Supreme Court to consider whether wifebeaters can own guns

[Markemp]

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/11853718 ... 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.

[Grayskies]

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.

The actual article's title is: “Supreme Court to consider whether domestic abusers can own guns”

I get you’re trying to troll, but I’m more interested in you being a sexist and a few other phobias you seem to have.

Gay men can’t abuse their spouses? What about lesbian or transgender couples? Women can and do beat their husbands, I knew a woman convicted of spousal abuse. Perhaps you should go to counseling to help you get over these bigoted phobias you have?

[Lumpy]

I get that a restraining order could include a provision against possessing guns; after all a restraining order as the name implies is an instance of prior restraint after having gone before a judge for due process. What I don't get is the constitutionality of a federal law flatly mandating that nobody under a domestic violence restraining order can own a gun. Are abused (or allegedly abused) domestic partners yet another protected class that the Bill of Rights must be set aside for? If nothing else, one would think that the naked letter of the Second Amendment would mean that forbidding anyone to own firearms would be out of the federal government's purview.

[Rip Van Winkle]

Should a violent domestic abuser convicted of felonious domestic assault lose his/her right to own firearms? Yes.

Should one convicted of a misdemeanor domestic assault, (raising your voice to your soon to be ex spouse) lose their right, no.

From the sound of the linked article above, if Mr Rahimi were guilty of 5 shootings, he should have been charged and convicted of that.

ETA: I remember when this domestic violence amendment was passed. It went into effect retroactively. LEO's and military members lost their jobs or were discharged because of DV convictions which happened decades earlier. I also remember a metro area shooting range which closed because the owner had a DV conviction in his past.

[bstrawse]

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.

This isn't about someone who has been CONVICTED - this is about permanent domestic violence restraining orders that meet the requirements defined in 18 USC 922. Big difference.

Please ensure you are posting accurate information - your commentary here does not reflect the law in question or the question that is in the case before the court.

Rahimi is a **** human being, for the record.

[bstrawse]

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)

[Holland&Holland]

Yet we are the ones who are divisive and paranoid…. Socialists be infringing.

[xd ED]

Yet we are the ones who are divisive and paranoid…. Socialists be infringing.

That’s because we don’t use the word ‘science’ with sufficient pretense, and aloofness. Once that bit of theatre is mastered, your words will be accepted as gospel...well maybe not gospel, because the gospel is unacceptable, but at least every bit as credible, and legit as any cdc study on firearms.

[Markemp]

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.

[bstrawse]

The key takeaway for you is not to misrepresent things - as you did in your original post.

Happy to debate and discuss issues - but this is NOT the way to do it.

Cheers,
b

[Erud]

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.

Unless things have changed substantially in the 10 years or so since a buddy of mine went through an ugly divorce, I think it actually is a matter of just filling out a form on someone. His now ex-wife would go to the courthouse and fill out the form, he'd get served with the paperwork by a deputy within 24 hours, and the temporary order was in effect until the court date. He'd go to court, the ex wouldn't even show up, and it would get tossed out. Then she'd do it again shortly thereafter. That doesn't seem all that reasonable to me. You have an awful lot of faith in the government.

[jdege]

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.

[atomic41]

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.

Yet another lie from you. The process is so simple and vague that it's actually scary thinking you can do this to someone with no solid evidence or real justification. I know first hand because I had to do it to someone and the process was eye opening. The process is literally filling out a form and anyone can do it to anyone just because.

But you know all this. You are lying to build/strengthen false narratives supporting red flag laws. I suppose that having anti-gun trolls like you on a gun forum results in forum members strengthening their 2A defensive stance. This is a great example as now the forum members are hearing the truth about things that they might not otherwise know.

[Holland&Holland]

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.

This describes every government employee I have ever met to a T.

[Jackpine Savage]

The truth of the matter is that restraining orders are like gun free zones, worthless. In some cases they have the exact opposite desired effect on the offender.

I've seen a few gun attorney videos now that are concerned that this case might weaken Bruen.

Maybe it will be decided based on due process, IE the Fifth Amendment:

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.