Justices Alito and Thomas stand by the right of domestic abusers to bear arms

Originally published at: Justices Alito and Thomas stand by the right of domestic abusers to bear arms


the bright spot in this story, they were in the minority on the ruling.


“After all, modern laws ban guns in schools even though there isn’t a historical analog.”
No! Don’t give these ammosexuals any help. Look at how they have used The Handmaid’s Tale.
“Well, now that we have legalized guns in schools, those schools are unsafe. And the only way to protect the children now is to close the schools. And send those children to the factories, mines, and slaughterhouses.”


This is like defending “the right of drunk drivers to continue driving.”


In November 2020, he was arrested after shooting at another woman and charged with aggravated assault. After three more shooting incidents, police searched his home and found multiple guns. A grand jury indicted him of violating a 1994 federal law that bans people under protective orders from owning guns; it’s punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Rahimi was initially sentenced to a little over six years in prison followed by three years of supervised release.

I don’t understand. THREE+ shooting incidents, multiple assaults, and the thing they finally got him on is the law banning people under protective order from owning guns?? And even then it was only 6 years?

This guy shouldn’t just lose his gun rights, but his right to walk around the rest of society.

We need to take DV as much more serious crime than we do in this country and putting more people away for longer (and would it be too much to ask to try to get some sort of counseling during that time, or they will probably continue to be violent assholes when they get out.)


This is such a weird approach - there are, of course, all sorts of historical laws restricting gun ownership, for all manner of reasons that we wouldn’t accept now (e.g. racism). And modern guns don’t have “historical analogs” (not just because the guns of the “founding fathers” were slow-loading, highly inaccurate long-guns, but because they were also incredibly expensive to own and use, so the dynamics of gun ownership and the violence around them was quite different). But just… philosophically it’s weird - don’t even bother trying to pass laws dealing with modern problems! We’re only allowed to making minor adjustments to existing laws, apparently.


No ruling yet, this is just from the hearing this week, which is usually a good indication as to how people might rule on the issue. No ruling for months.


I misunderstood. I stand corrected.


Honestly, they’re not really good at hiding their intentions during the hearings. They are a good indication of where they’ll land when the ruling comes out.


The only thing about this case that surprises me is that Zackey Rahimi is the poster boy that ammosexuals glommed onto to argue this issue all the way to the Supreme Court. Usually they’ll try to find a figure who is at least a little bit sympathetic to base their dangerous legal precedents on, but everything about this case screams “what kind of sick society would want this man to remain armed and dangerous??”


They are showing us how little they care about human life and how much they care about gun humping. They also probably think that the times that cases with convicted people that further progressive causes in the courts are the same thing as this… :woman_shrugging: They really are violent nihilists.


Do I wanna know why dude is not in prison for kidnapping and attempted murder after the 2019 thing, or is the answer so stupid it will make me cry


It’s an approach that not even Scalia would have agreed with. From his majority opinion in Heller:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited . . . [T]he right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.


he;s in jail


amd he’s written a letter disavowing his right to have a gun

so, he’s an ideal plaintiff for this age


If he was actually at any point convicted of a felony, or of domestic abuse, he would have lost his right to own a gun. The specific provision in question was for him having a protective order against him and possessing a gun. There is not necessarily a specific finding that the person is dangerous. Both parties in a divorce can get slapped with a protective order against each other.

If they had actually charged and convicted him of a felony after the gun shooting incident that spurred the first protective order, then he’d be being charged under the much less challengeable provision of being a violent felon. Or he’d still be in prison.

Rahimi is a terrible poster boy for gun rights. But Miranda was also a terrible poster boy for the right to remain silent (being later actually convicted of the crime that he was being tried for, after his confession was excluded). Rahimi is going to being going to jail. Just on the other charges, and not necessarily this one. (At which point he will have lost his right to own a gun).

1 Like

As usual, it comes down to “pay no attention to the easy availability of firearms, look over there at [insert other problem here]”. This case is not about one domestic abuser who happened to get caught, this is about a national epidemic of gun violence. Alito and Thomas are fine with it continuing, as long as it keeps more ammosexuals in the conservative camp.

Relevant entries from the catch-all topic:


But does it register that this case makes a really strong argument that red flag laws should not only be universal but much more firmly and rapidly enforced?


Season 2 Wtf GIF by Parks and Recreation

Way to willfully miss the point that 1. Domestic violence is underenforced and underprosecuted; and 2. Even after the protective order that should have removed his guns, he still had guns, and crimed with them.


I’m sure his wife’s corpse would find it comforting that he could only be restricted after he killed her.


If you threaten to fly your plane into someone- the FAA will suspend your license prior to you being convicted of anything.