Did you read: Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic-violence restraining orders?

[msc545]

So by a very large margin, the only people that ever get DV restraining orders are men. And by an equally if not larger margin, the only people that ever apply for and get these orders are women. AND: a significant number of these applications consist of false allegations by women. So now what?

Updates

+1 y

Virtually, almost ANY woman can take a mans guns away simply by telling police she is afraid of him which nearly always leads to an arrest, and then applying for a restraining order which is nearly always granted. The man will have to surrender his guns or they will be taken from him by police. Restraining orders are renewable and last for 5 years.

Updates

+1 y

Any accusations a woman makes can be true, or in many cases, false. It does not really matter.

[abc3643]

It was the correct decision.

United States v. Rahimi
Docket No. : 22-915
Op. Below : 5th Cir.
Argument : Nov 7, 2023
Opinion : Jun 21, 2024
Vote : 8-1
Author : Roberts
Term : OT 2023

Holding:
When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

Judgment:
Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 21, 2024. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson filed concurring opinions. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

This is the opinion in PDF form from the Supreme Court's website.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion, summarizes at the end...

" Rather, we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. "

[msc545]

Unfortunately, that finding by a Court is often based on lies. There is no Justice for men.

[abc3643]

Dude, relax. There is something called "Due Process". It's in the Constitution, twice in fact. Due process means that you would get to defend yourself against any charges. This means that courts or other tribunals assess the situation. People who just lie aren't going to succeed in court without a lot of other people lying for them. It overzealous prosecution is a problem for prosecutors because they can be disbarred meaning they can no longer practice law. So prosecutors generally do not go after somebody unless they believe they are going to win. Also for a prosecutor to even bring charges there has to be a grand jury that believes the prosecutor has enough evidence to even bring the charges. Finally there is also during the trial process something called voir dire in which both sides are involved in selecting who the jurors are. That's a lot of safeguards against some female making some random false assertion against some male.

[abc3643]

So, what the Supreme Court ruled here, is that someone (male or female) must first be determined by a court to be a probable threat of initiating violence against another person before their right to own a gun maybe temporarily suspended.

[msc545]

When this gets to court if it ever does, the woman will testify against you and her words will be believed no matter what you say. Unless you can actually prove that when she said you did. Whatever it is you supposedly did you were actually in another city. I think you are being incredibly naive to believe that so-called due process will protect you. Men don't get due process in courts today when there's a dispute involving women. Particularly not when there's a dispute involving criminal allegations by a woman. So no no I'm not going to relax.

[abc3643]

"When this gets to court if it ever does, the woman will testify against you and her words will be believed no matter what you say. "

That's false because you need physical evidence.

Do yourself a favor and read the actual supreme Court opinion which I linked above. This guy who was denied was a real fantastic asshole who was definitely a danger to others and not just the single person. This is why they removed his right to own a weapon.

[Drewtate]

DV allegations are the go to of any bitter ex or wife who's decided the marraige is over. The court and police will automatically support any false allegation with a restraining order and that goes on his criminal record regardless if he's ever convicted of any crime and even if it'd proven conclusively that there was no domestic abuse on the man's part that false allegation of DV is always there and is very influential in child custody hearings and divorce proceedings in the case of a divorcing wife, in the case of a bitter ex its usually about reputation destruction and petty revenge. Funny thing is even women who were treated really well by their exes and they are the ones ending it will make up false allegations out of sheer ruthlessness, attention, validation and so the kids won't think bad of them will use false allegations and because there are virtually no consequences for telling lies they have no moral qualms about it.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Yeah, heard on the news break.

[ProbablyClueless]

It will never cease to disturb me how excited these people always seem to be whenever the chance to deprive someone of their civil rights presents itself.

[msc545]

yep.

[KrakenAttackin]

When I was a cop the DV laws were the go to for women. I saw very few women who were actually abused. The vast majority of women complainants (90% or so) were just really pissed off at the man.

[msc545]

I take it you'd have to arrest the guy anyway? I've been told by cops that whether they want to do it or not or think it's justified or not If they don't do it, they themselves get in trouble.

[KrakenAttackin]

@msc545. Exactly right. Departments often have a "pro arrest policy" regarding domestic violence. The woman simply stating she was "in fear" (even if it was over the phone) is enough for her to be allowed to sign charges. This is a complete and total scam.

[msc545]

I think it sounds like a scam and in addition sounds pretty illegal. As far as I know police have to have probable cause to do this sort of thing. Not surprising that women have co-opted this.

[KrakenAttackin]

@msc545. The woman is signing the charges, not the police, so theoretically she incurs the liability of the complaint is false.

[JacobJordan]

Welcome to further collapse of society by women. And they wonder why historically they had no rights or very limited rights

[msc545]

Better if it had stayed that way really. Even better for women too actually.

