I know no one wants to hear this, but due to the fact that the current SCOTUS leans Right and the US Constitution specified that firearm ownership "Shall not be infringed", the most likely outcome will be that spouse abusers will be allowed to continue to own guns.
I don't begrudge you for saying out loud like this, but I'm not sure who was at all under the delusion that this would ever be anything other than the worst outcome possible.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
the 2a a) recognizes that a well regulated militia(*) is necessary and b) the people need to be allowed to keep arms to allow that to happen.
That's it.
* "The Militia" is probably referring to, what we could consider today to the be national guardsmen (during this time period, the 'militia' was just men of a certain age- military age. it was also common for towns to muster their own militia for the purpose of things like law enforcement.)
That said.... yeah. they're probably going to fuck up on this one too.
It's not a mysery, we don't need psychics or time travellers to figure out what the founders meant. James Madison kept extensive notes on the Constitutional Convention. The intent behind the 2a is in there, as well as several earlier revisions of the final wording. All the modern court rulings are insane when you understand the founders' real intent.
Conservatives never read the whole thing. They just repeat the bits they like -- like a bible.
FWIW, it also says, "the people" not "a person." When the constitution is enumerating an individual right, it typically does so with different language.
I decided to look into what the Illinois state constitution says about all this. Enshrined in said constitution is a clause which basically says that all able-bodied adults who are citizens of the State of Illinois are militia members. This is obviously to dovetail with the US Second Amendment.
So, being an able-bodied adult who is a citizen of the State of Illinois, I contacted my state representative and senators, asking what were my rights and responsibilites as a member of the Illinois state militia. One person actually called me back, but the voicemail he left was very dismissive, saying that he could look into it, if I wanted to waste his time.
This does not suggest that the "militia" in Illinois is "well regulated."
I would love for you to record the conversation... when you called him back and asked him to look into it. he is, after all, you're representative. you're his boss.
This was many years ago (like ... 15?), and I didn't call him back. I didn't feel that the conversation would be productive. I don't remember specifically who the rep was at the time, but for reference, Dennis Hastert was my representative when he was in office. That should tell you all you need to know about who gets elected around here.
It honestly sounds like you could finagle a free annual day at the range to shoot and plink all expenses paid by daddy Illinois gov. Because a militia is obligated to train and maintain their arms to remain "in good working order" which is what the modern translation of "well regulated militia" means.
Domestic violence is already seriously under-prosecuted and victims given little protection at all. It's seen somehow as less important than other forms of violence, while I would say that this should be the opposite.
No one with a history of violence should be allowed to own a gun, but especially someone with a history of domestic violence, as that tends to be a pattern and not a one-off incident.
The problem is that it's not "proven"; the only side presenting any evidence is the person seeking the protective order. If you make it an adversarial process so that the subject of the protective order can try to refute claims by the person seeking the order, then sure.
But right now it's strictly one-sided. Most places do require some form of evidence, but that evidence doesn't have to meet normal evidentiary standards, and the evidence isn't being questioned in an adversarial way.
Personally, I'm not comfortable removing rights when the person losing rights can't contest it.
actually, you should need enough proof to show the stranger made those remarks, yeah?
like, people make false accusations all the time. like... how many times have karens called the cops wanting exactly this to happen?
Edit to clarify: you need to satisfy a cop that the subject actually represents a persistent threat. That cop then can issue a protective order of a relatively short duration (days, typically), while the courts decide-adversarially- if it is indeed warranted.
Actually, there are more cases of domestic violence than false accusations. How come we’re not worried about false accusations of robbery when they happen at the same rate as false accusations of sexual assault? Trust me, there are not karens lurking in every corner trying to make fake reports.
In our society where sexual assault is underreported, and one in 4 women experience domestic violence, why are you putting a comment that wouldn’t help this society improve on this front?
Actually, there are more cases of domestic violence than false accusations.
protective orders are used for far more than just instances of domestic violence. domestic violence. Further, just because most accusations of domestic violence aren't false... doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be some attempt to verify the truth of the accusation. Arguing that 99 prior accusations were honest, doesn't mean that 1 time isn't.
How come we’re not worried about false accusations of robbery when they happen at the same rate as false accusations of sexual assault?
nice whataboutism. you don't get protective orders handed to you because you stole some shit.
Trust me, there are not karens lurking in every corner trying to make fake reports.
And yet... it happens... sure a lot of those are for stupid reasons. It's still pure malice, and it's still wrong. Amy cooper, did exactly what we're talking.
Police don't issue POs in any jurisdiction I know of. You have to go to court for that. Police can't do more than ask them nicely to go away until you get a court issued PO signed by a judge.
The vast majority of evidence shows that people don't tend to go around falsely accusing their loved ones of crimes just for kicks and giggles. Yet every abuse apologist loves to polish up that argument every single time.
I'm trying to give you the benefit of doubt, but you do realize that making these arguments in this way puts you squarely aligned with the most consistent group of murderers in the world, right?
"People are being hurt and terrorized, and need to be protected!"
"But we couldn't possibly take away a few guns until we sort this out, because an entitled violent person's right to have a gun is way more important than thousands of innocent murdered women and children, right!...Right?"
I think you're getting temporary POs confused with permanent ones.
My ex and abuser was convicted of domestic violence charges, and currently owns a gun and has no public record of his crimes. This despite being anti gun and getting it for the sole purpose of scaring me. Proof has nothing to do with it. Courts regularly ignore proof in order to fail to protect victims. If they don't accept criminal convictions as proof, there isn't much they will accept. Don't pretend this has anything to do with a need to prove that someone is a monster before taking away his deadly toys.
For what it is worth, our kids are still fighting to heal the damage he did to them. But he has a right to a gun, so bully for him.
If he was convicted of domestic violence, then he cannot legally own a firearm, unless the conviction has been vacated or he's been pardoned. That's federal law. Therefore, he either wasn't convicted of domestic violence, the courts failed to follow through with their legal obligations and report the conviction to NICS, or he acquired the firearm illegally.
Add comment