comment: >
  
  Maybe take away rights when they’re convicted, but before it gets settled I don’t feel like it should be taken away on what’s basically hearsay
context: From the article: "...possessing guns found in his Kennedale, Texas, home after prosecutors said he participated in five shootings in Dec. 2020 and Jan. 2021.
  Rahimi had been under a restraining order since Feb. 2020, following his alleged assault of a former girlfriend."
  So first he got the restraining order (2/2020) that banned him from owning guns, then less than a year later he goes and commits 5 shootings (12/2020, 1/2021).  
  And the judge didn't see a problem here? >
  
  It's the 5th Circuit. They're the most unhinged judges the country has to offer. They're too crazy to ever make it to SCOTUS and are there as an inspiration to Republicans on just how pro corporation they can be, and a warning to the rest of us of what happens when Republicans see in charge. >
  
  Oh I think anyone is too crazy to make it to SCOTUS anymore... >
  
  The 5^th circuit has actually had cases denied by the current Supreme Court. The 5^th circuit is actually just that bad. >
  
  One of my besties had an abusive husband. When she left him he enconced himself in the garage with a gun and waited for her to come pick up her stuff. She was on to him and didn't. He killed himself. Thank God. >
  
  Sounds like he was going to murder-suicide. Glad your friend avoided the situation. >
  
  The most dangerous times in a woman's life are 1. When she's pregnant and 2. When she tries to leave an abusive partner. Ladies, if you're planning to leave do not tell him. Plan in secret and leave when he's not home. If you have to go back for something, have a police escort. >
  
  And seek help.  
  I aided and abetted an escape plan for a coworker once.  Drove her across state lines myself. >
  
  You saved your coworker's life. Abetted sounds like smuggling; you singlehandedly escorted a woman to safety. That is by far the noblest thing ever. >
  
  
  Abetted sounds like smuggling;
  
  If I’m honest, I didn’t ask a lot of questions, like “Did you drain the joint account in order to finance your escape?”  Or “Is that car registration in your name?”
  The car was a whole ordeal, he had told her that he “had a way” to track her car.  So that’s why I drove her out of state.  And my husband actually drove her car around for about a week, just to see if the husband came looking for it.  When he didn’t, we delivered the car to her.  
  So there may have been an element of abetting.  But it was the right thing to do and I’d do it again. >
  
  This is seriously good human shit right here >
  
  I know what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you just ate someone's poop and liked it >
  
  Well was it vanilla pudding or cuttlefish and asparagus? >
  
  Chipotle in, Chipotle out. >
  
  This sucks. My cousin had a restraining order against her ex.  He shot her over 32 times before the guy turned the gun on himself. >
  
  Just in general, it’s fucked the way restraining orders work… they basically put all of the onus of actually enforcing it on the person that requested it. We have GPS technology, why aren’t we doing stuff like constant monitoring with a GPS geofence, so if they start going in that direction it flags them, and if they cross the boundary the police are notified immediately. Why don’t we make stalkers be the ones that have to move to a different state? Why don’t we toss people into jail and throw away the key the moment they think about violating a restraining order? It’s fucking insane, I’m so sorry that you had to experience that… >
  
  Restraining Orders in general need to be completely reworked. I've seen too many times orders taken out for tit-for-tat and the judges still grant them. Then, they'll drop them, another few weeks in, here comes another one, then dropped again; the cycle continues. Then youll get people who actually need them and don't get them granted.  The system is broken and needs a major rehaul. >
  
  “A ten-city study found 1/5 of homicide victims with temporary protective orders were murdered within two days of obtaining the order; 1/3 were murdered within the first month.” - NCADV
  This will only increase 😔 I hate it here >
  
  Yup. Prior DV is one of the biggest links to mass shootings, and it tracks, because DV indicates poor coping skills and a lack of self moderation. >
  
  
  because DV indicates poor coping skills
  
  I read that as "poor cop'ing skills" and yet it still made sense. >
  
  Some studies put DV in law enforcement families at 40%, so, yes. >
  
  Let's be clear; DV by cops specifically, not just in cop families, and 40% is a self reported number, which means the actual number of cops committing DV is likely much higher. >
  
  as the child of a cop i would bet it’s a LOT higher than that >
  
  I’m not from the US, but I can say this. My moms cousin was married to a violent man. He was arrested at one point for domestic violence and police took away his guns. They returned them shortly after. Cousin left him in the interim, after he got the guns back, he returned to his former home and shot and killed moms cousin and then himself…in front of her father.  Allowing domestic abusers to maintain their access to guns is not a good idea. >
  
  Sure but what if its that very domestic abuser that is the guy that single-handedly overthrows the tyrannical government that he has heroic daydreams about toppling even though in reality hes the kind of asshole that enthusiastically votes for the tyrannical government in the first place?   /s >
  
