A surprising winner in the Supreme Court gun ruling: Hunter Biden
A surprising winner in the Supreme Court gun ruling: Hunter Biden
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't see how this ruling benefits Biden.
The court ruled it's OK to deny gun rights to domestic abusers.
People really think they'll deny abusers but allow crack addicts? đ€
Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized in his majority opinion that the justices were only greenlighting taking guns away from people who had first been deemed by a judge to pose a danger to others.
Roberts bent over backward to stay silent on other scenarios not involving judicial findings of dangerousness.
â[W]e reject the Governmentâs contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not âresponsible,ââ Roberts wrote. ââResponsibleâ is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail.â
They narrowly defined the situation where it's ok to take someones gun rights away. It specifically only applies when a court decides the person is a danger to another. Someone being irresponsible (ie drug user), isn't a good enough reason to take their right to have a gun.
So on Hunter's appeals they can point to that. And if the Supreme Court eventually hears the case, they set them selves up to confirm he should have been allowed a gun regardless of any drug use at the time.
Would this ruling also apply to non-violent felons? A blanket gun ban due to having a felony looks unconstitutional. Why should someone convicted of fraud have their right to defend themselves taken? It also looks like an easy tool to use to disarm people the government don't like.
I would think so.
It's hard to say really, because they didn't explicitly state "this is the only way to take someone's gun". But, it is a pretty straight forward interpretation of what they did say.So yah, I would guess that they'd let Trump keep his gun also. [At the risk of reading into your question a bit.]
Did you read the part of the article where they say gun exclusions might only hold up where there is a threat of violence?
The reason he bought a gun was because a drug dealer pointed one at him, continuing to engage with dealers, while armed, is a risk of violence.
This is why we don't allow addicts to have guns.
Threat of violence and in response to a risk of violence are potentially two different things.
Also, I'm not pro guns. But buying a gun for protection is a huge reason why people support gun ownership.
To add on to this, it wouldn't be nearly as violent a trade as it is if we had some sane drug laws.
I'm not saying we should just sell crack at Walmart. However, if you give already existing addicts a prescription to a clean, state provided supply they'll have no reason to go to dealers.
The illicit drug trade will fucking collapse. There's no way you can sustain that business without addicts.
I'm not saying we should just sell crack at Walmart. However, if you give already existing addicts a prescription to a clean, state provided supply they'll have no reason to go to dealers.
Agreed.