Tumgik
#womens gun rights
buttersteps · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
90K notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
352 notes · View notes
emperornorton47 · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
191 notes · View notes
deepbreakfast · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
656 notes · View notes
queerism1969 · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
1K notes · View notes
resistancekitty · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
94 notes · View notes
she-is-ovarit · 10 months
Text
This is incredibly frightening, just FYI.
The Supreme Court will be ruling on a case which basically would challenge portions of the Violence Against Women Act (1994) and changes to the Gun Control Act, which under U.S. federal law disallows domestic violence abusers who have a restraining order placed against them from possessing firearms.
Here's a little bit about Rahimi who elected to take this case to the Supreme Court and the history of this so far, just so you're aware:
Committed assault against his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anybody. She filed a protection order, under this protection order his handgun license was revoked and he was legally disallowed from possessing guns.
He threatened a different woman, leading to assault with a deadly weapon charges.
He fired a gun five times in public, one of the triggers being his credit card being declined while attempting to obtain fast food.
This lead police to search his home, in which they found that he had been possessing guns this whole time and violated the federal law.
He was sentenced to six years, but the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed this decision thanks to SCOTUS establishing new rules to determine if gun control laws are constitutional, one of which focused on a history component.
"Under that test, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled, the law prohibiting people subject to domestic-violence orders from possessing firearms violated the Second Amendment because there was no historical support for it".
Women's rights in the U.S. have not only been lost regarding the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Portions of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 are now being effectively challenged and under threat. Violence against women and femicide are already not considered as hate crimes, despite it being recognized that the vast majority of these incidents can be classified as hate crimes under current anti-bias legislation. If SCOTUS finds it's unconstitutional for domestic violence abusers (overwhelmingly men) to be prohibited from possessing firearms, we are going to see so many more women die.
142 notes · View notes
odinsblog · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
Call me crazy, but I hope someday women have more rights than guns do
70 notes · View notes
norman-couple · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
Hapa power
26 notes · View notes
Text
The Conservative Supreme Court Vision That Means Inequality for Women
Tumblr media
“I'm trying to understand if there’s a flaw in the history and traditions kind of framework to the extent that when we're looking at history and tradition, we're not considering the history and tradition of all of the people but only some of the people, as per the government's articulation of the test?”
--Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, regarding United States v. Rahimi
Tumblr media
This is a gift🎁link that anyone can use to get past the NY Times paywall to read this entire column about how the championing of "a history-and-tradition-bound method of constitutional interpretation" by the conservative SCOTUS justices will most likely limit women's rights. As the authors Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw point out, at the time the Constitution was written, "the principle of 'coverture' [that] gave husbands legal authority over their wives" was part of common law. So (perhaps by design) an originalist constitutional interpretation will result in second-class status for women.
The requirement that present-day gun laws resemble gun laws of the distant past prioritizes history and tradition in much the same way the Dobbs court looked to the historic regulation of abortion, pregnancy and birth to support the view that the Constitution did not protect a right to abortion. [...] The history-and-tradition methodology privileges laws enacted in eras like the 1780s, when the original Constitution was ratified, and the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment was drafted and ratified — moments in time when neither women nor people of color were able to fully join the political community and played no official role in enacting laws. Should a method that privileges eras of extreme democratic deficit be relied upon to determine contemporary constitutional meaning? [...] As an amicus brief...explains, in common law, the principle of “coverture” gave husbands legal authority over their wives, including the prerogative to “correct” or “chastise” through force or violence. There is active debate regarding how domestic violence was perceived in the 18th and 19th centuries. But arguing on these terms still embraces a fundamentally antidemocratic principle — that history alone, at whatever level of generality, can determine whether contemporary laws are constitutional. Although the history of domestic violence enforcement was extensively discussed and debated in the briefs, it was only glancingly referred to in oral argument. This too is notable. If the terms of the debate are history and tradition, whose history and traditions will get priority? [color emphasis added]
81 notes · View notes
mylionheart2 · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Fascist Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is Worse Than Trump!
194 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
359 notes · View notes
jukeboxgirl · 2 months
Text
There is more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and over 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity
There’s 10,000 different types of religions (1 being Christianity).
During Christian studies, they found that EVERY Christian will pick and choose what part of the teachings THEY believe in. So, actually, the number of different beliefs is astronomical.
Almost every act of war is historically recorded as having a religious undertone.
Please remember this the next time you decide that YOUR beliefs should blend in with laws and government policies.
Once you open that door, it allows someone with a completely different belief to walk in. The next thing you know, laws will be forcing you to do things you can’t imagine.
Henry VIII started the Church of England, destroying Catholic Churches and killing believers. When his daughter “Bloody Mary” took over, she wanted England Catholic again…. So she created the same violence her father did, but this time it was protestants (people who protested the Catholic Church) who were burned alive.
History has a thousand stories just like that one.
Keep church and state separate, its the only way we can survive in peace.
Stop the stupidity.
21 notes · View notes
deepbreakfast · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
202 notes · View notes
queerism1969 · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
1K notes · View notes
resistancekitty · 27 days
Text
Tumblr media
37 notes · View notes