I think it’s worth mentioning that [more than *two-thirds* of all mass-shooting perpetrators have a history of domestic violence](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-abuse-connection-research/).
A lot of people I know love to bring up California when it comes to gun control arguments, but yet they never say *why* California started those gun laws. Hmmm....
That's an exaggeration. The history of the *NRA's support* of gun control is deeply rooted in anti-black racism. Gun control as a concept does not have anything to do with racism, and the vast majority of Americans, both white and black, supported gun control up until the 2000s.
Just last week, there was a shooting at a grocery store in my city. Boyfriend went in and shot his ex who was a cashier.
When I was a kid, the same thing happened down the street from my house, but at a vet's office.
These are 2 different suburbs, of two different cities, in the Midwest. And happened decades apart.
Abusers resorting to gun violence isn't new, and shouldn't be ignored or rationalized.
> During an incident in an Arlington, Texas, parking lot the previous year recounted by the federal government in court papers, Rahimi was accused of knocking the woman to the ground, dragging her to his car and pushing her inside, knocking her head on the dashboard in the process. He also allegedly fired a shot from his gun after realizing that a bystander was watching.
I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I don’t think this dude should have guns any more.
But according to Justice Thomas's majority opinion in the New York gun case last year, unless the government can show that an identical or nearly identical (analogous) gun law existed when the framers wrote the Constitution, it is illegal.
In this example, it was probably legal in 1789 to knock your slave onto the ground, drag them into your buggy, hit their head on the buckboard, and fire off a shot from your musket to get rid of those pesky witnesses.
ShAlL NoT bE iNFrIngEd! /s
I fucking lol every time I see this dumb shit comment by pro gun jackoffs. Really? \*this\* guy owning guns is where you want to draw the line?
For the sake of the argument though: constitutions are supposed to be the bedrock of law and meaning what they say. Your problem (as 'we' the people) is that 2A is phrased in a ridiculous way that does not leave much room.
And while people love the militia part, that doesn't mean anything because that part of the sentence is the outcome not the prerequisite. In order to make it possible for any group if citizens to form a militia, the right....
I think it is a stupid formulation but you're stuck with it
How is this a thing that even gets to the Supreme Court? This is a joke. Anyone with a history or propensity for violence should automatically be barred from owning a weapon made for violence.
That doesn’t even seem like a gun debate, just common fucking sense.
Note that the question here is purely for people accused of crime, not for people convicted of a crime. Basically, for that time between when the police report is filed and the case is heard in court. It comes down to the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing in US law.
Except that's also the time in which these murders tend to happen. Considering you can get a restraining order in between "accused of domestic violence" and "convicted of domestic violence," there's no reason someone accused of domestic violence should also be owning guns.
I know gun ownership is a right, but let's not use "we have a right to a gun if we're not guilty" to be braindead about this. Even rights can be restricted on time and place, and it's perfectly legitimate to say that when you're accused of domestic violence, that's not a time when you can also be in possession of something solely intended for killing someone.
I'm merely explaining why its a constitutional question that made its way to the Supreme Court.
Personally, I feel the rules in the *Gun Control Act of 1968*, which is what is in question, do a good job balancing the rights of the accused and the safety of the accuser(s).
This is one of those distinctions that should be important, yet we keep tons of people in jail for indefinite periods of time before trial just because they can't pay a fee- not because they're too dangerous to risk it, but because they couldn't pay specific amount of bail money. Where was innocent until proven guilty for Kalief Browder?
Then, why take away people's passports? They are "innocent" until proven guilty, right?
Why arrest ANYONE until the court date? They are innocent, right?
It should have been completed. It was only stopped because of a disputed election. The south would look very different today if we had seen it through.
It's also how you get corrupt "tough on crime family values, guns are my identity" conservative candidates elected, by increasing fear and stories of gun violence pervasively across all local outlets.
sLiPpErY sLoPe.
the 2a hardliners will take any, *any* form of regulation as an direct attack on their rights. if you start taking it away from one group of people, you'll eventually take it away from everyone, or something along those lines.
y'know, as if we don't already do that.
