Conservative Appeals Court: people with domestic violence restraining orders can have and buy guns

DWags wrote:

We’ve lost our fucking minds.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/people-under-domestic-violence-orders-can-own-guns-us-appeals-court-rules-2023-02-02/

The RWNJ's have taken over the Federal Courts in Texas, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

While the main goal of the wealthy who funded this decades long plan to do this is to have the courts rule in favor of the wealthy and against the poor and the workers, they are also using the courts to gin up the people who they can convince to vote against those people's economic interests by pointing at "the others".

Litigants have been "court & judge shopping" in the federal courts which fall under the 5th Circuit, which btw is managed by Samuel A. Alito, Jr..  The Biden DoJ just began to push back, asking for a change in venue due to the Litigants not being citizens living in the geographic area of the 5th Circuit.

First of all, obviously insane. Insane that we’d rule that way, insane that anyone that isn’t a domestic abuser or planning on being a domestic abuser would cheer this.

Second, I absolutely cannot fucking stand lines like this one. “an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.” A) you really have no idea if that’s true. B) they aren’t fucking deities and the constitution is not the Bible. They are not and never were infallible. C) they’d have flat out rejected the idea that they are infallible, and did just that at the time. Some suggesting that all of this should be regularly rewritten to fit modern times, not applying 1700s ideals to 2023. D) our ancestors would think that all of us are completely fucking insane. Maybe they’d be right. Hell we’re only having this conversation on the internet because we share the common bond of enjoying watching people throw a ball on our televisions every week. And every single piece of that sentence would be bewildering to them.

an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted

I believe that recreational mass shootings by RWNJ's would also fit into this category.

The problem with this, and other red flag laws, is that they seem pretty common sense, but don't provide the accused with much due process.  We tend to, as we should, be overly conservative and protect women and children in this society.  But when you add in taking away a constitutional right, I think a bit more thought should go into it other than "He's a dirt bag, take away his guns."

How does the accused get their "day in court" so to speak?  How long are they restricted?  Is there a process whereby they can regain their rights?

I know many will say "who gives a fuck, just take away their guns" but I think issues like these need to be spelled out to make these types of efforts successful.

Think the "no fly list" during the height of post 9/11 fear and loathing. A lot of innocent people got caught up in that with no clear way to remediate their situation. And flying isn't a constitutional right.

I don’t think he was prohibited from owning guns before the restraining order. Not sure about after. All I know is it probably makes sense to have taken them from him in February 2020 so dec and Jan would a have been harder to happen. The biggest problem is it makes to much sense.

Who gives a fuck just take away their guns.

"Pro-life"

Motown Spartan wrote:

an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted

I believe that recreational mass shootings by RWNJ's would also fit into this category.

Since almost all the guns were single shot requiring quite a bit of time to reload pretty sure they had no concept of one shooter killing 10 people in less than 60 seconds.