Posted on 06/30/2023 3:29:23 PM PDT by Libloather
The Supreme Court will take up a major gun rights case next term when it considers if banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from having weapons violates the Constitution.
The justices decided Friday that they will rule on 1994 federal law that forbids abusers from possessing firearms in what could be the third major Second Amendment decision since 2008.
They took up the case on the last day of the term, where the struck down President Joe Biden's $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan.
Justices will hear cases again when the court's next term begins in October.
The bench agreed to hear President Joe Biden's administration of a lower court's ruling that found that the law ran afoul of the Second Amendment's 'right to keep and bear arms' because it fell outside 'our nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.'
The case involves a Texas man charged with illegal gun possession while subject to a domestic violence restraining order after assaulting his girlfriend.
The court will hear the case during its next term, which begins in October.
The United States, with the world's highest gun ownership rate, remains a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence including frequent mass shootings even as the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, takes an expansive view of Second Amendment rights.
The court in June 2022 expanded gun rights in a landmark ruling called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, striking down New York state's limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home.
That ruling declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. It also set a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Excellent. Another 6-3 decision in the wings.
...shall not be infringed.
Take out a restraining order — and get a gun.
I understand that someone may be afraid of their partner. But they limit the partner’s movement with the restraining order (seems acceptable to me) but they should not ALSO take away a Constitutional right. Get yourself a gun and take responsibility for your own situation.
“Dirty Frankie” Lautenberg will crawl out of his New Jersey crypt in OUTRAGE if the Supremes stake his undead shell with a ruling against his slimy, unconstitutional legislation.
one is an excellent tool that can be used to protect yourself.
the other is a piece of paper that makes awful toilet paper.
My former wife took out a restraining order against me after and . A woman judge (California) found that there was no domestic violence, but rather a disturbing the peace charge. She also agreed my ex was a loose cannon. But because of the restraining order, I have not been able to own a gun for the last twenty years.
It’s a complete deprivation of rights without due process.
Would this upcoming decision change your situation? Plenty of really neato firearms out there.
I believe this would change my situation. I may own my first gun later this year.
No right is absolute. If you are imprisoned, for example, you can’t carry. If you are in a crowd you can’t incite a riot. No weapons may be a condition if your parole. You can’t use your freedom of speech to arrange a crime.
Domestic violence is a terrible thing but the subject of a restraining order has not had a trial with a jury of his peers. While I am sure that objectively some who have restraining orders placed on them are horrible and dangerous people, they have not been convicted of anything. We can’t have a society where anyone can accuse you of possible violence and your enumerated right vanishes.
Perfect example of people agreeing with laws/rules they don’t understand. The government wants us all to be guilty of something so we are no longer citizens that have rights.
The search could be fun. YouTube has plenty of videos on TONS of models. Picked up what I thought was a Henry H001l .22lr a few weeks back. Everything read it was 34” long. Mine is only 25” long. Come to find out I have a Mare’s Leg - designed after Steve McQueen’s rifle in TV’s Wanted Dead or Alive. It’s considered a pistol because of it’s length. Neato stuff I tell ya.
How it should work is that the one under threat should be allowed to defend themselves by shooting the abuser on sight.
Just ignore it. butthead buyden did.
Per the Constitution Rights can be taken away .... after due process of law. A convicted person is not allowed to have his gun while serving time inside. It is Constitutional to take away guns after conviction.
If in road rage a drive yells at another driver it is not reasonable to take away the gun. But if in road rage a driver shoots at the other driver and misses, it is reasonable to take away his gun.... after due process of law.
Just as a jail sentence is for a certain period of time, so the gun punishment would reasonably be for a period of time dpenending the severity of the offense.
It does. There’s no “yes, but” in the second amendment.
As the law stands now it is unconstitutional for them to keep you from owning a gun
Lots of guys will plead guilty to domestic violence rather than risk going to prison for 5-10 years.
Plead guilty and they let you go with a misdemeanor, no jail time, and give up your right to own a firearm.
Makes no difference if you are innocent or guilty, even if your wife says her husband didn’t hit her.
Someone who has a restraining order against them, has not been tried or convicted of a crime.
So it is illegal to seize their personal property
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.