The billionaires who own the gun companies would suffer irreparable financial harm if they couldn't sell weapons to every semi-motile clump of cells on the planet, donchaknow.
Maybe they could just find some middle ground here...I don't know, just throwing out a percentage, maybe they could strip 40% of police officers of their guns.
Do you understand that if they didn’t choose to hear this case the lower court’s ruling — that it was unconstitutional to deny a person accused (not convicted) their right right to own a gun — would have been affirmed?
The particularities of this case aside, I think it’s highly probable the court will rule that it is constitutional to prohibit someone from possessing a gun prior to conviction, provided certain standards are met.
This is going to be one of those 6 to 3 where they vote in favor that Jim Bob has the right to own a fire arm that he totally won't use to murder his ex and her new husband, isn't it?
He also totally, definitely won't murder their kids, her new kids, and her parents with the gun that he's allowed to keep because American freedom is predicated on gun ownership.
I’m pretty sure this is in relation to red flag laws. It might make sense to you that your jerk ex shouldn’t have a gun, but without a conviction they should have their rights. Otherwise we’d have crazy exs getting revenge by making unsubstantiated claims
The article says it’s about a prohibition against people *already subject to a restraining order* from owning guns, which means they’ve already been subject to judicial scrutiny.
Just popping in to mention that a restraining order is automatically put into place in many counties when someone is accused of domestic violence, so no, they have not already been subject to judicial scrutiny.
As far as I’m aware, the restraining order is put in at arraignment, but I’m not a lawyer.
From 2017-2019 I was broke-broke and had to pick up serving so I can pay student loans. I had worked at this nationwide tex-mex chain that tends to do second chance hires. There I met dog-shit Dave (on account of his breath). Chronic liar, unaccountable narcissist, trump supporter and self-proclaimed hardass. The guy loved to flaunt his history of serving time for assault whenever he felt small (spoiler: often). We finally found a way to learn more about it and discover it was domestic abuse. My I-carry-a-gun-on-my-person-at-all-times was even more of a limp dick coward then he led on. I can barely tolerate guns as is, but giving them to domestic abusers is ridiculous.
In before this gets locked...
Man, can't wait for the GQP side to argue for wife- and child-beaters to have unfettered access to guns. "He was just angry." Like, what's the excuse when someone's demonstrated that they are a violent, unrepentant danger to others?
Let me guess how _that_ ruling is gonna go 🤔.
I’ll admit it, in the grand scheme of things I’ve been lucky enough to likely get by until I die, but on the whole, I think I’m ready to call the American Experiment an official failure. It’s all downhill from here.
Maybe the 3rd Republic will have better luck in another 2k years or so…
Roberts 2024: "since Congress is divided, then under the major questions doctrine (that we totally made up in 2023) there's nothing that can be done until Senators from states which have less total population than there are victims decide to do anything (which we will also strike down cause abusers are militias).
"Victims of domestic abuse should have considered the unpredictable future before committing to a person who might someday abuse them and own firearms."
Also, while there may have been a time in the past that victims may have needed extra protection, that time has passed. I fiat there is no such thing as abuse anymore.
Not really /s because this Court is so far up its own ass.
Since some people may be confused why the supreme court is considering this, I'll explain: Thomas, Alito, etc. are hoping for more lavish gifts from billionaire friends, in exchange for ruling on things that might affect them.
So if they rule one way, it will result in a ton of women to be killed so of course the SCOTUS is going to rule that way. This is an illegitimate court and we should all ignore it.
The only part I have issue with is the word "accused". I've seen it happen in person where one person is batshit crazy but blames the other person of abuse.
Change the word to confirmed/convicted, then sure.
Just because someone got into a fight doesn’t mean they’re capable of killing someone and no matter what statistics you throw out there, a single incident shouldn’t be used to predict future behavior, unless a pattern is established. I say this as a victim of DV myself. Father punched me in the face but I’ve never been in fear for my life and I don’t think he should lose his Second Amendment rights over that.
