SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

1
In a 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a major gun rights case Friday that protective orders can bar people accused of domestic violence from owning firearms. Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man, unsuccessfully claimed it’s unconstitutional to restrict people under domestic violence protective orders from accessing firearms.

“Since the Founding, the Nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” the court’s majority opinion read.

The case was the high court’s first major firearms ruling since a 2022 decision that established a new standard for determining if gun regulations are constitutional. Friday’s ruling overturned the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that found the Second Amendment protects domestic abusers’ right to firearms. Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/06/21 ... ce-rahimi/

https://www.scotusblog.com/

I support their decision.

CDF
Crippled but free, I was blind all the time I was learning to see.

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

3
i agree on the ruling, but restraining orders need to be revamped. locally, most of the unethical divorce attorneys will convince both women and men to file restraining orders as part of their playbook. most of the time it's just a cash cow for lawyers. it also dilutes the importance law enforcement places on the restraining orders that are actually needed. this is coming from someone whose family was "protected" by a restraining order
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

4
senorgrand wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:06 pm i agree on the ruling, but restraining orders need to be revamped. locally, most of the unethical divorce attorneys will convince both women and men to file restraining orders as part of their playbook. most of the time it's just a cash cow for lawyers. it also dilutes the importance law enforcement places on the restraining orders that are actually needed. this is coming from someone whose family was "protected" by a restraining order
This. Need some checks and balances, but in principle I agree that domestic abusers need restraints on their tool access. With all things there should also be a periodic review if the threat exists anymore. If a person is determined to no longer possess a threat, how do they get their rights and property back. There’s a lot of questions to this. Do we as a society say that once someone is accused of domestic violence, real or not, that they cannot be reformed by counseling or other methods and are permanently banned from having some rights. I would hope there is a path to redemption otherwise we might as well just arrest them, try them and put in prison for life.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

5
sikacz wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:16 pm
senorgrand wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:06 pm i agree on the ruling, but restraining orders need to be revamped. locally, most of the unethical divorce attorneys will convince both women and men to file restraining orders as part of their playbook. most of the time it's just a cash cow for lawyers. it also dilutes the importance law enforcement places on the restraining orders that are actually needed. this is coming from someone whose family was "protected" by a restraining order
This. Need some checks and balances, but in principle I agree that domestic abusers need restraints on their tool access. With all things there should also be a periodic review if the threat exists anymore. If a person is determined to no longer possess a threat, how do they get their rights and property back. There’s a lot of questions to this. Do we as a society say that once someone is accused of domestic violence, real or not, that they cannot be reformed by counseling or other methods and are permanently banned from having some rights. I would hope there is a path to redemption otherwise we might as well just arrest them, try them and put in prison for life.
I'm sorry but not being able to own a firearm is not comparable to being in jail for life.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

6
I read the actual decision, the concurrences, and Thomas’s dissent. It’s not necessarily that the underlying “decision” is wrong. It’s that the rationale provides an easy out for the 9th circuit, etc to uphold pretty much everything California wants by playing their normal games of cherry-picking sentences they want. And it’s pretty inconsistent with much of Bruen even though the majority pretends that it’s not. The language and rationale is horrible actually. the only thing they cite about Heller is the “ no right to own anything for any purpose” stuff. Kind of like “reasonable” restrictions on time, place, manner First Amendment garbage so you can put the protesters in the next county from the people they are protesting.

Not to mention that a restraining order is ridiculously easy to get generally at least in MI, (because no judge wants to be the one to deal with the fallout if he doesn’t and something bad happens) without the pesky requirements of actual due process, and “temporary” restrictions can be up to two years from at least one example used in the opinion. One of the examples in the dissent discusses someone who even agreed to one and the got busted even though he then moved to a different state to get away from his spouse. And it’s pretty easy to see a slippery slope from dangerous spouses to “dangerous” protesters, people who talk crap on the internet etc. it should be hard if you want to take away someone’s rights. And in these situations it’s not.

Of course it was a facial challenge which is really hard to prevail on in the first place.

