The Supreme Court upheld a federal law Friday that bars guns for domestic abusers, rejecting an argument pressed by gun rights groups that the prohibition violated the Second Amendment.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16783334

8-1 with Thomas the dissent.

“The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” Thomas wrote. “Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.”

  • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
    152·
    6 months ago

    Not having legal precedence is hardly a reason to dissent, Thomas.

    I’m pretty sure the 13th amendment had about the same level of legal precedence too.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      5·
      6 months ago

      Not having legal precedence is hardly a reason to dissent…

      Under the Bruen test it is. Even the majority would agree with that. Thomas differed from them by stating that the laws proposed in the main opinion were not relevantly similar enough to the one before the correct.

      The test wouldn’t apply to the 13th amendment because that’s a constitutional amendment, and not a law allegedly impacting a right.