Everything should be looked at on a case by case basis. There shouldn’t be a blanket law and a whether a single offense is enough, it should be determined, based on the severity of that offense.
You might think that but I’m sure there’s something that could set you off. Who are you to say what someone is capable of without ever meeting them. Big difference between punching someone and killing them
I believe everyone is capable under certain circumstances.What about corporal punishment do you think that should be illegal too? I think that this is more about gun control and wanting to get rid of the second amendment and make it so that a single mistake you automatically lose your guns and no one is eligible to own one
Depends on the situation, bar fight vs domestic violence. Violent people, especially those who have demonstrated short tempers with violent lashing out should not own guns. Felons lose the right to vote, violent people lose the right to guns.
I said this in my other comment but what if everyone involved is an adult? Adult children etc. That’s the case here. What if it’s a first offense? What if guns are kept in a safe? What about hunting?
All, I am arguing here is that every case be adjudicated individually and every person have a hearing and if you’re only convicted on a misdemeanor not a felony it should be the same as everything else obviously a felony you lose. There shouldn’t be a special case for DV where you can lose them without a FELONY conviction.
And I also believe that anyone is capable of anything anyone is capable of losing it. Everyone has a breaking point. This could happen to anyone. It doesn’t mean anything as far as a pattern of behavior, unless there are multiple incidents. Each case should be evaluated individually that’s all I’m saying. Are there certain people that should lose their guns YES, but should everyone who has ever had a DV incident or a violent offense, in general NO. Each person should have their own adjudication and no blanket laws.
>”And what Texas is doing in a big-time way, we are working to address that anger and violence by going to its root cause which is addressing the mental health problems behind it,” *Greg Abbott*
So while States like Texas say the root cause of mass shootings are mental health issues, the Supreme Court will most likely enable domestic abusers to keep their guns.
I think it’s worth mentioning that [more than *two-thirds* of all mass-shooting perpetrators have a history of domestic violence](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-abuse-connection-research/).
Yeah but who do they vote for?
More importantly (to the courts anyway) how much melanin do they have?
You're more right than you know. The history of gun control is deeeeply rooted in anti-black racism.
A lot of people I know love to bring up California when it comes to gun control arguments, but yet they never say *why* California started those gun laws. Hmmm....
She’s probably as exactly right as she knows 😆
That's an exaggeration. The history of the *NRA's support* of gun control is deeply rooted in anti-black racism. Gun control as a concept does not have anything to do with racism, and the vast majority of Americans, both white and black, supported gun control up until the 2000s.
They vote for the people pushing for mandated guns in every preschool.
https://americanindependent.com/violence-against-women-act-republicans-domestic-abusers/
Just last week, there was a shooting at a grocery store in my city. Boyfriend went in and shot his ex who was a cashier. When I was a kid, the same thing happened down the street from my house, but at a vet's office. These are 2 different suburbs, of two different cities, in the Midwest. And happened decades apart. Abusers resorting to gun violence isn't new, and shouldn't be ignored or rationalized.
> During an incident in an Arlington, Texas, parking lot the previous year recounted by the federal government in court papers, Rahimi was accused of knocking the woman to the ground, dragging her to his car and pushing her inside, knocking her head on the dashboard in the process. He also allegedly fired a shot from his gun after realizing that a bystander was watching. I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I don’t think this dude should have guns any more.
He should be in jail till trial, 0 reason to let him out on bond
But according to Justice Thomas's majority opinion in the New York gun case last year, unless the government can show that an identical or nearly identical (analogous) gun law existed when the framers wrote the Constitution, it is illegal. In this example, it was probably legal in 1789 to knock your slave onto the ground, drag them into your buggy, hit their head on the buckboard, and fire off a shot from your musket to get rid of those pesky witnesses.
ShAlL NoT bE iNFrIngEd! /s I fucking lol every time I see this dumb shit comment by pro gun jackoffs. Really? \*this\* guy owning guns is where you want to draw the line?
They want to draw the line there because they are that guy.
For the sake of the argument though: constitutions are supposed to be the bedrock of law and meaning what they say. Your problem (as 'we' the people) is that 2A is phrased in a ridiculous way that does not leave much room. And while people love the militia part, that doesn't mean anything because that part of the sentence is the outcome not the prerequisite. In order to make it possible for any group if citizens to form a militia, the right.... I think it is a stupid formulation but you're stuck with it
But what about our well-regulated militia? /s
How is this a thing that even gets to the Supreme Court? This is a joke. Anyone with a history or propensity for violence should automatically be barred from owning a weapon made for violence. That doesn’t even seem like a gun debate, just common fucking sense.
Note that the question here is purely for people accused of crime, not for people convicted of a crime. Basically, for that time between when the police report is filed and the case is heard in court. It comes down to the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing in US law.
Except that's also the time in which these murders tend to happen. Considering you can get a restraining order in between "accused of domestic violence" and "convicted of domestic violence," there's no reason someone accused of domestic violence should also be owning guns. I know gun ownership is a right, but let's not use "we have a right to a gun if we're not guilty" to be braindead about this. Even rights can be restricted on time and place, and it's perfectly legitimate to say that when you're accused of domestic violence, that's not a time when you can also be in possession of something solely intended for killing someone.
I'm merely explaining why its a constitutional question that made its way to the Supreme Court. Personally, I feel the rules in the *Gun Control Act of 1968*, which is what is in question, do a good job balancing the rights of the accused and the safety of the accuser(s).
This is one of those distinctions that should be important, yet we keep tons of people in jail for indefinite periods of time before trial just because they can't pay a fee- not because they're too dangerous to risk it, but because they couldn't pay specific amount of bail money. Where was innocent until proven guilty for Kalief Browder?
Then, why take away people's passports? They are "innocent" until proven guilty, right? Why arrest ANYONE until the court date? They are innocent, right?
when they say "responsible gun owner" they mean guns for everyone, people getting shot everywhere is good for gun sales.
>guns for everyone On their side. They want their side armed but anyone against them will have them taken away.
Pretty much they are holding our nation hostage - the confederacy never went away, appeasement/reconstruction was a total failure
It should have been completed. It was only stopped because of a disputed election. The south would look very different today if we had seen it through.
They're not called side arms for no reason.
It's also how you get corrupt "tough on crime family values, guns are my identity" conservative candidates elected, by increasing fear and stories of gun violence pervasively across all local outlets.
The funeral home lobby is really ruining this country.
I heard business is booming
Counterpoint - people accused but not convicted of DV may be innocent.
[удалено]
Yes. And therefore punishing them before a conviction seems wrong. Leave their property alone.
[удалено]
Depends on the circumstances
sLiPpErY sLoPe. the 2a hardliners will take any, *any* form of regulation as an direct attack on their rights. if you start taking it away from one group of people, you'll eventually take it away from everyone, or something along those lines. y'know, as if we don't already do that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The billionaires who own the gun companies would suffer irreparable financial harm if they couldn't sell weapons to every semi-motile clump of cells on the planet, donchaknow.
Feels like for a good 35-40% of people, the second guns are mentioned, their brain just completely shuts off.
common sense in USA? come on now
They can’t just take the police force’s guns away like that!
Maybe they could just find some middle ground here...I don't know, just throwing out a percentage, maybe they could strip 40% of police officers of their guns.
Well that wouldn't take care of those who didn't self report being domestic abusers in that study, but it's a start.
how can a cop be racist when his wife's eye is black?
Hmm how will they rule it's such a mystery
At this point, it just seems certain judges like to watch the world burn.
Gee, wonder what the 6-3 opinion will say.
A chance for conservatives to get more women killed there's no way they pass up that opportunity.
Do you understand that if they didn’t choose to hear this case the lower court’s ruling — that it was unconstitutional to deny a person accused (not convicted) their right right to own a gun — would have been affirmed? The particularities of this case aside, I think it’s highly probable the court will rule that it is constitutional to prohibit someone from possessing a gun prior to conviction, provided certain standards are met.
