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

  • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    They don’t have to petition. POs have hearings. That IS due process.

    Want to keep your guns? Stop being a dick and present as someone with the self-control that society has decided is required to own one.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They don’t have to petition. POs have hearings. That IS due process.

      I see we’re intentionally disregarding the civil part being insufficient and the lack of proof being required along with the inconsistencies.

      Want to keep your guns? Stop being a dick and present as someone with the self-control that society has decided is required to own one.

      Want to take away someone’s rights? Provide proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of a crime.

      • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The right to bear arms is a conditional right. One of those conditions is being someone who is capable of responsible ownership. Threatening the safety of another person is a lack of that trait.

        • SaltySalamander@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          One of those conditions is being someone who is capable of responsible ownership.

          Point to the portion of the 2nd amendment that spells this out.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          One of those conditions is being someone who is capable of responsible ownership.

          Oh? Was that from the Lost Chapter of the Bill of Rights?

          Threatening the safety of another person is a lack of that trait.

          Then a person should have no difficulty with the assault and/or battery conviction or the significant evidence in support of an ERPO and proving it, justifying the infringement on a right.