483
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months 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 7 points 10 months 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 2 points 10 months 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 -1 points 10 months 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 7 points 10 months 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 4 points 10 months 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

this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
483 points (99.2% liked)

News

22907 readers
3879 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