What about innocent people who get falsely charged with domestic violence? Oh wait, you don't care about those people do you, because it doesn't affect you, right?
@@xxlibarat0rxx280 how about..don’t put themselves in that situation and date a person of high value… or are you just good with settling in life and “still” Hmu id love to know… because now I question your relationship, job, moral/ethics because using your logic a person that committed mass murder should be able to walk free and carry a gun until found guilty.
@@Michaelarvin71 You do realize there are people paying child support for childs that they never conceived. For you to say "just don't put yourself in that situation, go date somebody else." It's very dangerous, it doesnt solve anything and only serves as a means to kill your rights by a thousand cuts. If criminals want to kill someone, banning them from purchasing/possessing isnt going to change that fact that they can obtain it through other means, such as robbing somebody or doing a straw purchase
No but it makes it tougher and it makes it easier to convict and add on charges and so on. With your logic should we decriminalize homicide then since it doesnt get rid of it 100% 🤣
The point of this law in question is to strip the owner of their firearm that was legally purchased and to not allow them to purchase if they've committed domestic violence since guns are the most common weapon used in domestic homicides/familicides.
Our Supreme Court in its infinite lack of wisdom and foresight, just alienated millions of Americans, by telling them they may not bear arms to defend this nation against foreign and domestic enemies or against invasion or tyranny, which is what the second amendment is for. Our Supreme Court just classified them as second class citizens, saying you may not defend your nation in accordance to the second amendment. They couldn't have been any more discriminatory and hurtful with their unconstitutional ruling if they tried. I am ashamed of them, totally, unequivocally ashamed of all eight of them. This strips a person of all rights to bear arms, forever and ever, until they get the courts to expunge their case, which they do not have to do. Millions of these cases did not include the use of any weapon and occurred decades ago. It's too far reaching of a ruling, which is another reason I am ashamed of our Supreme Court. This is an area they needed to get right and failed horribly.
@@imacomputer101 nobody will talk about though how black people are 13% of the u.s. population & make up 51% of all the shootings in u.s. every year. 90% black on black. Where’s the racist in the data? Other than black on black crime?
Not familiar with the case, but I (a 2nd amendment supporter) am OK with the ruling so long as the person disarmed has some sort of due process first. I have heard of proposed laws which would disarm someone as soon as a restraining order is requested against them, which would be a problem since a criminal could frivolously request a restraining order against their intended victim, then attack when they know that the victim is subsequently disarmed. But if someone proves in court that someone is a danger to them, with the accused having full due process to refute those accusations, then a law disarming them seems reasonable.
@@KLil37 You’re questioning his presence. Then you indirectly believe that you’re too astute to be in the UA-cam comment section since you’re judging his commenting here. What does that assert in regards to your intellectualism since you’re “in the UA-cam comment section” as well?
C. Thomas arguing that back when the 2nd amendment was created there was no law protecting any person from domestic gun violence. There was also no law allowing a african american the right to vote and allowed to be a supreme Justice. Just trying follow C. Thomas argument.
