Do guns belong in the hands of domestic abusers?
hub.jhu.edu
Kelly Roskam of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a major firearms case before the Supreme Court

Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    52·
    1 year ago

    It’s not about guns specifically, it’s about the government depriving a person of property without due process. It would be even safer if we just took these people to jail and promised a real hearing within 72 hours. We don’t do that because that’s more obviously a denial of due process.

    • flicker@kbin.social
      24·
      1 year ago

      “Due process” is fair treatment through the judicial system. When we discuss making laws regarding how people should be treated, those laws become the process that is due. I reject the idea what we can’t discuss changing the law because “that’s the way the law is.”

      Additionally, broadening the point to “property” doesn’t at all somehow change the premise. “It’s about property rights!” It’s about the rights to the property of firearms.

      And you did what the other person did! Y’all keep completely ignoring what I’m asking, to try and make some other point!

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        51·
        1 year ago
        1. That’s not how due process works. You can’t pass laws that let the state do something and then they can, because that’s the law now. If you want to change due process, amend the constitution.
        2. The fact it’s about firearms is irrelevant until the due process question is answered. Property is property, whether it’s a gun, car, pet, lamp, or computer. Once due process is satisfied, you can argue whether guns are important enough to deprive a person of or not.
        3. The point you are making isn’t interesting. ALL people have rights, your rights don’t trump others. You need proof to take away someone’s rights in the US. We’ve also decided that the accused gets a chance to defend themselves in both criminal and civil matters. Even guilty people get rights, which sometimes makes protecting the innocent difficult. Just because domestic violence is difficult to address, doesn’t mean we get to change the rules just for this.
        • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
          24·
          1 year ago

          Property isn’t property. You don’t have to go through a background check to buy a package of socks. You don’t have to pay annual taxes in order to continue to own your underwear. You don’t register your toothbrush, nor need a license to mow your lawn.

          Society has already decided certain forms of property are treated differently than others.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            23·
            1 year ago

            You don’t have to go through a background check to buy a firearm in most parts of the US (although you do to purchase a firearm from a dealer; private sales are largely legal).

            Aside from NFA items, you shouldn’t be paying a tax to own firearms, period. Can you imagine paying a tax to be allowed to go to church, or to abstain from going to church? Or, say, to vote?

            You don’t need to register a firearm in most places in the US. (Nor should you!)

            You don’t need a license to own a firearm in most places in the US. (Nor should you!)

            The fact that society has, in some places, decided that the constitution shouldn’t apply to them, is not a good answer.