Supreme Court To Consider Whether Domestic Abusers Can Own Guns

Author: Vegasgiants
Gun control

Posts

Total: 46
Topic's author
#1
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
The court will hear the case in the fall.

The issue is a man was arrested for violating the 1994 law that prohibits domestic abusers from having a gun.

The appeals court vacated his conviction on the grounds that it violated the second amendment.

Apparently the conservative 5th circuit appeals court in Texas believes this man and those like him should be able to have a gun.


From the article:

The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While the order expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm, he was involved in five shootings in and around the city of Arlington between December 2020 and January 2021. After police officers found firearms at his home, Rahimi pled guilty to violating the Federal Firearms Act.
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,948
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vegasgiants
 allegedly assaulting... 

So an allegation or a restraining order is sufficient to violate constitutional rights in 2023?

Did you research how easily people can obtain restraining orders? You can literally slap yourself in the face, take a picture, or get a buddy to testify, and get a compliant judge to sign off on it. Happens all the time, especially in divorce situations.

If this case is upheld, perhaps it will give cause for serious reform of the current system of restraining orders.

#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Vegasgiants
As rates of gun violence increase in the United States, experts have identified a disturbing, decades-long trend: There's a clear intersection between mass shootings and domestic violence toward family members.  
More than half of mass shootings — those involving four or more victims — are "actually shootings of intimate partners and families," said April Zeoli, Ph.D., an associate professor and the policy core director for the Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention at the University of Michigan. Zeoli studies the intersection of domestic violence, gun violence and policies aimed at curtailing both. 
Even in cases where family members and partners are not killed, the perpetrators of mass shootings often have a history of domestic violence, she said. 
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,948
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Most mass shooters come from fatherless homes. Especially teens.
#5
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
there's no doubt that having a gun handy when someone is impulsive will increase the likelihood that someone will be murdered. gun nuts like to pretend that impulsive people will just wait until they later get a gun and the murder will happen anyway. it defies logic or an understanding of human nature. of course, if someone is impulsive, and they happen to have a gun, the are more likely to kill someone. gun nuts also pretend that everyone who is denied a legal gun will get one illegally... the problem, is that's not true, not everyone who is told they can't have a gun will get one. that also defied logic... 100 percent of those denied will get a gun? ridiculous logic. so, if someone is told they can't have a gun, and they dont happen to have one when they're being impulsive... murder is less likely to occur. 
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,948
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
gun nuts..
Would you feel like the term "ban nuts" is justified?

You often lose credibility with your arguments when you demonize people with different lives with "pop slurs" as the commonplace rantings of a demagogue.
#7
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
yes gun nuts will use the emotion that i hurt their feelings to avoid the cold hard logic that impulsive people with guns are more likely to murder others than if they didn't have a gun. 
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,948
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Seems like the only one with irrational and impulsive feelings is you with the commonplace demagoguery.

Maybe try logic and reason? Using demagoguery only makes conversation impossible, and tyranny to deal with "gun nuts" should be the last resort to solving any problem. Tyrannical force used to deal with "ban nuts" should be tempered as well.
Topic's author
#9
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
I have no problems with a person appealing this decision in court.  Make your case that you should have guns


That's due process
Topic's author
#10
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Most mass shooters drank milk as a child
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,948
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vegasgiants
I agree, milk is nasty. Plus overhyped. It's essentially water with cow parts in it.
Topic's author
#12
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
That's nice
#13
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,023
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
 allegedly assaulting... 

So an allegation or a restraining order is sufficient to violate constitutional rights in 2023?

Did you research how easily people can obtain restraining orders? You can literally slap yourself in the face, take a picture, or get a buddy to testify, and get a compliant judge to sign off on it. Happens all the time, especially in divorce situations.

If this case is upheld, perhaps it will give cause for serious reform of the current system of restraining orders.
The solution to the restraining order problem is more guns.

More guns, more guns, more guns.
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,948
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
More guns isn't a solution. It's inevitable as technology makes it as easy to get as a shopping cart. Just like the 1930 bootleggers learned how to make their own banned alcohol with the technology available at the time.

Before a lot of guns, you could ignore crazy people. Now society will be forced to deal with crazy, violent people for the preservation of society instead of letting them roam wild.
#15
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,845
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after alle
Agreeing to a protective order is not a trial establishing guilt it's just saying "I'll save everybody the lawyer fees because I don't want to see that *)##$ again either".

Topic's author
#16
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
He can go to court and say why he should be allowed to own a gun.

That's due process
#17
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,845
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
I've pretty much decided you're not serious enough about debate to engage with. I'll give you something brief to see if you say something reasonable: I don't know what "involved in shootings" means, but someone who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable guilt cannot be deprived of rights. Rights are not things you have to take time out of your day to go to a courthouse to recover.
Topic's author
#18
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's false.  Cops typically deprive peopke of their rights based on probable cause.  Rights are also denied based on being a danger to self or others.   And other examples.  

I don't think you can keep up.  You should stop now
#19
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,845
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
You did well in finding other areas of moral hazard.
Topic's author
#20
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And proving you have no clue what you are talking about.   Lol
#21
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,845
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
Is that what you did? Does historical slavery also contradict my statement?
Topic's author
#22
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You said this 

but someone who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable guilt cannot be deprived of rights. 


CURRENTLY THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT


CLUELESS
#23
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,845
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
but someone who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable guilt cannot be deprived of rights. 


CURRENTLY THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT
Cannot justly be deprived of rights. That should have been obvious to you.

#24
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You said this 

but someone who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable guilt cannot be deprived of rights. 
Once again you fail to grasp the context in which IDOL provided that statement. It was clearly referring to a court hearing*, not what police do during the course of their duties. 

*Rights are not things you have to take time out of your day to go to a courthouse to recover.
Helps if you include the entirety of the statement vs cherry picking the parts you think you can rebut, but always fail in that regard. 
Topic's author
#25
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So NOW you add justly.   Lol


but someone who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable guilt cannot be deprived of rights. 


At least you admit yiu were wrong 
#26
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,845
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
At least you admit yiu were wrong 
I haven't mentioned yiu nor do I know him. <- choosing the obtuse answer, wouldn't want you to have all the fun
Topic's author
#27
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
But you were completely and utterly wrong

I had to educate you.  Lol
#28
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
DA whom  have not made any threats of violence should not be barred from owning guns. 

A neighbor could smoke the same crack pope IWRA does, go next door, and shoot the shit out of them and that DA couldn’t defend themselves. 

Bringing a knife, baseball bat, or even a hatchet won’t win in a gun fight. 

So how else is a man (or woman) going to defense themself against a would be home invader - OR a road rager a-hole?
#29
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,121
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
DA whom  have not made any threats of violence should not be barred from owning guns. 
Hey genius, how does one exactly become a domestic abuser without any violence in their background?



#30
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Vegasgiants
What is a reasonable guilt?


Sort of a guilt that is a tad nicer than an unreasonable guilt I suppose.


So are you saying that it's OK for one to be guilty, as long as it is deemed  reasonable and doesn't stray into the realms of the unreasonable.



How do you find the defendant.

Reasonably guilty.

Case dismissed.