Domestic abusers don't generate a lot of sympathy among the general public, which is just fine by me. 

The truth of the matter is that domestic abusers did it to themselves, and I don't feel bad for them.

As a result of this animosity, there are a lot of people who might ordinarily take issue with the outcome of the Rahimi case who aren't saying anything. After all, people who beat their partners are scum, which is bad enough, but there's also a link between that and other forms of violence.

And, of course, those who really take issue with domestic abusers are celebrating Rahimi.

A recent Supreme Court decision has reinforced a gun control law protecting domestic violence victims, and Tift County support networks for said demographic are optimistic of the effects this change will have.

...

Many within the Tifton judicial circuit and local support centers for victims of domestic violence were elated at the result; Jody Spooner, program director for the court's Office of Victim Assistance, claimed the ruling was "what needed to happen."

Spooner stated that gun-related domestic violence had always been a persistent issue, especially in Georgia, which ranks near the higher end of domestic violence rates nationwide. She was grateful for the Supreme Court's decision and hopeful that it would help prevent future domestic violence.

Nancy Bryan, executive director of domestic and sexual violence victim shelter Ruth's Cottage and Patticake House, also expressed appreciation for the ruling.

Bryan noted that the nonprofit had been founded in response to domestic violence involving firearms, and so was very satisfied for the increased protection for victims of similar cases, feeling the renewed ban would reassure and help them feel safer.

"We're very pleased with the decision," Bryan said. "This is a win for victims of domestic violence."

Now, these are local advocates in Tifton, Georgia, which isn't exactly a massive chunk of the state either by landmass or population, but these sentiments are being reflected all across the nation.

And I get it. Zachey Rahimi was a bad person who allegedly beat on his partner as just one of his acts of violence. 

What none of these advocates seem to acknowledge, though, is that the law in question doesn't just impact people like Rahimi. It impacts literally every man who gets accused of domestic violence, whether there's evidence they did anything or not.

In divorce proceedings, it's not unusual for one party to claim domestic abuse so as to use it for leverage. A judge hears that and issues a restraining order identical to the one Rahimi was under.

The difference is that this schlub didn't do anything.

See, the issue with disarming people based on restraining orders is that there's no real burden of proof. A judge will issue an order out of an abundance of caution, worried about what would happen if he fails to do so. Honestly, I get it. I don't agree with it, but I understand the motivation entirely.

Domestic abuse advocates have a strong tendency to simply assume anyone accused of such a thing is guilty. That's certainly understandable, even if I disagree here as well. 

But that's not the case, and the Rahimi decision keeps in place a flawed system that strips people of their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms over what amounts to little more than an accusation.

What's hilarious to me, in a sad way, is that the very people who take issue with incarcerating people pending bail, claiming it's a violation of their rights, see no issue with this ruling at all. Again, the Second Amendment is a second-class right in their minds.

No one favors domestic abusers. No one likes them.

I'm not going to defend them.

I'm defending all the people who have been accused of something they weren't guilty of. Where are they in this discussion?