  I used to think that pro-gun people and the politicians they vote for were all about guns as a hedge to against potential tyranny or something else that would do harm.  And I still think there's some merit to the concept ("Under no pretext" and all that) but as far as a lot of them go, anymore I think they just have fantasies of shooting an outgroup, and the politicians just want their jackbooted thugs to work for free. >
  
  The ones who want guns without any sort of accountability, oversight, or responsibility definitely are. >
  
  ...which is a significant fraction. In the last few years, several states (including my own) have removed the permitting process for carrying firearms in public (see: "constitutional carry"). While the NRA may promote safe practices and pay lip service to gun safety, they oppose and lobby against virtually any and all restrictions aimed at public safety. They're bad actors operating in bad faith that have weaponized their membership to be political and policy saboteurs. >
  
  Calling it "constitution carry" is just the dumbest thing since historically this was not actually allowed and the constitution was not interpreted in such a fashion. (Especially since wherever you fall on the militia debate regarding the 2nd Amendment, carrying a gun for personal self defense is beyond the scope of militia activity.) >
  
  Historically, permits didn't enter the scene until decades after ratification, and were used to explicitly prevent freed slavesand other "undesireables" from owning and carrying guns. >
  
  Domestic violence history is a common denominator with mass shooters, restricting their ability to own firearms would be a great step at trying to prevent future shootings >
  
  Lot of women are going to die from this decision. >
  
  Lots of kids, too. Usually at the same time. >
  
  Yeah, but they’re already born, so they don’t matter either. >
  
  To paraphrase George Carlin:
  When it comes to conservatives, if you're pre-born, you're golden; if you're preschool, you're fucked. >
  
  He said this like 20 years before Sandy Hook. >
  
  Man saw just how awful things were well before it became painfully obvious to most... though somehow, there are still those who are ignorant, both wilfully and not. >
  
  One time on an askreddit thread someone asked "who from history would you want to bring back?" and someone said Carlin so he could write a show about all this bullshit, and all I thought was no man, he'd be so pissed. Firstly, for the disturbance. He was taking his final rest. He was resting.  Secondly, all this bullshit. He doesn't wanna see this. Doesn't wanna know about it, he had his run and he is done and none of this bullshit is his fault. I think he'd tell the person to fuck right off and then he'd jump out a window with his fingers crossed that he lands on someone when he hits the ground. >
  
  I could not agree more with your last sentence. Huge huge Carlin fan (my Dad and I used to watch his HBO specials together) and I got to see hum live once near the end of his career. That sounds exactly like something he would have said. >
  
  It's funny they don't allow guns in their courtrooms, though. >
  
  Why are the courts violating the constitution?!?!?!?! >
  
  Did the court just say the there is no ‘government interest’ in protecting women and children? Did I read that right? >
  
  no. they said there is an important government interest which is why they originally ruled the other way. But in light of the SC's recent gun ruling, the new precedent is it need to be both that AND "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" which they say this law isn't >
  
  repeal the 2nd >
  
  If nothing else... The right is certainly making it clear that that is the only possible way forward...
  That's such a monumental task though.. on the bright side, there's a good chance that if we ever get close we can get abortion rights codified in a way that makes the 2nd look like a little bitch. >
  
  Codifying reproductive rights just means passing laws. Way way easier than amending the Bill of Rights. >
  
  Abortion needs a clear amendment as well or you will continue to have patchwork availability in the states. >
  
  That is so freaking depressing. That poor woman and your poor friend and his siblings. Just evil. >
  
  My cousin-in-law (cousin's wife) witnessed her mother be murdered by her father when she was like 8-9.  He was apparently an abusive piece of shit her entire life and one day it came to a head.  Held the gun to her and her sister's head in front of their mom, then killed the mom and then killed himself. Yeah.
  She's 30 now and sister is 26-27.  It's astonishing they are as well adjusted as they are after going through something like that. >
  
  
  saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," and not simply advance an important government interest.
  
  I suppose that if everything is viewed through the lens of historical tradition, Civil Right’s would be an outlier. As such Blacks and others would be denied gun right’s. We’ve historically spent more years restricting peoples rights than enabling them. Also if advance an important government interest is the limit than preventing Spousal abuse is a recent government issue and again historically should be denied. >
  
  I as a woman, would highly appreciate if we don’t start adhering to a historical lens to set modern day norms….just sayin >
  
  They mean what they say. They want land owning whites to vote and everyone be thankful we're allowed to work for them and live here.
  There is no bottom, never think they will stop or change. They always vote and never give ground. Liberals/Independents/non-voters fucking blew it post 9/11 and the lies about Iraq. While everyone was crying about votes not counting because of  "both sides!" and Obama not being as effective as wanted, Republicans captured the SC and put in genuine old-fashioned religious people.
  The same people who said Roe was safe are the same people saying everything else is safe. It's lies to shush people until the next power grab.
  Fascism/Authoritarianism is a personality type in humanity, it never ends or plays nice. >
  
