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
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
How so?
https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/comment/4798739
For everyone else:
That’s giving me an API error. What’s the readers digest version?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Except it really isn’t, hence the entire issue.
Have you ever been in fear for your life and had to obtain a protective order? They are not easy to obtain.
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.
I see we’re intentionally disregarding the civil part being insufficient and the lack of proof being required along with the inconsistencies.
Want to take away someone’s rights? Provide proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of a crime.
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.