1

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review whether a federal law that bans people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms violates the Second Amendment.

This should be interesting. Remember now, they haven’t been convicted of anything and there is no due process.

1 Like
2

“Prohibiting domestic violence abusers from accessing firearms is common-sense, life-saving, and constitutional. Firearms are the most common weapons used in domestic violence homicides, with female intimate partners more likely to be murdered with a gun than by all other means combined,” said Brady’s Chief Legal Officer Douglas Letter.

“Common sense”

1 Like
3

I like how it’s “common sense” even though the state hasn’t proven that the person is a domestic abuser in a court of law.

Don’t ya just love prior restraint?

1 Like
4

Everyone wants common sense until they have to use it. :wink:

3 Likes
5

Or it gets used on them.

3 Likes
6

Exactly.

I wonder if they take into consideration how often people lie about domestic abuse.

Some dude raises his voice in an argument and all the sudden “he beat me!!!”

“Well sir it’s open and shut. He’s an abuser. Take all of his guns. Yes even that ceremonial muzzle loader.”

“And Mr. Supposed abuser, don’t bother trying to get these guns back if you are proven innocent. You’ll never see them again. They’ll be sold this afternoon at auction and we will all have new fancy camel packs to celebrate.”

3 Likes
7

One side of the story.

1 Like
8

If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. :wink:

3 Likes
9

It’s gone. Done for.

The law doesn’t comport with our history and tradition.

10

I think Lavrentiy Beria said something along those lines.

All well and good till the victims found out that Beria’s definition of “nothing to hide” wasn’t what they thought it was.

“You are suspected of anti-Stalinist behavior comrade.”

“But I literally have hidden nothing from you. You know everything about me, my family, what I own, what I don’t own. I’ve been in the party and loyal to comrade Stalin for twenty years!!”

“Eh your name popped up on a list. Something about a bit too much bread in the cabinet. And that’s good enough for me. When you chop wood, chips tend to fly comrade. Consider yourself a wood chip.”

1 Like
11

If the Court strikes down 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), where does that leave 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)?

12

(4)-adjudicated.

I don’t think (g)(8) needs to be struck down. I think they are skipping the “(A)was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate” step and handing them out like reparations promises in a campaign.

13

My money would be on them being able to find some history and/or tradition allowing weapons to be kept out of the hands of mentally ill people.

At this time, we will now entertain some persecution porn scenarios concocted by our friends on the right, wherein the corrupt government fabricates insanity to deny gun ownership.

We may even be treated to a Wiki entry about the Soviet Union’s tactics in this regard.

14

Already doing it. Another stupid post.

1 Like
15

In a state so volatile it will make Isotope-465 look like Isotope-317.

1 Like
16

agree. when all that needed to enact a restraining order is an allegation that order should not go beyond contact. Safety of victims is important, but it should not create victims of “safety”. If there is a court hearing, and the accused is afforded all of their rights before a restraining order is put in place then there is due process and that is different. However, the effect of the order should only be continued so long as the safety of the victim is at issue.

1 Like