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

7
senorgrand wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:06 pm i agree on the ruling, but restraining orders need to be revamped. locally, most of the unethical divorce attorneys will convince both women and men to file restraining orders as part of their playbook. most of the time it's just a cash cow for lawyers. it also dilutes the importance law enforcement places on the restraining orders that are actually needed. this is coming from someone whose family was "protected" by a restraining order
+1, also having need of a restraining order.

Some other good nuggets in the opinion with regard to definition of arms (CA7, looking at you) and "responsible" being a BS bar. Gorsuch calls CA9 out specifically for their inability to get over interest balancing and their 50 to 0 record, so that's cool.

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

9
I happen to be fond of the idea of keeping firearms and other lethal weapons out of the hands of adjudicated domestic abusers.

I'm also in favor of keeping firearms out of the hands of those credibly accused as abusers, to include the roughly 40% of cops who have been so accused.

There will be problems with ANY ruling coming out of this Court, given that several members of the Court have credible charges of ethical lapses (putting it mildly in some cases) against them.
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

10
Mikeinmich wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:40 pm I read the actual decision, the concurrences, and Thomas’s dissent. It’s not necessarily that the underlying “decision” is wrong. It’s that the rationale provides an easy out for the 9th circuit, etc to uphold pretty much everything California wants by playing their normal games of cherry-picking sentences they want.

In fairness, it doesn't matter what SCOTUS writes, California and CA9 will ignore and use on sentence out of context to support their argument that guns-r-bad.

The concurring opinions did have some useful guidance on implementing Bruen. "Principle" being similar to "the spirit of the law". In other words, don't twist something to be the opposite of the overwhelming evidence. AR15s are definitely arms. Stop the god damned interest balancing. That sort of thing. And Gorsuch swung right at CA9, by name, even.

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

13
I'm all for keeping the guns out of the hands of verified domestic abusers. Unfortunately, the way the Red Flag laws and such are applied in gun grabbing states (like Illinois - my state) means that a complaint by family member, sibling, or spouse will get a judge's signature, a warrant, and confiscation. No trial, no conviction. Like Trump said: "We get the guns first and worry about due process later"

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress. Hope is not a Plan.

Dot 'em if ya got 'em!

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

15
I agree with SG on restraining orders, there are also the cases where the wife or husband wants full custody, so they accuse the ex of sexually abusing their child/children. Restraining orders at least in CA are issued by civil court judges, not criminal court judges, maybe that should change. On the federal level US district court judges hear criminal and civil cases and issue decisions, same with federal appellate courts.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

17
sig230 wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:27 pm So today we had a boyfriend shoot his girlfriend in the head several times when her two year old was in the back seat. He had been arrested recently for threatening violence against her.
He likely should not have been on the streets. Did she press charges? Did she get a restraining order? One of the problems is that the justice system is soooo fucking slow.

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

18
I would hope judges don't issue red flag rulings, restraining orders or search warrants without good reason. Judging such problems, alone, with only part of the information available is absolutely one of their core responsibilities.

I seriously doubt anyone can produce documentation for such an order that is trivial, or obtained in less than good faith. I suspect all such cases are anecdotal, and I invite anyone to post a genuine citation to such a case. (It occurs to me that you can't prove a negative, so I don't see how one would even go about proving that a red flag confiscation was executed in bad faith.)

But please, don't bother with the anecdotes.

I look forward to reading a genuine case, but I am not holding my breath.

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

19
Having lost my Wife to a self inflicted gunshot suicide not even a year ago, I'm not able to participate in this discussion about people using firearms to hurt others or themselves to the degree I'd like to. I can only add a couple of points, having heard all of this from friends, family, LEO, neighbors, etc.