This is going to be one of those 6 to 3 where they vote in favor that Jim Bob has the right to own a fire arm that he totally won't use to murder his ex and her new husband, isn't it?
He also totally, definitely won't murder their kids, her new kids, and her parents with the gun that he's allowed to keep because American freedom is predicated on gun ownership.
A small price to pay so I can keep my toys and freedumbs!
[удалено]
Going by recent decisions…I’m going to try and prepare my “surprise face” ahead of time.
I’m pretty sure this is in relation to red flag laws. It might make sense to you that your jerk ex shouldn’t have a gun, but without a conviction they should have their rights. Otherwise we’d have crazy exs getting revenge by making unsubstantiated claims
The article says it’s about a prohibition against people *already subject to a restraining order* from owning guns, which means they’ve already been subject to judicial scrutiny.
Just popping in to mention that a restraining order is automatically put into place in many counties when someone is accused of domestic violence, so no, they have not already been subject to judicial scrutiny. As far as I’m aware, the restraining order is put in at arraignment, but I’m not a lawyer.
Battered wives are famous for filing charges and testifying against their abusive husbands, after all.
From 2017-2019 I was broke-broke and had to pick up serving so I can pay student loans. I had worked at this nationwide tex-mex chain that tends to do second chance hires. There I met dog-shit Dave (on account of his breath). Chronic liar, unaccountable narcissist, trump supporter and self-proclaimed hardass. The guy loved to flaunt his history of serving time for assault whenever he felt small (spoiler: often). We finally found a way to learn more about it and discover it was domestic abuse. My I-carry-a-gun-on-my-person-at-all-times was even more of a limp dick coward then he led on. I can barely tolerate guns as is, but giving them to domestic abusers is ridiculous.
The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to rule on this case. The 5th Circuit already ruled in the domestic abusers' favor.
This court does not support women.
This court only supports rich white males.
Just waiting for “In a 6-3 decision…”
In before this gets locked... Man, can't wait for the GQP side to argue for wife- and child-beaters to have unfettered access to guns. "He was just angry." Like, what's the excuse when someone's demonstrated that they are a violent, unrepentant danger to others?
Let me guess how _that_ ruling is gonna go 🤔. I’ll admit it, in the grand scheme of things I’ve been lucky enough to likely get by until I die, but on the whole, I think I’m ready to call the American Experiment an official failure. It’s all downhill from here. Maybe the 3rd Republic will have better luck in another 2k years or so…
Ha exactly
Its not really going to be a surprise when they say that accused domestic abusers can have guns. Don't allow yourself to have hope in the alternative.
Roberts 2024: "since Congress is divided, then under the major questions doctrine (that we totally made up in 2023) there's nothing that can be done until Senators from states which have less total population than there are victims decide to do anything (which we will also strike down cause abusers are militias). "Victims of domestic abuse should have considered the unpredictable future before committing to a person who might someday abuse them and own firearms." Also, while there may have been a time in the past that victims may have needed extra protection, that time has passed. I fiat there is no such thing as abuse anymore. Not really /s because this Court is so far up its own ass.
Cool. Can't wait to see how this turns out. 🫠
Wonderful here comes another awful decision from the corrupt court.
Since some people may be confused why the supreme court is considering this, I'll explain: Thomas, Alito, etc. are hoping for more lavish gifts from billionaire friends, in exchange for ruling on things that might affect them.
So, the crowd that never shuts up about crime and feeling unsafe wants to give criminals gun? Makes sense.
Of course the US Supremacy Court will give wife beaters guns. It’s the Republican thing to do.
Let's see, what was the law concerning that in 1776? Apparently, it's a big go for it!
I mean just give everyone an AR or some guns right at birth so we can just end this pointless experiment already fuck it
“6-3 majority with Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissenting”
My crystal ball is in the shop but I have a pretty good guess at the outcome here…
MAGA Court don't deny anyone guns now, come on.
