The US supreme court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a case which gun and domestic violence prevention groups are warning could be a matter of life and death for thousands of abuse victims and their families.
Tuesday’s hearing on United States v Rahimi is seen as one of the most consequential cases with which the nine justices will grapple this term. At stake is how far the new hard-right supermajority of the court will go in unraveling the US’s already lax gun laws, even as the country reels from a spate of devastating mass shootings.
Also at stake, say experts, are the lives of thousands of Americans, overwhelmingly women, threatened with gun violence at the hands of their current or former intimate partners.
Someone should also mention that anyone convicted of domestic violence should also not be in possession of any guns that are issued by an employer since I'm certain those folks would argue they don't "own" the gun.
That is already a thing. The prohibited persons restriction of the Lautenberg Amendment applies to any possession, not just ownership. Even the military is required to continually verify that servicemembers are still legally allowed to be issues weapons for duty.
100 percent correct.
Is that a two birds, one stone situation bc that would get rid of most cops.
If they were convicted, but courts usually make sure they aren't.
Police unions would be in ruins!
Inaccurate headline.
SCOTUS will hear a case about whether people accused of domestic abuse–but not convicted of any offense–and subject to a protection order are permitted to own firearms.
Why does that matter?
The evidentiary bar is much, much lower to get a protection order than it is to convict a person of a domestic violence offense, including misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. Because it's not a criminal proceeding, and because the stakes are generally much lower for the accused, it can be considerably easier to get a protection order from a judge than it is to get a criminal conviction of any offense.
That's not a good basis for eliminating rights.
If you want to take the guns from domestic abusers, then for fucks' sake, prosecute them. Even a misdemeanor conviction is sufficient to bar someone from owning firearms for life, or until the conviction is vacated.
EDIT - the defendant in this case did plenty of other things that should have gotten him barred from owning firearms. For instance, he was involved in selling drugs (habitual users of prohibited drugs, including marijuana, are prohibited from owning firearms), and had a long-ass record (although apparently no felony convictions?). There were a lot of other things that they could have nailed him on, but they pursued a gun charge based on the protective order.
There are plenty of gun laws out there that a reasonable person could see merit in challenging: rules about short-barrel rifles / braces & pot smokers not being able to own guns probably aren't saving any lives.
The fact that this is the one they go after is just such a demonstration of malintent. There's good evidence for a relationship between domestic violence and mass shooters.
This should be a bi-partisan slam-dunk. Minimally invasive to law-abiding gun owners, gets guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. What public good is served in challenging it?
Looks like another commenter mentioned how this hearing is about accused (not convicted) domestic abusers.
He goes on to say how it's way easier to get a restraining order against someone than it is to prosecute them. This hearing is about preventing the former from owning guns, the latter already isn't allowed to.
"Put guns back in the hands of stalkers" is all I'm hearing here.
Probably because you spend too much time on the internet.
This is on law this is often used against law abiding gun owners. Their marriage is going south and suddenly they are hit by a restraining order. Some cases there is domestic violence going on, but others the spouse is just trying to make their ex's life bad. Many gun owners have been hit with this and lot their ability to do the legal things they would do with guns even though they weren't going to harm their ex.
That isn't to say that everyone hit by a restraining order won't harm their ex. Only that there are a number of cases where there is no evidence of harm or harm planned but someone lost their guns. (Yes I'm aware that we only get one side of this story and don't know the truth, but it happens enough that gun owners are worried it could happen to them)
Getting a domestic abuse restraining order requires a court hearing. Spouses "just trying to make their ex's life bad" don't have the ability to unilaterally take away their spouse's firearms. For a fraction of accusations, maybe there is an unjustified restaining order issued, but there is still due process and reasonable expectations that the system will protrct more people than it harms.
There is a court order, but that is very different from a full investigation. Often they hearing is fast and the accused isn't even in court to defend himself. That is it is not in any way a fair or unbiased trial.
True, but the complainant still has to deonstrate a need for the order, and there is also an appeals process, and orders issued prior to a hearing are always going to be temporary. If there is nothing to the complaint, the order is lifted and the ex can get on with their life. A fraudulent complaint is a criminal offense. The temporary inconvenience of not being able to purchase a firearm or go within 300 feet of your ex is a minimal hardship when compared against the lives of victims of abuse. There's no appeals process for being shot by your abuser.
Ok, so their hobby is put onto the backburner for some weeks?
Also guns are expensive, so it's extra salt in the wound when you try to get them back and the cops say "oops we lost them" (i.e. they walked off into a buddy's trunk), or even if you do get them back, they've been stored in poor conditions and are rusted or otherwise damaged.
That said, they should still be removed if there is a credible threat of violence.
The case is being run by a public defender this isn't a legal activism play.
I'm not against disarming dangerous criminals or opposed to this at all but at the point we have identified that they are too dangerous to own a gun why not just imprison them while we're at it? Taking their guns won't stop them from victimizing people in other ways.
