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.
I fully support disarming cops.
Sometimes they need guns, but yeah, they definitely overuse them.
This is topical in relation to the article, as police have significantly higher rates of domestic violence than the general public.
I think they're alluding to the fact that domestic abusers are grossly overrepresented among cops? And thereby suggesting that such a law, if feasible to enforce against all such offenders, would amount to disarming cops wholesale.
Isn't this title inaccurate? It's about restraining orders, not accusations. Support though!
I believe judges can issue temporary restraining orders against people not yet convicted of domestic violence, and that's what they mean by "accused", just that it hasn't been proven in court and gotten a guilty verdict.
Ah, makes sense, thanks.
They are usually a package deal
Hopefully such a decision will roll back some of the bullshit that’s been coming out of lower courts since Bruen. The nonsensical historical analog standard Thomas has unleashed just doesn’t work, and too many pro-gun judges are demanding EXACT historical precedent rather than an analog. Not that I agree with Bruen, but at the least, having historical precedent for restricting guns from people deemed dangerous should be enough, even if it isn’t specific to domestic violence (a concept that didn’t really exist in the 18th century).
The statistics say this should have been done decades ago and permanently. The number of women who have been killed by their abusive domestic partner AFTER escalation is too damn high.
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.
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.
Here's the problem, there's simply no logical way to square this with Bruen. Restraining orders and domestic violence prevention weren't part of the gun regulation at the founding of this country. It's obvious to most people that the state should have that authority, but it doesn't seem possible in the light of Bruen. Incoming mental gymnastics from SCOTUS...
I don't see how you figure. Bruen only eliminated subjective "suitability" determinations in may-issue permitting. Objective criteria, like criminal history, are still allowed.
That's not all Bruen did. Bruen also said a restriction on gun ownership had to be consistent with our history and values. Which we assume means you have to point to laws that did the same thing during the 1700s/1800s. Whether or not this is idiotic is rhetorical, but you can't point to a law that said you could take guns away because of domestic violence from that era, because domestic violence wasn't a crime then!
You should reread Bruen, and many of the exasperated appellate decisions that insist that they don't know how to comply with it, with some claiming they'd need to hire a historian to comply with it.
I disapprove of headlines that attempt to telegraph how justices will rule based on oral arguments alone. You're gonna have to wait 6-12 months for an actual ruling and it will likely be extremely narrowly tailored to a given situation.
Amazing. A very right leaning, American court - and they might show common sense on a gun-related issue? Really, truely amazing.