Supreme Court upholds law barring domestic abusers from owning guns in major Second Amendment ruling | CNN Politics
cnn.com
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.”
I'm surprised Alito went with the majority on this one. And a little surprised Kavanaugh did too. I'm also surprised it was an 8-1 ruling.
I'm not at all surprised Thomas was in the minority.
I read Alito was absent again today as well with no reason given. Maybe in his twisted brain if he isn't present it's like he never ruled that way?
If his brain started dribbling out his ears, or something similarly odd and mostly fatal…would they give a reason?
Or should I not get my hopes up?
With any luck, he went to visit Scalia.
Woah! They’re disarming the police???
For context
https://www.fatherly.com/life/police-brutality-and-domestic-violence
Thomas, as per usual, is on the wrong side of history. You can almost 100% pick the correct verdict by choosing the opposite of his vote with a very limited number of exceptions. If these were Vegas odds, you’d get rich betting against him with almost no downside.
If that was the case betting against him would give very little return as it'd be seen as a sure thing.
Don’t celebrate just yet. All repubes will have to do is change the definition of domestic abuser so the law will become toothless
Shouldn't take much effort. Domestic abuse is surprisingly easy to get away with.
Just ask the police.
FTP
It's sad that I have to be amazed that they ruled as they did on such an obvious restriction, but I'm grateful they did.
I guess even a broken clock IS right twice a day.
An 8-1 ruling is like, 5 broken clocks going at slightly different paces being right at the same time though! That's pretty impressive, right?
It's in the realm of "What's their angle here?" when considering the current court. We need to make sure no one tells them they accidentally let the nation become just a tiny bit safer for some people.
I mean, even among the pro gun crowd this is a pretty non-controversial law.
What are the odds that the presidential immunity case will be decided after the first debate?
Unlikely. Debate is on Thursday and they drop big decisions on Fridays.
So how's that going to affect all the police that commit DV all the time?
Depends on if they get convicted or not.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the 2022 in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen opinion, filed a lone 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.
A Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, was convicted for violating that law following a series of shootings, including one in which police said he fired into the air at a Whataburger restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined.
Rahimi’s lawyers claimed that the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision two years ago meant that the law on domestic violence orders could not be squared with the Constitution.
The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals embraced that argument, concluding that a gun ban for people involved in domestic disputes was an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”
That may be in part because a series of related legal challenges are already queued up for the court, including a question of whether non-violent felons can be denied access to firearms.
The original article contains 773 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!