People under domestic violence orders can own guns -U.S. appeals court rules

[The Heretic]

People under domestic violence orders can own guns -U.S. appeals court rules

Last June, a Supreme Court ruling granted people the right to carry firearms outside the home.

www.reuters.com

Read More

 

[Nosferatu]

What always fails to get reported is that the people who the restraining order protects can ALSO own guns and protect THEMSELVES. I know, echo chamber here and all, but FFS, take some responsibility on your own and don't expect a piece of paper from a judge to blanket you from bad people.

 

[Hueco]

What always fails to get reported is that the people who the restraining order protects can ALSO own guns and protect THEMSELVES. I know, echo chamber here and all, but FFS, take some responsibility on your own and don't expect a piece of paper from a judge to blanket you from bad peopel.

Carol Browne would like to have a word…

 

[Alexx1401]

What always fails to get reported is that the people who the restraining order protects can ALSO own guns and protect THEMSELVES. I know, echo chamber here and all, but FFS, take some responsibility on your own and don't expect a piece of paper from a judge to blanket you from bad people.

I have LONG told people that piece of paper is about worth TP. Someone who is going to come after them is not going to not commit a crime due to a piece of paper. Get a gun, works FAR better than that paper does.

 

[arakboss]

Warning Opinion Piece.

Brett Kavanaugh May Have Quietly Sabotaged Clarence Thomas’ Extreme Gun Ruling

Don’t assume the Supreme Court will uphold recent decisions vastly expanding the Second Amendment.

slate.com

 

[The Heretic]

Warning Opinion Piece.

Brett Kavanaugh May Have Quietly Sabotaged Clarence Thomas’ Extreme Gun Ruling

Don’t assume the Supreme Court will uphold recent decisions vastly expanding the Second Amendment.

slate.com

The author equates being alleged (not even charged) with a crime, with being guilty of a crime - as do many red flag laws.

 

[arakboss]

The author equates being alleged (not even charged) with a crime, with being guilty of a crime - as do many red flag laws.

I don't think Slate writers are big 2A fans.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Warning Opinion piece

Brett Kavanaugh May Have Quietly Sabotaged Clarence Thomas’ Extreme Gun Ruling

Don’t assume the Supreme Court will uphold recent decisions vastly expanding the Second Amendment.

slate.com

The author equates being alleged (not even charged) with a crime, with being guilty of a crime - as do many red flag laws.

I don't think Slate writers are big 2A fans.

From Slate... "But even where the record is clear, Thomas' test leads to heinous results given that the "ancestors" in question were often violently racist and misogynistic white men."

Edit, sorry @Cavedweller wrong thread for quoting you lol

I do believe that Slate is very much a collectivist, anti-2A rag using inflammatory terms to frame things

 

[The Heretic]

Supreme Court to take up major Second Amendment case next term

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will weigh whether a federal ban on gun possession for people under domestic violence restraining orders is constitutional, setting up a major Second Amendment c…

thehill.com

 

[RX-79G]

It will be interesting to see where SCOTUS is going with this. Do they really think no one in the distant pass was disarmed for their bad behavior? If you can't block someone found guilty of domestic violence from owning a gun, who can you block? Or will murderers just turn in their guns when they go to prison and get them back on the day they are released?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Red Herring.

Long tradition of taking guns away from dangerous and violent criminals. Not as long history for someone who only has a domestic order against them and accused but not convicted.

 

[Alexx1401]

It will be interesting to see where SCOTUS is going with this. Do they really think no one in the distant pass was disarmed for their bad behavior? If you can't block someone found guilty of domestic violence from owning a gun, who can you block? Or will murderers just turn in their guns when they go to prison and get them back on the day they are released?

I did not read anywhere here that this was for those convicted. "Looks" to me like its about those accused. HUGE difference between accused and convicted. Even for those convicted if they use a gun do you really think some new law is going to change that? Like I thought there was already a law against them shooting the person? So one more law will stop them? What would slow this way down is if some scum is convicted he never sees freedom again. Instead of the revolving door system then pass more laws.

 

[RX-79G]

Red Herring.

