Her Justice’s Post

President Biden Praises Domestic Violence Firearms Ban On June 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law preventing individuals subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. This decision marks the FIRST major Second Amendment ruling since the Court's landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), which expanded gun rights. The law was among many imperiled by the Bruen decision requiring historical precedent for gun restrictions. U.S. President Joe Biden, a staunch advocate against domestic violence and author of the Violence Against Women Act during his tenure as Senator, welcomed the Court's decision. Stressing its significance, Biden remarked, "No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun." He further emphasized the impact, stating, "As a result of today's ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades." Biden reaffirmed his commitment to ending violence against women and combating gun violence, urging the U.S. Congress to strengthen protections further and to "take action to stop the epidemic of gun violence tearing our communities apart." In an 8-to-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stated that "when a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from possessing firearms while that order is in effect." Roberts clarified that "some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber." While the justices broadly supported restrictions on firearms for domestic abusers, five wrote separately from Chief Justice Roberts, indicating varied perspectives on how lower courts should evaluate and consider historical practices when reviewing Second Amendment challenges. Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the Bruen decision, was the lone dissenter in Rahimi, asserting that "not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue." #DomesticViolence #Firearms #IntimatePartnerViolence

Here is a news story about mass shootings and how people think that laws will keep bad guys with guns from doing harm. Here at 141 Shooting Range, we teach good people how to make good violence in order to stop bad people from using bad violence. If you want to have a discussion on this comment below.

Here is a news story about mass shootings and how people think that laws will keep bad guys with guns from doing harm. Here at 141 Shooting Range, we teach good people how to make good violence in order to stop bad people from using bad violence. If you want to have a discussion on this comment below.

There are multiple important interests at stake in today’s Rahimi case before the U.S. Supreme Court including the safety of survivors of intimacy partner violence, and common sense gun control. Also, at stake is whether we going to continue to have a legal system that bases our rights and protections on the history of this county and what existed before - as we know that’s a problem. In the last case here’s what Justice Thomas said. We already know the implications. Call it convenient originalism or just call it wrong. Sure, arguments can be made re restrictions that existed before too, but such a system is so plainly exclusionary. *** “government officials cannot justify restrictions on firearms based solely on ‘an important interest’ such as public safety concerns. Instead, he wrote, officials must ‘demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’” https://wapo.st/470Vw2x

“Question Presented to the Court: Whether the Second Amendment bars the government from prohibiting individuals who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms. Potential Impact? Bruen has proven to be unworkable, with lower courts reaching inconsistent results when applying its holding, and circuit court splits beginning to mount. Too often, however, challenges under Bruen have succeeded in invalidating a wide range of common-sense gun safety measures. Rahimi could be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to rein in Bruen by making clear that the Second Amendment does not bar certain gun safety measures. On the other hand, the Court could double down on Bruen, making it that much harder for states to restrict the use and access of firearms. Moreover, if the Court affirms the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it will immediately put in heightened danger survivors and victims of domestic violence who rely on restraining orders for their safety.” https://lnkd.in/dsKXC5-W

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on gun possession for those with domestic violence court orders. This decision marks a shift in gun law interpretations, emphasizing the importance of disarming individuals who pose credible threats. Individuals with domestic violence court orders should not be able to possess guns. This restriction is crucial for public safety as statistics show a strong correlation between domestic violence and gun-related fatalities. Allowing those with a history of domestic violence to have access to firearms poses a serious risk to victims and the community at large. Research indicates that the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%. By prohibiting individuals with domestic violence court orders from possessing guns, we can potentially prevent tragic outcomes and save lives. This measure is a necessary step in protecting victims of domestic abuse and ensuring their safety. The prohibition of gun possession for individuals with domestic violence court orders is a sensible policy that prioritizes public safety. By implementing this restriction, we can reduce the likelihood of gun violence in domestic abuse situations and create a safer environment for all members of society. https://lnkd.in/gEJdGXdC

Do you care about the U.S. Constitution 2nd Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?” What about for people convicted of non-violent felonies who have served their full sentence and use the only available legal mechanism: applying to the ATF for restoration of their 2nd Amendment rights? Since US Congress banned the use of taxpayer funds to process or act on applications for gun rights restoration in 1992, the ATF just sits on thousands of applications. That’s thousands of Americans who have paid their debt to society, including any prison sentence and supervised release, for non-violent convictions and are still denied their civil rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. https://lnkd.in/e3e3UajQ Interesting that the gun manufacturers’ lobby — the National Rifle Association and NRA CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND — have not issued statements on the conflicting 3rd Circuit and 8th Circuit Federal court rulings this June and August, respectively. A June update from Al Alschuler, Justia. https://lnkd.in/eYemMxWB The National Rifle Association did support the 6-3 SCOTUS ruling in NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION INC v. Bruen in June 2022. https://lnkd.in/efbKsFws Brendan Pierson, Reuters https://lnkd.in/euESiZPK #usconstitution #constitutionallaw #civilrights #firearms #guns #felony

Missouri House Democrats have introduced resolutions to enable cities to create their own gun control ordinances, reported by Meg Cunningham. This legislative move aims at granting local governments, such as those in Kansas City and St. Louis, the autonomy to tailor public safety measures. Facing a Republican-majority General Assembly, the initiative underscores the ongoing debate on state versus local control of gun laws. https://lnkd.in/diPnBstT #PublicSafety #Legislation #LocalGovernance

As we commemorate National Gun Violence Awareness Month in June, let us be mindful of the policymakers around us and demand action against unrestricted access to guns. This Article is a reminder of the intersections of intimate partner violence and gun violence in ways additional to homicides.  https://lnkd.in/d5ZvkGk3 #maitribayarea #endgunviolence #enddv #dvhomicides #endintimatepartnerviolence #BWJP