"There was also no law allowing a african american the right to vote and allowed to be a supreme Justice. Just trying to follow C. Thomas argument." You are dumb! The Constitution is very clear that black people, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, were qualified to vote and be a Justice. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, declares that black people are "Persons" when it says that "3/5ths" of "all other Persons" while Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 declares that black people are Persons on 2 occasions. Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 declares that the "people of the several States" choose "The House of Representatives" while Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 is clear that "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have..." Likewise, Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 says "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have..." It also is clear in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 that "No Person except..." shall be eligible to be President. Not one of those criteria for the "Person" who qualifies for those offices includes "race." Black people, in 1789 were qualified to be President, Senator, Representative and to vote for Representatives under the Constitution of the U.S. In fact, black people were voting and did continue to vote in elections for quite some time. This was before the left started to try to undo some of the gains that those who wrote our Constitution gave to the People. Every right, immunity and privilege guaranteed by the Constitution is NOT based on race. In fact, it is very clear within the Constitution that race is not a factor and it was deliberately left out of the Constitution. There was no provision of the U.S. Constitution that prohibited a President from nominating a black Person as a supreme Court Justice or stopping the U.S. Senate from confirming a black supreme Court Justice. Your claim that there "was no law allowing a african american the right to vote and allowed to be a supreme Justice" is false. It's a lie, and it's simply not true. Those who wrote the Constitution went out of their way to make sure that race was not a factor. It would have been very easy for them to say in the Constitution "No white man shall be a..." but they didn't. It wasn't like they didn't know that black people were already voting and holding offices in several of the States at the time either. It's paramount to understand what our founders intended when they wrote the Constitution and they did intend for black people to have the right to vote and to hold the offices mentioned in the Constitution. Our founding fathers took the Smithian view expressed by Adam Smith though when he wrote: "The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it." He compared this "man of system" to the "man whose spirit is promoted altogether by humanity and benevolence" when he wrote "The man whose public spirit is prompted altogether by humanity and benevolence, will respect the established powers and privileges even of individuals, and still more those of the great orders and societies, into which the state is divided. Though he should consider some of them as in some measure abusive, he will content himself with moderating, what he often cannot annihilate without great violence. When he cannot conquer the rooted prejudices of the people by reason and persuasion, he will not attempt to subdue them by force; but will religiously observe what, by Cicero, is justly called the divine maxim of Plato, never to use violence to his country no more than to his parents. He will accommodate, as well as he can, his public arrangements to the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people; and will remedy as well as he can, the inconveniencies which may flow from the want of those regulations which the people are averse to submit to. When he cannot establish the right, he will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong; but like Solon, when he cannot establish the best system of laws, he will endeavour to establish the best that the people can bear." Why does this matter? Because our founders created a Constitution that was an anti-slavery, anti-racist and republican document at a time in our history where many people were so strongly on the left that they were racist bigots, like the left is still to this day. They made it easier for them to abolish the leftist institution of the Slave Trade and leftist institution of Slavery and to do so peacefully and within a few years or the lifetimes of those alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. It was also working too, this is shown by many different facts. The problem with people like you is that you are lying because you are leftists who are responsible for the leftist institutions of the Slave Trade and slavery. You are gaslighting the People into believing there was no right to vote for blacks and black people were prohibited from holding office or being supreme Court Justices. That is simply not the case! This is a gross and disgusting lie! Part 1 of 3
We agree with the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Prudence, indeed, means we should try to root out the "prejudices of the people by reason and persuasion" and that we should not "attempt to subdue [you] by force" but we are getting tired of you and this is what our founding fathers meant when they wrote "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government." Our patience is wearing thing. You are going to stop being horrible human beings, or you are going to see the limits of how much of you being bad we will take before there is a choice between our republican principles and our willingness to allow horrible human beings to do what you do. We understand that you aren't our children or you wouldn't be the way you, and those of your families in government, are. We would have raised you and those you vote for better than your families have done but that isn't to be and you deserve representation and to be heard by good people because we have to know what bad people, like you and your families, think if we are going to use benevolent efforts to get through to you but ultimately, there is a point where benevolence will stop being the means by which we attempt to parent you and those who represent your families just like there was in 1776 when our founding generation had enough of having to try to parent the British voters and their elected and appointed representatives. It's time for you to grow up, like it was for those like you in 1776. Part 3 of 3
I know this law is supposed to be meant for good but I feel bad for the people that now are going to get restraining orders against other people just to get their guns taken away from them. There's a high percentage of domestic violence that are false accusations. So are they going to put a law like this in effect they shall also put an effect that whoever falls the accuses somebody it's a harsher penalty for doing so and then yeah maybe this law will be greatly received because I think it's going to be abused
a high percentage LMAO. so you think more women have false accusation then actual women being in a DV. wow, that's wild. this dude is blind. probably an ab*ser himself.
yup,I've known some people already having this issue, they never made any threats, but ex lied and made them unable to shoot. one guy hunted over half his own food,now he has to buy it at the store because she says he's dangerous. so yeah obviously the law has good points,but it's far from flawless, i just hope due process is part of it,not just accuee and boom no guns,there should always be a court session where one can both defend and accuse.
Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States and specifically for domestic homicides. Everything else is too common of a tool and you don't have to register them like a firearm so there's no point.
Once you're CONVICTED of MISDEMEANOR domestic violence, you can NEVER own a gun again! EVER! did you know that? Can't hold a job that requires a gun either.