  We are fucked.....its too late. I just hope other countries will be willing to accept those who have the means to GTFO. >
  
  This is a terrible idea. How many fucking times has a person charged with domestic violence gone back and either did it again or murdered his victim? We see it in the news all the time. This just doesn't make any sense. >
  
  My sisters abusive boyfriend hid things and lied when we were packing her stuff. I knew what he was doing. We had come in a group to pack her things for her safety. Sure enough the things he claimed were his were suddenly things she forgot and needed to come back to get alone. She did not. 
  This idiot later had his best friend try to ask me out for drinks. I didn’t know this guy. It didn’t look sus at all that he suddenly needed to take me out and swore up and down he wasn’t friends with Nick Morin anymore.  Lord knows what they were planning.  I should have sprung a trap of my own. I hope karma got them both. >
  
  There is no bottom, is there? >
  
  No. 
  They love their guns and their false religiosity and they're dead set on including us in their suicide pact. 
  The best we can do is avoid this madness till it takes its toll. I have ghosted a couple acquaintances once I learned they had gun fetishes. I'm seriously tempted to do the same to my sister. >
  
  That was probably the original intent. About 40% of NT scholars seem to agree with Albert Schweitzer that the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who thought YHWH would intervene to expel the Romans from Judea and Galilee in his generation.
  There was a lot of adjustment and conciliation when that didn't happen. But the death cult signature is still visible when one surveys evangelicals about the appropriate response to the climate crisis. Like a lot of past loons, they think they'll be ratured, and only those who don't embrace their views will suffer. They don't know that atmospheric physics and agricultural yield trump any relgiousity. Their grandchildren and maybe children will be in the same basket as the rest of us, bidding for calories when the breadbaskets are barren. >
  
  Not far off conversations I had with family members in the last 10 years of so. I was talking to one about stuff NASA and SpaceX was doing and about manned missions to Mars. I was told that was a pointless waste of time and money cause humans are not leaving earth. Why? Cause of the rapture. Just this mindset of there is no reason to try and improve our species or our planet cause, I guess god won't let it happen? 
  I am just really tired of dealing with this stuff at this point. >
  
  Is there absolutely no, zero, humanity left anywhere in the US ruling institutions? >
  
  Why would anyone think this is a good idea? Who does that benefit?? >
  
  Gun stores and manufacturers. They want crazy deranged dangerous people buying guns so that then the people those crazy deranged people threaten will also feel the need to buy guns. >
  
  I'm not understanding this part here:
  ​
  
  The court threw out the guilty plea and six-year prison sentence for Zackey Rahimi, who admitted to possessing guns found in his Kennedale, Texas, home after prosecutors said he participated in five shootings in Dec. 2020 and Jan. 2021.
  
  Rahimi had been under a restraining order since Feb. 2020, following his alleged assault of a former girlfriend.
  ​
  Someone admits to participating in five shootings and the only thing you can convict him of is violation of a restraining order?  Seems to me that the problem isn't with the law.  It is with the prosecutors. >
  
  One of the most common homocide scenarios is the ex- usually a man, who shoots the woman who rejected him / broke up with him / divorced him. This is definitely an awful decision based on as asinine a legal theory as there is. >
  
  r/whenwomenrefuse >
  
  Damn it. I was hoping this wasn't a real sub. Somehow, I knew it would be, just by the name. >
  
  Can we have SOME personal responsibility. And I mean BEFORE someone gets hurt and a trial starts. Jesus Christ >
  
  Wow is that a bad idea >
  
  I remember people saying in 2016 "how bad could Trump be?" The judge who made the ruling, Trump appointed. The judge just overturned a 6 year sentence for someone involved in 5 shootings. How bad could he be, this seems pretty bad. >
  
  Yeah, and this is just one terrible judge among many and one more terrible decision with more to come. I guess politicians are not “basically all the same” >
  
  "The 5th Circuit is based in New Orleans, and its decision applies in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi."
  WTF is wrong with red states. >
  
  Trump appointed five judges to Obama's two.  According to the court's bios, nineteen of the judges were appointed by Republican Presidents (stretching back to Gerald Ford), while the other seven were appointed by Democrat Presidents (stretching back to Jimmy Carter).  The court was already heavily packed by Republicans stemming from the Reagan/HW Bush years, and the small shift made by Clinton was overridden by George W Bush.  Obama should have had a couple additional appointments (seats were vacated in 2012 and 2013), but Republicans refused to hear any candidates until they regained control of the executive branch.
  It's not just a red state issue.  These types of regressive decisions are going to take place in federal courts across the country.  Conservatives have executed a nearly absolute stranglehold on the appointments of federal judges, and it would take years of Democrat control in the Senate and executive branch to balance things out. >
  
  this is roughly like "people who torture small animals & keep a journal of all the people who've wronged them can own scary masks and butcher knives" 
  it's not only going to end badly, it seems designed to >
  