Because they don't care about the truth, they believe in gun bans based solely on their emotions. They're only going to bring suffering upon themselves and those they love by refusing to examine their beliefs and check their emotions.
Don't sweat them too much. There's ultimately nothing they could do to take anyone's weapons away; any meaningful gun ban would trigger the right wing into violence and cause a civil war, and they know that.
I wish the Founders were more explicit about the responsibilities of citizens when they bear arms. Maybe they thought the Militia clause explained it plainly, as citizens needed to be armed in order to protect their towns when asked to, so bearing arms for other purposes clearly wasn't covered.
Evey other enumerated right in the Constitution is balanced against other responsibilities. The right to Free Speech doesn't mean you can get away with libel and slander. The right to religious freedom doesn't mean you can use religion as an excuse to ignore laws. I don't understand why the right to bear arms is the only one Conservatives see as an absolute right, subordinate to nothing, with no responsibilities attached to it.
so bearing arms for other purposes clearly wasn’t covered.
Not correct. English Common Law was part of the basis for 2A, and English Common Law allowed people to be armed for self defense. (At the time, "people" meant "male land-owners that fit arbitrary definitions of whiteness". Thankfully, that definition is more expansive now.)
The right to bear arms doesn't mean you can own any gun you want. There are already restrictions.
No amount of clarity can defend against willful misinterpretation.
That gun ownership is just presumed to be a given, without any actual responsibility attached to it seems like a purposeful misreading of that amendment. "Well-Regulated Militia" seems to be the main point and requirement of gun ownership. The intent at the time seemed to be, "We don't have (or want) a standing army, but we need people to own guns in case some shit goes down." They expected they would need to call upon citizens in a crisis situation and it was a BYOG (Bring Your Own Gun) arrangement.
Well, we have a standing army now and if a citizen wants to volunteer to protect their nation, there's the National Guard. The whole point behind the 2nd Amendment is gone now. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment talks about owning a gun because you're a hobbyist and you just like playing around with high-powered rifles. There's more restrictions around owning/driving cars than there seems to be around owning a gun.
we need people to own guns in case some shit goes down.”
You realize that this is still the case though, right? When someone is actively trying to kick your front door down, how long do you think that it's going to take the cops to respond? I can tell from personal experience that if you live near Douglas Park in Chicago, the answer is "never", even after three calls to 911. If you're not white and call the cops, you're likely to end up dead.
It should be pointed out that the 'well-regulated militia' during the time the nation was founded consisted of regular white men with guns that could be called up on a moment's notice to fight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen
I'm not sure how regulated they were, but their structure likely influenced the drafting of the second amendment.
One historical review I read before linked the Second Amendment to a popular uprising that had happened not too long before the drafting of the Constitution, the Regulator movement. It was a series of popular uprisings against corruption that happened before the founding of the country, and there was apparently some trouble in assembling an army to put it down. So the Second Amendment was, in effect, a way to help make it easier to put down revolts in the future, which runs completely counter to the narrative that Second amendment supporters give now that the reason they're supposed to own guns is to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, it was the opposite intent if anything.
Well, what do you think makes more sense?
Even with the most generous reading of the amendment, the word "regulated" is literally in there.
Regulated in the 1780s regulated meant equipped not controlled. Language changes, but intent does not.
It still meant disciplined and organized. Random citizen having weapons for personal use was not the intent of the amendment. A modern regulation is a way to ensure order, so still in keeping with the meaning if you're an originalist.
Discipline and organization yes. However guns were private property that you were expected to supply yourself. That is how the recient revolution got weapons.
Because without guns, they have no real agency to threaten you follow their rules they want to impose on you. An imaginary sky wizard won't scare you, but a rifle pointed at you for sure will keep you in line.
deleted by creator
OP already mentioned other enumerated rights were "balanced against other responsibilities." So given there's precedent for qualifying these constitutional rights, why not with gun ownership too?
deleted by creator
Wasn't intended as argument, just clarification that I thought you were both saying the same thing (that there's already restrictions on our consititutional rights).
We don't have absolute freedom of speech. Saying we don't have freedom of speech because it's not absolute is simply incorrect.
Debatable.
deleted by creator
You seem to be confused about how words work.
Pretty sure we know how this ruling's going to go. Lol
lol… shoot me
😀
I think the people who downvoted me aren’t familiar w the phrase.
Maybe I shoulda “😂🔫” instead
Only after you've been given a black eye.
Incoming "We are completely impartial and not beholden to political parties or outside influence." from the big three bois on the bench.
But if we reduce the pool of the NRA's customers like that, how else will the potential buyers be able to efficiently kill whom they can't bring to heel with beatings alone?
Well, the regressive judges have always maintained that they love violence against women so, I see them leaning into the 2A nonsense.
It'll never pass because cops.
