Wow, another shite decision coming up, either 5-4 or 6-3
Confiscating the guns of Americans with domestic violence convictions would account for a giant chunk of gun deaths and injuries. Like, it’s wild how many people have been convicted, not just charged or accused, and the state’s still like, “yeah, your wife and kids need you to have a firearm, for sure”
Sometimes even threatening them with weapons as part of the conviction
"Men who have violent issues with women" is by far the #1 indicator that someone is going to be a mass shooter but I guess we've hit the point where mass shootings are just like the rain or the tide and we shouldn't even bother to try and stop it
Vehicular deaths, COVID deaths, starvation, mass shootings, train derailments.
“1 death is a tragedy. 1 million deaths is a… you know the thing.” -Josef Robinette Stalin
B-b-b-but, if we disallow this, how will our Boys In Blue dispense their righteous justice?Gavel bangs
9-0 decision
It must exhausting being a democrat. You have to pretend to care about police brutality to placate your voters, but then also give everything the cops want and then some because they’re the only ones protecting you from the dirty poles.
Well obviously they cant take guns away from domestic abusers or 2/3 of all the police would be disarmed.
Idk why they write it as "accused of domestic abuse" when its apparently about being subject to a restraining/protective order.
when gun crime rates go up next year because of this, chuds will blame "the left" for legalizing crime or whatever
The ghouls would think differently if more guys said “I want to do violence to my spouse and murder the ugliest Supreme Court Justice”
nordic human sacrifice except its ugly people who get to be justices for a week
How is this different than the courts extant ability to remove gun rights from anyone accused of a violent crime?
E: I did some reading and there’s a federal law that says anyone under a restraining order from a partner can’t own guns. This guy rahimi had a restraining order and told the cops he had some guns while it was in effect. They charged him under the law and it got appealed and his conviction overturned. Then the federal government appealed that appeal all the way up the chain to the Supreme Court. This case is not about what happened between the defendant and his ex, but the defendant and the us government. So it doesn’t matter that as part of a restraining order any judge could tack on loss of 2a, or that any judge could just issue a writ that does so for any reason. The question they’re looking at is if there ought to be a federal law that makes it automatic.
Tbh I personally don’t think it should be automatic.
Is this how we're disarming the police?
LMAO THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE LAW TO ALLOW THEM GUNS
Whom amongst haven’t beaten our partners because a teenager flipped us off while on patrol?
