trump until probably the summer of 2025 at the earliest. By the it will be mute. I also think J6 prisoner will get a win from SCOTUS, if not they will open Pandora's box, legally speaking.
My first thought on hearing this news was “what about spouses/partners who are falsely accused by toxic crazy people?” Such as my late husband’s toxic ex-wife, who thought nothing of detonating his naval officer career, causing public scenes and attempted to destroy his relationships with his 2 sons. I witnessed her being absolutely unhinged and know there are too many other people like her doing that same thing right now. BTW, I met & entered my relationship with my husband AFTER their divorce, yet she still blames me for their separation—crazy!!! And, I had a male NCO who worked for me and he had to call the SPs on his now ex-wife who was beating on him and then she grabbed a knife!!! He said he was glad his weapons were locked up in the armory or she’d have used them on him and their kids!!! So, I’m thinking it’s NOT a good ban and lots of good people will be endangered, despite the best intentions of the SC.
In New Mexico, as of May 2024, there is. The dimwitocrats and their little führerette governor just made it impossible to legally acquire a firearm for 7 days once you pass the checks.
They have the backing of the legal system so there's no consequences to their actions.
If you become "crazy" and you get alimony and child support plus sympathy from your social circle, then why not?
Really? So the beaten up wife will have to kindly ask her abusive husband to wait 7 days before punching her lights out as she is awaiting background checks.
Or if she does get a gun to protect herself and then shoots her abuser - she will be charged and prosecuted for unlawful possession.
Anyone that dangerous should BE IN JAIL.
Otherwise, we are creating a “bench ruling” where your Rights disappear.
It does not require a trial and weighing of the evidence, it is an ex parte proceeding.
And that can become self-authenticating: “he must be guilty of {fill in the blank}, he’s got a restraining order.”
The original intent of the first eight amendments was to bind the federal government, not the states.
Lots of problems applying the first 8 amendments to the states. Those amendments were meant to verify certain limitations to the feds. Instead the misapplication of the 14th Amendment gave the feds sweeping powers over the States the ratifiers never dreamed of. Also, the feds do NOT constitutionally have police power which belongs exclusively to the States.
The state’s own constitutions almost universally reflect the first 8 amendments anyway which is also evidence of the original understanding that the first 8 amendments of the U.S Constitution were pointed exclusively at the feds.
Either way, the law in question violates the Second Amendment.
It can work, it can also be abused. These have due process to allow the accused to challenge the claim. Problem there is timeliness.
I have thought about it. As usual, the phrase "think about it" is followed by utter rubbish.
commonsense says that
Common sense says that government can and will abuse any power given to it to oppress We the People. Just ask the people who stuck their necks out for then President Trump back on January 6, 2021.
That implies and requires due process.
Even Mr. Trump is in favor of disarming people first and having "due process" whenever. For the democrats, it will be disarmament first, "due process" never.
That’s exactly the scenario we all fear. Just how tough is it to get a restraining order?
Then they shouldn't be out on the street.
Sadly, true.
Well, there are two exceptions. One for Law Enforcement personnel and one for Concealed Carry permit holders. They can walk out with the purchase immediately once the checks are passed. New Mexico is pretty much lost these days. However, anti-gun politicians tend to not last long here. Both sides of the political spectrum here, at least long-time residents, like their firearms and don't like them being messed with.
I always thought his attorneys focused too much on the historical tradition argument and not enough on due process.
Therefore that issue wasn’t really before the court.
Now blue state judges and OBiden appointees will just declare everyone a threat.
This is going to be used as an excuse to take guns away from political opponents, like any totalitarian regime would do.
Keep an eye on those trying to minimize this decision. They are either not seeing it, or approve.
Should be instructive.
Thomas’ dissent in this is epic.
Disappointed with the rest of the non-radical leftist justices like Alito as well. Kavenaugh is not dependable at all, and Roberts is under blackmail threats, and Barrett has been a major disappointment.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Indeed. Even Thomas turns a blind eye to potential government excesses sometimes. He's not really as reliable on the 4th amendment as one would think. The radical leftists simply couldn't pass up an opportunity to spit on the 2nd amendment. Alito was a disappointment.
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.