Posted on 06/21/2024 10:38:32 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld on Friday a federal ban on gun ownership for subjects of domestic violence restraining orders.
The case centered on Zackey Rahimi, who had been barred from gun possession under a 1994 law prohibiting gun possession by those subject to the aforementioned restraining orders.
NBC News suggested SCOTUS’s decision shows there are some gun controls that can survive the Bruen (2022) test.
CNN quoted Chief Justice John Roberts indicating he and seven of his colleagues had “no trouble” coming together on this decision.
Writing for the majority, Roberts said, “Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Evidence Process of domestic violence restraining orders? Is it a rigorous process for domestic violence?
So now a restraining order is essentially a conviction in terms of losing gun rights.
Terrible decision. As a female family law lawyer, you wouldn’t believe how many females lie to get those restraining orders, just as a quick and dirty way to get the dad out of the house and get custody of the kids. Now those dads have no house, no access to their own kids, and no way to defend themselves.
They are jockeying to stay a separate branch of government by kissing up to the Dems who hate them.
They were warned by lawfare threats to Thomas and slander threats to Alito and his wife.
Kissing the rear ends of the woke anti-2nd Amendment crowd will not actually win out.
I do not believe they are deciding based on law or thoughts of true justice.
Just trying to look good like other politicians.
As a campaign promise, President Trump, and the GOP House and Senate candidates, can commit to passing a federal law that would protect the Second Amendment Rights of people with restraining orders.
Thought: Clarence Thomas is good.
I’m genuinely not a fan of mandatory minimums but for lying that results in the deprivation of rights or incarceration of someone who is innocent there needs to be a required consequence that’s more than probation.
If it can be restricted it is not a Right.
Thanks for sharing...
Some just Want to see the World Burn....
No Due Process.
Suspension of rights.
Unconstitutional.
“The Beotch Rule”.
Now. If only ONE right-thinking legislative body passes a law REQUIRING anyone getting an ex-parte order in a domestic abuse situation to HAVE and CARRY a gun in accordance with their RIGHT under the second amendment I’ll believe this is about “safety” and not disarming anyone and everyone by any means necessary.
Could a woke neighbor get a restraining order? Could a tranny child get a restraining order? How about a woke co-worker?
One has nothing to do with the other unless convicted in a court of law-—But then again, I have little trust in our criminal “justice” system.
Let’s answer it this way-—Change the headline and see how that would fly:
“SCOTUS Votes 8-1 to Uphold abortion Ban for Subjects of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders”
Shall not be infringed means that-—”shall not be questioned”!
Facts.. been there done that
Fortunately I had a very good lawyer and she was crazy enough the courts never believed her. But that happens every day
The decision limited itself to the particulars of this case. Rahimi is a bad guy with more than just a rote restraining order against him. The Supremes chose the Rahimi case to side with Schumer on a case which doesn’t matter.
Yes. A non violence restraining order in Illinois will get your FOID card revoked.
Then you will be a felon if you go hunting during deer season.
Trust me. It happened
It is not a conviction. It is a temporary major based on that court hearing. The issue comes to how timely it can be rescinded if the situation changes. I think this is a very common sense ruling.
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.
6/21/2024, 3:50:58 PM · by Carriage Hill · 25 replies
Fox News ^ | 6.21.20214 | Brianna Herlihy, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4245803/posts
It’s fine, but also make strong penalties for making frivolous requests for restraining orders.
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.