The case will test how far the court’s conservative majority is willing to go in interpreting the scope of its 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights outside the home.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would uphold a federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms, potentially limiting the scope of its own major gun rights ruling from last year.

The case gives the court’s 6-3 conservative majority a chance to consider the broad ramifications of the 2022 decision, which for the first time found that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

  • Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s not! The right of an individual to own a small arsenal with absolutely no oversight or regulation whatsoever is SCOTUS Constitutionally guaranteed, while living is not. If life were so important, why didn’t the founding fathers put that in the Constitution?

    Ergo, me spending more on ammunition than my local school district spends on feeding its students clearly supercedes some random woman’s privilege to life.

    See? Easy!

    (If you thought any of the above sounded remotely sensical, for the love of God don’t vote and don’t have kids.)

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      What cute rhetoric! Sure scores points on social media!

      At the base of it, we’re talking about taking rights from people without due process.

      Repeat after me:

      “I’m OK with that as long as it seems like something I agree with.”

      Wait till that shit gets used against you. Are you seriously saying judges and cops should be able to take your rights without trial?! Or, more likely, you think such a decision will only be limited to the 2A, and therefore gun nuts.

      “SCOTUS is a bunch of right-wing fascists! And I hope they vote sensibly on taking judicial action against people based merely upon an accusation!”

      Pick one?

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cute rhetoric to match your own!

        So do you oppose holding people in jail who’ve only been accused of a crime? For example, your friendly neighborhood serial killer gets arrested and held without bail until trial, losing nearly all of his rights in the process. Are you really arguing this person should walk free because he hasn’t been tried and convicted? Doesn’t this precedent also create a slippery slope where before you know it, we’re all forced to be microchipped and tracked by the government?

        You seem very opinionated without having actually sat down and thought your argument through to any logical conclusion.

      • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The murdered people would probably like their right to life back, or do they not have any right to try and stay alive in the face of reasonably forseeable violence.

        America is fucking weird man.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Point being, what other rights are we OK with giving up, on the strength of an accusation?

          @FunderPants said something mean to me! I believe he intends violence!

          That’s a ludicrous exaggeration, but you see where I’m going. Legal precedence is a powerful thing, and it can be used by bad actors, and it will be, bet on it.

          • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            All kinds of rights actually, freedom of movement when you don’t get bail, freedom of speech through a gag order, we make this kind of trade all the time because rights come into conflict. When rights come into conflict judges make decisions on which right to abridge , and which will take precedence. And you know, the safety and security of domestic violence victims is more important to me than the temporary inconvenience of a weapon owner. You can get your guns back out the box when your day in court is done ne, but dead people never come out of the box.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are they going to do next, stop me from leaving the country if I’m accused of a criminal act and potentially a flight risk? The nerve! A bunch of old dudes who didn’t wash and owned slaves told me I could go anywhere I wanted armed and goddamn it I will