Supreme Court upholds ban on domestic abusers owning guns

The Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms in an 8-1 decision. NBC News' Lisa Rubin and Yamiche Alcindor report on the ruling.



Follow MSNBC Show Blogs

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.

Connect with MSNBC Online

#SupremeCourt #Guns #Politics

[chuckymurderedjason]

Of course Clarence dissented. He, himself is an abuser unless everyone forgot.

[greyborg]

As soon as she said 8-1 I was confident that thomas was the sole dissenter.

[dbmorton]

Oh geez. Harlan Crowe must be so disappointed, will now have to buy another couple three justices.

[meatmobile]

Surprising that they didnt make it mandatory for abusers to have guns with their recent track record

[jamesc]

And Uncle Clarence was the one vote against it.

[matt-fitzpatrick]

SCOTUS has put off so many big decisions for the last minute, I forgot this was one of those big decisions. Thanks Lisa and Yamiche for keeping on top of the backlog!

[jeanmfennell]

There's probably another multi million dollar gift for Thomas since he dissented What a coward.

[davidbible]

Wow. The a SC decision that can save lives. That’s different.

[Abmotsad]

This is just for show. They throw out the occasional ruling like this to give themselves cover for their wack-a-doo decisions.

"See? We can be reasonable!"

[sallykoch]

Big whoop! How about ruling on trump, rogue judges?

[xlrtedzoom]

Why did this even reach SCOTUS? Yeah give them restraining orders and allow them to own guns. Domestic injuries will occur and Clarence should know better than to support it.

[Krispy]

But it does not apply to police, firemen, FBI, SS, CIA - what the heck is wrong with this picture?

[KKarama]

why would this even be a argument? Dont give crazy people guns

[KyuuAA]

Proof that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right.

[feloniusduck]

EVEN A BROKEN CLOCK IS RIGHT TWICE A DAY BABY

[rey-dqnx]

8-1, which one thought domestic abusers should be allowed to own gun?

[Real_PlayerOne]

Notice how they don’t tell you what Clarance Thomas said…

[rc]

As a gun owner, I am kind of shocked the decision. I would have assumed the SC would allow individuals who are prone to quick violence would be okay with an AR-15 with bump stocks because....YOLO.

[higgs]

Harlan Crowe is wasting a ton of money bribing Thomas.

[jeffamckee]

My son bought a house that has a 66 ft wide easement to access it. By putting obstructions in the way, the owners of the easement narrowed it down to about 8 feet which made it difficult to use. My son filed court papers to get a judge to rule that he can use the whole easement because the police can't do anything about it in what they call civil matters. A judge has to sign off on their opinion first). The Owners wife retaliated by putting a PPO out on my son and I both. The PPO's were filled with nothing more than lies. It was all hearsay with no evidence of the lies being truthful. That's how easy it is to get one.

The wife that put the PPO's out on us had her lawyer use dropping the PPO's as leverage to try to get my son to settle out of court on a crap deal.

Needless to say, for about a month and a half my son and I lost our constitutional rights. With current law, we couldn't legally possess guns or defend ourselves against this crazy lady.

Can you imagine if this was a case of an abuser lying about their spouse in order to remove the spouses right to self-defense? There would be an extended time where the abuser would have open season on the victim. That's what makes this case a horrible decision. We all want guns out of the hands of the violent. However, what happens when the violent are now the accusers? If there's no trial, there's no way to figure any of this out until it's possibly too late.