  I'm sure no women will suffer at all because of this...
  America, you need an intervention. >
  
  Not just women; there is a high correlation between mass shooters and a previous history of DV.  In many cases, a mass shooter's first targets are family members.  This is bad news for everyone. >
  
  How many school shooting stories start with "he shot his mother, at the family home, before driving to the school"? A lot >
  
  As someone from the UK, the simple fact that you can start any question with "how many school shootings..." And have the answer be anything beyond "zero" is depressing, horrifying, and quite frankly stomach turning. >
  
  So much for saying its a mental health problem.  Theyre arming the whole fucking asylum. >
  
  So once again guns have more rights than some people! >
  
  Let me guess, people who make threats against judges and politicians are not allowed to have guns.  Because… common sense, but only if it protects themselves. >
  
  If they are charged and convicted of a felony, correct, however, if it's a misdemeanor and doesn't involve a domestic partner, then yes, they are allowed to have guns.  
  ​
  The 9 prohibited persons are as follows:
  Convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  Who is a fugitive from justice;
  Who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
  Who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;  
  Who is an illegal alien;
  Who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  Who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;  
  Who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
  Who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.  
  This issue has to do with the second to last one, in bold, and is hopefully overturned based not on text, history, and tradition of the 2nd amendment, but more to do with punishments for criminals. It may be hard under those grounds due to a nonfiction being a big part of removing rights and depending on the type of restraining order, may not qualify, which is more of an argument for making better laws around protective orders. >
  
  DV is like the number 1 indicator for mass shooters. If this shit was actually taken seriously the number of mass shootings would drop without any new gun laws. Banning them from owning guns is such an easy win because it's not only effective, but it's also something pro gun people can get behind >
  
  So here is one. 
  In 2007, right before Christmas. I ran into a old colleague while on a site in California. George was from Florida and had that warm central Florida accent and smile that always took me a while to fully comprehend him. But he was a patient and always a friendly guy. 
  Hadn't seen George in over 6 years. And there was a lot to catch up to. But while on site he was professional and we both concentrated on the work at hand. After the third day, things were nearly finished. He told me that it was great to work with me again after these years. And he hinted as some issues he was having with his long time girlfriend of 8+ years. 
  Something along the line of things he needs to clear up with his girlfriend when returning home. And hoping to come back to CA to catch up again soon after. Last thing I told him that it was great to see him, and whatever is waiting for him at home. He'll get through it, there are always other fish in the ocean. 
  Less than 2 weeks later George turned his hand gun on his girlfriend in front of her 16 year old daughter. Shot her point blank and then took the gun to his head and ended the story. 
  Except, there was more to it. 
  His girlfriend was breaking him with George, and after 8+ years together. Things were "delicate", and she feared the worst.  So proactively, she had the hand gun he owned removed from the household. George reported the gun stolen to the local police and right after leaving the station walked right into a gun store and got himself a replacement. 
  This woman clearly had reasons to fear George and the ease of access to a gun. She tried within her own limited capacity to have the weapon removed. And allow things to settle as they went their separate ways. But there is no mechanism in Florida to protect a woman who feels threatened. All they can do is discard the firearm and pray that the man can keep it together long enough to ensure a safe departure. 
  We demand freedom of Gun ownership. How about we also support those who feel threatened by them. Yes, there will be that vengeful bitch who will have a temporary order to remove the firearms to piss you off. But you know what, a cool down period for all, is never a bad thing. >
  
  
  she had the hand gun he owned removed from the household.
  right after leaving the station walked right into a gun store and got himself a replacement.
  
  In the 90's Florida enacted a mandatory 72 hour waiting period for hand guns. >
  
  There are other types of guns besides hand guns. >
  
  See. America doesn’t care about real gun violence. 
  This right here, would have saved far more lives than banning a specific type of firearm. 
  It’s all theatre. >
  
  I’m pretty pro-gun, but this doesn’t feel right, fam. >
  
  40% of police have had domestic violence in their households...  and they need their guns... >
  
  They were already exempt from this. >
  
  I’m a gun guy. I shoot recreationally, competitively, and hunt and this is one of the dumbest, most wildly dangerous and irresponsible things I have ever fucking heard. >
  
  The only solution to a bad domestic violence offender with a gun, is a good domestic violence offender with a gun! >
  
