Supreme Court Agrees on Taking Guns from Domestic Abusers

T

The Verminator

Moderator
Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

“When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect,” Roberts wrote.

“Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/23/1252764853/supreme-court-guns
 
Here's the case:

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

Thomas writes a long and sole dissent. His distinction is interesting. Everyone agrees that law at the time of the Amendment dealt with people through surety laws. The majority find that there are historical analogues addressing the subject matter, Thomas notes that the subject matter used a means substantially dissimilar to 922g8.
 
Last edited:
If the individual is deemed to be a credible threat to the point that his God given rights are to be taken away, why is that individual not behind bars. There are other ways to kill someone. Taking away the person's guns does not equate to ensuring the other person's or anyone else's safety. If the SCOTUS is patting themselves on the back for making the country safer, they can stop now.
 
TO be clear, this ruling is NOT about taking guns from domestic abusers. It is about what is constitutionally allowable in a court issued restraining order.

The 1968 Gun control act prohibits convicted felons from firearms ownership. This includes ALL felony convictions, including domestic violence.

The Lautenberg Amendment, passed in 1997 expanded this to misdemeanor domestic violence convictions.

SO, CONVICTED domestic abusers have been denied the right to arms for over half a century, and closing in on 60 years, by law.

This case was about a bad actor who had not been convicted (at the time) and was under a restraining order. This makes it a different legal matter, and that is what the court ruled on.

The headlines are misleading, and less than fully accurate.
 
All it means, if you read the rest of the opinion, that damn near any law in the distant past that restricted anyone's right is just fine to use to support modern day restrictions. With one fell swoop SCOTUS has both defanged Bruen, and emboldened the Left to enact any laws they want. Circuit Courts will be disheartened, and we will have to fight twice as hard.
I wonder if the Left had a hand on getting Rahimi up to SCOTUS, as they picked the worst possible plaintiff.
 
I've only read a few pages so far but the ruling is VERY clear that a court must find you a danger to others . Ok lets say if you are a danger to others you shouldn't have a gun . What I've not read yet is if you are required to be in the court room when said order is given . More specific , does this new ruling require the state/government inform you of the proceedings that are about to take your right away and are you allowed to challenge said accretion before the/any court can take away said right ?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole point our side is concerned with is the due process of the red flag laws . Did this ruling just green light a _________(fill in blank) can say your a danger to a court and the court can rule you are a danger with out you being able to confront your accuser ? I've not read it yet and I'm very concerned they just ok'ed all red flag laws ?
 
So what is there to stop a state/city from placing a restraining order deeming gun owners as a credible threat to the safety of others? History shows that different towns allowed guns to be outlawed within the towns limits for that very reason. That should make it good enough for SCOTUS.


How in the Sam h-ll could they have got this so wrong? The man shot his weapon at two different people and was still walking the streets?????? I get that the jerk should not be allowed to have a gun, and he gave L.E. every right to arrest, charge, and convict, but he was not the one punished here, there will be many law abiding people who might be going through a messy divorce who are going to get punished.
 
Metal God said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole point our side is concerned with is the due process of the red flag laws . Did this ruling just green light a _________(fill in blank) can say your a danger to a court and the court can rule you are a danger with out you being able to confront your accuser ? I've not read it yet and I'm very concerned they just ok'ed all red flag laws ?
Click to expand...

s3779m said:
How in the Sam h-ll could they have got this so wrong? The man shot his weapon at two different people and was still walking the streets?????? I get that the jerk should not be allowed to have a gun, and he gave L.E. every right to arrest, charge, and convict, but he was not the one punished here, there will be many law abiding people who might be going through a messy divorce who are going to get punished.
Click to expand...

This was a facial challenge - Rahimi would need to have shown not that his specific circumstance was a violation of a right, but that 922g8 was a categorical violation of the 2d Am. -- that there isn't any constitutionally valid application of the subsection.
 
I am being told that this actually is a win and Justices, even Leftist ones, had to admit Bruen is law of the land. Also told that the opinion hammered that it is a TEMPORARY restriction...I can only hope that I'm wrong about this being a loss. NOT a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
 
armoredman said:
I am being told that this actually is a win and Justices, even Leftist ones, had to admit Bruen is law of the land. Also told that the opinion hammered that it is a TEMPORARY restriction...I can only hope that I'm wrong about this being a loss. NOT a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
Click to expand...
I totally agree.

It's a good decision.

This kind of thing has happened without any restraining orders or "red flag" orders.

I know of two cases where the wife just took the guns down to the police station and asked them to hold them for a while.

They did.

It all worked out ok. In one case the husband was reluctant to go talk to the police and in the other he didn't notice that the guns were gone for weeks.

By then things had calmed down.
 
A few more points to consider, and if I have it wrong, please correct me...

My understanding is that before a restraining order is issued, you are informed, and given the opportunity to be at the hearing, so that you may present your side of the argument for the judge to consider. IF you don't show up, that's on you. There are/have been cases where they court requires you to show up, but those are on an individual case by case basis, not general principle.

And that what ever conditions are set in the order, they only exist for the duration of the order (typically, one year).

