Justice Department asks SCOTUS to uphold gun restriction

Image by geralt from Pixabay

There’s almost no chance we will ever see our nation completely without gun restrictions. Sure, the Second Amendment doesn’t allow for exceptions, but I just don’t see there being enough will by anyone, including the Supreme Court, to open the doors, so to speak, and end any and all restrictions on who can buy guns.


But Bruen took a big step forward, though, by laying down some groundwork on standards laws have to clear.

As a result, a lot of laws got overturned. Now, the Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate one of them.

The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to allow a federal law stand that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to own firearms.

In February, a three judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans declared that the ban was unconstitutional, saying it violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms. It was the latest victory for gun rights advocates since a Supreme Court ruling last June granting a broad right for people to carry firearms outside the home.

The Supreme Court ruling announced a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” and not simply advance an important government interest.

“More than a million acts of domestic violence occur in the United States every year, and the presence of a firearm increases the chance that violence will escalate to homicide,” the petition reads.


Now, I’m just going to point out that if we look at the average man versus the average woman, a gun isn’t necessary for that violence to escalate to homicide.

For me, the solution to that is relatively easy and should even be politically expedient. Just elevate domestic violence crimes to the level of a felony.

Then there’s little doubt that the abuser should be restricted from owning firearms and even less chance that the Bruen decision would impact laws keeping them disarmed.

If the crimes don’t warrant felony charges then, in my estimation, they don’t warrant restricting someone’s civil liberties.

That’s not me being an apologist for wife beaters, either. I think they’re absolute scum. I want them facing felony charges, regardless of any Second Amendment issues.

But the problem with this restriction is that it’s part of an incremental effort that will eventually lead to only a select few actually being able to own guns. It started here, then people began trying to keep people with DUI convictions from being able to own guns.


That effort can and will continue unless it’s stopped permanently.

Which brings us back to this case.

The Justice Department wants the law to be upheld, and that may or may not happen. I can’t really tell where the Court will land on this one just yet. However, I do believe that this will provide the Court an opportunity to provide a hard line that cannot be crossed. If they uphold the current law, they’ll likely say just how far this kind of thing can go.

If not, well, then we have a hard line as well.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member