  The only solution a to bad suicide bomber is a good suicide bomber.
  But jokes aside, it's pretty bad news that this law passed cause everyone knows that even if the angry ex-husband kills his wife, there's a 90% chance he's going to shoot himself from guilt or shoot cops or people around because he's going to be the prime suspect and "revolve" his whole existence around 1 person so he thinks he has nothing else to look forward to in life.    (And then multiple by that by the millions of men that are going to end up divorced, broken up, angry, and wanting to get revenge with a gun.)
  So the problem doesn't go away and the case (news, study, prevention, purpose, point of the law) ends once he shoots himself and there's "no way to prevent this from happening that can be prevented" dies by this law.
  2023 is looking pretty dark.
  Merry Christmas. >
  
  Woman are 5 times more likely to be murdered when their abuser has access to a gun. >
  
  Man repeatedly accused of domestic violence kills victim w gun he’s legally entitled to have…..
  ‘If only there was some way we could have prevented this.’ The Legal System >
  
  Dude committed FIVE shootings and beat his girlfriend, and we can't say that maybe he shouldn't have a gun?
  He proved he can't handle the responsibility 5 times, but the 6th we are cool, he won't do anything a 6th time, right?
  If a cop pulled you over for drunk driving 5 times in the span of 2 years, would anyone judge the cop for taking your licence? Would anyone claim it was a breach of rights to not allow you to drive drunk? I'm aware it doesn't perfectly map as an analogy but it's still works.
  *Edit: accidentally a word >
  
  This seems like a fake headline you'd see tick by at the bottom of a news broadcast in a sarcastic comedy like Futurama or Idiocracy. US is beyond parody at this point. >
  
  Yeah, this is my second "not the onion, but patently unfunny" read of the day and the sense of despair is deep. >
  
  "Theres nothing we can do to control gun violence" - America. >
  
  The number of times I've been confidently assured that there are already "more than enough laws preventing abusive partners from having guns..." >
  
  The "pro-life" Party displays it's hypocrisy, yet again. >
  
  The “pro-life” party at work >
  
  Time to make domestic violence a class 1 felony. >
  
  Mad country. Lost the fucking plot. >
  
  To bad the judges can’t be held accountable if someone dies do to their rulings >
  
  Technically they can be. >
  
  How is that? >
  
  A revolution >
  
  Pffft, in this police state? 
  The boys in blue are better equiped than when we invaded Iraq. >
  
  Who gave Barny Fife the controls to the Predator? >
  
  Of course the judge was appointed by Trump. Now we just wait for the "Well how was I supposed to know that people who beat the shit out of their partners would shoot them too?!" >
  
  I get it, it’s so cops can keep their jobs. Hard to be a police officer when you’re not allowed to own a gun. 
  Travesty. >
  
  They just need to change the law so that DV offenders can’t be police. That is not protected by the constitution and thus not open to judicial review. >
  
  So the right to life is less important than the right to bear arms? >
  
  Is this for people who have been convicted of domestic violence or just restraining orders???? >
  
  Hahahaha hahahaha. Even the judges are stupid here. >
  
  The 5th circuit makes the entire Roberts court look like a paragon of virtue and justice. >
  
  The number 1 indicator of future violence is a history of domestic violence.
  You're going to see a huge increase in violence against women and children, as well as more mass shootings. This is beyond fucked. >
  
  Ah, yes, continuing on in the grand tradition of clearly valuing womens’ lives.
  Nice work, America. >
  
  Look up which profession has high rate of domestic abusers among them, then you'd understand why. >
  
  And that's with likely suppression of reporting.  The real numbers might be much higher. >
  
  Jesus fucking Christ, America. >
  
  Yeah that’s our problem. >
  
  If jesus existed and came back today, he’d be appalled by his followers. >
  
  If Jesus exited and came back today, he'd be killed by his followers. >
  
  Yeah, primarily because it's unlikely that he'd be white. A non-white, middle-eastern man, trying to tell them what to do? He'd get blown away within 5 minutes. >
  
  what a fucking disaster this country is. i’m a dv advocate and two of our clients literally got shot in the face by their abuser last week. >
  
  I’m not a hunter or some kind of a gun nut but I do have a CCW and carry a .38 special for protection and folks, this ruling was asinine and will cause so much additional stress and harm to victims of domestic abuse. The Republicans have lost their fucking minds. >
  
  Whatever you think of him, Gavin Newsom wasn't wrong when he said the 2nd amendment is becoming a suicide pact. >
  
  Best way to describe it tbh. >
  
  Just another Salvo in the Conservative's war on women. >
  
  Its because the person hasnt been convicted yet ifof anything is the issue. Taking away someone's rights just based on another persons word is a slippery slope. That's why this was ruled that way. >
  
  This court is now an accessory to many many more murders.  Must’ve been a gun-fetishizing Republican. >
  
  Fucking hell.  When 60% of spree shooters have a history of domestic violence, you’d think the courts would have their heads out of their asses. >
  
