The SC will decide if domestic abusers get to possess firearms.

[Harry Dresden]

If they are violent enough they should not have guns, they are violent enough to take off the streets.

im all for eliminating the violent ones on the street....the cops know who they are....

 

[rightwinger]

Sometimes it takes a stupid post to point out how stupid justices will revert to stupid reasoning to come to their stupid opinions. Remember, Ketanji doesn't know what a woman is so how can you expect her to know what constitutes domestic violence? She'd probably consider a guy who prevented his fat, diabetic wife from eating ice cream abusive. Ketanji is an ideolog, not a judge. MAGA

actually you demonstrate you are too stupid to comment on this topic

 

[Chillicothe]

Ask Ketanji if flushing goldfish before moving to a new apt. or house is considered domestic abuse? How about if the fish was Black. MAGA

WTH?!!!
Yessir, THAT is MAGA.
Straight from the Bizarro Desk!

And that is why MAGA is a losing mindset and movement in our society.
MAGA, indeed!

 

[Chillicothe]

"...unable to escape the indoctrination that makes them inject fact into every single issue.."

God forbid......that 'fact' is part of the mix in decision making.

WTH?!!

 

[wamose]

WTH?!!!
Yessir, THAT is MAGA.
Straight from the Bizarro Desk!

And that is why MAGA is a losing mindset and movement in our society.
MAGA, indeed!

I can understand how I might be a little too deep for you shallow, monkey see monkey do Democrats. Stick with Dr. Seuss. MAGA

 

[berg80]

You are a desire to put ordinary citizens at maximum risk. If you take someone's firearms away from them, and the next day a criminals pulls a gun on them, they are the ones who are dead. Not you.

Women in the US are 11 times more likely to be killed with guns than women in other high-income countries.

Female intimate partners are more likely to be killed with a firearm than all other means combined.

The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. More than half of women killed by gun violence are killed by family members or intimate partners.

Domestic Violence Statistics

Our years of experience offering 24/7 support for people in abusive relationships has been informed by these domestic violence statistics.

www.thehotline.org

Studies have proven owners of guns are less safe from gun violence.

 

[Polishprince]

Women in the US are 11 times more likely to be killed with guns than women in other high-income countries.

Female intimate partners are more likely to be killed with a firearm than all other means combined.

The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. More than half of women killed by gun violence are killed by family members or intimate partners.

Domestic Violence Statistics

Our years of experience offering 24/7 support for people in abusive relationships has been informed by these domestic violence statistics.

www.thehotline.org

Studies have proven owners of guns are less safe from gun violence.

Bullshit.

If someone pulls a firearm on you, all you have is your dick in your hand, who is going to win a gunfight?

A lot of people aren't fast enough to grab someone's firearm from their hands, and a lot of criminals are likely to shoot victims that tell them to go copulate themselves.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ask Ketanji if flushing goldfish before moving to a new apt. or house is considered domestic abuse? How about if the fish was Black. MAGA

Once again, a Republican exposes his misogyny and hatred of women. A real LOSER attitude if ever there was one.

8 million more women voters than men. Time to respect the women and treat them right if you ever want to win an election again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Women in the US are 11 times more likely to be killed with guns than women in other high-income countries.
Female intimate partners are more likely to be killed with a firearm than all other means combined.

If a person is violent enough that he should not have guns, he is violent enough to take off the streets.

 

[berg80]

I can understand how I might be a little too deep for you shallow, monkey see monkey do Democrats. Stick with Dr. Seuss. MAGA

Good news, if the Times is right.

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.

Supreme Court Seems Likely to Uphold Law Disarming Domestic Abusers

A decision in the case could extend far beyond domestic abuse by clarifying the scope of a court ruling last year on gun rights.

www.nytimes.com

 

[BrokeLoser]

The Constitution clearly allows for the removal of rights through due process though.

Which enumerated power or amendment allows for the removal of rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good news, if the Times is right.

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.

Apparently, The Times did not read the same transcript I did.
The plaintiff rested on 'the founders did not take guns from potential domestic abusers but they would have been Ok with it'.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sometimes it takes a stupid post to point out how stupid justices will revert to stupid reasoning to come to their stupid opinions. Remember, Ketanji doesn't know what a woman is so how can you expect her to know what constitutes domestic violence? She'd probably consider a guy who prevented his fat, diabetic wife from eating ice cream abusive. Ketanji is an ideolog, not a judge. MAGA

What if the guy identified as a woman and this is a lesbian thing?

 

[Mac-7]

Your desire to put domestic abuse victims at maximum risk is well established. No need for redundancy.

Stop bloviating

If someone is dangerous enough to take their guns away they should be locked up

Otherwise they can find other ways to kill

This is just backdoor gun confiscation

 

[Flash]

‘You’re Running Away From Your Argument’: Liberal Justices Expose Grim Farce In Domestic Violence Gun Case

Tuesday’s arguments married two of the most surreal ramifications of that decision.

The Court’s 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 Rahimi’s lawyer had to commit to the extremity of his argument, showing how far afield the Court’s radical stance on guns has already traveled. He contended that people like Rahimi — 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 — should get to keep deadly weapons.

A couple of the liberal justices lambasted the ludicrousness of the case from both angles.

“I’m a little troubled by having a history and traditions test that also requires some sort of culling of the history so that only certain people’s history counts,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said to Rahimi’s 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, “white, Protestant men.” 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 Court’s rigid originalism.

Kagan joined with Jackson in cutting through the procedural fog.

“I’ll tell you the honest truth, Mr. Wright — I feel like you’re running away from your argument because the implications of your argument are just so untenable,” Kagan said.
‘You’re Running Away From Your Argument’: 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.

Unfortunately far too many of these "domestic violence reports" are nothing more than a vindictive wife falsely claiming abuse.

Taking away a person's Constitutional right based on the claim that they MIGHT do some harm in the future ain't cool and not the way most Americans view justice.

Hopefully the Supremes will rationaly sort it out.

 

[Mac-7]

Doubling down on ineffectual strawman arguments only serves to expose the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

All reasonable arguments fail with you

 

[Polishprince]

Unfortunately far too many of these "domestic violence reports" are nothing more than a vindictive wife falsely claiming abuse.

Taking away a person's Constitutional right based on the claim that they MIGHT do some harm in the future ain't cool and not the way most Americans view justice.

Hopefully the Supremes will rationaly sort it out.

Exactly. It would be a different story if it was "domestic violence convictions" instead of just "reports"

 

[berg80]

Bullshit.

I find that's quite often the reaction of MAGAnuts to the facts.

 

[berg80]

All reasonable arguments fail with you

Why not try making one and we'll see.

 

[berg80]

Unfortunately far too many of these "domestic violence reports" are nothing more than a vindictive wife falsely claiming abuse.

Your evidence?