We are living in a Nation that is biased/prejudiced against firearm ownership. We are blaming the tool and have been groomed/are being groomed to see the firearm as the reason for suicide, assault, and "gun violence" of all types - domestic and otherwise, when the real reason is that people are stressed, angry, depressed, frightened, etc. We have created a society that vilifies the people who are suffering. People who ask for help are victimised and mental health or a lack thereof results in the sufferer/victim being ostracised and viewed as defective. Punished. People need mental health help by mental health professionals. We can send cops to the home with a warrant for all the firearms, and all the right reasons, that is signed by judge and perfectly legal with all the dots and crosses in place. It won't save anyone - it will deprive millions of their constitutional rights and, actually, make matters worse by adding yet another convoluted and repressive situation to the dysfunctional stew. We have yet to admit to the root causes of gun violence and seek to resolve those issues.

We can't adjudicate or legislate our way out of the crisis of gun violence and the people who are pushing this agenda want *everyone* disarmed that can be. Some of that is control and power mongering but most of it is ignorance and seeking a "simple fix" - take all the guns away and people won't harm themselves and others with them.

I'll try to observe and keep my mouth shut about this topic and i am all for violent people and people headed for gun violence to have an intervention. But yer a fool if you think another law and another convoluted, potentially abused procedure, or more laws, will help solve gun violence. We need to be educated about mental health and stop with the trying to take all the bad things away from all the bad people. It's making the situation worse.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress. Hope is not a Plan.

Dot 'em if ya got 'em!

Re: SCOTUS keeps domestic violence gun restrictions

20
VodoundaVinci wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 11:08 am Having lost my Wife to a self inflicted gunshot suicide not even a year ago, I'm not able to participate in this discussion about people using firearms to hurt others or themselves to the degree I'd like to. I can only add a couple of points, having heard all of this from friends, family, LEO, neighbors, etc.
My deepest condolences. I cannot imagine what you experienced, of course, not having been where you are.

VodoundaVinci wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 11:08 am We are living in a Nation that is biased/prejudiced against firearm ownership. We are blaming the tool and have been groomed/are being groomed to see the firearm as the reason for suicide, assault, and "gun violence" of all types - domestic and otherwise, when the real reason is that people are stressed, angry, depressed, frightened, etc. We have created a society that vilifies the people who are suffering. People who ask for help are victimized and mental health or a lack thereof results in the sufferer/victim being ostracized and viewed as defective. Punished. People need mental health help by mental health professionals. We can send cops to the home with a warrant for all the firearms, and all the right reasons, that is signed by judge and perfectly legal with all the dots and crosses in place. It won't save anyone - it will deprive millions of their constitutional rights and, actually, make matters worse by adding yet another convoluted and repressive situation to the dysfunctional stew. We have yet to admit to the root causes of gun violence and seek to resolve those issues.
Much to agree with, here. The stigmatization of mental challenges--whether depression, bi-polar disorders, or anything else in the DSM as a facet of how our society "works" is all but criminal. As one who suffered depression (and who had a depressive episode that, had I NOT found help, could have led to my own suicide), I shudder to think how those less fortunate than I was at that point in my life are dealing. Sending cops--who lack ANY level of training for dealing with mental health crises--to do "welfare checks" on people in crisis has too often resulted in the lives of those troubled folks ending by police bullet. There are reasons why so many of my friends share the sentiment of "Defund the Police." Lots of reasons.

VodoundaVinci wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 11:08 am We can't adjudicate or legislate our way out of the crisis of gun violence and the people who are pushing this agenda want *everyone* disarmed that can be. Some of that is control and power mongering but most of it is ignorance and seeking a "simple fix" - take all the guns away and people won't harm themselves and others with them.
If the only people who have guns are agents of the state, that state is a police state. Much of the point of how our government is structured is based on the idea that people MUST be protected FROM the state.

But you know that. All of us know that.
VodoundaVinci wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 11:08 am I'll try to observe and keep my mouth shut about this topic and i am all for violent people and people headed for gun violence to have an intervention. But yer a fool if you think another law and another convoluted, potentially abused procedure, or more laws, will help solve gun violence. We need to be educated about mental health and stop with the trying to take all the bad things away from all the bad people. It's making the situation worse.

VooDoo
Again, my condolences regarding your loss. You're right. Oddly enough, the reactionaries have a point: fewer laws (at least in some facets of society) can be a good thing. Finding the balance is hard to do, and is an ongoing process.
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests