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 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.

  • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
    813·
    1 year ago

    Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
      53·
      1 year ago

      That sounds like a very apt description of our country currently. We’re willing to sacrifice so many lives so that some scared, fragile men can feel ‘safe’ when walking around in public.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      55·
      1 year ago

      I’d say you should read more, but you’ve already made up your mind. You just want to convince yourself that what you’ve already decided is correct. So no need to respond.

      The Founding Fathers enacted plenty of gun control, with blanket prohibitions for certain members of the population. Obviously women were not allowed in the militia. Black people were similarly prohibited. It would make no sense to include Native Americans, since that’s who the militia would be fighting.

      The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an “individual” or “personal” right to bear arms.

      The Founding Fathers were very concerned about who should, or should not, be armed.

      These restrictions on militia membership are critically important to understand. Because despite the words of the Second Amendment, 18th-century laws did infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        73·
        1 year ago

        I have NOT made up my mind. I’m here to kick ideas around. Don’t put that on me.

        And nothing you posted is surprising. Of course the founders restricted gun rights to white mean of means, just like the vote. Liberal gun owners have known for some time that that gun legislation if often (always?) racist.

        As to the individual right to bear arms, the courts have examined the idea and found we do have that right. We can argue that amongst ourselves, and I welcome that argument as a chance to learn more, but it’s where we are ATM.

      • quindraco@lemm.ee
        42·
        1 year ago

        Stop pretending a law that violates the 14A is fundamentally about the 2A. It’s disingenuous and makes the rest of your post pointless.