Opinion: Supreme Court has a huge decision to make | News Channel 3-12

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

62% : Getting rid of the most basic restriction -- a law that says that a man who violently abuses his partner shouldn't have a gun -- wouldn't be a win for gun rights or individual liberties.
61% : Justice Clarence Thomas seemed troubled by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar's argument that the law can restrict gun ownership from those who are not law-abiding and responsible, asking her to clarify what she meant - -- suggesting, perhaps, that there may be a justification for restricting gun ownership among people deemed dangerous, but not from those who are simply irresponsible citizens.
61% : And as rates of gun ownership have risen, so too have the rates of women killed by guns - women who are usually killed by men wielding those guns.
54% : That, they said, amounted to "the same enduring principle: Legislatures may disarm those who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens." Before the Court, Prelogar continued with that line, arguing that there is a long history of restricting gun ownership from people who have proven to be dangerous or irresponsible citizens and that "history and tradition show that applies to those whose possession of firearms would pose an unusual danger beyond the ordinary citizen with respect to harm to themselves or harm to others.
49% : That said, though, upholding the law preventing those with domestic violence restraining orders from gun ownership is crucial to saving lives, given the fact that the evidence is stunningly clear that domestic violence plus guns equals extreme life-threatening danger, mostly for women. More than half of all abuse victims killed by their abusers involve a firearm.
48% : The Bruen ruling essentially held that, for a gun restriction to be valid, the justification can't simply be safety or the public good, but a clear "historical tradition" of that kind of regulation.
47% : There is one big problem with the law restricting gun ownership by people with domestic violence restraining orders: It doesn't go far enough.
45% : Many judges do not order people with restraining orders against them to surrender their guns, and the law is often under-enforced.
43% : The government argued instead that the law should turn on the question of dangerousness: that there is a robust history of US removing firearms from dangerous individuals, and a law barring people with domestic violence retraining orders from possessing guns follows that tradition.
41% : States in the 19th century disarmed minors, intoxicated persons, and vagrants.
39% : Even after it was illegal to beat your wife, the law was poorly enforced, and domestic violence was often considered a personal or family problem, not a real crime.
38% : Rahimi's lawyers argued that that law violated his Second Amendment rights; the courts generally disagreed.
38% : The Violence Against Women Act wasn't implemented until 1994, and it took into that same decade for all 50 states to outlaw marital rape.
37% : When he was caught with a rifle and a pistol in his home, he was charged with violating the federal law that bars those under domestic abuse orders from owning firearms.

*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.