Then there's not enough proof to take his guns.I guess there is just not enough proof?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then there's not enough proof to take his guns.I guess there is just not enough proof?
The courts are biased against men in domestic disputesYou seem to think getting a restraining order does not required a court to issue one based on evidence presented by the victim.
You should lecture rightwinger first if you really believe thatPlease stop offering opinions without substantiating them.
āYouāre Running Away From Your Argumentā: Liberal Justices Expose Grim Farce In Domestic Violence Gun Case
Tuesdayās arguments married two of the most surreal ramifications of that decision.
The Courtās newly established precedent forced lawyers to plumb the founding era for laws banning domestic abusers from possessing weapons at a time where even the most powerful white women were well over 100 years from suffrage and controlled entirely by their husbands.
And secondly, Zackey Rahimiās lawyer had to commit to the extremity of his argument, showing how far afield the Courtās radical stance on guns has already traveled. He contended that people like Rahimi ā the Texas drug dealer who the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled had his firearms confiscated unconstitutionally after he attacked his ex-girlfriend and then threatened to shoot her if she told anyone ā should get to keep deadly weapons.
A couple of the liberal justices lambasted the ludicrousness of the case from both angles.
āIām a little troubled by having a history and traditions test that also requires some sort of culling of the history so that only certain peopleās history counts,ā Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said to Rahimiās lawyer, Matthew Wright.
She pointed to the reality of the limited founding era laws the Court has ruled litigants must pull from: They were written by and extended their protection only to, as Jackson summarized, āwhite, Protestant men.ā Recognition of the legal rights of enslaved and indigenous people, for a start, is virtually nonexistent in the body of the law that undergirds the Courtās rigid originalism.
Kagan joined with Jackson in cutting through the procedural fog.
āIāll tell you the honest truth, Mr. Wright ā I feel like youāre running away from your argument because the implications of your argument are just so untenable,ā Kagan said.
āYouāre Running Away From Your Argumentā: Liberal Justices Expose Grim Farce In Domestic Violence Gun Case
82% of Americans want gun restrictions for those convicted of domestic violence, poll finds
82% of Americans want gun restrictions for those convicted of domestic violence, poll finds
Once again Repubs, and likely the Court, finds itself at odds with common sense and the will of the country's majority, while simultaneously disregarding the threat to the lives of victims of domestic violence. I hope I'm wrong.