Another blow to the fake narrative about gun rights

[West]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-federal-gun-ban-those-under-domestic-violence-restraining-orders

Turns out you cannot own a firearm in the US if there's grounds to believe you committed Domestic Violance related offense. 

Lets see how the left weaponizes this ruling though

[robosmith]

44 minutes ago, West said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-federal-gun-ban-those-under-domestic-violence-restraining-orders

Turns out you cannot own a firearm in the US if there's grounds to believe you committed Domestic Violance related offense. 

Lets see how the left weaponizes this ruling though

Not JUST GROUNDS, a RESTRAINING ORDER IN PLACE. Duh

 Being wrong is what comes from believing FOS LIES. LMAO

[West]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Not JUST GROUNDS, a RESTRAINING ORDER IN PLACE. Duh

 Being wrong is what comes from believing FOS LIES. LMAO

So you were wrong about the Supreme Court. Care to admit that you are clueless?

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, West said:

So you were wrong about the Supreme Court. Care to admit that you are clueless?

No. He won't do that.

Honestly, I would prefer the SCOTUS had set the bar a little higher than a restraining order. I am glad that a restraining order has some level of evidence that must be presented to remove the owner's rights.

However, I would prefer that the defendant have an opportunity to defend against the claims. A lot of restraining orders are based on testimony and few allow the person in question to speak on their behalf. I would prefer a trial or, at the very least, a hearing to determine the necessity of removing rights.

That said, I know there are a lot of people that have been harmed after a restraining order is issued. Still, that doesn't justify removing an ondovidual's rights. Stats could say 100% of people with this trait will commit that crime and it still wouldn't justify arresting everyone with the trait. Punishment should be for real actions and proven in a court.

[West]

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. He won't do that.

Honestly, I would prefer the SCOTUS had set the bar a little higher than a restraining order. I am glad that a restraining order has some level of evidence that must be presented to remove the owner's rights.

However, I would prefer that the defendant have an opportunity to defend against the claims. A lot of restraining orders are based on testimony and few allow the person in question to speak on their behalf. I would prefer a trial or, at the very least, a hearing to determine the necessity of removing rights.

That said, I know there are a lot of people that have been harmed after a restraining order is issued. Still, that doesn't justify removing an ondovidual's rights. Stats could say 100% of people with this trait will commit that crime and it still wouldn't justify arresting everyone with the trait. Punishment should be for real actions and proven in a court.

This is true. I fear this ruling will lead to many untrue claims just to jam up the system. 

Though in theory I dont disagree with keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people

[Rebound]

7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. He won't do that.

Honestly, I would prefer the SCOTUS had set the bar a little higher than a restraining order. I am glad that a restraining order has some level of evidence that must be presented to remove the owner's rights.

However, I would prefer that the defendant have an opportunity to defend against the claims. A lot of restraining orders are based on testimony and few allow the person in question to speak on their behalf. I would prefer a trial or, at the very least, a hearing to determine the necessity of removing rights.

That said, I know there are a lot of people that have been harmed after a restraining order is issued. Still, that doesn't justify removing an ondovidual's rights. Stats could say 100% of people with this trait will commit that crime and it still wouldn't justify arresting everyone with the trait. Punishment should be for real actions and proven in a court.

You do have the right to a hearing in a restraining order case.it is not a jury trial, but the plaintiff has to prove to the court that the order is justified, and the defendant can rebut the evidence.  

[gatomontes99]

6 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You do have the right to a hearing in a restraining order case.it is not a jury trial, but the plaintiff has to prove to the court that the order is justified, and the defendant can rebut the evidence.  

That is not always true:

https://legal-info.lawyers.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/restraining-orders.html

"In federal courts, the object of the order (the person subject to the order) is not necessarily entitled to notice of the application; in state courts, notice is typically required, though the time period may be quite short and might not apply in a domestic violence situation."