gun ban for domestic violence

[Osarion]

After the Orlando shooting someone posted a link to Earl Blumenauer's website, and the page where he had a list of all the gun control bills that he was backing. Among the bills listed there was a bill that would enhance Federal law so that any VIOLENT misdemeanor conviction would qualify to put an end to one's right to own firearms.

So there are already plans to build on this and expand it, to any sort of "violent" crime.

Strangely enough, though, Blumenauer's website is now currently down, and unavailable. All you get is a message that it is under "maintenance" currently.

I wonder if the Democratic Party made him take this info down? For it sure outlined in one easy to find place just how severe the plans are in Congress to pass new gun control legislation.

Do they perhaps want to hide this from the American people until after the election??

.

Seems a silly thing to do when you can easily find legislation information online anyway. It's possible that the sight is just being bombarded with traffic and exceeded it's bandwidth limitation. Or is being DDOS'd... which is equally as silly.

Sounds like this guy needs to be voted out of office?

 

[nammac]

Seems a silly thing to do when you can easily find legislation information online anyway. It's possible that the sight is just being bombarded with traffic and exceeded it's bandwidth limitation. Or is being DDOS'd... which is equally as silly.

Sounds like this guy needs to be voted out of office?

Most definitely Earl needs to go...

Any legislator who refuses to fulfill their oath and protect this country and its constitution is guilty of treason and should be treated as such...

 

[clearconscience]

Well then every member of congress, senate, president, VP, and probably 90% of state and local govt officials are traitors. Let justice start watering that tree of liberty

 

[nammac]

Well then every member of congress, senate, president, VP, and probably 90% of state and local govt officials are traitors. Let justice start watering that tree of liberty

See how complacent We The People have been...

 

[Sstrand]

Please . . . PLEASE don't use the term "democratic party." There is nothing democratic about the democrat party!!!!!

Sheldon

 

[U8395279]

Seems a silly thing to do when you can easily find legislation information online anyway.

Not anywhere close to being as easy as simply looking at his gun control web page, and seeing the entire agenda laid out in front of you, with info and links to each bill.

There was a ban on online sales of ammunition on the list too. Besides universal background checks, and bans on ownership of Assault Weapons and high cap magazines. The ban on Assault Weapons includes a $2,000 Federal Income Tax credit for each weapon surrendered to authorities. The ban on possessing high cap mags offered zero reimbursement.

.

 

[Koda]

Not anywhere close to being as easy as simply looking at his gun control web page, and seeing the entire agenda laid out in front of you, with info and links to each bill.

Our Plan – Ceasefire Oregon (http://www.ceasefireoregon.org/our-plan/)

 

[Koda]

It includes shooting someone with a squirt gun too.

was she convicted?

 

[Koda]

I'll go you one better. In Georgia, in domestic violence misdemeanor cases, the prosecutor IS:

A) Allowed to lie to the jury
B) Allowed to introduce hearsay testimony
C) Allowed to threaten witnesses and even alleged victims
D) Allowed to bring charges though no police investigation ever took place
E) Allowed to pursue the charge without any evidence
F) Allowed to force potential witnesses and alleged victims to lie after being sworn in.

Adding insult to injury, as erudne states, if you yell at your spouse - or even look at them glaringly, they may say your demeanor scared you and THAT is enough to sustain the charge.

I need to learn more about what it means to "sustain the charge", does that mean a conviction? Are there any examples of anyone been convinced of domestic abuse for yelling at their spouse - or even looking at them "glaringly"

 

[U8395279]

Our Plan – Ceasefire Oregon (http://www.ceasefireoregon.org/our-plan/)

Well, that is another good indicator. Looks like they want AR-15 ownership in Oregon banned, and magazines over 5 rounds banned. Do they not even realize how ridiculous a 5 round mag ban would be?

Blumenauer's web page was much different, as it had a list with info and links to specific gun bills that are currently before the Congress. So I think that he gave a much clearer picture of what the gun control priorities currently are.

But I have to admit that the folks at Ceasefire Oregon have a most ambitious plan too. I would bet anything that they put on a big push in Salem next year for new legislation.

.

 

[Koda]

Well, that is another good indicator. Looks like they want AR-15 ownership in Oregon banned, and magazines over 5 rounds banned. Do they not even realize how ridiculous a 5 round mag ban would be?

Blumenauer's web page was much different, as it had a list with info and links to specific gun bills that are currently before the Congress. So I think that he gave a much clearer picture of what the gun control priorities currently are.

But I have to admit that the folks at Ceasefire Oregon have a most ambitious plan too. I would bet anything that they put on a big push in Salem next year for new legislation.