[JacobJordan]

Very true. Some things could have changed like women not being allowed to own property. That isn't much of an issue. But my goodness this whole "social revolution and female empowerment" has only served to destroy society.

[msc545]

Not completely yet, but it sure is getting there. I REALLY need to leave this country.

[JacobJordan]

It is astonishing how freeing it is when you leave and see the price difference outside the US

[JacobJordan]

When the amount of money a person makes actually fully provides for them and their family the way it was meant to in the US

[msc545]

That would be very refreshing indeed. Where are you living now? DM if you want..

[JacobJordan]

Presently we are actually at our vacation house in Bali. But normally we reside in Romania or Moldova. Moldova is my wife's home country. Thing is if you are in a position to do remote work most any country in Europe because affordable for the average American. Even more so if you can get yourself qualified for an extended stay visa/residence card.

[msc545]

I do extensive remote work now, but here in the US. Language might be a problem.

[JacobJordan]

You have a cell phone right? And Google translate? You'd be perfectly fine. Not to mention English is taught in almost every corner of the globe. You won't be able to communicate with everyone at all times. But between Google translate, patience and effort you'll be fine.

[JacobJordan]

Biggest thing to remember is US laws only apply IN THE US. They do not apply outside the US. In addition should you leave the US even temporarily you will be returning with a very different view of the US. And it will not line up with many of things you talk about here. It is an eye opening experience

[msc545]

I've previously lived in Mexico and Spain, so it won't be all new. However - I am a Neuropsychologist, and language is critical to what I do... I might have to continue remoting to the US actually...

[KrakenAttackin]

@jacobjordan @msc545. Agree with both of you. Women were much happier before feminism reared its evil head.

[msc545]

Actually, I think men were somewhat happier then too...

[JacobJordan]

Both parties were happier. Society flourished. Technological advancements happened rapidly. Art and music were commonplace. There were negatives of course that needed correcting but not to the degree we are at now. I have been to over a hundred countries some with more freedom some with far less freedom. Some with late 1800s US freedom. The thing I have seen first hand is women and men had passionate loving relationships in countries with less freedoms and more traditional views on relationships. Women were standing proudly beside their husband's and those husband's were happy because they knew their wives loved them. The more "freedoms" countries had the unhappier everyone was on a general level. What I find shocking after visiting and living in so many places is how in places like the US the lie that women deserve to work and should work and are happy to work is pushed so hard many of them actually believe it. Even when women push back and say they want to be a stay at home wife there are a crowd of harpies pushing the lie they fell for and how dare she want to submit to a man this and take care of a man that how dare she participate in the "oppression of women by the patriarchy" blah blah blah.

[KrakenAttackin]

@jacobjordan. What destinations do you suggest?

[JacobJordan]

@KrakenAttackin romania, moldova, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Greece. Honestly most of Europe is great. I would say do your research when it comes to certain countries as some are more and more like the US. Long as you can pull off some form of remote work to pull a US salary most Americans would be able to live comfortably. Avoid tourist locations as those tend to be expensive especially if you don't have the funds to remain long term. And of course do your research on locations of interest in terms of laws as laws are different and being US won't save you from consequences in different countries

[JacobJordan]

@KrakenAttackin you can also do Indonesia, Japan, Peru, Thailand in Asia and south America.

[KrakenAttackin]

@jacobjordan. Makes sense.

[goaded]

Fewer women will be killed by their (ex-) partners.

34% of murdered women were killed by an intimate partner. 6% of murdered men.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offender-relationship-2021

[msc545]

33% of women provoked it. - What percent were killed with guns? 7% of men is not zero but nobody cares.

[goaded]

What do you think they did to deserve to die? We agree on a lot of things, but this obsession with women is worrying. It's bigotry.

[msc545]

What do men do to be killed or falsely accused?

[goaded]

I didn't say they did. You said the vast majority of murdered women "provoked it".

If you think that about all murdered people, it's redundant, if you only think that about women, it's bigotry.

[msc545]

I think its either the mouth or the money. With women, I think its the mouth.

[goaded]

Speech is a capital offence now?

[msc545]

no, but prudent people do not provoke others. Read bout "fighting words".

[goaded]

"No! Please don't shoot me! I'll be good!"

[msc545]

That might help actually.

[goaded]

Would you be willing to live like that?

[msc545]

Better than dying.

[goaded]

How about tomorrow? The day after? The day after that?

If your partner threatened you with harm or death on a daily basis, you'd strike back. Admit it.

[msc545]

Nope. I would leave. In fact, I did.

[goaded]

Did she come after you with a gun so you were afraid for your life?

[msc545]

yes.

[goaded]

Do you think all women are like that?

[RedInnocent69]

Yeah, one of the few proper things this over politicized court has done lately.

[Anonymous]

I guess they'll need to get good with knives. It's more personal anyway.

[BoopBoopBeep]

So much for Jury of Your Peers...