Supreme Court Seems Likely to Uphold Law Disarming Domestic Abusers

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case regarding the government's ability to disarm individuals under domestic violence orders. Conservative justices seemed inclined to support the law, finding that a judicial finding of dangerousness in the context of domestic violence proceedings was enough to justify the disarmament of individuals. Liberal justices questioned the reliance on historical precedent and wanted to revisit the test established in last year's gun rights decision. The court's ruling could have broader implications beyond domestic abuse by clarifying the scope of the previous gun rights ruling.

So....

The way I see it, if your spouse calls 9/11 on you, gets an injunction against you, has medical conformation of your abuse, you lose your second amendment rights

"In my opinion".

Now, we haven't gotten a ruling from the court, not yet, but apparently from the line of question by the justices, it appears they might be partial to this view.

Well, I hope so.

Thing is, how does it square with Bruen?

Personally, I think Bruen was a bad decision. Why should modern policy on the second amendment have to comport to a 'historical analog' when, in the incipient states of our nation, life was much simpler, and needs were less complicated and the framers only knew muskets?

I hope they get this one right, and deny domestic abuser their right to own a weapon, as what, some 55% of women getting shot are from their abusive spouses/boyfriends et al., shooting them?

AI linked/annotated query:

Prompt: What percentage of women are shot by domestic abusing spouses and boyfriends?

Result:

According to a study, approximately 55% of the murders of women were related to intimate partner violence, meaning they occurred at the hands of a former or current partner or the partner’s family or friends1. Nearly half of all women murdered in the United States are killed by a current or former intimate partner, and more than half of these intimate partner homicides are by firearm2. Women are five times more likely to be murdered by an abusive partner when the abuser has access to a gun2. A Washington Post analysis of 4,484 killings of women in 47 major U.S. cities during the past decade found that nearly half of the women who were killed — 46 percent — died at the hands of an intimate partner3.​

This is a pro woman issue, not an anti second amendment issue, in my view.

what say you?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/us/politics/supreme-court-gun-rights-domestic-violence.html

The Supreme Court seemed ready on Tuesday to rule that the government may disarm people under domestic violence orders, limiting the sweep of last year’s blockbuster decision that vastly expanded gun rights.

Several conservative justices, during a lively if largely one-sided argument, seemed to be searching for a narrow rationale that would not require them to retreat substantially from a new Second Amendment test the court announced last year in giving people a broad right to arm themselves in public. Under the new standard, the justices said courts must look to history to assess the constitutionality of gun control measures.​

But conservative justices seemed prepared on Tuesday to accept that a judicial finding of dangerousness in the context of domestic violence proceedings was sufficient to support a federal law making it a crime for people subject to such orders to possess guns — even if there was no measure from the founding era precisely like the one at issue in the case.

“Someone who poses a risk of domestic violence is dangerous,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, adding that other limits on gun rights posed harder questions.​

 

the plaintiff in that case was a bad one -he was a scumbag for sure

btw since you claim Bruen was a bad decision-what do you think the second amendment does when incorporated at the state level.

 

When we talk about the incorporation of the Second Amendment at the state level, we're really discussing how the rights it protects are applied to state laws, not just federal ones. Right?

So, to elaborate a bit more, when we talk about the incorporation of the Second Amendment at the state level, we are referring to the application of its protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Originally, the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was intended to limit only the powers of the federal government. However, through the doctrine of incorporation, most of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states.

The incorporation process has been accomplished over time through various rulings by the United States Supreme Court. The Fourteenth Amendment, and specifically its Due Process Clause, has been interpreted to incorporate the Bill of Rights and make them applicable to the states. This means that the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment must be respected by state governments, just as they are by the federal government.

Agree?

The Bruen decision is an example of how the Supreme Court can influence the way the Second Amendment is applied at the state level, by interpreting its scope and the extent to which states can regulate firearms without infringing on the constitutional rights of individuals.

Now, from my perspective, the concern with the Bruen decision is that it might be seen as a one-size-fits-all approach to gun regulation, which doesn't account for the diverse needs and contexts of different states.

You see, the beauty of our federal system is that states have traditionally been able to act as laboratories of democracy, tailoring laws to the specific needs and desires of their populations. This is particularly important when it comes to gun laws because what makes sense in rural areas where police response times might be slower and wildlife threats are real, doesn't necessarily make sense in dense urban areas where the potential for gun violence is a daily concern.

The Second Amendment, when incorporated at the state level, should protect the right to bear arms, yes, but it should also allow states the flexibility to address the unique challenges they face. For instance, states could implement measures like background checks, waiting periods, or restrictions on certain types of firearms that are designed to reduce the likelihood of gun violence, which is a significant issue in many communities.

The fear with the Bruen ruling is that it could unduly restrict states' abilities to enact such measures by requiring them to justify their laws against historical regulations. This historical standard could be problematic because the context in which the Second Amendment was written is vastly different from today. The types of firearms available, the nature of threats, the density of populations, and the role of law enforcement have all evolved. It's not always practical or even possible to find a historical analogue for modern firearms regulations.

So, from my (as a liberal) point of view, the Second Amendment, incorporated at the state level, should certainly protect an individual's right to bear arms, but it should also be balanced with the community's right to public safety. It should allow states the discretion to craft sensible gun laws that reflect the current realities and challenges they face, rather than being handcuffed by historical precedent that may not provide relevant guidance for the modern era.

