Decision just handed down ...... Supreme Court upholds ban on domestic violence offenders owning guns.
I agree with this decision based on the time limiting factor however certain common sense should also apply.
Rahimi argued that the federal government was violating his Second Amendment rights by refusing to allow him to have a firearm. But in oral arguments last year, the Biden administration argued that the 1994 restriction at the center of the case — which bans firearms for people under restraining orders to stay away from their spouses or partners — was consistent with the longstanding practice of disarming dangerous people.
"When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect," Roberts wrote in his ruling. "Since the founding, our Nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms."
"Taken together, the surety and going armed laws confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed," he added.
At the arguments last year, some justices voiced concern that a ruling for Rahimi could also jeopardize the background check system that the Biden administration said has stopped more than 75,000 gun sales in the past 25 years based on domestic violence protective orders.
Therefore background checks should not be limited.
I agree with this decision based on the time limiting factor however certain common sense should also apply.
Rahimi argued that the federal government was violating his Second Amendment rights by refusing to allow him to have a firearm. But in oral arguments last year, the Biden administration argued that the 1994 restriction at the center of the case — which bans firearms for people under restraining orders to stay away from their spouses or partners — was consistent with the longstanding practice of disarming dangerous people.
"When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect," Roberts wrote in his ruling. "Since the founding, our Nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms."
"Taken together, the surety and going armed laws confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed," he added.
At the arguments last year, some justices voiced concern that a ruling for Rahimi could also jeopardize the background check system that the Biden administration said has stopped more than 75,000 gun sales in the past 25 years based on domestic violence protective orders.
Therefore background checks should not be limited.
1