@NickAtNightOKCI was never Given a chance to Defend myself. I was told SIX months in Prison or Plead No Lo Contendre, that is Grossly Illegal; placing an innocent person under Duress to lose all your property and entire Career. A Feminist/Socialist Woman Judge. That was in 1995. Two years later the Lautenberg Act came into Law, and retroactively took my 2nd Amendment Rights away for Life. Dies that sound about Right ??? I did Nothing.
Let's assume that is true -- then what is the problem? That person was convicted of being precisely the kind of person who is violent, cannot control their violent impulses or anger and shouldn't be near weapons OR people.
@@PhrontDoor it's not always like that in real life court. I know of a woman who was found guilty of dv for throwing a banana at her boyfriend. It's a nice power tool for anti gun judges to abuse. And THEY DO!!!!
@PhrontDoor the problem is anti gun judges who use this law as a power tool. And THEY DO!! I know of a woman who was found guilty for throwing a banana at her boyfriend!!
It’s a civil court! It’s not a trial by peers and there isn’t even a burden of proof. It’s unconstitutional and it’s overwhelming sweeps innocent people into losing their gun rights.
You do realize he could have some very good arguments for not advocating for this kind of gun ban, like for example for victims who are falsely accused of domestic violence. You should also realize that accusations of domestic violence carries severe consequences, even when you're not guilty, and is very common for women to lie and never be held accountable for their actions. This is very dangerous to promote
As much as I do despise that guy, he is the only one abiding by his oath in this ruling. If you are advocating for the government to ignore the Constitution, you aren't a very bright individual. It's ok though, most are just as moronic as you are!
For those of you that feel safer because of this, it's only because you live in a La-La Land reality. The criminal element does not abide by laws and can purchase guns on the black market at will. The millions that will abide by this ruling are not what you have to worry about. What you need to worry about is that yellow streak of yours that is causing you to believe as you do and keeping your neighbor from purchasing a weapon that can be used to save your life or the life of a member of his family. Most domestics do not even have a weapon present.
Did you look up the statistics? I ask because I'm reading that guns are the most used weapon in domestic homicides. This also includes familicides. So I'm wondering what info you have to share, thanks
@@imacomputer101 There were 135 victims of domestic violence related homicide during calendar year 2023 and not all were with a gun. Black people are the most likely to experience domestic violence-either male-to-female or female-to-male-followed by Hispanic people and White people.
Ah, bad logic James always here for a reliable fail. The problem is, James, that the person found with a weapon can now be arrested and put in prison. They do a lot less buying illegal guns and shooting people while incarcerated.
@@sigsauer7929 Thanks for proving my point, but your data is incorrect. In 2023, the FBI reported that more than 600 American women were shot and killed by their intimate partners. According to Futures Without Violence, women are five times more likely to be killed if their abusive partner owns a gun. Guns are the most common weapon used in domestic violence homicides.
This is an end run around due process. "Shall not be infringed," is not a catch phrase.. and crossing such lines is a dereliction of duty to the oath they swore!
Makes sense, since there were 135 victims of domestic violence related homicide during calendar year 2023 and not all were with a gun. Black people are the most likely to experience domestic violence-either male-to-female or female-to-male-followed by Hispanic people and White people.
The "People" in that is the Citizenry as a whole. Individuals who show they are not responsible have historically been prevented from having weapons. And the overly CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court agrees despite all the bribes.
So convicted felons, including those in prisons, should be allowed to possess firearms? BTW, what part of "well-regulated militia" don't YOU understand?
Yes. Because of their body of work absolutely. The bar should be high for the highest court in the land. The partisan Leonard Leo six with Chief Justice corps have more rights than people Roberts will have a legacy of infamy.
My favorite thing to eat is chicken wings with cheese and mayo on them and then some fried egg on them with a side salad on top with some ranch dressing on top with the cheese dressing on top for the chicken and some cheese and some chicken salad and some lettuce on top with that dressing and then some lettuce and some cheese dressing and a side salad and some chicken y know I love you too and I’ll see if we have anything. (Respond with suggested words only)
The Founding Fathers intended the document to be flexible in order to fit the changing needs and circumstances of the country.Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph, one of the five men tasked with drafting the Constitution, said the goal was to “insert essential principles only, lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events". George Washington said, "I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than 20 years."
