The case will test how far the court’s conservative majority is willing to go in interpreting the scope of its 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights outside the home.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would uphold a federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms, potentially limiting the scope of its own major gun rights ruling from last year.

The case gives the court’s 6-3 conservative majority a chance to consider the broad ramifications of the 2022 decision, which for the first time found that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

  • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t see how you figure. Bruen only eliminated subjective “suitability” determinations in may-issue permitting. Objective criteria, like criminal history, are still allowed.

    • hasnt_seen_goonies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not all Bruen did. Bruen also said a restriction on gun ownership had to be consistent with our history and values. Which we assume means you have to point to laws that did the same thing during the 1700s/1800s. Whether or not this is idiotic is rhetorical, but you can’t point to a law that said you could take guns away because of domestic violence from that era, because domestic violence wasn’t a crime then!

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You should reread Bruen, and many of the exasperated appellate decisions that insist that they don’t know how to comply with it, with some claiming they’d need to hire a historian to comply with it.