Finally, in a first for this court, gunners lose one

[Speedy]

Supreme Court upholds law banning domestic abusers from owning guns

https://www.aol.com/supreme-court-uphold...26569.html

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a law banning domestic abusers from owning guns, showing that a conservative court that has expanded gun rights also sees areas for limitations.

"Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 8-1 majority.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said there isn't a "single historical regulation" that justifies the ban.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority but quibbled with analyzing statutes based on how they would have been viewed historically. She said a historical perspective on the Second Amendment would depend on the historians who are consulted.

“Who is protected by the Second Amendment, from a historical perspective?” Jackson wrote “I could go on - as others have. But I won’t.”

[Lemon Drop]

A glimmer of common sense.

[SDGuy]

For those interested, here is the link to the actual (103-page) ruling.

[SteveG]

won't even slow down the gunners with 'disputes'.

400 million guns are out there

[pdq]

Calvinball.

Can’t have interest balancing. Unless we want to.

Has to have a long historical tradition. Unless we decide it doesn’t.

I agree with the decision; it’s an entirely reasonable limitation. But this bunch has already tossed other entirely reasonable 2A limitations.

It’s hard to see this as anything other than just making it up as they go. The conservative wing, in particular, throws stare decisis out the window at their whim.

How are they going to rule on the next case? I dunno - what day is it?

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
Calvinball.

Can’t have interest balancing. Unless we want to...

Methinks someone did not read the actual ruling (particularly pages 11-13)

[Lemon Drop]

Maybe what kicked in here is an understanding that when women are homicide victims, the perpetrator is very often an armed current or former intimate partner.

And these types of violent men don't reform easily or often.

This Court has been remarkably unkind to women up to today, so as a reversal it is good to see.

[Speedy]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=pdq]
Calvinball.

Can’t have interest balancing. Unless we want to...

Methinks someone did not read the actual ruling (particularly pages 11-13)
And I won’t as this court disgusts me too much tying themselves into pretzels even when the ruling is favorable.

[pdq]

Yeah, I leave the details to the experts (like SDGuy). Summarizes Slate:

Its 8–1 ruling in U.S. v. Rahimi is a major victory for gun safety laws, a much-needed reprieve after two years of unceasing hostility from the federal judiciary. Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion walked back maximalist rhetoric—recklessly injected into the law by Justice Clarence Thomas—that had imperiled virtually every modern regulation limiting access to firearms.

...Rahimi was indicted under a federal law that bars individuals from possessing firearms while subject to a restraining order for domestic violence. He argued that this statute violated his Second Amendment rights, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed...[based on Bruen]. Thomas’ opinion in Bruen, though, went much further... declaring that all restrictions on the right to bear arms are presumptively unconstitutional unless they have a sufficient set of “historical analogues” from the distant past.

[Bruen's] approach posed two fundamental problems, which the lower courts quickly encountered... First, judges are not historians... and second, modern problems require modern solutions...Rahimi is Exhibit A: Men were generally permitted to abuse their wives in the 18th and 19th centuries...Countless other examples have arisen in the lower courts since Bruen, with judges creating new rights to scratch the serial number off guns and own firearms while using illegal substances.

Roberts attempted to put a stop to this chaos on Friday. His Rahimi opinion cut back Bruen at every turn.

Inasmuch as they have recognized what a mess Bruen is (and, the article suggests, may soon simply overturn it), this is a breath of fresh legal air and reason (unlike Bruen and Heller].

But that's today. Who knows what the conservative wing will decide tomorrow?

[$tevie]