Supreme Court upholds ban on domestic abusers owning guns
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- The Supreme Court has upheld a federal ban on domestic abusers owning guns. The decision on Friday stems from the case of United States v. Rahimi, which centers around a federal law that prohibits someone under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun.
The man at the center of the case, Zackey Rahimi, was involved in five shootings over two months while also the subject of a domestic violence restraining order.
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that "when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment."
Rahimi's defense team previously argued that banning him from having a gun was an infringement on his Second Amendment rights.
While police removed the firearm from his possession, a federal appeals court deemed this unconstitutional, writing, "Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment's guarantees."
-------------------------------------
Join our newsletter at bit.ly/2q1tepr
Follow us on Facebook: / scrippsnews
Follow us on Twitter: / scrippsnews
Follow us on Instagram: / scrippsnews
Follow us on TikTok: / scrippsnews
What do YOU think? www.scrippsnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-domestic-abusers-owning-guns
Amazing, SCOTUS gets 1 decision right.
Actually, no. The individual must have been determined BY
A JuDGE to be a violent and dangerous person.
Just in,3 dead 10 injured Ark. Did this rulling help any? Nope!!! Useless.
They really didn’t
Doesn't mean anything. You can still obtain a gun illegally
That would be another charge.
Got to draw the line somewhere.
True
They may as well take expungement laws out the state statute books then too. The says
Explain to me how a gun can pull its own trigger
What does that have to do with this case!?
@@Sarah-im3lp Nothing, Saarah. Like, less than nothing. In fact, if nothing was 0, it would be -5.
No one is going to fallow that.
They may as well just say no one but military and cops can use guns.
Draft your baby
So they can take your guns, but they can't stop you from owning an attachment?
Sticky topic...
So pleased! 😢😢😢
🎉🎉
Finally the Court makes the right decision on a 2A case! There a saying that goes, "The difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is a gun"!
Clearly, that guy wasn't going to follow any laws. Thanks to him, the rest of us are now more limited in our right to own them. If that is the right move, I disagree.
Recently SCOTUS passed military assault weapon (bum stock) that
shoots 100s bullets in minute can be sold.
That's crazy.
Yep, we have a rogue court! But what do you expect when Donald Trump gets to appoint three justices in one term!!
A bump stock isn't what you called it and doesn't do that, but you'd know that if you educated yourself instead of letting "journalists" propagandize you on every topic.
Thats not what they ruled but okay
@@thecontraguy5536 It is what they ruled! In effect, they legalized machine guns! But they're not "machine guns", because a different mechanism causes them to fire repeatedly, right!!??
@@Sarah-im3lpCorrect. A machine gun, as you put it, has internals that cause it to rapid fire. A bumb stock doesn't do that.
Thats every male in the country. 😂😂😂
What?
@@EnglishAbundance Go to the doctor. You are not well.😂😂😂
@@EnglishAbundance Abusive people can’t fathom every gun owner not beating their girlfriends.
Uhhhhh
8 - 1 ... Clarence Thomas
Yep, he's even worse than Alito, didn't think that was possible!!
One real American and eight traitors wearing robes.
@@nopenoperson9118Wrong.
@@nopenoperson9118 Cope harder.