  Now, now! This is no place for facts and logic!! >
  
  jfc they like dead women in this country don't they? >
  
  Of course they can; women are expendable. >
  
  Gideon has truly arrived. Make us have babies against our will, and shoot us for mouthing off. >
  
  Jesus fuck, the United States is just fucking ridiculous >
  
  5th Circuit’s full of partisan morons.  Unfortunately, so is SCOTUS. >
  
  I'm VERY pro gun. This seems like a bad idea. Especially given the stats around DV and potential partner harm >
  
  Same. Very pro gun but also think this is fucking stupid. A considerable portion of non-gang related gun murders in the US are domestic violence related. >
  
  U.S.A. we get it, you hate women >
  
  Bravo to the people telling stories about helping victims of DV. You are truly doing wonderful work for people in desperate need. 
  I feel like I should point out that Fox personality Urban Meyer was aware of a DV reports while he was head coach of Ohio State, but he never reported this incident to compliance or law enforcement. It makes me SICK to see him on the air, and I hope people are more aware of his failure to act. >
  
  Reach out!  Seek help, do not deal with an abusive relationship alone. >
  
  I mean yeah. 
  A lotta cops would lose their guns of this was the other way around. >
  
  Can’t fathom why anybody would want to live in that kind of society… >
  
  Conservatives need their emotional support steel >
  
  Solving the biggest problems in the world.  Way to go. >
  
  Now all you have to do is checks notes be convicted of a felony or committed involuntarily. >
  
  What I'm the actual fuck is wrong with your country. Jesus fucking Christ. >
  
  This doesn’t remotely seem like a good decision??? >
  
  There they go with that 'our ancestors' talk. Who are they referring to? >
  
  This. This is entirely what’s wrong with the gun culture in this country. 
  It’s not gun ownership. It’s that we don’t treat gun ownership with the seriousness that it deserves. Any - literally any - red flag concerning violence should end your right to own a gun. 
  Every problem that enables the horrific gun violence, we punish with a slap on the wrist. Sell one of your guns illegally? Slap on the wrist. Threaten a local official? We’ll punish you, but you can keep your 27 guns. 
  People give us signs - but when it comes to guns, we ignore the signs. >
  
  Godammit America. You make it so hard... >
  
  Question? 
  What is a domestic violence order? is that the same as a domestic violence conviction as in a person was charged then convicted of domestic violence and given some orders to comply with?. 
  Is there a specific context to the violence? for instance person defending or person instigating? is it severe violence like say a hard punch or someone mildly pushing someone out of their personal space? Or more accurately is there a specific threshold that has to met before a physical act is violent? 
  how is it determined if the domestic issue is a situation of reciprocity such as their is no clear victim and abuser but rather a combination of toxic individuals? >
  
  It's none of those things. It's an order issued by the court that says the respondent i.e. alleged domestic abuser, can not go near or have contact with the complainant, i.e. domestic violence victim. As a result of the order, they are restricted from owning or purchasing firearms. The problem most people have with these orders is that there is no criminal conviction, and the burden of proof is much lower. So low that no actual proof is needed. The judge can issue one on the word of the complainant alone. >
  
  So in essence the court reaffirms a persons presumption of innocence before conviction and prevents a punitive measure being carried out before anyone is actually convicted of the crime. >
  
  That's pretty much it. >
  
  Yes because the right to own a gun exceeds the right to not be shot dead by your DV abuser how good is America >
  
  Goddamn america hates women. >
  
  Should be the easiest slam dunk decision to make and they still fuck it up >
  
  This is gonna go well. >
  
  I mean, what could possibly go wrong? >
  
  Well, that does nothing to discourage my increasingly firm opinion that women in such situations need to get a gun and start blasting the second they see the guy.  It is seriously enraging that society seems determined to do nothing to protect people in these situations and barely willing to punish the offenders after the fact when their victims end up dead. >
  
  This is bad for everyone there are a lot of crazy people who shouldn't have guns both men and women are in danager. >
  
  🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
  Must be back breaking work, doing the limbo under such a low bar. >
  
  The consequences of 2016 continue to reverberate. >
  
  The actual Trump supporters have always been what they are but what annoyed me the most were the moderates and even some "progressives" who voted for Trump because they wanted to "shake things up".
  You stupid pricks. You were literally playing with peoples' LIVES with your edgy vote. >
  
  I remember Susan Sarandon being upset when Bernie didn’t win the Democratic nomination in 2016. She said she would rather have Trump win than Hillary.  
  I still can’t stand her. So selfish. >
  
  I don’t have the words anymore.
  There are dark and terrible people taking away safety and security at an alarming rate. It only gets darker every day. This is complete idiocracy terror >
  
  This is a sick country >
  
  I actually think this is a good thing, because... 
  Wait. No, I don't. It's idiotic. WTF government? Are you trying to get a bunch of people killed by desperate halfwits with intractable emotional psychopathologies? Because that's how you get a bunch of people killed by desperate halfwits with intractable emotional psychopathologies. >
  
