Supreme Court Seems Likely to Uphold Law Disarming Abusers

[Markemp]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/us/p ... lence.html

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.

“Someone who poses a risk of domestic violence is dangerous,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, adding that other limits on gun rights posed harder questions.

Hopefully they do allow this restriction. Dangerous people are dangerous. The conservative justices seemed pretty amenable to the idea of restricting firearms from domestic abusers and other dangerous people.

[TSKNIGHT]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/us/politics/supreme-court-gun-rights-domestic-violence.html

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.

“Someone who poses a risk of domestic violence is dangerous,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, adding that other limits on gun rights posed harder questions.

Hopefully they do allow this restriction. Dangerous people are dangerous. The conservative justices seemed pretty amenable to the idea of restricting firearms from domestic abusers and other dangerous people.

Can't say I have any objection to restricting firearms from a domestic abuser. Trouble is that the case the court is hearing is about restricting firearms from people subject to a court order of protection. A person can be subject to an order of protection due to many reasons and never be charged or convicted of a crime.

[bstrawse]

I expect a 9-0 or 8-1 ruling on the domestic violence issue and then a clear statement 6-3 or 5-4 that firearms can only be prohibited from possession based on a dangerousness standard as proven in court in an adversarial hearing.

The oral arguments can be heard on the Supreme Court's website and are worthy of your time.
b

[Markemp]

I expect a 9-0 or 8-1 ruling on the domestic violence issue and then a clear statement 6-3 or 5-4 that firearms can only be prohibited from possession based on a dangerousness standard as proven in court in an adversarial hearing.

The oral arguments can be heard on the Supreme Court's website and are worthy of your time.
b

I don't think there is much of a chance that Thomas will support additional restrictions. The current standard of there needing to be an existing law from 2 centuries ago I think is his baby, and I don't see him pulling away from it. Alito will probably concur with him as well.

Even the lawyer arguing against the restrictions had a hard time defending his position. Some of the exchanges were pretty comical, like when he asked how would you define a dangerous person, and the justices answered "by a judge in a hearing" and he replied with "fair enough".

I agree that they will probably end up with a limited scope like you stated, which is fine because that is pretty much exactly what the law originally stated. It's a good law.

[jdege]

There is no such thing as a good law, only bad and worse.

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

Therefore the sage says:
I take no action and people are reformed.
I enjoy peace and people become honest.
I do nothing and people become rich.
I have no desires and people return to the good and simple life.

[Markemp]

There is no such thing as a good law, only bad and worse.

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

Therefore the sage says:
I take no action and people are reformed.
I enjoy peace and people become honest.
I do nothing and people become rich.
I have no desires and people return to the good and simple life.

I’m sorry Mr Strawser, it must be very frustrating to have allies like this. I feel your pain though, as I have to deal with some Democratic Socialists. We appreciate the votes, but just kinda wish they’d keep a bit more quiet.

[jdege]

Govern a Great Country as You Would Cook a Small Fish

[Lumpy]

For good or for ill we have never lived in a libertarian society; it's a pretty well-established principle that the government has broad power to proscribe things- it's more or less what governments do. As far as "Red Flag" laws go the main complaint has been the one-sided nature of the adjudication, not that judges can't issue orders. Now a blanket standing law automatically disarming everyone who falls into a certain category would almost certainly be unconstitutional, but not single cases heard individually.

[Holland&Holland]

Govern a Great Country as You Would Cook a Small Fish

Well that was a let down. Where is the fish recipe?

[jdege]

Well that was a let down. Where is the fish recipe?

The Compleat Angler

First open your Pike at the gills, and if need be, cut also a little slit towards his belly; out of these, take his guts, and keep his liver, which you are to shred very small with Time, Sweet Margerom, and a little Winter-Savoury; to these put some pickled Oysters, and some Anchovis, both these last whole (for the Anchovis will melt, and the Oysters should not) to these you must add also a pound of sweet Butter, which you are to mix with the herbs that are shred, and let them all be well salted (if the Pike be more then a yard long, then you may put into these herbs more then a pound, or if he be less, then less Butter will suffice:) these being thus mixt, with a blade or two of Mace, must be put into the Pikes belly, and then his belly sowed up; then you are to thrust the spit through his mouth out at his tail; and then with four, or five, or six split sticks or very thin laths, and a convenient quantitie of tape or filiting, these laths are to be tyed roundabout the Pikes body, from his head to his tail, and the tape tied somewhat thick to prevent his breaking or falling off from the spit; let him be rosted very leisurely, and often basted with Claret wine, and Anchovis, and butter mixt together, and also with what moisture falls from him into the pan: when you have rosted him sufficiently, you are to hold under him (when you unwind or cut the tape that ties him) such a dish as you purpose to eat him out of, and let him fall into it with the sawce that is rosted in his belly; and by this means the Pike will be kept unbroken and complete; then to the sawce, which was within him, and also in the pan, you are to add a fit quantity of the best butter, and to squeeze the juice of three or four Oranges: lastly, you may either put into the Pike with the Oysters, two cloves of Garlick, and take it whole out when the Pike is cut off the spit, or to give the sawce a hogoe, let the dish (into which you let the Pike fall) be rubed with it; the using or not using of this Garlick is left to your discretion. This dish of meat is too good for any but Anglers or honest men; and, I trust, you wil prove both, and therefore I have trusted you with this Secret.

[Holland&Holland]