The US supreme court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a case which gun and domestic violence prevention groups are warning could be a matter of life and death for thousands of abuse victims and their families.

Tuesday’s hearing on United States v Rahimi is seen as one of the most consequential cases with which the nine justices will grapple this term. At stake is how far the new hard-right supermajority of the court will go in unraveling the US’s already lax gun laws, even as the country reels from a spate of devastating mass shootings.

Also at stake, say experts, are the lives of thousands of Americans, overwhelmingly women, threatened with gun violence at the hands of their current or former intimate partners.

  • @BrotherL0v3
    link
    23
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are plenty of gun laws out there that a reasonable person could see merit in challenging: rules about short-barrel rifles / braces & pot smokers not being able to own guns probably aren’t saving any lives.

    The fact that this is the one they go after is just such a demonstration of malintent. There’s good evidence for a relationship between domestic violence and mass shooters.

    This should be a bi-partisan slam-dunk. Minimally invasive to law-abiding gun owners, gets guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. What public good is served in challenging it?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      Looks like another commenter mentioned how this hearing is about accused (not convicted) domestic abusers.

      He goes on to say how it’s way easier to get a restraining order against someone than it is to prosecute them. This hearing is about preventing the former from owning guns, the latter already isn’t allowed to.

    • bluGill
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      This is on law this is often used against law abiding gun owners. Their marriage is going south and suddenly they are hit by a restraining order. Some cases there is domestic violence going on, but others the spouse is just trying to make their ex’s life bad. Many gun owners have been hit with this and lot their ability to do the legal things they would do with guns even though they weren’t going to harm their ex.

      That isn’t to say that everyone hit by a restraining order won’t harm their ex. Only that there are a number of cases where there is no evidence of harm or harm planned but someone lost their guns. (Yes I’m aware that we only get one side of this story and don’t know the truth, but it happens enough that gun owners are worried it could happen to them)

      • themeatbridge
        link
        61 year ago

        Getting a domestic abuse restraining order requires a court hearing. Spouses “just trying to make their ex’s life bad” don’t have the ability to unilaterally take away their spouse’s firearms. For a fraction of accusations, maybe there is an unjustified restaining order issued, but there is still due process and reasonable expectations that the system will protrct more people than it harms.

        • bluGill
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          There is a court order, but that is very different from a full investigation. Often they hearing is fast and the accused isn’t even in court to defend himself. That is it is not in any way a fair or unbiased trial.

          • themeatbridge
            link
            21 year ago

            True, but the complainant still has to deonstrate a need for the order, and there is also an appeals process, and orders issued prior to a hearing are always going to be temporary. If there is nothing to the complaint, the order is lifted and the ex can get on with their life. A fraudulent complaint is a criminal offense. The temporary inconvenience of not being able to purchase a firearm or go within 300 feet of your ex is a minimal hardship when compared against the lives of victims of abuse. There’s no appeals process for being shot by your abuser.

      • @SheeEttin
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        Also guns are expensive, so it’s extra salt in the wound when you try to get them back and the cops say “oops we lost them” (i.e. they walked off into a buddy’s trunk), or even if you do get them back, they’ve been stored in poor conditions and are rusted or otherwise damaged.

        That said, they should still be removed if there is a credible threat of violence.

    • @FireTower
      link
      31 year ago

      The case is being run by a public defender this isn’t a legal activism play.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -41 year ago

      I’m not against disarming dangerous criminals or opposed to this at all but at the point we have identified that they are too dangerous to own a gun why not just imprison them while we’re at it? Taking their guns won’t stop them from victimizing people in other ways.

      • @pinkdrunkenelephants
        link
        -61 year ago

        Because they don’t care about the truth, they believe in gun bans based solely on their emotions. They’re only going to bring suffering upon themselves and those they love by refusing to examine their beliefs and check their emotions.

        Don’t sweat them too much. There’s ultimately nothing they could do to take anyone’s weapons away; any meaningful gun ban would trigger the right wing into violence and cause a civil war, and they know that.