The justices rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law that makes
it a crime for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess
a gun.

By Adam Liptak

Reporting from Washington
June 21, 2024 | Updated 10:44 a.m. ET

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government may disarm a Texas man
subject to a domestic violence order, limiting the sweep of its earlier
blockbuster decision that vastly expanded gun rights.

That decision, issued in 2022, struck down a New York law that put strict limits
on carrying guns outside the home. It also established a new legal standard for
assessing laws limiting the possession of firearms, one whose reliance on
historical practices has sown confusion as courts have struggled to apply it,
with some judges sweeping aside gun control laws that have been on the books for
decades.

The new case, United States v. Rahimi, explored the scope of that new test. Only
Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the majority opinion in the 2022
decision, dissented.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that Second
Amendment rights had limits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence.html

*Of course* the right to arms has limits. Justice Scalia authoritatively and
permanently explained that *sixteen* years ago:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Cry, you stupid gun fondlers — cry louder.

On 6/21/24 10:32, J Carlson wrote:
> The justices rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law that
> makes it a crime for people subject to domestic violence restraining
> orders to possess a gun.
>
> By Adam Liptak
>
> Reporting from Washington
> June 21, 2024 | Updated 10:44 a.m. ET
>
> The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government may disarm a Texas
> man subject to a domestic violence order, limiting the sweep of its
> earlier blockbuster decision that vastly expanded gun rights.
>
> That decision, issued in 2022, struck down a New York law that put
> strict limits on carrying guns outside the home. It also established a
> new legal standard for assessing laws limiting the possession of
> firearms, one whose reliance on historical practices has sown confusion
> as courts have struggled to apply it, with some judges sweeping aside
> gun control laws that have been on the books for decades.
>
> The new case, United States v. Rahimi, explored the scope of that new
> test. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the majority opinion
> in the 2022 decision, dissented.
>
> Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that
> Second Amendment rights had limits.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence.html

I see no problem here.

On 6/21/2024 8:54 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 6/21/24 10:32, J Carlson wrote:
>> The justices rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law that makes
>> it a crime for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders to
>> possess a gun.
>>
>> By Adam Liptak
>>
>> Reporting from Washington
>> June 21, 2024 | Updated 10:44 a.m. ET
>>
>> The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government may disarm a Texas man
>> subject to a domestic violence order, limiting the sweep of its earlier
>> blockbuster decision that vastly expanded gun rights.
>>
>> That decision, issued in 2022, struck down a New York law that put strict
>> limits on carrying guns outside the home. It also established a new legal
>> standard for assessing laws limiting the possession of firearms, one whose
>> reliance on historical practices has sown confusion as courts have struggled
>> to apply it, with some judges sweeping aside gun control laws that have been
>> on the books for decades.
>>
>> The new case, United States v. Rahimi, explored the scope of that new test.
>> Only Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the majority opinion in the 2022
>> decision, dissented.
>>
>> Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that Second
>> Amendment rights had limits.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence.html
>
> I see no problem here.

Yeah, sure.

On 21 Jun 2024, J Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> posted some
news:v546eg$377u1$18@dont-email.me:

> The justices rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law
> that makes it a crime for people subject to domestic violence
> restraining orders to possess a gun.

Sucks for you dwarfs, hunh?