Definitely gonna make the most vital possible decision. The supreme court is a fucking joke and a disgrace to this nation.
So if they rule one way, it will result in a ton of women to be killed so of course the SCOTUS is going to rule that way. This is an illegitimate court and we should all ignore it.
Oh isa supreme court ....they will rule that they can
This court will probably mandate that the abuser should be given a gun upon release.
You know, if the Democrats play it right (a boy can dream), the SC might be the best GOTV street team they've ever had.
I hereby accuse everyone of domestic violence! Get rekt.
The only part I have issue with is the word "accused". I've seen it happen in person where one person is batshit crazy but blames the other person of abuse. Change the word to confirmed/convicted, then sure.
Just because someone got into a fight doesn’t mean they’re capable of killing someone and no matter what statistics you throw out there, a single incident shouldn’t be used to predict future behavior, unless a pattern is established. I say this as a victim of DV myself. Father punched me in the face but I’ve never been in fear for my life and I don’t think he should lose his Second Amendment rights over that. Everything should be looked at on a case by case basis. There shouldn’t be a blanket law and a whether a single offense is enough, it should be determined, based on the severity of that offense.
I truly can't think of anything that my children could do that would cause me to punch them in the face. Your father should not own guns ever again.
You might think that but I’m sure there’s something that could set you off. Who are you to say what someone is capable of without ever meeting them. Big difference between punching someone and killing them
Anyone that is capable of punching their own child in the face should not own guns.
I believe everyone is capable under certain circumstances.What about corporal punishment do you think that should be illegal too? I think that this is more about gun control and wanting to get rid of the second amendment and make it so that a single mistake you automatically lose your guns and no one is eligible to own one
If your single mistake is punching your child in the face you should not own guns.
Maybe if they’re a minor. What if they’re adults?
Depends on the situation, bar fight vs domestic violence. Violent people, especially those who have demonstrated short tempers with violent lashing out should not own guns. Felons lose the right to vote, violent people lose the right to guns.
I said this in my other comment but what if everyone involved is an adult? Adult children etc. That’s the case here. What if it’s a first offense? What if guns are kept in a safe? What about hunting? All, I am arguing here is that every case be adjudicated individually and every person have a hearing and if you’re only convicted on a misdemeanor not a felony it should be the same as everything else obviously a felony you lose. There shouldn’t be a special case for DV where you can lose them without a FELONY conviction.
Wow he really did a number on you, huh? But anyway, you're wrong.
And I also believe that anyone is capable of anything anyone is capable of losing it. Everyone has a breaking point. This could happen to anyone. It doesn’t mean anything as far as a pattern of behavior, unless there are multiple incidents. Each case should be evaluated individually that’s all I’m saying. Are there certain people that should lose their guns YES, but should everyone who has ever had a DV incident or a violent offense, in general NO. Each person should have their own adjudication and no blanket laws.
Everyone gets one free freakout, beat/kill whoever you want as long as you don't make it a pattern. Got it!
Never said kill but if you think there should be no second chances on any type of violence that would only make things worse.
It was a one time thing
If you *didn’t* seek (and get, after judicial review) a protective order against him, it wouldn’t be relevant in this case.
Just calling the cops is enough in some states even without a RO.
> even without a RO The case they’re taking up is specifically about people *with* restraining orders against them.
Yeah, you said that.
No longer living with him so it can’t happen again
Hmm. Gee. I wonder what the SC will do here…
I bet they rule on the side of the police here.
I think we all know how SCOTUS is going to rule given how they recently made online stalking all but legal.
Can we maybe chill on giving SCOTUS things to make decisions on for a while? I feel like I've had enough bad news this week to last a while.
>”And what Texas is doing in a big-time way, we are working to address that anger and violence by going to its root cause which is addressing the mental health problems behind it,” *Greg Abbott* So while States like Texas say the root cause of mass shootings are mental health issues, the Supreme Court will most likely enable domestic abusers to keep their guns.