cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16783334
8-1 with Thomas the dissent.
“The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” Thomas wrote. “Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.”
Lol of course Thomas would be the only one to dissent. Though, I am surprised that Alito didn’t also.
To be honest, I am kinda surprised this was upheld at all, given how conservative the supreme court is.
Not that I’m complaining; at the very least it’s a step in the direction for gun control.
He was absent today as I read.
I see that now at the end of the article; it’s his second absence.
Still, the ruling says 8-1. Did he rule for it in his absence? Or should the ruling actually be 7-1-1 (or something?)
It takes a long time to deliver these decisions. The majority opinion is written weeks beforehand, with hundreds of man hours put into it by the justices and their clerks. Alito would have already read and approved it (or he would have joined Thomas in dissent). They heard the arguments for the case on another day, this is just the deliverance of the ruling.
This makes sense.
I am still surprised Alito voted with the majority lol.
With the court’s conservative lean, silence is consent
Maybe he’s dying.
That 40% of cops will be able to keep theirs since they claim the time they spend beating their spouses as “overtime”.
Their spouses must have been holding a cell phone that looked like a gun.
Sweet!
Cops without guns is a giant leap forward for America!
I’m curious to see how this works with law enforcement.
Law enforcement officials immune to domestic violence accusations
Good luck getting a restraining order against your abusive partner when he’s a cop.
I had a girlfriend that was a sheriff deputy. those people seriously have each other’s backs with things. it’s definitely a government-sanctioned gang.
That’s how it’s been IIRC. This is just the SC saying it’s going to stay that way.
Not having legal precedence is hardly a reason to dissent, Thomas.
I’m pretty sure the 13th amendment had about the same level of legal precedence too.
Not having legal precedence is hardly a reason to dissent…
Under the Bruen test it is. Even the majority would agree with that. Thomas differed from them by stating that the laws proposed in the main opinion were not relevantly similar enough to the one before the correct.
The test wouldn’t apply to the 13th amendment because that’s a constitutional amendment, and not a law allegedly impacting a right.