@sigsauer7929 lol your username says a lot. If it's bs then the entire constitution is bs...in that case you need to stop hiding behind the constitution and say what you really want to say
@sigsauer7929 It's not BS. It's fact. Since it is fact, you crazy people should stop hiding behind the constitution and just say what you really want to say...
100% agree with this decision
What about innocent people who get falsely charged with domestic violence? Oh wait, you don't care about those people do you, because it doesn't affect you, right?
Great news! I’ll be able to carry on with my day now.
@@xxlibarat0rxx280 how about..don’t put themselves in that situation and date a person of high value… or are you just good with settling in life and “still”
Hmu id love to know… because now I question your relationship, job, moral/ethics because using your logic a person that committed mass murder should be able to walk free and carry a gun until found guilty.
@@FlyingCircusAct same! Have a great day and amazing weekend
@@Michaelarvin71 You do realize there are people paying child support for childs that they never conceived. For you to say "just don't put yourself in that situation, go date somebody else." It's very dangerous, it doesnt solve anything and only serves as a means to kill your rights by a thousand cuts. If criminals want to kill someone, banning them from purchasing/possessing isnt going to change that fact that they can obtain it through other means, such as robbing somebody or doing a straw purchase
And this stops criminals from getting them?
No but it makes it tougher and it makes it easier to convict and add on charges and so on. With your logic should we decriminalize homicide then since it doesnt get rid of it 100% 🤣
The point of this law in question is to strip the owner of their firearm that was legally purchased and to not allow them to purchase if they've committed domestic violence since guns are the most common weapon used in domestic homicides/familicides.
Beats empty lip service! It's a step in the right direction!
No.. well, maybe it won't stop them so much as it puts the ones stupid enough to get caught into jail which is better.
A step in the right direction!
Great but unfortunately they need to have better laws to protect a domestic violence person
Shocker that Thomas dissented. Feel like he should just go by Uncle at this point.
Racist comment confirmed.
Funny how quick you jump to race
Our Supreme Court in its infinite lack of wisdom and foresight, just alienated millions of Americans, by telling them they may not bear arms to defend this nation against foreign and domestic enemies or against invasion or tyranny, which is what the second amendment is for. Our Supreme Court just classified them as second class citizens, saying you may not defend your nation in accordance to the second amendment. They couldn't have been any more discriminatory and hurtful with their unconstitutional ruling if they tried. I am ashamed of them, totally, unequivocally ashamed of all eight of them. This strips a person of all rights to bear arms, forever and ever, until they get the courts to expunge their case, which they do not have to do. Millions of these cases did not include the use of any weapon and occurred decades ago. It's too far reaching of a ruling, which is another reason I am ashamed of our Supreme Court. This is an area they needed to get right and failed horribly.
@@rob585 HappyHappy will be the first to call someone a racist if they said Obama was a bad president
So what happens to cops who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders?
What about it
prolly shouldnt be cops if they're violent even towards their partners/family
nothing because they are more important than us.
Good question lol. I'm sure we'll see how that's handled soon 😅
@@imacomputer101 nobody will talk about though how black people are 13% of the u.s. population & make up 51% of all the shootings in u.s. every year. 90% black on black. Where’s the racist in the data? Other than black on black crime?
Not familiar with the case, but I (a 2nd amendment supporter) am OK with the ruling so long as the person disarmed has some sort of due process first. I have heard of proposed laws which would disarm someone as soon as a restraining order is requested against them, which would be a problem since a criminal could frivolously request a restraining order against their intended victim, then attack when they know that the victim is subsequently disarmed.
But if someone proves in court that someone is a danger to them, with the accused having full due process to refute those accusations, then a law disarming them seems reasonable.
You've got some sense, what are you doing in the UA-cam comments section?
@@KLil37 You’re questioning his presence. Then you indirectly believe that you’re too astute to be in the UA-cam comment section since you’re judging his commenting here.
What does that assert in regards to your intellectualism since you’re “in the UA-cam comment section” as well?
