Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

BumRushDaShow

(133,331 posts)
Fri Jun 21, 2024, 10:26 AM Jun 21

Supreme Court upholds domestic violence gun restriction [View all]

Source: NBC News

June 21, 2024, 10:23 AM EDT / Updated June 21, 2024, 11:39 AM EDT


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun. The court on an 8-1 vote ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which was defending the law — one of several federal gun restrictions currently facing legal challenges.

The ruling indicates that some longstanding gun laws are likely to survive despite the court's 2022 decision that expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that since the United States was founded "our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms."

The provision at issue in the case "fits comfortably within this tradition," he added. In reaching its conclusion, the court did not embrace some of the arguments made by the Biden administration in defense of the law, including that the government can disarm people who are not "responsible."

Attorney General Merrick Garland welcomed the ruling, saying the law "protects victims by keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals who pose a threat to their intimate partners and children." Although the vote was lopsided, with only conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the ruling nevertheless exposed divisions among the justices on the gun rights issue, with five justices writing separate concurring opinions explaining their views.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-domestic-violence-gun-restriction-rcna137782



Link to SCOTUS RULING (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

Article updated.

Previous articles -

June 21, 2024, 10:23 AM EDT / Updated June 21, 2024, 10:40 AM EDT


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.

The court on an 8-1 vote ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which was defending the law -- one of several federal gun restrictions currently facing legal challenges. The ruling indicates that some longstanding gun laws are likely to survive despite the court's 2022 decision that expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that since the United States was founded "our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms." The provision at issue in the case "fits comfortably within this tradition," he added.

In reaching its conclusion, the court did not embrace some of the arguments made by the Biden administration in defense of the law, including that the government can disarm people who are not "responsible." Although the vote was lopsided, with only conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the ruling nevertheless exposed divisions among the justices on the gun rights issue, with five justices writing separate concurring opinions explaining their views.



Jun. 21, 2024, 10:23 AM EDT


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.

The court on an 8-1 vote ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which was defending the law -- one of several federal gun restrictions currently facing legal challenges. The ruling indicates that some longstanding gun laws are likely to survive despite the court's 2022 decision that expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that since the United States was founded "our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms." The provision at issue in the case "fits comfortably within this tradition," he added.

The 2022 decision, in a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, said gun restrictions had to be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms. As such, the decision raised questions about many existing gun restrictions that gun rights activists say are not anchored in historical tradition.



Original article -

Jun. 21, 2024, 10:23 AM EDT


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.

The court ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which was defending the law -- one of several federal gun restrictions currently facing legal challenges.

The ruling indicates that some longstanding gun laws are likely to survive despite the court's 2022 decision that expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment.

The 2022 decision, in a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, said gun restrictions had to be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms. As such, the decision raised questions about many existing gun restrictions that gun rights activists say are not anchored in historical tradition.
24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No immunity today. Rahimi is it for the week. And good morning. mahatmakanejeeves Jun 21 #1
They were talking about adding a Wednesday BumRushDaShow Jun 21 #3
Thank you, DU legal experts, for keeping us informed! Nt spooky3 Jun 21 #11
Not a legal expert but legal fan who appreciates DU's lawyer members! BumRushDaShow Jun 21 #15
Thanks! Nt spooky3 Jun 21 #17
Only dissent, uncle Slappy Bumpstock. What a waste of carbon. Comfortably_Numb Jun 21 #2
No surprise about his dissent. He's kept, bought and sold to highest bidders and the gun lobby being one of his masters Deuxcents Jun 21 #12
There's a lot of upkeep on that quarter of a million dollar luxury coach/bribe. Comfortably_Numb Jun 21 #18
Can't have a gun dweller Jun 21 #4
Where are our protestors of the Supreme Court? FarPoint Jun 21 #5
It's dangerously hot and humid in DC this weekend. Nt spooky3 Jun 21 #13
Thank god. underpants Jun 21 #6
Tell me about it BumRushDaShow Jun 21 #7
I guess giving guns to wife beaters was a bridge too far, even for these 2A judges. sop Jun 21 #8
At the risk of sounding racist....Thomas is not completely evolved. walkingman Jun 21 #9
Oh he is--but he's completely corrupted by NRA sympathizer $. Nt spooky3 Jun 21 #14
IOW, Clarence Thomas supports the concept of a "Virginia Divorce". no_hypocrisy Jun 21 #10
Damn and I thought he was gonna shoot his wife! Lucky Luciano Jun 21 #24
Good. This seems inconsistent, so future SCOTUS rulings intrepidity Jun 21 #16
The ruling is 103 pages BumRushDaShow Jun 21 #19
The majority opinion, joined by everyone except Thomas and written by Roberts is only 18 pages long. onenote Jun 21 #20
But, what about originalism? Lunabell Jun 21 #21
Doesn't this go against all the Second Amendment loonies? Bayard Jun 21 #22
Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, was the only thing that caught my attention ... aggiesal Jun 21 #23
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court upholds dom...