Posted on 06/21/2024 8:50:58 AM PDT by Carriage Hill
The Supreme Court Friday upheld a federal law that bans guns for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
In an 8-1 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the court's majority said, "[W]e conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment." Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.
Both liberal and conservative justices agreed with the Biden administration that there was a history and tradition of keeping firearms from dangerous persons, despite the lack of any specific ban that may have been in place when the Constitution was enacted in the 1790s.
@a RULING...
We have exactly ONE Supreme Court Justice who understands the Constitution.
...and women wonder why men don't want to marry them anymore. A woman can lie through her teeth and her husband loses his rights.
Given Biden's speech in Philadelphia re: MAGA republicans, that dosen't bode well. This decision will be abused.
The law which should only be applied to the feds, not the states, violates the Second Amendment, which is probably the basis for Justice Thomas’ dissent.
The most accurate way to read and apply the Constitution is as written and originally understood and intended. Looks like Justice Thomas is the only Justice who consistently does that. God bless him.
Marry? It won’t be limited to married women. And expect a flood of DVRO’s; and, as usual, lawyers will profit. It’s the first cousin to the red flag laws.
Why have they not ruled on the Immunity and Fisher cases yet? What are they waiting for? A book deal? The waiting is excruciating….just give it to us straight up..PERIOD!
“An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat” But that’s the problem, those hearings do not allow for the other party to address the court and have any due process. It’s totally one-sided and dare I say biased.
while the ruling has a certain superficial appeal to it
it is totally wrong, unconstitutional, in violation of the court’s duty and the justices’ sworn oaths of office
it is decisions like this that have caused millions and millions of American citizens to lose all respect for the law and .... to develop utter CONTEMPT for the judiciary
is it any wonder that USA now has such astronomically high crime rates?
Shall not be infringed.
Anyone violating a restraining order wouldn’t mind violating the gun ban.
“’An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat’ But that’s the problem,”
Doesn’t “a court” = “a judge”? So it comes to an emotional FEELING by one person over-ruling the Constitution. Most of the judges we’ve seen lately have been left-wing activist tyrants.
I’ve seen this movie before. If a bad guy wants to carry a gun, he’s going carry a gun. No law, regulation, or court order is going to stop him.
“while the ruling has a certain superficial appeal to it”
The superficial appeal has kept it on alive and on the books. Most people assume it’s purpose is to protect the woman from an approaching murderous husband.
If that were truly the case, he would simply switch to another instrument.
Well regulated.
true, the supposed assailant would either just switch to another instrument
or else just use one of the 400 million or more firearms in circulation in USA (at last half of which are reportedly not known to the Ruling Bureaucrappies or “authorities” anyway, per all reports) in most American cities a person can reportedly easily acquire just about anything they want to purchase anyway...
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone...”
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
- Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 183
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.