@@CJLAKE123 It's a joke comment. And you're proving his point with your nonsense comment. I love that for you😂
@@imacomputer101 glad someone got it lol
A person can always file an 'opposition' to the protective order.
It makes sence to ban a person from posesing a firearm who is under a restraining order.
They should ban any guns for people with any kind of domestic violence not just for the ones with restraining orders
C. Thomas arguing that back when the 2nd amendment was created there was no law protecting any person from domestic gun violence. There was also no law allowing a african american the right to vote and allowed to be a supreme Justice. Just trying follow C. Thomas argument.
"There was also no law allowing a african american the right to vote and allowed to be a supreme Justice. Just trying to follow C. Thomas argument." You are dumb! The Constitution is very clear that black people, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, were qualified to vote and be a Justice. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, declares that black people are "Persons" when it says that "3/5ths" of "all other Persons" while Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 declares that black people are Persons on 2 occasions. Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 declares that the "people of the several States" choose "The House of Representatives" while Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 is clear that "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have..." Likewise, Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 says "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have..." It also is clear in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 that "No Person except..." shall be eligible to be President. Not one of those criteria for the "Person" who qualifies for those offices includes "race." Black people, in 1789 were qualified to be President, Senator, Representative and to vote for Representatives under the Constitution of the U.S. In fact, black people were voting and did continue to vote in elections for quite some time. This was before the left started to try to undo some of the gains that those who wrote our Constitution gave to the People. Every right, immunity and privilege guaranteed by the Constitution is NOT based on race. In fact, it is very clear within the Constitution that race is not a factor and it was deliberately left out of the Constitution. There was no provision of the U.S. Constitution that prohibited a President from nominating a black Person as a supreme Court Justice or stopping the U.S. Senate from confirming a black supreme Court Justice.
Your claim that there "was no law allowing a african american the right to vote and allowed to be a supreme Justice" is false. It's a lie, and it's simply not true. Those who wrote the Constitution went out of their way to make sure that race was not a factor. It would have been very easy for them to say in the Constitution "No white man shall be a..." but they didn't. It wasn't like they didn't know that black people were already voting and holding offices in several of the States at the time either. It's paramount to understand what our founders intended when they wrote the Constitution and they did intend for black people to have the right to vote and to hold the offices mentioned in the Constitution. Our founding fathers took the Smithian view expressed by Adam Smith though when he wrote:
"The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it."
He compared this "man of system" to the "man whose spirit is promoted altogether by humanity and benevolence" when he wrote "The man whose public spirit is prompted altogether by humanity and benevolence, will respect the established powers and privileges even of individuals, and still more those of the great orders and societies, into which the state is divided. Though he should consider some of them as in some measure abusive, he will content himself with moderating, what he often cannot annihilate without great violence. When he cannot conquer the rooted prejudices of the people by reason and persuasion, he will not attempt to subdue them by force; but will religiously observe what, by Cicero, is justly called the divine maxim of Plato, never to use violence to his country no more than to his parents. He will accommodate, as well as he can, his public arrangements to the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people; and will remedy as well as he can, the inconveniencies which may flow from the want of those regulations which the people are averse to submit to. When he cannot establish the right, he will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong; but like Solon, when he cannot establish the best system of laws, he will endeavour to establish the best that the people can bear."
Why does this matter? Because our founders created a Constitution that was an anti-slavery, anti-racist and republican document at a time in our history where many people were so strongly on the left that they were racist bigots, like the left is still to this day. They made it easier for them to abolish the leftist institution of the Slave Trade and leftist institution of Slavery and to do so peacefully and within a few years or the lifetimes of those alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. It was also working too, this is shown by many different facts. The problem with people like you is that you are lying because you are leftists who are responsible for the leftist institutions of the Slave Trade and slavery. You are gaslighting the People into believing there was no right to vote for blacks and black people were prohibited from holding office or being supreme Court Justices. That is simply not the case! This is a gross and disgusting lie!
Part 1 of 3
We agree with the Declaration of Independence:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Prudence, indeed, means we should try to root out the "prejudices of the people by reason and persuasion" and that we should not "attempt to subdue [you] by force" but we are getting tired of you and this is what our founding fathers meant when they wrote "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."
