Current Events > Supreme Court to review domestic violence restraining order gun bans.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The hits just keep on coming.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-second-amendment-gun-ban-domestic-violence-restraining-orders/

The Supreme Court said Fridayit will consider whether a 30-year-old federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns violates the Second Amendment, taking up a case that will test the high court's new standard for determining whether firearm restrictions pass constitutional muster.

The case was brought by a Texas man who was indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the 1994 law that prohibits gun ownership by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order. The man, Zackey Rahimi, was under a restraining order granted to his former girlfriend in February 2020 when he threatened another woman with a gun and was involved in a series of five shootings in December 2020 and January 2021.

When police searched his home after identifying Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings, they found a .45-caliber pistol, a .308-caliber rifle, pistol and rifle magazines and ammunition.

"[T]he Supreme Court has made clear that 'the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,'" Judge Cory Wilson wrote for the three-judge panel. "Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless among 'the people' entitled to the Second Amendment's guarantees, all other things equal."

If they rule in favor then blue state must ignore it.

The man, Zackey Rahimi, was under a restraining order granted to his former girlfriend in February 2020 when he threatened another woman with a gun and was involved in a series of five shootings in December 2020 and January 2021.

yeah that dude definitely needs to be allowed to own a gun

TonyKojima posted...

If they rule in favor then blue state must ignore it.

They can't

Trump is objectively the worst President in living memory.

UnfairRepresent posted...

They can't

Sure can. Tangible results beat legal theory.

"Well regulated"

Seems like a pretty good reason to regulate but w/e

UnfairRepresent posted...

They can't

They can and will.

The half-assed history test developed specifically for Second Amendment cases is genuinely one of the worst things to ever come about.

I expect the SCOTUS to do the wrong thing here. That law saves lives.

ThePieReborn posted...

The half-assed history test developed specifically for Second Amendment cases is genuinely one of the worst things to ever come about.

Do you mean history of the person trying to get a gun?

Ruvan22 posted...

Do you mean history of the person trying to get a gun?

No, the "we must look only to the historic common law and those regulations that existed at the time of the Founding" test.

brestugo posted...

I expect the SCOTUS to do the wrong thing here.

They are doing a speed run of making everything way more shitty for all citizens.

Thanks republicans!

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!

I'm fully expecting another 6-3 decision in favor of domestic abusers being allowed access to firearms

So they clearly want angry mobs to have guns instead of pitchforks, but what will replace the torches

RuneterranSnap posted...

So they clearly want angry mobs to have guns instead of pitchforks, but what will replace the torches

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ4ffTLdSZU

ooger posted...

They are doing a speed run of making everything way more shitty for all citizens.

Thanks republicans!

More like a Speedrun to get ignored by a majority of the country. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS is just outright ignored by most people by the end of the decade

ThePieReborn posted...

No, the "we must look only to the historic common law and those regulations that existed at the time of the Founding" test.

Ah true - their application of "history" seems selective

Takuya_Lee posted...

More like a Speedrun to get ignored by a majority of the country. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS is just outright ignored by most people by the end of the decade

"Roberts has made his ruling. Let him enforce it."

UnfairRepresent posted...

They can't

They can actually. Unless the feds are going to come physically force them allow these people to own guns there isn't much they can do. If they chose to continue enforcing their own laws it will just cause a constitutional crisis.

Modern day Democrats especially establishment democrats would never dream of defying supreme court decisions nor would our media even put it on conversation.

tremain07 posted...

Modern day Democrats especially establishment democrats would never dream of defying supreme court decisions nor would our media even put it on conversation.

Then we need to aim at removing then from the equation too.

Or we need to accept that facism is going to win and our home will fall with no hope of escape for most of us.

But do drugs and your rights are gone.

hockeybub89 posted...

But do drugs and your rights are gone.

How long do you suppose until they try and rule that states cannot individually legalize Marijuana?

RuneterranSnap posted...

How long do you suppose until they try and rule that states cannot individually legalize Marijuana?

next Tuesday at this rate

Ruvan22 posted...

Ah true - their application of "history" seems selective

Not so much as selective as it is certainmembers of the court believing themselves to be able to divine some eternal meaning from the Constitution/Federalist Letters/English common law that somehow overrides the reality we live in.

Like, literally the position of the lower court in this case is "Well akshually, restraining orders didn't exist in 1787 (because women were still seen as fucking property) so therefore it is unconstitutional to prevent someone who is demonstrably proven to be a threat to someone from having one of the easiest mechanisms to kill someone mankind has devised."

Eventually one of the sickos they let have a gun will come for them

ThePieReborn posted...

Like, literally the position of the lower courts in this case is "Well akshually, restraining orders didn't exist in 1787 (because women were still seen as f***ing property) so therefore it is unconstitutional

Is this a real thing?

Like you can make that stupid argument for anything, "actually, originally, slavery was legal..."

Christ the brain worms on some people if true.

UnfairRepresent posted...

They can't

Why not? The Supreme Court has no enforcement arm. Their rulings are binding only so long as the country accepts them as binding.

AndreLeGeant posted...

Eventually one of the sickos they let have a gun will come for them

Probably not, sounds like a pleb problem to me.

EthanSilver posted...

Is this a real thing?

Like you can make that stupid argument for anything, "actually, originally, slavery was legal..."

Christ the brain worms on some people if true.

The current Supreme Court barely even makes the pretense of having any legal reasoning for their rulings. Sometimes they don't even do that.

EthanSilver posted...

Is this a real thing?

Like you can make that stupid argument for anything, "actually, originally, slavery was legal..."

Christ the brain worms on some people if true.

It's dressed up a little with the "The government must show that the regulation is consistent with the US's historical tradition in firearm regulation" schtick, but I think my version paints it much more clearly for the people in the back.

Republicans are just fucking hard R

Red_XIV posted...

The current Supreme Court barely even makes the pretense of having any legal reasoning for their rulings. Sometimes they don't even do that.

This Supreme Court will go down as the one that destroyed America

Gritty posted...

This Supreme Court will go down as the one that destroyed America

I think Newt, Rush, and Murdoch have that distinction. Saint Reagan somehow keeps dodging blame, or he'd be in there too.

RuneterranSnap posted...

So they clearly want angry mobs to have guns instead of pitchforks, but what will replace the torches

More guns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_breath_(ammunition)#

EthanSilver posted...

Probably not, sounds like a pleb problem to me.

They have lax security. Breyer was on holiday in the Caribbean and got burglared at machete point

This is legitimately the most braindead thing if they repeal this.

Like wtf do you think is going to happen?

marvel_fan333 posted...

This is legitimately the most braindead thing if they repeal this.

Like wtf do you think is going to happen?

"Even people we disagree with deserve rights"

Unless they smoke or are LGBTQ or support LGBTQ people

hockeybub89 posted...

"Even people we disagree with deserve rights"

Unless they smoke or are LGBTQ or support LGBTQ people

Ai ai!

This guy knows what's up.

hockeybub89 posted...

But do drugs and your rights are gone.

They actually have a dilemma in a few states where gun owners can't use cannabis. Something's going to have to give.

brestugo posted...

They actually have a dilemma in a few states where gun owners can't use cannabis. Something's going to have to give.

"Supreme Court rules states cannot individually legalize federally restricted drugs"