  Another reason for me to stay single forever. >
  
  The government wants people shot. How can they not with the actions they take? >
  
  I'm sorry, WHAT?
  That is the most ridiculous ruling ever. I hope whoever made that decision can sleep well at night, because millions of women, and some men, won't be. >
  
  Cha-Ching $$$ ~ ! They don’t care. Gun corporations want money and will pay politicians who also want money. Look at George Santos and another GOP woman replacing their USA flag pins with AR-15 pins.
  You can’t make this stuff up. >
  
  The sad thing is they don’t even need to pay most of these politicians anymore. They’ll say stupid shit for free. >
  
  Many, many, MANY people will die from the result of this decision. Many women will die, many children will die, many people will die from mass murderers. This will be the single most deadly Circuit Court decision this century.
  And yet, I see the decision's reasoning on how it follows Bruen. The founding fathers, after all, didn't regard women as equals and didn't care about domestic violence. SCOTUS MUST take this case. So far, they try to work in the abstract. What's the harm of giving people more freedom, they say in cases like Bruen. Can they do so when they know the immediate impact is that people will die?
  And if they do uphold the 5th's decision, hopefully there will be enough clamor to change the constitution. As it is interpreted, the 2nd Amendment is garbage. >
  
  America - when 2A is more important than women's lives. I don't understand why America hates women so much. >
  
  But remember we made lawn darts illegal because 3 children died. >
  
  Once again,  guns have more rights than people >
  
  More rights than women. Because that's what it is, isn't it? Misogyny. "She probably deserved it."
  I know men are abused too, but I'm sure the appeal court is too dumb to realise that. >
  
  Domestic violence is a huge red flag. Someone capable of hurting the person they love, no telling what they're capable of doing to somebody they are mad at or even hate. One common denominator amongst too many shooters, history of domestic violence. >
  
  This 2nd amendment bullshit is a suicide pact >
  
  Trump appointees, obviously >
  
  Well, this ain't surprise, obviously they aren't going to take away guns from cops... >
  
  It's nuts theyll institute policies that lock up innocent people for years before their court dates out of feae someone might hurt someone, but let a wife beater own a slew of guns because he they're scared they might need to fight the government someday for before it locks them up. >
  
  It seems the only response our government has to gun violence is to basically tell the victims to get their own. Rulings like this will just turn our country more and more back into the wild west. >
  
  The US is just so broken. >
  
  It should have been a conviction for domestic violence, not just a court restraining order.
  People should be innocent until proven guilty.  A RO doesn't meet that bar.
  But for a conviction?
  DV convictions should not only strip you of firearms, but also disqualify you from working as a police officer.
  Let's make that the law of the land. >
  
  
  It should have been a conviction for domestic violence, not just a court restraining order.
  
  Except that the reason for having this option is that abusers often use guns to kill their victims before a conviction can happen.
  
  People should be innocent until proven guilty. A RO doesn't meet that bar.
  
  Sure, but this isn't throwing people in prison without a conviction; it's removing guns from a house where there is a higher-than average likelihood that those guns might be used to end lives.  The orders are temporary, and there is due process to regain the guns.
  To do otherwise is to give priority to an abusers right to own a gun over the right of their victim to not be murdered. >
  
  
  Sure, but this isn't throwing people in prison without a conviction; it's removing guns from a house where there is a higher-than average likelihood that those guns might be used to end lives. The orders are temporary, and there is due process to regain the guns.
  
  This still is a shift of the burden of proof here. If you're facing a false allegation of domestic violence, the 'seize (and often destroy) property first, then make you jump through hoops to set it right' approach means you're on the hook for legal expenses of setting this right. You have to prove you're in the right as opposed to the state proving you're guilty. This is a problem here just as it is with civil asset forfeiture. >
  
  Women under American Christi-White Nationalist rule. Americans fought against Nazi tyranny during WWII, only to have their children and grandchildren embrace that ideology 50 years later in the USA. /smh >
  
  Betcha a dollar they did this because otherwise most cops wouldn't be allowed to own guns >
  
  We live in the dumbest nation.  If you are going to tell me to leave then fork over the money to do so. >
  
  Wow! What a great idea! (And sadly, I know I have to add /s) >
  
  I will never understand how these kinds of decisions are made. >
  
  It was set in stone when this govt did jackshit after Sandy Hook. Make that dough though >
  
  Booo, booo fucking gun nuts, putting guns in the hands of criminals. >
  
  If they didn't make this ruling, they have to fire hafe the cops in America. >
  
  We need a comet. Just wipe us out. >
  
  What could possibly go wrong >
  
  This is fantastic! In fact, extremely violent people should be REQUIRED to carry loaded weapons at all times and receive special passes to carry them everywhere, like courtrooms. The founding fathers didn't care about metal detectors. People would shoot each other all the time back then. >
  
