Supreme Court leans toward upholding law that bars those accused of domestic violence from having firearms
Supreme Court leans toward upholding law that bars those accused of domestic violence from having firearms
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 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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Seems like restricting arms for someone who has a reasonable suspicion of domestic violence, enough to get a restraining order anyway, is consistent with a well regulated militia.
There is no standard of proof for restraining orders.
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.)
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
Something something
LifeGuns, liberty, and the pursuit of (trigger) happiness?
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.
The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an “individual” or “personal” right to bear arms.
The Founding Fathers were very concerned about who should, or should not, be armed.
These restrictions on militia membership are critically important to understand. Because despite the words of the Second Amendment, 18th-century laws did infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms.
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."
wrongfully deprived of their guns for a period of time
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.
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?
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.
But there is a judge, just like with warrants.
There is also a judge every time a judge takes a shit in the bathroom. That doesn't mean the pooping satisfies due process.
What do you even mean? Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used in most jurisdictions. They must satisfy all elements required to that standard. The elements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction though. In my jurisdiction it is caused or attempted to cause harm, or put someone in fear of imminent serious physical harm.
What do you even mean? Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used in most jurisdictions.
You're wrong.
or put someone in fear of imminent serious physical harm.
What do you think the legal test for this is? It's nothing more than someone claiming they are in fear.
Most jurisdictions will issue a restraining order solely on the claims of the filer. But if you want to save yourself some time verifying this, just look up state of California (biggest jurisdiction in the US). Word of the accuser is all it takes. Then go look up the state of California guide for bench judges which requires judges to also revoke gun ownership rights for anyone who is the subject of a restraining order.
The restraining order process can be (and regularly is) weaponized, without evidence, by people who just want to make life a living hell for their ex who pissed them off, with no repurcussions for false accusations.
Some people actually believe you shouldn't have your rights trounced without due process of a trial.
You're wrong
I'm an attorney who has represented clients seeking restraining orders and those opposing them. I assure you I'm not.
In my jurisdiction, a filer has to complete an affidavit and appear before a judge. At that point a temporary order can issue for no more than 10 days. That allows time for the Defendant to be served and appear for a two party hearing. After that the temporary order can be extended for up to one year, dissolved, or allowed to expire.
The Defendant will be heard within 10 days. I'm not sure how you'd better balance the competing interests. If an order isn't issued, someone could be seriously harmed or killed.
You're saying that judges are instructed to remove the guns of someone who is determined to be a reasonable threat to harm another or cause serious bodily harm? Fantastic!
How often do you imagine that restraining orders are weaponized, versus the number of times they're issued because of need? Not to mention that affidavits have to be sworn under the pains and penalties of perjury, that can include years in prison.
State population of California is roughly 39 million. State population of Florida is roughly 22 million. That alone covers 18% of the US population.
For California: see California Family Code, Chapter 2, Section 6250, Paragraph (A) here: https://studentaffairs.fresnostate.edu/survivoradvocate/documents/CA Victim Protection Statutes.pdf
Excerpt from the 'requirements' section:
a person’s allegation of a recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse
For Florida: see 2023 Florida Statutes, Title XLIII (43) Domestic Relations, Chapter 741, Section 740.30. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0741/Sections/0741.30.html
Relevant excerpt describing the requirements and process:
(a) Any person described in paragraph (e), who is either the victim of domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28 or has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence, has standing in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence. (f) This cause of action for an injunction shall not require that either party be represented by an attorney.
In both states, all it takes is the unsubstantiated claim of the accuser on a sworn petition to 'claim they feel afraid'. Funny that you lead with "I'm an attorney" when the process doesn't even require an attorney in Florida. I'm not going to waste my time looking this up for each and every state, but I'll assert that Florida is not alone on the lack of requirement for an attorney to file the motion. I'll also assert that neither California nor Florida are alone in the fact that neither require any evidence beyond the say-so of the accuser claiming they feel threatened. But since you do claim to be an attorney, I invite you to read those state statutes, tell me I'm wrong, and assert that the process cannot be weaponized by the accuser just to make life a living hell for the accused. When was the last time you even heard of someone suffering any consequences at all for filing a falsified petition for restraining order? I'll bet never. I've witnessed several instances of this happing with zero consequences, not against me, but against friends and family) and even after being proven false later in an actual court proceeding, there were zero consequences for the falsified petition even when the financial and reputational damage caused to the accused was substantial.
If you really are an attorney, you must practice in a jurisdiction with stricter requirements. Lucky you. The topic we are discussing is a national issue, not a local-to-you one, so you must consider the reality that not all jurisdictions are like yours.
Yes, the terms used in those statutes are substantially similar to the terms used in my jurisdiction. I'm not sure what your point is?
What does substantiated mean to you? People are routinely convicted of crimes (beyond a reasonable doubt standard) on testimony and circumstantial evidence alone. Restraining orders are civil and only require a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Attorneys aren't required for any cases (except corporations outside of small claims). Family law, small claims, and restraining orders typically use a simplified structure to allow for easy access by the general public.
Regardless, the issuance of a restraining order still has elements that need to be met, and they need to be proven to a preponderance of the evidence.
Bullshit. All I gotta do I go to court tomorrow, stand in front of a judge and say, "bostonbananarama threatend to kill me". And we're done. Temporary order issued, every time.
Given the number of women that die to gun violence from domestic abusers, we already know your whole narrative you've made up here is false.
Your argument is that nobody ever lies to a judge? Really?
It's actually not that simple. You had better have a lot more details because you're going to get grilled by the judge. If that's all you say they're going to deny your request. I've seen numerous initial requests denied.
Even if you did get an order issued, it only lasts 10 days, and then you're going to have to appear again at a two party hearing.
Thank you for summarizing how every court in every state in every county in the US works. It's very helpful to know what all 400,000,000 citizens can expect to experience every single time.
Also keep in mind that all judges are robots immune from bias and every day experiences, especially elected ones since they all require strict prerequisites and training before they can sit.
Thank you for summarizing how every court in every state in every county in the US works. It's very helpful to know what all 400,000,000 citizens can expect to experience every single time.
I guess you'd prefer the scenario that someone made up based on what is almost certainly biased information?
Jurisdictions vary to be sure, but I've represented clients with respect to restraining orders, I know the law and I know the process. Judges hear liars every single day, they are not immune to bullshit, but they're pretty good at figuring it out.
All these downvotes from people who have never had it happen to them. Hope nobody has a divorce from an angry and vindictive woman! I was in the military, thousands of miles away, hadn't seen her for months, when she got a temporary restraining order against me all those decades ago.
What do you mean? One has to be put in motion and surely there are records of such, how would an "authority figure" know if you violated one if there wasn't?
I think restraining orders, at least temporary ones, have a low threshold. Basically an unsubstantiated accusation is enough.
It's supposed to be to protect the vulnerable, but can also be abused. Domestic abuse is complicated, and often comes down to "he said she said" muddy water without much provable fact.
But wait, @ysjet says that that's a bad narrative and it never happens, is it possible he or she has no idea what they're talking about?