this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
484 points (99.2% liked)

News

23618 readers
3881 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The case will test how far the court's conservative majority is willing to go in interpreting the scope of its 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights outside the home.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would uphold a federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms, potentially limiting the scope of its own major gun rights ruling from last year.

The case gives the court's 6-3 conservative majority a chance to consider the broad ramifications of the 2022 decision, which for the first time found that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shalafi 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Say what you mean out loud for those in the back:

"It's better to preemptively take judicial action against people accused of $whatever."

Or, more to the point:

"I've never been falsely accused of anything, and that'll probably never happen to me. So fuck anyone else that happens to."

wrongfully deprived of their guns for a period of time

If that were the only way such a ruling would play out, even that part isn't so easy. A SWAT team could roll on me this very second, raid my house and burn it down. Think they got all my guns? BRB.

Speaking of calling the cops in... I thought we liberals had mostly agreed that calling the cops on someone could well be a death sentence? So now we good on forcibly disarming folks on an accusation?

Y'all's hate for guns and abusers is blinding you to the far-reaching precedent we might be setting here. This is truly a tough one with no easy answers.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I would fight so that one doesn't arbitrarily lose access to housing, food, or a drivers license, because wrongfully taking those away are life ruining. But what difference would it make to be temporarily deprived of guns? What the hell are you using it for that you can’t be parted from your guns for even a short time as a life saving precaution?

Meanwhile, demanding a high standard of evidence for threat of spousal abuse means people die. That’s an insane trade off.

[–] shalafi 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Y'all are focused on 2A rights and the gun issue. This sort of thing sets a precedent for taking other rights.

FFS, can no one see past the issue at hand and see how badly this precedent can be abused?!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

It's not even a 2nd ammendment case, it's a 5th ammendment issue, which most people arr completely ignoring.