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.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Say what you mean out loud for those in the back:

    “It’s better to preemptively take judicial action against people accused of $whatever.”

    Or, more to the point:

    “I’ve never been falsely accused of anything, and that’ll probably never happen to me. So fuck anyone else that happens to.”

    wrongfully deprived of their guns for a period of time

    If that were the only way such a ruling would play out, even that part isn’t so easy. A SWAT team could roll on me this very second, raid my house and burn it down. Think they got all my guns? BRB.

    Speaking of calling the cops in… I thought we liberals had mostly agreed that calling the cops on someone could well be a death sentence? So now we good on forcibly disarming folks on an accusation?

    Y’all’s hate for guns and abusers is blinding you to the far-reaching precedent we might be setting here. This is truly a tough one with no easy answers.

    • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would fight so that one doesn’t arbitrarily lose access to housing, food, or a drivers license, because wrongfully taking those away are life ruining. But what difference would it make to be temporarily deprived of guns? What the hell are you using it for that you can’t be parted from your guns for even a short time as a life saving precaution?

      Meanwhile, demanding a high standard of evidence for threat of spousal abuse means people die. That’s an insane trade off.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Y’all are focused on 2A rights and the gun issue. This sort of thing sets a precedent for taking other rights.

        FFS, can no one see past the issue at hand and see how badly this precedent can be abused?!

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not even a 2nd ammendment case, it’s a 5th ammendment issue, which most people arr completely ignoring.