Our patience is wearing thing. You are going to stop being horrible human beings, or you are going to see the limits of how much of you being bad we will take before there is a choice between our republican principles and our willingness to allow horrible human beings to do what you do. We understand that you aren't our children or you wouldn't be the way you, and those of your families in government, are. We would have raised you and those you vote for better than your families have done but that isn't to be and you deserve representation and to be heard by good people because we have to know what bad people, like you and your families, think if we are going to use benevolent efforts to get through to you but ultimately, there is a point where benevolence will stop being the means by which we attempt to parent you and those who represent your families just like there was in 1776 when our founding generation had enough of having to try to parent the British voters and their elected and appointed representatives. It's time for you to grow up, like it was for those like you in 1776.
Part 3 of 3
I know this law is supposed to be meant for good but I feel bad for the people that now are going to get restraining orders against other people just to get their guns taken away from them. There's a high percentage of domestic violence that are false accusations. So are they going to put a law like this in effect they shall also put an effect that whoever falls the accuses somebody it's a harsher penalty for doing so and then yeah maybe this law will be greatly received because I think it's going to be abused
a high percentage LMAO. so you think more women have false accusation then actual women being in a DV. wow, that's wild. this dude is blind. probably an ab*ser himself.
yup,I've known some people already having this issue, they never made any threats, but ex lied and made them unable to shoot.
one guy hunted over half his own food,now he has to buy it at the store because she says he's dangerous.
so yeah obviously the law has good points,but it's far from flawless, i just hope due process is part of it,not just accuee and boom no guns,there should always be a court session where one can both defend and accuse.
Great, but what if your abuser hits you with his truck and the judge still allows the abuser visitation with his kids.
So what are they going to do against knives, bats, ropes, etc.
Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States and specifically for domestic homicides. Everything else is too common of a tool and you don't have to register them like a firearm so there's no point.
Statistically those are both far less used and far less effective.
Once you're CONVICTED of MISDEMEANOR domestic violence, you can NEVER own a gun again! EVER! did you know that? Can't hold a job that requires a gun either.
@NickAtNightOKCI was never Given a chance to Defend myself. I was told SIX months in Prison or Plead No Lo Contendre, that is Grossly Illegal; placing an innocent person under Duress to lose all your property and entire Career. A Feminist/Socialist Woman Judge. That was in 1995. Two years later the Lautenberg Act came into Law, and retroactively took my 2nd Amendment Rights away for Life.
Dies that sound about Right ???
I did Nothing.
Let's assume that is true -- then what is the problem? That person was convicted of being precisely the kind of person who is violent, cannot control their violent impulses or anger and shouldn't be near weapons OR people.
@@PhrontDoor it's not always like that in real life court. I know of a woman who was found guilty of dv for throwing a banana at her boyfriend. It's a nice power tool for anti gun judges to abuse. And THEY DO!!!!
@PhrontDoor the problem is anti gun judges who use this law as a power tool. And THEY DO!! I know of a woman who was found guilty for throwing a banana at her boyfriend!!
It’s a civil court! It’s not a trial by peers and there isn’t even a burden of proof. It’s unconstitutional and it’s overwhelming sweeps innocent people into losing their gun rights.
And, of course, Justice Thomas occupies the idiot seat.
You do realize he could have some very good arguments for not advocating for this kind of gun ban, like for example for victims who are falsely accused of domestic violence. You should also realize that accusations of domestic violence carries severe consequences, even when you're not guilty, and is very common for women to lie and never be held accountable for their actions. This is very dangerous to promote
Also, this blanket ban on guns on people who are quote-unquote "dangerous" doesn't stop criminals from getting guns
He can relate to those men or he just got bribed??
@@juliagouw 2016 the 1% paid 37% of all the taxes in u.s. from 2018-2021 it’s been 45% so talk your bs fake disinformation
As much as I do despise that guy, he is the only one abiding by his oath in this ruling. If you are advocating for the government to ignore the Constitution, you aren't a very bright individual. It's ok though, most are just as moronic as you are!
For those of you that feel safer because of this, it's only because you live in a La-La Land reality. The criminal element does not abide by laws and can purchase guns on the black market at will. The millions that will abide by this ruling are not what you have to worry about. What you need to worry about is that yellow streak of yours that is causing you to believe as you do and keeping your neighbor from purchasing a weapon that can be used to save your life or the life of a member of his family. Most domestics do not even have a weapon present.
