this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024

253 points (99.6% liked)

News

22956 readers

2461 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

253

Supreme Court Upholds Law That Bans Domestic Abusers From Owning Guns (www.forbes.com)

submitted 3 months ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 67 points 3 months ago (3 children)

While the right to keep and bear arms is one of the “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” that right “is not unlimited,” Roberts wrote

I'm astounded to see that written that way. The crowd that always angrily asks "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND" thinks there is no limit to the rights of people to bear arms.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see most of the justices agreeing that the right "is not unlimited". The only holdout is Thomas. I'm sure he came about his vote through quiet introspection and reflection. (Or, possibly, bribery....)

[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I haven't kept up with his output, but when I was studying SCOTUS cases years and years ago, his opinions, mostly dissents or concurrences back in those days, were just bafflingly literal and lazy. Shit like, "I would declare the government's actions unconstitutional because they're regulating cars and the word 'car' is not in the Constitution."

I can't believe his thread of, I won't even call it originalism, more like historical-context-free literalist textualism, has gained any traction.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've found they do tend to be more blunt and straightforward. I think to understand them you have to start from the lens of his that stare decisis is a poor doctrine. Many of his dissents have such strong departures from the main opinion because of this. If you don't presuppose things like the Wickard V Filburn case's impact on the commerce clause dissents like Gonzalez v Raich, seem much more plausible.

[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

the lens of his that stare decisis is a poor doctrine

I can imagine an abhorrent precedent like Dredd Scott leaving a bad taste in a young black lawyer's mind, but it's certainly an odd way to approach jurisprudence in a common law country, and it's a pretty shit way to regulate a complicated body of law that relies on litigation for clarity. Combine it with a simplistic version of originalism once stare decisis is discarded, and I stand by my statement: bafflingly literal and lazy, and I'll add arrogant. "I know best, the entire body of built up law that came before me is without value, and the decisions that real people make under their influence are gauze in the wind." It invites constant relitigation and enables the most extreme kind of judicial activism while claiming to be above that fray.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 months ago

To be fair, the person usually saying that, Infringed is the biggest word they know.

[–] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is obviously a victory for humanity overall, but does anyone think the Supreme Court could take this new definition and use it to take guns away from regular people? I'm an idiot so if anyone can tell me why this isn't a possibility, I'll be relieved. The thing is, if Trump getting elected again does lead to the fall of democracy in this country (which I doubt, but it's definitely more possible than any other candidate we've ever had), couldn't the Supreme Court take guns away from people who opposed him?

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's a very good point you bring up. It's worth pointing out that this case hinged on the fact that the guy whose gun got taken away had a restraining order against him, so that meant that a court had already determined that he posed a danger to someone. And there is historical basis for taking guns away from dangerous people.

One of the benefactors of this new approach, ironically enough, may be Hunter Biden. I saw an article saying that this ruling may help him appeal his conviction, because he is a first-time offender so no court had any reason to make a ruling on him at all.

[–] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 3 points 3 months ago

Thank you for elaborating the actual case, this makes sense.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How is a cop supposed to cop if they can't shoot people?

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The could always just carry a pocket full of acorns.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The humor left the situation as soon as I heard what the cop was shooting at was a confirmed unarmed and handcuffed person locked in a police car.

That piece of shit is in all likelihood riding around in a cop car right this second.

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 9 points 3 months ago

Driving around looking for an oak tree to park under since that excuse worked the first time.

[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My friend was upset about this making it to SCOTUS a few weeks ago. How can the courts suspend your 2nd amendment rights before a trial?

Well what is a gag order? What is contempt of court? It turns out when you are credibly accused and/or indicted for certain crimes courts ARE allowed to constrain your constitutional rights, when their is good reason, while the court proceedings go along.

This would be as stupid as letting the dealer keep his bricks of heroine until which time a lab can check and double check that it's indeed heroin.

Fucking bonkers that someone on trial for a shooting/death threats would be able to KEEP THEIR GUNS.

Thomas is clearly insane.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thomas is clearly insane.

I disagree. He's sane. He's just corrupt.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Why not both?

I'm sure 99% of the work of actually writing up his opinions are from his staff, but he tells them in advance what his decision will be and how he wants ir framed, and they figure it out from there.

[–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 14 points 3 months ago

Broken clocks and all that.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh thank god. So many women were going to die if they struck that down.

[–] Kiernian@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Seriously. ^That's the important bit.

I would be shocked if that was on any of the judge's minds, but it's the primary concern in cases of domestic abuse.

Domestic abuser plus gun owner is the "my boyfriend choked me during sex without my consent" red flag for upcoming potential future death.

it's not a guarantee, but it' statistically waaaaaay more likely to end that way.

[–] vegeta@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The Court's opinion:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

Finally a ruling that can help save lives!

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How’d this guy get lawyered up in the first place?

He complain on an NRA Facebook group, and greed took it from there?

Imagine knowing you could fight for some BS in exchange for at BEST having “ beats his wife and wins case” all over the headlines.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It was a federal public defender. He saw a route to zealously advocate for his client and he took it. It was a bit of a moonshot, but I'm glad that we have a country where public representation is willing to go as far as he did for his client. Regardless of the circumstances.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago

That’s the only cool input there I can imagine. Good on that defender!

[–] EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

So ... No guns for law enforcement.

Good. About time. So much good they did in Uvalde.