On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case that could dramatically expand gun rights and have deadly consequences for victims of domestic violence. It’s the first major gun-rights case since the Court’s conservative supermajority broadened the scope of the Second Amendment last year, saying courts must use “the historical tradition” as the standard to evaluate whether gun regulations are unconstitutional. Rahimi will determine whether that decision invalidates a law banning people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from owning firearms.
Accused domestic abusers, which is why the topic is less cut and dry. Not advocating either way, just think it’s an important distinction that was left out of the title.
Yea, this is about so called “red-flag” laws, not about whether felons can own guns. In a justice system that believes in due-process the answer to “Can the government remove your rights before conviction.” is obviously “no” with narrow exceptions such as staying in jail before trial or whatever else.
I think it should be one of those exception types. If a court believes in good faith that the defendant is likely to commit violence with the weapon before or during the trial, they should be allowed to take it away until the trial is over, similar to a gag order.
I would agree, however if the potential criminal/felon is violent and a threat, then rather then turning this into a gun-rights case, the offender should be in jail until trial. If they can be trusted to operate in society without supervision, then they should have no issues with having guns (or any other weapons.)
A fair point.