On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case that could dramatically expand gun rights and have deadly consequences for victims of domestic violence. It’s the first major gun-rights case since the Court’s conservative supermajority broadened the scope of the Second Amendment last year, saying courts must use “the historical tradition” as the standard to evaluate whether gun regulations are unconstitutional. Rahimi will determine whether that decision invalidates a law banning people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from owning firearms.
Spoiler alert: yes. Guns vs women, why even the trial? /s
Accused domestic abusers, which is why the topic is less cut and dry. Not advocating either way, just think it’s an important distinction that was left out of the title.
Yea, this is about so called “red-flag” laws, not about whether felons can own guns. In a justice system that believes in due-process the answer to “Can the government remove your rights before conviction.” is obviously “no” with narrow exceptions such as staying in jail before trial or whatever else.
generally they dont need firearms to, you know, be abusers…
