Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional
No. They don’t. If you’re not a responsible person you cannot be a responsible gun owner.
Domestic abusers shouldn’t have guns…this is true.
The problem is that responsible people get protection orders issued against them all the time (and what’s being discussed are protection orders, not convicted abusers)…because many states require no proof other than the word of the accuser…which inevitably leads to people weaponizing the process out of petty revenge or anger solely to make life hell for their ex. People convicted of domestic abuse would still lose their guns. What the article is discussing is whether people who’ve been accused without evidence should continue to have their rights stripped or not.
If some people losing their right to own guns based on a false accusation also means that some different people don’t get murdered by their psycho exes, is that a good thing on balance?
If some innocent people get executed, but that also means that different, highly-dangerous criminals get executed, is that a good thing on balance?
I’m not sure what your point is.
If you have enough evidence for protective order, then there should be enough for a criminal trial. If you don’t have enough for a criminal conviction, then IMO you shouldn’t have enough evidence to remove a person’s civil rights. A person that has been convicted of a domestic violence offense–including misdemeanors–is already a prohibited person.
I’m not sure what relevance your previous post has to this topic.
Anyway, rights are not people, people are more important. As for the right to own a firearm, I’m of the opinion that it’s past time to revisit this amendment. People living in countries without something similar to the 2nd amendment aren’t less free. In fact I’d argue they’re more free as they don’t have to worry about being involved in a massacre just because some white male incel fuckup is having a bad day.
As for your point about protective orders. Did you read the article? The rationale is discussed there.
In fact I’d argue they’re more free as they don’t have to worry about being involved in a massacre just because some white male incel fuckup is having a bad day.
Fortunately, the only reason to have such fear is media sensationalism and your personal failure to understand the statistics.
Despite the fearmongering, you’re still not even close to likely to experience one.
People also argue that China is more free than the US because people aren’t burdened with the need to choose which party they prefer, or worry about speech that may run counter to the party’s beliefs. And hey!, they have healthcare!
Personally, I believe in civil rights, including the ability to be a religious fundamentalist of any stripe, to say dumb shit that’s devoid of reason without being politically persecuted for it, the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (all of which are constantly being eroded by SCOTUS), and yes, the right to own the firearms of your own choice.
Anyway, rights are not people, people are more important.
By this argument, you could claim that an absolute totalitarian gov’t that allowed no freedom of any kind and ruthlessly prevented any criminal activity would be a better choice than a style of governance that allowed for any person freedom at all, since all freedoms can be misused in ways that cause harm. By eliminating all rights, you ensure that the gov’t has the ability to keep the maximum number of people safe and secure. You don’t even have to go that far; you could claim that speech that is politically unpopular should be criminalized, that any religion to the right of Unitarian Universalists causes harm to people and society and should be excised, that it’s necessary for the police to have broad search and seizure authority to prevent harmful activities, and so on and so forth.