The goal here isn't to diminish the rights of responsible gun owners but to ensure that those rights are exercised in a way that also respects the safety and well-being of the entire community. It's about finding a balance that honors the spirit of the Second Amendment while also addressing the pressing issues of today's world.

On the case before the court, referred to in the OP, I hope they get it right (from my point of view, of course). Maybe if the rule in favor of disarming domestic abusers, which I'm not sure was an issue in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, (it might have been an issue, but methinks no one had the wherewithal to do something about it, they only had muskets and what they view, apparently, as bigger fish to fry during these years) which would mean lack of a historical analogue (given that, as I understand it, the first significant gun legislation didn't occur until 1934, and it wasn't about domestic abuse, I'm sure you know which one it was)

What say you?

 

if they are serving a sentence, they can take the guns

if they have served their sentence, they are a free American and all rights apply

if we want longer sentences, sentence them longer

 

as it's a right, have to think of it in the same way as speech and religion.... which are also rights

if we remove the second, then we can treat it as a privilege

 

It's a right, yes, but speech and religion do not have tiny metal projectiles that whiz through the air at supersonic speeds.

I'm all for making the second amendment a privilege and not a right, but there is no public will to do it at this time, as I understand the public. Or, at least not in Congress/Senate, or enough states to ratify a new amendment.

 

The first half of your post is accurate. where I disagree is that fiction that people who live in the far more dangerous urban environments should be restricted from owning guns. BTW Fundamental rights do not change based on environment. We don't have different standards for free speech, freedom of religion etc. we also don't allow the cops to beat the crap out of a suspect accused of say mass murder but prohibit the cops from doing the same thing to someone who is only accused of say one murder or one rape or one robbery. I have personally seen how easy it is to get a TRO against someone based on hearsay or dubious evidence without due process safeguards. On the other hand, there is no doubt that there are many abusive spouses or intimates and leaving them armed is a problem. So I grudgingly will not oppose red flag laws if there are due process safeguards and -and this is most important-draconic penalties on those who use red flag laws improperly. The same should be true with Restraining orders. And I do not think a misdemeanor SHOULD EVER be sufficient to permanently abridge constitutional rights

 

is that based on the fact that you dislike the politics and culture of gun owners?

 

doesn't matter, they are rights, if we treat rights as privileges, they are no longer rights

the public won't do it, cause no one would be able to own guns if they did, it's the reality of it

 

just the rich and those well connected to the Democrat party

 

But I didn't actually say that. What I said was that Bruen appears to be a one-size-fits-all where what would be better is for cities, states, be allowed to regulate according to their regulatory needs, whatever that may be, and I gave some possibilities, but that wasn't necessary saying something I, personally, would support.

Remember, Heller allows for regulation. A regulation, per se, isn't an infringement on a right. It could be, but not necessarily.
So, within that context, was my statement.

the first and second amendments have being rights and being amendments in common, but, beyond that, you can't compare speech and religion with bullets. Now, if I were a comedian, I can think of a comedic way to string them all together, but that's not what I'm talking about. The point is, there is no such thing as a right that is absolute, which means rights are subject to regulation, and each right is a thing unto itself with different regulatory needs which vary among the states and municipalities.

 

I did a thread on my supporting of a repeal of the second amendment, a few years back and again a few months ago.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...repeal-the-second-amendment-revisited.613138/

 

republicans ban people from owing guns too, just looks at all the people that can't get concealed carry permits in republican states or that can't own a gun in republican states today

 

If a conservative Supreme Court upholds this law, whether 5-4 or 6-3, it pretty much nullifies the pro-2A argument that the 2A is unlimited.

At the same time, it also affirms the amendment you think was unconstitutional from another thread. The ruling will overturn the 5th circuits ruling as well.

 

So since it is an absolute right then people should be able to have weapons in prison?

 

the prison is their parents in that case, the parents do not let their children have guns - you lose your freedom when in prision

 

regulation concerning the USE of a firearm often will pass constitutional muster. laws interfering with keeping or bearing firearms generally will not

 

do you have your first amendment rights in prison? how about fourth amendment rights?

 

why is it that every gun banner is a left winger?

 

no one claims it is unlimited at the state level-states once had all sorts of powers to restrict gun ownership-that were only limited by their own constitutions (which were often ignored by Democrat dominated State courts). At the federal level-the proper interpretation is that the federal government has NO POWER in this area. that's very different from state action

 

So there can be restrictions to this right, it is not absolute.

 

The hell you say so. Several posters including you have made that argument, especially in the the thread about the Maine shooter.

 

nope, all free people get their rights, people committed to prison are not free people, they are like children... wards of the State

 

As long as keeping and bearing arms is relevant and constrained to 'defending self, home and family and hunting' per Heller.

If a law were made making it illegal to own an arsenal, a massive amount of weaponry and ammo, the kind one would expect if one were preparing for a war, if that were made illegal for civilians, but not so illegal that the parameters set in Heller were violated, that would not be an infringement,

Do you agree? My guess is that you won't. But, I shall await your opinion.

 

here is a problem with your logic-if the government does not have the proper power to prevent you from owning say an AR 15-it doesn't suddenly get the power to ban you from buying your 15th AR 15. The second amendment is not about what we CAN do but what the GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO. . Now if someone is buying firearms to engage in the sale of them, without a license, at the state level, yes, then there could be government involvement. But that is not due to buying lots of guns-it would be due to selling lots of guns. So no, the government has no proper power to determine how many firearms you can own or how much ammo