Did you look up the statistics? I ask because I'm reading that guns are the most used weapon in domestic homicides. This also includes familicides. So I'm wondering what info you have to share, thanks
@@imacomputer101 There were 135 victims of domestic violence related homicide during calendar year 2023 and not all were with a gun. Black people are the most likely to experience domestic violence-either male-to-female or female-to-male-followed by Hispanic people and White people.
Ah, bad logic James always here for a reliable fail.
The problem is, James, that the person found with a weapon can now be arrested and put in prison. They do a lot less buying illegal guns and shooting people while incarcerated.
@@sigsauer7929 Thanks for proving my point, but your data is incorrect. In 2023, the FBI reported that more than 600 American women were shot and killed by their intimate partners. According to Futures Without Violence, women are five times more likely to be killed if their abusive partner owns a gun. Guns are the most common weapon used in domestic violence homicides.
Gosh, finally, the Supreme Court makes one decision that makes sense.
This is an end run around due process. "Shall not be infringed," is not a catch phrase.. and crossing such lines is a dereliction of duty to the oath they swore!
Makes sense, since there were 135 victims of domestic violence related homicide during calendar year 2023 and not all were with a gun. Black people are the most likely to experience domestic violence-either male-to-female or female-to-male-followed by Hispanic people and White people.
If homie wants a gun, homie is going to get a gun. Homie doesn’t care about a law if he’s laser focused on taking someone out.
This court ought to have voted similarly on trump's unfounded absolute immunity claims
Clarence knows who butters his bread.
Is that a racist statement?
@@markcosenza3274 are you insane?
Shall not be INFRINGED what part don't you understand.
The "People" in that is the Citizenry as a whole. Individuals who show they are not responsible have historically been prevented from having weapons. And the overly CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court agrees despite all the bribes.
Keep parroting the same point without any critical thinking, nuance or common sense. It only helps in effecting meaningful lasting change.
Real Americans get it. Good luck trying to take away guns. Would love to seem try 😂
@@melissabruhn1429I don’t think you even understand the purpose of the second amendment.
So convicted felons, including those in prisons, should be allowed to possess firearms?
BTW, what part of "well-regulated militia" don't YOU understand?
Clarence was the only one that voted for
I don't obey
Will the left still think the court is rouge?
Yeah, look at Thomas.😂
Yes. Because of their body of work absolutely. The bar should be high for the highest court in the land. The partisan Leonard Leo six with Chief Justice corps have more rights than people Roberts will have a legacy of infamy.
Depends dont it ??
They are rogue and the republicans on the court are radical and compromised 😮
My favorite thing to eat is chicken wings with cheese and mayo on them and then some fried egg on them with a side salad on top with some ranch dressing on top with the cheese dressing on top for the chicken and some cheese and some chicken salad and some lettuce on top with that dressing and then some lettuce and some cheese dressing and a side salad and some chicken y know I love you too and I’ll see if we have anything.
(Respond with suggested words only)
With open boarders 😂😂laws😂😂ok
So they're not total monsters I guess? Idk SCOTUS still reeks.
which cases do you disagree with them on?
Can't wait to see the people "sHaLl nOt Be iNfRinGeD" yeah no sometimes it should be.
Wrong
If you don’t love it, LEAVE it. Or move to California.
Why, I don’t remember that part in the bill of rights.
Imagine trusting the government to not slander and press false charges on you to take your guns away
Keyboard warrior detected.
Rewriting the constitution!
The Founding Fathers intended the document to be flexible in order to fit the changing needs and circumstances of the country.Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph, one of the five men tasked with drafting the Constitution, said the goal was to “insert essential principles only, lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events". George Washington said, "I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than 20 years."
@@imacomputer101 BS
@sigsauer7929 lol your username says a lot. If it's bs then the entire constitution is bs...in that case you need to stop hiding behind the constitution and say what you really want to say
@sigsauer7929 It's not BS. It's fact. Since it is fact, you crazy people should stop hiding behind the constitution and just say what you really want to say...
4 million to buy a Supreme court judge ??
Hell I'd buy 2