Long tradition of taking guns away from dangerous and violent criminals. Not as long history for someone who only has a domestic order against them and accused but not convicted.

It is a similar standard to restraint on the mentally ill. There is also a difference between temporary and permanent.

The point of having judges review and issue things like injunctions and restraining orders is that there is a need for timeliness that cannot be met by full court proceedings. This is the reason we have judges - they are supposed to apply their experience and wisdom, rather than be restrained themselves by red tape and long dockets.

People that SHOULD have restraining orders probably shouldn't have easy access to guns. The real question should be about burden of evidence necessary to receive a permanent restraining order, rather than the legitimacy of disarming those subject to them.



The broader context to Thomas's legal philosophy is that you can say that you can't pass a law about guns that wouldn't have been accepted in 1800, but you might as well say that you can't pass any law that wouldn't have been accepted in 1800. In 1800, it is unlikely that "domestic abuse" would have been an accepted legal concept. Today we know better and attempt to protect spouses and children from abuse. I just don't see the logical end to Thomas's philosophy.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The spouse and children should be able to defend themselves from abusers with no restrictions. That's not in question.

If the person in this case is a prohibited person by way of his prior felon convictions for violent crimes, he should never have been free to abuse people but that's not the question in this case.


The question in this case is simply... does being under a protective order/restraining order but not convicted prevent the person from exercising their 2A right to keep and bear Arms? It would fall under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments?

 

[RX-79G]

I did not read anywhere here that this was for those convicted. "Looks" to me like its about those accused. HUGE difference between accused and convicted. Even for those convicted if they use a gun do you really think some new law is going to change that? Like I thought there was already a law against them shooting the person? So one more law will stop them? What would slow this way down is if some scum is convicted he never sees freedom again. Instead of the revolving door system then pass more laws.

There are three things at stake here:
1. Those found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence are barred from guns the way felons are.
2. Those that are subject to arrest for certain crimes are barred from guns while they await trial.
3. Those that are subject to a protective order after a hearing are barred from guns either temporarily or permanently.

All three cases fall under the idea of due process - they have standards or time limits, and a judge must be involved. And all three are similar to other kinds of legal proceedings relied upon to force compliance from bad actors. The difference is just whether they should apply to gun ownership (temporarily or permanently), and whether someone 200 years ago would have seen it the same way. My understanding is that all three aspects are on the chopping block.


What makes a felon so heinous that barring their rights is acceptable, but someone violent to their loved ones deserves protection?

Will states react to a SCOTUS restriction by reclassifying domestic violence as a felony?

 

[The Heretic]

It is a similar standard to restraint on the mentally ill.

Mental illness covers a lot of ground.

Asperger's Syndrome could be considered a mental illness (it is considered a Autism Spectrum Disorder).

Being "mentally ill" doesn't make you violent. In fact, there are not a lot of mental illnesses that have anything to do with violence.

 

[RX-79G]

Mental illness covers a lot of ground.

Asperger's Syndrome could be considered a mental illness (it is considered a Autism Spectrum Disorder).

Being "mentally ill" doesn't make you violent. In fact, there are not a lot of mental illnesses that have anything to do with violence.

That has nothing to do with the discussion of deeming someone "mentally ill" with a court order to restrain them.


"Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" -4473

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

It is a common tactic for the wife's divorce lawyer to file a restraining order just to F with the husband.

 

[ma96782]

The author equates being alleged (not even charged) with a crime, with being guilty of a crime - as do many red flag laws.

It is a common tactic for the wife's divorce lawyer to file a restraining order just to F with the husband.

Some Judges just "rubber stamp" those orders. Thinking that......

"It's better to be safe than sorry."

Rrrrright.....

Aloha, Mark

 

[2506]

Mental illness covers a lot of ground.

Asperger's Syndrome could be considered a mental illness (it is considered a Autism Spectrum Disorder).

Being "mentally ill" doesn't make you violent. In fact, there are not a lot of mental illnesses that have anything to do with violence.

Such a slippery slope. What's next, denying folks on SSRI drugs their 2A rights?