The case will test how far the court's conservative majority is willing to go in interpreting the scope of its 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights outside the home.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would uphold a federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms, potentially limiting the scope of its own major gun rights ruling from last year.
The case gives the court's 6-3 conservative majority a chance to consider the broad ramifications of the 2022 decision, which for the first time found that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment.
On one hand, there’s the risk that someone might get murdered by their spouse. On the other, the risk that someone is wrongfully deprived of their guns for a period of time.
Which risk should we minimize? This doesn’t seem like a tough decision to me.
It's not! The right of an individual to own a small arsenal with absolutely no oversight or regulation whatsoever is
SCOTUSConstitutionally guaranteed, while living is not. If life were so important, why didn't the founding fathers put that in the Constitution?Ergo, me spending more on ammunition than my local school district spends on feeding its students clearly supercedes some random woman's privilege to life.
See? Easy!
(If you thought any of the above sounded remotely sensical, for the love of God don't vote and don't have kids.)
Something something
LifeGuns, liberty, and the pursuit of (trigger) happiness?What cute rhetoric! Sure scores points on social media!
At the base of it, we're talking about taking rights from people without due process.
Repeat after me:
"I'm OK with that as long as it seems like something I agree with."
Wait till that shit gets used against you. Are you seriously saying judges and cops should be able to take your rights without trial?! Or, more likely, you think such a decision will only be limited to the 2A, and therefore gun nuts.
"SCOTUS is a bunch of right-wing fascists! And I hope they vote sensibly on taking judicial action against people based merely upon an accusation!"
Pick one?
Cute rhetoric to match your own!
So do you oppose holding people in jail who've only been accused of a crime? For example, your friendly neighborhood serial killer gets arrested and held without bail until trial, losing nearly all of his rights in the process. Are you really arguing this person should walk free because he hasn't been tried and convicted? Doesn't this precedent also create a slippery slope where before you know it, we're all forced to be microchipped and tracked by the government?
You seem very opinionated without having actually sat down and thought your argument through to any logical conclusion.
The murdered people would probably like their right to life back, or do they not have any right to try and stay alive in the face of reasonably forseeable violence.
America is fucking weird man.
Point being, what other rights are we OK with giving up, on the strength of an accusation?
@FunderPants said something mean to me! I believe he intends violence!
That's a ludicrous exaggeration, but you see where I'm going. Legal precedence is a powerful thing, and it can be used by bad actors, and it will be, bet on it.
All kinds of rights actually, freedom of movement when you don't get bail, freedom of speech through a gag order, we make this kind of trade all the time because rights come into conflict. When rights come into conflict judges make decisions on which right to abridge , and which will take precedence. And you know, the safety and security of domestic violence victims is more important to me than the temporary inconvenience of a weapon owner. You can get your guns back out the box when your day in court is done ne, but dead people never come out of the box.
What are they going to do next, stop me from leaving the country if I'm accused of a criminal act and potentially a flight risk? The nerve! A bunch of old dudes who didn't wash and owned slaves told me I could go anywhere I wanted armed and goddamn it I will
Yeah I'm thinking about my brother, who had guns, and his crazy girlfriend had one filed against him just because she's vindictive and was pissed off at him. But, if it saves people from those that are truly harmful and violent, I'm all for it.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
That sounds like a very apt description of our country currently. We're willing to sacrifice so many lives so that some scared, fragile men can feel 'safe' when walking around in public.
I'd say you should read more, but you've already made up your mind. You just want to convince yourself that what you've already decided is correct. So no need to respond.
The Founding Fathers enacted plenty of gun control, with blanket prohibitions for certain members of the population. Obviously women were not allowed in the militia. Black people were similarly prohibited. It would make no sense to include Native Americans, since that's who the militia would be fighting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/
I have NOT made up my mind. I'm here to kick ideas around. Don't put that on me.
And nothing you posted is surprising. Of course the founders restricted gun rights to white mean of means, just like the vote. Liberal gun owners have known for some time that that gun legislation if often (always?) racist.
As to the individual right to bear arms, the courts have examined the idea and found we do have that right. We can argue that amongst ourselves, and I welcome that argument as a chance to learn more, but it's where we are ATM.
Stop pretending a law that violates the 14A is fundamentally about the 2A. It's disingenuous and makes the rest of your post pointless.
Say what you mean out loud for those in the back:
"It's better to preemptively take judicial action against people accused of $whatever."
Or, more to the point:
"I've never been falsely accused of anything, and that'll probably never happen to me. So fuck anyone else that happens to."
If that were the only way such a ruling would play out, even that part isn't so easy. A SWAT team could roll on me this very second, raid my house and burn it down. Think they got all my guns? BRB.
Speaking of calling the cops in… I thought we liberals had mostly agreed that calling the cops on someone could well be a death sentence? So now we good on forcibly disarming folks on an accusation?
Y'all's hate for guns and abusers is blinding you to the far-reaching precedent we might be setting here. This is truly a tough one with no easy answers.
I would fight so that one doesn't arbitrarily lose access to housing, food, or a drivers license, because wrongfully taking those away are life ruining. But what difference would it make to be temporarily deprived of guns? What the hell are you using it for that you can’t be parted from your guns for even a short time as a life saving precaution?
Meanwhile, demanding a high standard of evidence for threat of spousal abuse means people die. That’s an insane trade off.
Y'all are focused on 2A rights and the gun issue. This sort of thing sets a precedent for taking other rights.
FFS, can no one see past the issue at hand and see how badly this precedent can be abused?!
It's not even a 2nd ammendment case, it's a 5th ammendment issue, which most people arr completely ignoring.
It's not just about the guns. Once they can ignore your 14A-guaranteed rights for one thing (which is 2A-protected, so about as sacrosanct as possible), they can ignore it for everything. Do you really want to be put in prison without a trial as soon as some cop arrests you for something the cop made up?
Does any pro-gun argument not lean heavily on slippery slopes? Why is it only possible to oppose the law when it impacts guns but not if cops start "putting you in prison without a trial for something they just made up"
And of course, we do imprison people who are awaiting trial when it's determined the risk to public safety is too high.
Like that doesn't already happen?
Do you want to make it easier?
I don't see how this makes it any easier. Furthermore, the previous person's entire argument was that this would set the precedent that allows this to start happening. It already happens and is very typical for anyone charged with a crime.
Your second amendment right doesnt protect you from law enforcement.