  Originalism is legal theory for dumbasses >
  
  how is it that we've been fighting over simple prohibition style rules for seventy years? if you want to drive down domestic abuse and gun violence we need systemic change. 
  
  end the exploitation economy
  free health care for all (inc mental health)
  free education for alll (inc university)
  beef up social support programs for people and families in crisis >
  
  How the fuck does this make any sense? Not only is one of the main questions when applying for a permit/license if you have been involved in domestic abuse, but they are one of the lead causes of shooting deaths. >
  
  But people with Medical Cannabis cards can't get an FID ..
  This is life in Whacko-world .. >
  
  I think the decision is atrocious, however this just highlights how dysfunctional Congress is. Badly written laws are left wide open to interpretation so stuff like this keeps happening. 
  The ideal remedy would be for Congress to act. They should clarify and update existing legislation removing the need for judges to weigh in on cases like this. >
  
  The bananas thing here if I'm not mistaken is courts are now deciding any cases like this strictly based on precedent set in 1791, with no additional consideration. Well over 200 years ago. Cases are coming up and judges are like well taking guns away in this case does seem best for society but idk what would john hancock say about this?? And hours of research later they'd be like oh yeah people hated women back then, he'd be cool with it >
  
  Thank god we have a “if you can afford it” mentality towards mental health and everything else that would be beneficial to help cope being a someone that was a DV victim, or even someone that was charged with DV. /s >
  
  "Legally acquired" - Season 200, Episode 17.309 >
  
  The right will be OK with this, but they threw a fit about Illinois Safe-T act. >
  
  I'm not against gun ownership. I owned a gun in the past when I lived in a very dangerous area. But this makes my blood boil. Once again, gun rights supersede other rights of other people and I'm sick of it. >
  
  The second amendment needs a modern revision >
  
  I have no skin in this game, but many of the comments here seem a bit absurd. From a legal perspective, it makes sense for them to rule that a constitutional right can’t be stripped when the person hasn’t actually been convicted of any crime. >
  
  
  From a legal perspective, it makes sense for them to rule that a constitutional right can’t be stripped when the person hasn’t actually been convicted of any crime. 
  
  Tell that to the people in prison awaiting trial. >
  
  I think it’s the right decision basically for one reason. If you’re too dangerous to own a gun, you’re too dangerous to be walking around with your freedom. If they’re dangerous, lock ‘em up. If they’re not dangerous enough to be locked up, then there’s no justification for taking away that which is protected by the constitution. If they can take that right away without due process then what else can they take away without due process?
  I know this is unpopular. But what I’m arguing here is that DV offenders should be locked up or put on house arrest while they await trial. The crime they’re charged with is inherently violent. >
  
  I commented this on a similar post earlier:
  At what point will they allow convicted violent felons to have firearms? Make red flag laws unconstitutional? I’ve heard serious arguments against gun registration, serial numbers or anything that could be used to identify a gun owner. Hell why not remove all restrictions on full automatic firearms. How about unrestricted ability to carry any firearm anywhere at anytime.
  Like how far down the rabbit hole do we go?
  Imo the founders really effed up with the 2A, might be a contender for the most poorly worded sentence in human history.
  To all the 2A folks about to downvote me: I own guns and support a regulated right to bear arms. In my 35 years I’ve been in two active shooter situations, fortunately only injuries no deaths. I’ve had friends have guns pulled on them, I’ve had friends pull guns on others in my presence. It’s all pretty fucked and outside of very limited situations this shit is toxic to civil society and discourse. Rant over >
  
  I'll bite. If you're a non-violent felon there is no reason to lose your rights forever. If you're that dangerous you need to be in jail, and if you're not it's immoral to deny you your rights. >
  
  This is so sad . Things are so ass backwards in this country . >
  
  Of course they did, this was the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, and Trump packed their already very conservative court with even more conservative judges, pretty much every ruling coming out of there anymore is a joke. >
  
  Of course it was the 5th Circuit. That was the whole point of appointing Trump >
  
  Well yeah cops gotta have guns too. >
  
  Only good domestic abusers with guns can stop bad domestic abusers with guns. It's science. >
  
  How utterly misguided. This will lead to such misery… >
  
  Think about this from a common sense perspective. Who is this ruling for? >
  
  So… here’s my take.  I’m a gun owner who feels everyone should take a safety course and own a fire arm if they so desire.  
  But I do feel things like domestic abuse should disqualify you from fire arms purchases. >
  
  Great - most mass shooters committed domestic violence first. >
  
  Well this is fucked. Domestic violence is far and away one of our biggest issues as a society and also the most dangerous scenario a woman can be in.