MNGunTalk.com

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a case that could allow people who are found to pose a credible threat of violence against their partner or child to retain the right to own and use guns. At issue is a 1994 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act that prohibits those who are actively subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.

The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While the order expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm, he was involved in five shootings in and around the city of Arlington between December 2020 and January 2021. After police officers found firearms at his home, Rahimi pled guilty to violating the Federal Firearms Act.

Markemp wrote:https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185371815/supreme-court-domestic-abuse-guns

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a case that could allow people who are found to pose a credible threat of violence against their partner or child to retain the right to own and use guns. At issue is a 1994 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act that prohibits those who are actively subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.

The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While the order expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm, he was involved in five shootings in and around the city of Arlington between December 2020 and January 2021. After police officers found firearms at his home, Rahimi pled guilty to violating the Federal Firearms Act.

So what's the general temperature here? Should a convicted wife beater who has been deemed an active risk by the courts have their guns taken away?

Personally I feel like this is a hard yes. Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun, and this seems like a really easy line to draw. This is a reasonable gun safety regulation.

Markemp wrote:https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185371815/supreme-court-domestic-abuse-guns

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a case that could allow people who are found to pose a credible threat of violence against their partner or child to retain the right to own and use guns. At issue is a 1994 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act that prohibits those who are actively subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.

The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While the order expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm, he was involved in five shootings in and around the city of Arlington between December 2020 and January 2021. After police officers found firearms at his home, Rahimi pled guilty to violating the Federal Firearms Act.

So what's the general temperature here? Should a convicted wife beater who has been deemed an active risk by the courts have their guns taken away?

Personally I feel like this is a hard yes. Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun, and this seems like a really easy line to draw. This is a reasonable gun safety regulation.

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

Holland&Holland wrote:Yet we are the ones who are divisive and paranoid…. Socialists be infringing.

bstrawse wrote:The question before the court is this:

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

This has nothing to do with convictions - this case is about domestic violence restraining orders that meet the requirements in 18 USC 922(g)(8)

Markemp wrote:Seems reasonable to me. If the restraining order ends or the person goes to trial and is found not guilty, they can get their guns back. But if you're considered an active risk by the courts, losing access to your guns seems like a pretty smart call.

Getting a restraining order approved isn't a matter of just filling out a form on someone. There is a well established process.

Erud wrote:You have an awful lot of faith in the government.

Markemp wrote:

bstrawse wrote:The question before the court is this:

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

This has nothing to do with convictions - this case is about domestic violence restraining orders that meet the requirements in 18 USC 922(g)(8)

Seems reasonable to me. If the restraining order ends or the person goes to trial and is found not guilty, they can get their guns back. But if you're considered an active risk by the courts, losing access to your guns seems like a pretty smart call.

Getting a restraining order approved isn't a matter of just filling out a form on someone. There is a well established process.

jdege wrote:

Erud wrote:You have an awful lot of faith in the government.

I have a great deal of faith in government.

I have faith that government employees will do something that vaguely resembles what they're supposed to be doing, in the way that most benefits the government employees themselves, so long as it doesn't involve much work.

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.