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.

  • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    What do you even mean? Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used in most jurisdictions. They must satisfy all elements required to that standard. The elements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction though. In my jurisdiction it is caused or attempted to cause harm, or put someone in fear of imminent serious physical harm.

    • krayj@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What do you even mean? Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used in most jurisdictions.

      You’re wrong.

      or put someone in fear of imminent serious physical harm.

      What do you think the legal test for this is? It’s nothing more than someone claiming they are in fear.

      Most jurisdictions will issue a restraining order solely on the claims of the filer. But if you want to save yourself some time verifying this, just look up state of California (biggest jurisdiction in the US). Word of the accuser is all it takes. Then go look up the state of California guide for bench judges which requires judges to also revoke gun ownership rights for anyone who is the subject of a restraining order.

      The restraining order process can be (and regularly is) weaponized, without evidence, by people who just want to make life a living hell for their ex who pissed them off, with no repurcussions for false accusations.

      Some people actually believe you shouldn’t have your rights trounced without due process of a trial.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bullshit. All I gotta do I go to court tomorrow, stand in front of a judge and say, “bostonbananarama threatend to kill me”. And we’re done. Temporary order issued, every time.

      • ysjet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Given the number of women that die to gun violence from domestic abusers, we already know your whole narrative you’ve made up here is false.

      • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        All these downvotes from people who have never had it happen to them. Hope nobody has a divorce from an angry and vindictive woman! I was in the military, thousands of miles away, hadn’t seen her for months, when she got a temporary restraining order against me all those decades ago.