The Student News Site of Traverse City West Senior High

The Occidentalist

The Occidentalist

The Occidentalist


Should School Personnel Be Armed?

  • No (55%, 17 Votes)
  • Yes (45%, 14 Votes)

Total Voters: 31

Loading ... Loading ...

Individuals with Domestic Violence Court Orders SHOULD be Barred From Owning Guns

Graphic Credit: F. Douglass


Sorry, there was an error loading this poll.

  According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, domestic violence is harmful and widespread, affecting over 10 million people yearly, which breaks down to approximately twenty individuals abused by their intimate partner each minute. As a Court Order for Domestic Violence is a heavy charge to uphold against someone, the individual pressing charges must “show the judge that the abuser is likely to assault, threaten, harass, or stalk them”, which is generally proven through “medical documentation or reasonable cause” as quoted from Michigan Legal Help. While an accusation of domestic violence circulates the Justice System, it would be in the best interest not only the accuser of the charges but also of the individual charged and the community around them to have their firearms temporarily removed until the court decides a verdict, as during the court order reviewal process, lots of tension and conflict between the accused and the accuser can exist. 

  According to General Prelogar who spoke on behalf of the United States on November 7, 2023, in United States v. Zackey Rahimi- a case that discusses whether individuals with Domestic Violence Court Orders should be barred from owning guns, “armed abusers also pose a grave danger to police officers responding to domestic violence calls and the public at large.”  According to the current rulings of The Supreme Court of the United States, it is not against the Second Amendment of the Constitution to bar felons, minors with mental illnesses, and others from purchasing or carrying firearms, as our legislature has, throughout America’s history, “disarmed those who have committed serious criminal conduct or whose access to guns poses a danger” to prevent such individuals “whose possession of firearms would pose an unusual danger, beyond the ordinary citizen, concerning harm to themselves or harm to others.”

  As domestic violence abusers cause harm to others, with a possibility of also inflicting harm on themselves, temporarily revoking their ability to hold arms would not be against the prior ways the Supreme Court invoked or interpreted the Second Amendment. Instead, restricting firearm access to those accused of domestic violence would limit the harm these individuals can inflict on their partner, the surrounding community, or themselves during the judicial process, saving lives.

  This is clear in the Supreme Court transcript from the arguments on the 12th of November stating “as this Court has said, all too often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.” As the American Justice System has proven already, criminals and felons do not hold the right to bear arms, and the temporary barring the right to hold firearms for those convicted of such extreme violence should be held as well.

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

All The Occidentalist Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *