• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    So SCOTUS weaponized the justice system in favor of Hunter Biden is what I’m hearing the right should be saying here. Although I’m guessing that’s not what Fox will report this time.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    I don’t see how this ruling benefits Biden.

    The court ruled it’s OK to deny gun rights to domestic abusers.

    People really think they’ll deny abusers but allow crack addicts? 🤔

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 days ago

      Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized in his majority opinion that the justices were only greenlighting taking guns away from people who had first been deemed by a judge to pose a danger to others.

      Roberts bent over backward to stay silent on other scenarios not involving judicial findings of dangerousness.

      “[W]e reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not ‘responsible,’” Roberts wrote. “‘Responsible’ is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail.”

      They narrowly defined the situation where it’s ok to take someones gun rights away. It specifically only applies when a court decides the person is a danger to another. Someone being irresponsible (ie drug user), isn’t a good enough reason to take their right to have a gun.

      So on Hunter’s appeals they can point to that. And if the Supreme Court eventually hears the case, they set them selves up to confirm he should have been allowed a gun regardless of any drug use at the time.

      • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Would this ruling also apply to non-violent felons? A blanket gun ban due to having a felony looks unconstitutional. Why should someone convicted of fraud have their right to defend themselves taken? It also looks like an easy tool to use to disarm people the government don’t like.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          I would think so.
          It’s hard to say really, because they didn’t explicitly state “this is the only way to take someone’s gun”. But, it is a pretty straight forward interpretation of what they did say.

          So yah, I would guess that they’d let Trump keep his gun also. [At the risk of reading into your question a bit.]

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      6 days ago

      Did you read the part of the article where they say gun exclusions might only hold up where there is a threat of violence?

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        6 days ago

        The reason he bought a gun was because a drug dealer pointed one at him, continuing to engage with dealers, while armed, is a risk of violence.

        This is why we don’t allow addicts to have guns.

        • Omega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          6 days ago

          Threat of violence and in response to a risk of violence are potentially two different things.

          Also, I’m not pro guns. But buying a gun for protection is a huge reason why people support gun ownership.

          • magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            To add on to this, it wouldn’t be nearly as violent a trade as it is if we had some sane drug laws.

            I’m not saying we should just sell crack at Walmart. However, if you give already existing addicts a prescription to a clean, state provided supply they’ll have no reason to go to dealers.

            The illicit drug trade will fucking collapse. There’s no way you can sustain that business without addicts.

            • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              I’m not saying we should just sell crack at Walmart. However, if you give already existing addicts a prescription to a clean, state provided supply they’ll have no reason to go to dealers.

              Agreed.