This is different from the "red flag" laws recently passed, which do not require notification until AFTER the guns are seized (though you may be notified before), and you get a hearing to give your side of the story... sometime within a year from when the guns are taken.

Are these kinds of laws wide open and ripe for abuse?? ABSO-Frackin-LUTELY!!!!

Not all that long ago, a woman filed to have a cop's right to arms removed, under the domestic violence laws. She claimed it was domestic violence, because they "had a child in common".

The "child in common" was a 36 year old adult (her son) who threated the cop with a knife and got shot due to that. The ONLY thing the woman and the cop had "in common" was that the "child" was her son. and the cop shot him. (ruled justified)

When this came to light, the woman had charges brought against her, (false report, etc). She disappeared, last I heard, warrants were issued for her arrest.

These kinds of things CAN happen thanks to the language, and the very concept of red flag laws.

Restraining order, or red flag, or what ever is used to take guns, or remove or restrict any Constitutionally enumerated rights from people NOT CONVICTED of a crime, is a bad idea, and any such mechanism that removes only their guns, BUT leaves them free on the street with both the liberty and their financial resources is a really bad idea. Anyone deemed a danger to others, or a "creditable threat" should NOT be walking around town with the ability to obtain other tools to use to harm people.

Its flawed reasoning, and I think bad law, done to create a "feel good" impression when, it reality, it protects no one.
 
What all "red flag" laws should have is a provision to charge anyone making a false report with a felony.

Some threaten a misdemeanor but some don't even have that.
 
It's patently obvious that people do have rights that they have no ability to defend with violence, and also that defending rights does not always require violence.

Babies have rights even though they have zero ability to defend those rights with violence.

People in comas have rights. Clearly those rights not born out of their ability to violently resist against those who might try to infringe on their rights.

People can defend their rights in the courts without violence--we see that happen all the time.

It would be accurate to say that: "You are only fully assured of keeping the rights you are able and willing to defend with violence exceeding your oppressor's ability to harm you." but that's a very different sentiment and concept than claiming no one has any rights they can't successfully defend with violence.
 
I saw it happened once when I was part-time gunsmith at my friend's shop.

Man had big fight with his wife. Their teenager son believed the fight escalated to pushing and yelling. He called police. Man was arrested and released without charge. But a restraining order was in place. He had to get rid of his guns within short time. My friend, the shop owner, agreed to check in his guns for safe keeping for a daily fee, till the man sorted out the mess. It was quite stressful for everybody involved. We literally had to compress the safe and limit the incoming shipment. I believe the fee was high enough to cover the business lost. It would be quite a sum added up.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
tangolima said:
Man had big fight with his wife. Their teenager son believed the fight escalated to pushing and yelling. He called police. Man was arrested and released without charge. But a restraining order was in place. He had to get rid of his guns within short time. My friend, the shop owner, agreed to check in his guns for safe keeping for a daily fee, till the man sorted out the mess. It was quite stressful for everybody involved. We literally had to compress the safe and limit the incoming shipment. I believe the fee was high enough to cover the business lost. It would be quite a sum added up.
Click to expand...

I shoot at an indoor range. Entrance door is at grade level, from which you go down a half flight of stairs to the store area, and then down a full flight of stairs to the range, which is entirely underground.

Several years ago I arrived at the range, opened the door, and there was a huge gun safe on the landing just inside the door. The range owner was not very free with specifics, but basically the safe belonged to a long-time customer who was under a restraining order and, rather than turn his collection over to the police, it was agreed that the entire safe would be stored at the range. The range owner didn't even have the combination.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I shoot at an indoor range. Entrance door is at grade level, from which you go down a half flight of stairs to the store area, and then down a full flight of stairs to the range, which is entirely underground.

Several years ago I arrived at the range, opened the door, and there was a huge gun safe on the landing just inside the door. The range owner was not very free with specifics, but basically the safe belonged to a long-time customer who was under a restraining order and, rather than turn his collection over to the police, it was agreed that the entire safe would be stored at the range. The range owner didn't even have the combination.
Click to expand...

I don't know how it works. My friend checked the guns in the bound book. He must have access to the guns. Not having the combination may not be kosher. The customer basically no longer processed the firearms till the restrictions were lifted.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
The situation was worked out among the customer, the FFL, the local police, and probably the BATFE. With the safe at the gun shop, the guns were not in the home and the person subject to the restraining order didn't have access to them. Since the FFL didn't have the combination to the safe, he didn't have access to them so he didn't have to enter them into his bound book.

Whatever legal authorities were involved were satisfied with the arrangement. As I said, I don't have any details.
 
I often wondered if you had a locksmith change the combo to your safe and you did not know the new combo would that be good enough . Maybe the a family member has it or even the court . Whom ever then gives you the combo once order is lifted ???
 
Metal god said:
I often wondered if you had a locksmith change the combo to your safe and you did not know the new combo would that be good enough . Maybe the a family member has it or even the court . Whom ever then gives you the combo once order is lifted ???
Click to expand...
Common sense tells me you have proposed one very good solution. For that reason alone I would be surprised if the courts would go along with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top