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.”

  • Coffee Addict
    link
    fedilink
    English
    419 days ago

    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.

    • 555
      link
      fedilink
      28 days ago

      Their spouses must have been holding a cell phone that looked like a gun.

    • @FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      59 days ago

      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.

    • Drusas
      link
      fedilink
      69 days ago

      Good luck getting a restraining order against your abusive partner when he’s a cop.

      • I'm back on my BS 🤪
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 days ago

        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.

    • BassaForte
      link
      fedilink
      English
      49 days ago

      That’s how it’s been IIRC. This is just the SC saying it’s going to stay that way.