Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court upholds law banning domestic abusers from having guns
CBS News ^ | June 21, 2024 | Melissa Quinn

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2a; 2ndamendment; banglist; chevron; nra; scotus; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 06/21/2024 7:43:26 AM PDT by DoodleBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob; PROCON; marktwain

Ping!...................


2 posted on 06/21/2024 7:44:30 AM PDT by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

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.


3 posted on 06/21/2024 7:47:02 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (A Psalm in napalm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob
"As applied to the facts of this case, [the law] fits comfortably within this tradition."

It might fit with tradition but it certainly doesn't fit with the 2nd amendment. Sigh.....

4 posted on 06/21/2024 7:48:27 AM PDT by itsahoot (Many Republicans are secretly Democrats, no Democrats are secretly Republicans. Dan Bongino.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

SCOTUS has a bad habit of siding with .gov way too much on powers.


5 posted on 06/21/2024 7:49:44 AM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob
a federal law that prohibits people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms

How is that a federal issue? That is a STATE'S issue which was probably the basis of Justice Thomas' dissent.

6 posted on 06/21/2024 7:50:38 AM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ (Jude 3) and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Does not bode well for the Chevron re-visit.


7 posted on 06/21/2024 7:51:38 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (A Psalm in napalm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob; mylife; Joe Brower; MaxMax; Randy Larsen; waterhill; Envisioning; AZ .44 MAG; umgud; ...

RKBA Ping List


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.

8 posted on 06/21/2024 7:51:42 AM PDT by PROCON (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; AZ .44 MAG; Baynative; bgill; bitt; ...

Thomas the only negative..


9 posted on 06/21/2024 7:56:17 AM PDT by bitt (<img src=' 'width=30%>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim W N

No. Its a 2nd amendment issue and therefore federal.

Any confiscation of firearms or other weapons is illegal and unconstitutional.


10 posted on 06/21/2024 7:56:22 AM PDT by SPDSHDW (Only peaceful solution is a national divorce. There is no harmony between the statists and the right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SPDSHDW

Any confiscation of firearms or other weapons is illegal and unconstitutional.


Appears that only SCJ Thomas understands this.

So, now what?


11 posted on 06/21/2024 7:59:03 AM PDT by Jane Long (The role of the GOP: to write sharply-worded letters as America becomes a communist hell-hole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

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.


12 posted on 06/21/2024 7:59:06 AM PDT by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob
As I wrote in the SCOTUSblog thread, I don't think this is a big anti-2a ruling.

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.

13 posted on 06/21/2024 8:03:11 AM PDT by Reno89519 (Trump Please Build the Wall, And Deport Them All. No amnesty for anyone. End H1B!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

Anyone supporting DJT is now a credible threat.


14 posted on 06/21/2024 8:03:14 AM PDT by The Louiswu (Pray for Peace in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

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?


15 posted on 06/21/2024 8:07:10 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I do not think it will impact Chevron in any way. This was a bad case for 2d Amendment advocates to get excited about. The plaintiff is a bad actor in this case. There is a lot bad in this decision but there is also some good. There are better cases working their way to SCOTUS vs NY and IL. Plus a number of case that followed Bruen, States lost and are now appealing.

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.

16 posted on 06/21/2024 8:11:36 AM PDT by OldGoatCPO (No Caitiff Choir of Angels will sing for me. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

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?


17 posted on 06/21/2024 8:13:15 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (A truth that’s told with bad intent, Beats all the lies you can invent ~ Wm. Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

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?


18 posted on 06/21/2024 8:16:53 AM PDT by bobbo666 (Baizuo, )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug

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.


19 posted on 06/21/2024 8:17:30 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (A truth that’s told with bad intent, Beats all the lies you can invent ~ Wm. Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

If it’s not bad enough to be imprisoned for, it’s not bad enough to be denied your rights for.


20 posted on 06/21/2024 8:17:57 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (There are two kinds of people: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson