Current Events > Supreme Court Upholds Law Banning Domestic Abusers from Owning Guns

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-law-banning-142926673.html

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a law banning domestic abusers from owning guns, showing that a conservative court that has expanded gun rights also sees areas for limitations.

"Since the founding, our Nations firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 8-1 majority.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said there isn't a "single historical regulation" that justifies the ban.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority but quibbled with analyzing statutes based on how they would have been viewed historically. She said a historical perspective on the Second Amendment would depend on the historians who are consulted.

Seems well regulated to me.

Does that mean an ban entirely or only if they're still married?

Here, take this bump stock as a consolation prize.
Sarcasm aside, a win is a win.

Revelation34 posted...

Does that mean an ban entirely or only if they're still married?

Probably means any prior DV conviction at all.

DV calls are the ones where cops are most likely to be murdered by a perpetrator.

Humble_Novice posted...

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter

Of fucking course it's him.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said there isn't a "single historical regulation" that justifies the ban.

This motherfucker, for god's sake. What an incompetent buffoon beholden to an ancient text that apparently NEEDS to be followed without any modern interpretation.

This means an awful decision on something else is coming.

Kaldrenthebold posted...

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said there isn't a "single historical regulation" that justifies the ban.

This motherfucker, for god's sake. What an incompetent buffoon beholden to an ancient text that apparently NEEDS to be followed without any modern interpretation.

8 of his coworkers even disagree.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Probably means any prior DV conviction at all.

DV calls are the ones where cops are most likely to be murdered by a perpetrator.

I would hope so because they would most likely shoot other people due to a history of violence.

Thank goodness. Havent read the decision yet, but it sounds like clown court may have gotten a gun case right for once. 8-1 too.

The conservative position/fundraising engine/single issue voting driver that no guns can be regulated at any time for any reason continues to be utterly insane. Especially since how firearms were stored and where they could be carried was heavily regulated when the Second Amendment was written. Because safety is an issue, duh, and that was before we developed automatic weapons that can kill groups of people in seconds.

Not this time Thomas, you corrupt grifting hack.

Thomas with the pro-domestic violence vote. When I heard 8-1, my guess was Gorsuch, but if not him I knew it was either Alito or Thomas.

Humble_Novice posted...

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter

Good old Uncle Thomas.

PepsiWithCoke posted...

This is not a smart thing to say here.

Good. Violent people don't need to have guns.

voldothegr8 posted...

This means an awful decision on something else is coming.

We just got the awful decision on bump stocks.

ItsNotA2Mer posted...

We just got the awful decision on bump stocks.

There's a much worse decision they can make since their decision on the Trump stuff will be coming soon.

Holy_Cloud105 posted...

There's a much worse decision they can make since their decision on the Trump stuff will be coming soon.

Their good call on DA's not owning guns was just to try and negate their horrible call on gun bump stocks.

ItsNotA2Mer posted...

Their good call on DA's not owning guns was just to try and negate their horrible call on gun bump stocks.

They buffered that by not banning the birth control pill though. This is their buffer for the next bad decision.

Holy_Cloud105 posted...

They buffered that by not banning the birth control pill though. This is their buffer for the next bad decision.

The fact that we even talk about it like this just shows how fucked the illegitimate SCROTUS is.

Is Thomas ever not an ass hole? Dude just seems to hate everything and everyone

Kaldrenthebold posted...

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said there isn't a "single historical regulation" that justifies the ban.

This motherfucker, for god's sake. What an incompetent buffoon beholden to an ancient text that apparently NEEDS to be followed without any modern interpretation.

Its almost like a historical approach to domestic abuse is the worst possible take. Hes by far the worse justice on the bench

tremain07 posted...

Is Thomas ever not an ass hole? Dude just seems to hate everything and everyone

He really likes conservatives who shower him with money to influence his court decisions. And I guess the ladies who get a kick out of actively trying to overthrow the government?

tremain07 posted...

Is Thomas ever not an ass hole? Dude just seems to hate everything and everyone

He's a puppet of a bunch of white conservative billionaires who give him money and gifts

Boombam99 posted...

He's a puppet of a bunch of white conservative billionaires who give him money and gifts

Man doesnt have a shred of dignity

Revelation34 posted...

Does that mean an ban entirely or only if they're still married?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Probably means any prior DV conviction at all.

DV calls are the ones where cops are most likely to be murdered by a perpetrator.

It has nothing to do with convictions, the law in question is about a restraining order that has one of two specific findings, per the statute:

In particular, the order must either contain a finding that the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of his intimate partner or his or his partners child, 922(g)(8)(C)(i), or by its terms explicitly prohibit[ ] the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against those individuals, 922(g)(8)(C)(ii)

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson with the good detail. Who one consults as a reference on such an opinion would heavily affect the decision, and Im glad she points that out.

Im with the courts decision on this one.

BlueBoy675 posted...

Man doesnt have a shred of dignity

It has nothing to do with dignity. He's vengeful. There was a news article I remember seeing after his confirmation that said he vowed to make life as miserable as possible for everyone because of how hard people came at him for all the scummy shit he did.

Fair warning, when this court does something good, it usually means something shitty is around the corner.

There's still an abortion case, an EPA clean air/water case, and the Trump immunity case on their docket, I believe. So they'll probably fuck over women, fuck over the environment and our ability to regulate clean air and/or water rights, and/or fuck over the legal system and the country.