The Supreme Court upheld a federal law Friday that bars guns for domestic abusers, rejecting an argument pressed by gun rights groups that the prohibition violated the Second Amendment.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16783334

8-1 with Thomas the dissent.

“The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” Thomas wrote. “Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.”

  • Coffee Addict@lemmy.worldEnglish
    391·
    5 months ago

    Lol of course Thomas would be the only one to dissent. Though, I am surprised that Alito didn’t also.

    To be honest, I am kinda surprised this was upheld at all, given how conservative the supreme court is.

    Not that I’m complaining; at the very least it’s a step in the direction for gun control.

      • Coffee Addict@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        5 months ago

        I see that now at the end of the article; it’s his second absence.

        Still, the ruling says 8-1. Did he rule for it in his absence? Or should the ruling actually be 7-1-1 (or something?)

        • echolalia@lemmy.ml
          111·
          5 months ago

          It takes a long time to deliver these decisions. The majority opinion is written weeks beforehand, with hundreds of man hours put into it by the justices and their clerks. Alito would have already read and approved it (or he would have joined Thomas in dissent). They heard the arguments for the case on another day, this is just the deliverance of the ruling.

  • tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    211·
    5 months ago

    That 40% of cops will be able to keep theirs since they claim the time they spend beating their spouses as “overtime”.

    • 555@lemmy.world
      1·
      5 months ago

      Their spouses must have been holding a cell phone that looked like a gun.

  • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
    143·
    5 months ago

    Not having legal precedence is hardly a reason to dissent, Thomas.

    I’m pretty sure the 13th amendment had about the same level of legal precedence too.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      52·
      5 months ago

      Not having legal precedence is hardly a reason to dissent…

      Under the Bruen test it is. Even the majority would agree with that. Thomas differed from them by stating that the laws proposed in the main opinion were not relevantly similar enough to the one before the correct.

      The test wouldn’t apply to the 13th amendment because that’s a constitutional amendment, and not a law allegedly impacting a right.