What a terribly biased headline and summary. This is not about those who have done wrong, just those ACCUSED of wrong doing. We have no idea if they are guilty, just that someone accused them. In the US we normally say innocent until proven guilty,.and here is one of the most common ways someone innocent is accused.
The hearing will put the spotlight on a federal law that prohibits anyone under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing guns.
If there is a domestic violence restraining order, it's not just that "someone accused them". Ironic you call the headline terribly biased. If a court has to put in on paper that you're such a threat to someone that you get a restraining order, it makes sense you lose your guns too.
Bad guys with guns and good guys with restraining orders… Yeah that makes sense.
A restraining order is given at request. It's exactly that someone accused them and there's no evidence needed.
Restraining orders are great tools for abusers.
You're conflating different things, at least for most places.
Sometimes temporary restraining orders don't need evidence. They still need a judge to agree there is probable cause. You don't just submit your application online and get an order in the mail.
Restraining orders of all types do have some burden of proof.
The only burden of proof is your word about previous abuse, or threats of abuse.
In a perfect world, this would always be true information stated by someone who needs protection. It is often, however, a reaction of someone vindictive and accustomed to having power over someone else.
All you need to do in a full out the form and sign it in front of the clerk. Any lawyer will probably tack on on to the filing of there's anything contested about the divorce.
When someone leaves an abusive relationship, it's a very dangerous time. I'm not saying that guns help in any way, but if you were going to kill someone for leaving you, you may as well get the state to say they can't be armed.
And that is why you have a judge. Who can decide based upon the evidence to remove your right to bear arms.
There is at least enough proof to issue a restraining order, though. They don't do that frivolously.
In order for a restraining order to be useful it needs to be issued on no proof at all. It takes a lot of investigation to find enough proof issue them - time that actual abusers can use to harm their victims even more. In short they are frivolously issued by nature. Then we do a proper investigation and determine if there really is something going on.
And, in the mean time, abuser shoots his ex-partner in the face, even with a restraining order, because guns make it extremely quick and easy to murder a person. That is exactly what they're designed to do, after all.
100% a restraining order is given without evidence, a domestic abuse charge requires evidence.
When someone who is abused leaves the relationship it's a very dangerous time for them. Plus, I don't like the state being able to take action against civilians without the burden of evidence.
I know what your saying but the person in question in this case should 100% not have a gun and way involved in domestic violence with a gun. And multiple accounts of gun violence after the domestic abuse order was issued.
Owning a gun is not an essential right. Food, water, shelter, dignity, an attorney - these are essential. Guns are not. Taking something non-essential, a privilege, away to protect someone's life, especially if it's a temporary measure, is not impeding upon anyone's rights. The 2nd ammendment is massively outdated. You don't need a gun to live. It is not a human right to carry a firearm.
Whether or not this is your intention, your comment sounds rather misogynistic. More often than what you're describing, abuse victims, generally female, are scared into silence. Women get murdered by their intimate partners at an alarming rate.
I implore you to tap into your powers of empathy and do some research. This is really happening.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offender-relationship-2021
That's not true, weak people need guns to have equal access to violence so they are not subjugated by the strong. Access to violence is just as much a basic need than food or water.
Your statement is itself extremely sexist. Women are the weak ones who need guns. Men are the strong ones who have power on their side. Nothing can change those facts. A world without unfettered gun access is a world that enforces those inherent power imbalances and enforces the subjugation of women.
If you need access to violence in order to balance out the power, you live in a shithole.
So I guess all of reality everywhere for all women and AFABs is a shithole and therefore their very serious need for access to violence can be dismissed to save your idiotic political agenda.
Or you can just be honest and say you don't care about women. Go on, say it.
Not all accusations are equal. It's not like I could have a random stranger's guns taken away by accusing them of domestic violence.
Depending on the red flag laws in your state (if any)… Yeah, you could. They might get them back fairly quickly–a few weeks to a few months–but you still could have them taken. Just like you can get someone shot by SWATting them, even though that shouldn't happen.
Yeah, and they'll probably side when the accused abuser, even though they didn't give a single fuck when it was people accused of nebulous terrorism ties not being able to fly.
Seriously? Biased…against people who have a clearly defined motive to use a gun for murder. I don't see the problem.
The fact that you are taking the side of people who have no problem using violence to get their way, however, is extremely disturbing.
I'm staying neutral. Some have no intent to use their gun for murder.
Ok. Some do. But, who cares about the victims I guess? I mean, some won't shoot anybody, so that makes everything ok. Totally balances out with other people getting murdered. Wow, how did we not think of this before!?
What about the victims of false accusations? Do they not deserve any sympathy?
Ok, umm, guess now we can kill even more people, and it's all gonna balance out? Weeee.
We get it; what you really support is making sure that those you consider to be less than you can be murdered as easy as possible. Truly an admirable quality!
