this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
108 points (85.1% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4706 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

For everyone else:

Yea the thing this article puts in the fine print is he has not been convicted of any crimes, he has not had his bail revoked by the judge, and none of the alleged crimes were fellonius. If any of these three conditions had been met, he would not have his weapons. The case was not struck down due to a 2A violation, it was struck down because it’s unconstitutional under the due process clause, and pretty black and white at that. If he endangered the public after his arraignment the judge should have revoked his bail.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's giving me an API error. What's the readers digest version?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you want someone to lose rights, convict them of a felony or revoke their bail as a danger to society. Neither of these things were done in this case, so this isnt' a 2A case, it's a due process case.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The way I see it is that no one is being deprived of due process. If your guns were removed you will still have your day in court. Timing is incredibly critical on situations like theses. I value someone's right to live over someone else's right to possess guns. Specially since they can petition a court to review their case and if it doesn't meet the standard establishmented by law then the guns can be returned with no permanent damage done to the gun holder. To me the due process argument is a wrapper for a 2a argument.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Specially since they can petition a court to review their case

You do understand you're putting the burden on the person whose rights are being restricted without them having "had their day", right? That's... kind of the whole problem.

If we had some sort of standard for ample evidence etc. for such civil matters I might be more inclined to agree, but restraining orders can be laughably easy to obtain in places.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you get caught drunk driving your license is revoked before your day in court. There are many instances of society restricting rights before your day in court. Perhaps no one should ever be in jail by your logic before being convicted.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As the other person highlighted that is a restriction on a thing which is quite the opposite of a constitutionally-protected right.

You might want to brush up on the difference between the two subjects.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

So your saying that freedom from detention is not constitutionally protected? I am getting a little sick of these constitutional revisionist and 2nd amendment nutters.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They don't have to petition. POs have hearings. That IS due process.

Want to keep your guns? Stop being a dick and present as someone with the self-control that society has decided is required to own one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They don’t have to petition. POs have hearings. That IS due process.

I see we're intentionally disregarding the civil part being insufficient and the lack of proof being required along with the inconsistencies.

Want to keep your guns? Stop being a dick and present as someone with the self-control that society has decided is required to own one.

Want to take away someone's rights? Provide proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of a crime.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The right to bear arms is a conditional right. One of those conditions is being someone who is capable of responsible ownership. Threatening the safety of another person is a lack of that trait.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of those conditions is being someone who is capable of responsible ownership.

Point to the portion of the 2nd amendment that spells this out.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

It doesn't have to be in the 2nd amendment to be law.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of those conditions is being someone who is capable of responsible ownership.

Oh? Was that from the Lost Chapter of the Bill of Rights?

Threatening the safety of another person is a lack of that trait.

Then a person should have no difficulty with the assault and/or battery conviction or the significant evidence in support of an ERPO and proving it, justifying the infringement on a right.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's hard to prove that when you're dead.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Ah, falling back on the "dEaD cHiLdReN" parallel - neat.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes I completely understand that. I think the prophylactic benefit outweighs the inconvenience. Due process is there when the order is originally given and there is a method of redress.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the prophylactic benefit outweighs the inconvenience.

Due to the sheer extent to which this is currently open for abuse (e.g. see prior link), I entirely disagree.

This is a problem common to ERPOs and is part of why they're so strongly resisted - tranpling a person's rights requires extreme diligence and emphasis on restoration of those rights. Putting the burden on the individual whose rights have been wrongfully infringed upon to regain their rights through procedural bullshit is a complete inversion of burden of proof, is a vector for harassment and abuse itself, and approaches enabling bans by incremental erosion of rights.

If there was conclusive data to indicate such measures would impact domestic violence - not just that by firearm - you would at least be able to try and justify making such a change. As it stands, we have only myriad correlations with minimal control for other factors and even then, there's not much to be shown for domestic violence, categorical improvement - just a shift in implement.

With that justification in place, you're still obligated to cover the road to restoration of rights in order to ensure anyone wrongfully impacted is made whole with no burden on their part.

If you want to argue for some Trumpian "take the firearms first" nonsense, don't be surprised when such measures are so strongly criticized and pushed back upon.

Due process is there when the order is originally given and there is a method of redress.

Except it really isn't, hence the entire issue.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you ever been in fear for your life and had to obtain a protective order? They are not easy to obtain.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Except where they were as shown by reference.