Survivors Speak Out as Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Gun Rights Case

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

65% : " Duplat said she felt tremendous relief when the federal law at the center of Rahimi was passed in 1994.
61% : " And the implications of gun ownership on domestic violence do not end inside the home: Talukder also pointed out that between 2014 and 2019, two-thirds of all mass shootings occurred after the shooter had previously been involved in a domestic violence incident.
57% : The decision could deny gun possession to those with domestic violence restraining orders against them.
54% : She also pointed to her experience at Planned Parenthood and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which informed her about how the case would apply to reproductive justice.
49% : They argue that it poses a total ban on firearms and ammunition to its subjects, carries a criminal penalty for violation, restricts gun rights over other forms of civic rights, relies on a civil and not criminal court order, and allows federal regulation to supersede states' rights.
38% : A police search found him to be in possession of multiple firearms and rounds of ammunition -- thus putting him in violation of a 1994 federal law that bars the subject of a domestic violence restraining order from owning, possessing or purchasing a firearm Rahimi's attorneys are arguing that especially given the standards set by Bruen, that federal law is unconstitutional.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.