Current Events > SCOTUS says domestic abusers may keep guns even under a restraining order.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1621241348719345666

Reminder: DV responses are the #1 murderer of Cops, surpassed only by accidental traffic incidents.

Edit: the rationale of this opinion was "everyone beat their wives at the time so they intended wife beaters to have guns"

Well there's some good news.

>_>

Tyranthraxus posted...

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1621241348719345666

Reminder: DV responses are the #1 murderer of Cops, surpassed only by accidental traffic incidents.

Edit: the rationale of this opinion was "everyone beat their wives at the time so they intended wife beaters to have guns"

So basically, SCOTUS may inadvertently lead more cops to their deaths?

Humble_Novice posted...

So basically, SCOTUS may inadvertently lead more cops to their deaths?

No inadvertently about it. They are doing it to encourage more shoot first questions later policing.

I'm sure some if not all those right wing judges thinks DV is no big deal or even OK in general. It's an illegitimate court that should be ignored anyway.

Also a reminder, there's a correlation between DV charges, and mass shooters.

"Murderers were alive when they made the constitution, so murderers should have guns as well"

One of the leading causes of deaths in women is partners killing them with guns. And most mass shooters have a history of domestic violence, especially against women. This is going to result in way more women getting killed by angry ex partners.

As for using only past examples for interpretation, well shit. This is gonna mean that they'll cancel gay marriages nationwide when they get another case about it, citing historical precedence and saying marriage didn't refer to same sex marriage. Among other things. Like, I dunno. Historical precedence regarding slavery? It was allowed back then.

I wish activist judges cared as much about other amendments, like the 4th and 5th.

darkmaian23 posted...

I wish activist judges cared as much about other amendments, like the 4th and 5th.

Those lobbies don't have quite as much money.

gunplagirl posted...

One of the leading causes of deaths in women is partners killing them with guns. And most mass shooters have a history of domestic violence, especially against women. This is going to result in way more women getting killed by angry ex partners.

Yup. Its fucked up.

this isnt a SCOTUS decision, TC, it was the 5th circuit

TheGoldenEel posted...

this isnt a SCOTUS decision, TC, it was the 5th circuit

Yeah, thank you. Granted, they may well rule the same way, but they haven't yet

TheGoldenEel posted...

this isnt a SCOTUS decision, TC, it was the 5th circuit

Oi the first response said SCOTUS and somehow I assumed the whole thing was SCOTUS. The ruling is based on a SCOTUS precedent but there's still a "tiny" chance SCOTUS overturns it.

This is a...really really bad decision.

...No words. This is why the half-baked historical analysis that has become the norm when looking at the Second Amendment is a fucking blight. Fuck this offshoot of originalist nonsense.

COVxy posted...

This is a...really really bad decision.

100% agreed.

Joke country

I see it saying the 5th circuit. Wheres it say that scotus upheld this?

It's interesting how the 'pro-life' party makes so many decisions like this.

Punished_Blinx posted...

It's interesting how the 'pro-life' party makes so many decisions like this.

Change that to forced birth and it makes more sense. Especially considering pregnancy and birth have higher mortality rates than abortion.

Zangrief posted...

I see it saying the 5th circuit. Wheres it say that scotus upheld this?

They didn't (yet). It was a fail reading of this tweet that made me think SCOTUS did it

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1621242109989732355

gunplagirl posted...

One of the leading causes of deaths in women is partners killing them with guns. And most mass shooters have a history of domestic violence, especially against women. This is going to result in way more women getting killed by angry ex partners.

Came in to post this.

Remember, for Republicans the cruelty is the point.

Punished_Blinx posted...

It's interesting how the 'pro-life' party makes so many decisions like this.

They gotta have more fodder to ensure everyone buys guns.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, judges were a bad idea.

The originalist "method" of analysis is nothing more than a tool for producing reactionary, galaxy brained decisions. It's amateur historians using motivated reasoning to reach conclusions than no one with brain waves would ever reach. It's quite literally bigoted uncle logic of "well this was fine at the time and nobody said nothing so why are you complaining now?" enshrined into constitutional law.

If I were a judge who interpreted the constitution as saying this was the correct decision, I would simply ignore the constitution

Intro2Logic posted...

If I were a judge who interpreted the constitution as saying this was the correct decision, I would simply ignore the constitution

the thing is the court literally doesn't give a shit about the constitution or interpreting it, simply using it as justification for whatever they want, or are told to want

guns have more rights than people

A decent human being would take a look at this result and simply say "nah"

A decent human being would look at a method that led to a result like this and say "oh, this must be trash then"

We have a system that empowers sub-decent pseudo philosopher kings to something that no one but mass shooters and domestic abusers wants.

Stuff like this really weighs in favor of the people who wanted legislatures to decide what's legal and what isn't.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Reminder: DV responses are the #1 murderer of Cops, surpassed only by accidental traffic incidents.

I did not know this statistic... o.0

So not only are the police not required to enforce restraining/protective orders but now the people (that live in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) that are under them are legally allowed to own guns again.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


In the Dumb & Dumber sense yes.