WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

529

On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected the constitutional challenge to a federal law banning gun possession by a citizen who has a domestic violence restraining order. The vote on case United States vs. Rahimi was 8-1, only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

You can read the decision here.(supremecourt.gov)

The problem with this case and decision, says firearms civil rights activists, is that these restraining orders are subject to abuse and a major prejudice by judges to issue them with very low evidentiary standards.

The mainstream media and the gun-grabbing groups were busy celebrating another court decision in favor of restricting gun rights. As CNN reported, Joe Biden celebrated the anti-gun decision, saying through a prepared statement “As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades.” . .

Archive(archive.today)

>On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected the constitutional challenge to a federal law banning gun possession by a citizen who has a domestic violence restraining order. The vote on case United States vs. Rahimi was 8-1, only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. >[You can read the decision here.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf) >The problem with this case and decision, says firearms civil rights activists, is that these restraining orders are subject to abuse and a major prejudice by judges to issue them with very low evidentiary standards. >The mainstream media and the gun-grabbing groups were busy celebrating another court decision in favor of restricting gun rights. As CNN reported, Joe Biden celebrated the anti-gun decision, saying through a prepared statement “As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades.” . . [Archive](https://archive.today/sNRAJ)

(post is archived)

[–] 3 pts 8mo (edited 8mo)

This will NEVER be abused /s This will be back in court in a week.

If nothing else, I could see bringing up civil charges against any "accuser". This will not help anyone. If the person being accused is that much of a danger they probably have enough on them that they should be in jail anyway and it would not matter if they owned a gun.

Will they then make it illegal for them to own a knife of any kind? A taser? Pepper spray? A baseball bat? A motivated criminal is going to commit the crime they want to commit unless you take them out of society first.

[–] 3 pts 8mo

Accused

This is going to be abused. We've all seen how just the accusation is enough to put full effectiveness of the law, because guilty until proven innocent.

[–] 1 pt 8mo

Only if you have a Trump sticker on your car or a Red hat.

If you are on the Blue team, it's just like having diplomatic immunity.

[–] 1 pt 8mo

Yeah, and I'm sure the accused seldom, if ever, offer to suck the judges dick...

[–] 2 pts 8mo

I guess SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED wasn't clear enough.

[–] 1 pt 8mo

It's crystal clear but when you absolutely refuse to use the second or even talk about what is for the game is lost before it's begun.