.

everytowns web page is way more covert on hiding their agenda, I once spent an hour reading their "common sense" topics and in the end they have the same plan as Ceasefire.
rest assured they want it all.


this current SCOTUS ruling is interesting, I dont want to see abusers own guns but I also dont want to lose my rights supporting any laws that wont make any difference anyways.... Rest assured the antis will use this ruling to pass more legislation aimed at domestic abuse.



so Im learning more about this asking questions, everyones replies have been excellent...

 

[Boboclown]

was she convicted?

No, but IICR she was put under a restraining order.

 

[Martini_Up]

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 wrote that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and regulations and subsequently federal court rulings have upheld existing gun prohibitions and regulations.[57]

Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, has stated that the individual rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.[58] Strossen said "it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance."[59]

In October 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."[60][61]


^ From Wikipedia
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States#Federal_case_commentary)



Umm unless I'm reading that wrong, that would be the opinion of the appellant's attorney, not the court, and is about the appellant's right to a bowie knife. Again though, refer to justice Scalia's writings on the limitations on the right to bear arms. In a commonlaw system of jurisprudence one court's decision can be voided by higher one, or through a different case.

So how does the clause, "Shall Not be Infringed" fit into all this?

Has it ever been tested in court? No. To do so would show that all 'reasonable regulations" are infringements and thus unconstitutional.

 

[Koda]

So how does the clause, "Shall Not be Infringed" fit into all this?

Has it ever been tested in court? No. To do so would show that all 'reasonable regulations" are infringements and thus unconstitutional.

it has been tested in court. Its been determind that laws regulating the use of arms does not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.
its explained in detail in Osarions post that you quoted.

 

[Osarion]

So how does the clause, "Shall Not be Infringed" fit into all this?

Has it ever been tested in court? No. To do so would show that all 'reasonable regulations" are infringements and thus unconstitutional.

That's a very good question.
Certainly no other amendment seems more contentious than the 2nd. Nobody seems interested in applying interpretations to the 14th amendment, or most of any others except restrictions on constitutionally protected free speech.

 

[The Resister]

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 wrote that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and regulations and subsequently federal court rulings have upheld existing gun prohibitions and regulations.[57]

Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, has stated that the individual rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.[58] Strossen said "it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance."[59]

In October 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."[60][61]


^ From Wikipedia
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States#Federal_case_commentary)



Umm unless I'm reading that wrong, that would be the opinion of the appellant's attorney, not the court, and is about the appellant's right to a bowie knife. Again though, refer to justice Scalia's writings on the limitations on the right to bear arms. In a commonlaw system of jurisprudence one court's decision can be voided by higher one, or through a different case.

In a de jure / lawful constitutional Republic once a case has been decided in the Supreme Court, it cannot legally be changed unless you go through the process of amending the Constitution (if it is a constitutional question.) What you're advocating is legislating from the bench - and that's not something our forefathers supported.

Next, all my cites are related to the Second Amendment. In the context presented, it is about the point of law, NOT whether we're talking bowie knives or automatic firearms.

I would suggest you do some study on the subjects of binding precedent and persuasive authority in order to understand the material presented. Legal principles transcend what the peripheral facts in each individual case are all about. Scalia was on the Supreme Court; it was kind of hard to second guess him on that count unless you prefer the liberals and their "living Constitution" model.

 

[The Resister]

The courts are doing what I expect them to do. No surprises there.

The real question is about what individuals do. Do they accept being disarmed, and made potential victims? Or do they simply do what makes sense to them, to their need for self-preservation?

The answer to this question is how one can distinguish a slave from a free man.

I'll repeat this here as I'll do in a lot of postings.

Between the ballot box and the bullet box there are a lot of options that one must avail themselves of. You have to exhaust all your non-violent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions... then there are many other non-violent avenues you have to pursue. Ultimately, we may have to reclaim our Liberty via an unpleasant option... BUT, not before exhausting all other avenues.

For those who have been told they cannot own a firearm by a de facto government operating outside the Constitution, you have to remember that no man can serve two masters.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

woa, woa, woa, ceasefire Oregon!

Look at this part of their plan. er, "plan", highlighting is mine:



I think what we are seeing, and I have been careful to avoid this analogy, until now, is a slow-motion reenactment of the Newtown hysteria.

A code on each BULLET linking it to the weapon. How? This doesn't even merit a response.

 

[Martini_Up]

So how does the clause, "Shall Not be Infringed" fit into all this?

Has it ever been tested in court? No. To do so would show that all 'reasonable regulations" are infringements and thus unconstitutional.

it has been tested in court. Its been determind that laws regulating the use of arms does not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.
its explained in detail in Osarions post that you quoted.

Not on regulation use. We all know you can't and shouldn't discharge your arms in a way which is reckless. What I'm referring to is the fact the words "Shall Not Be Infringed" are very simple to understand and that any law restricting the "keep and bear" even the slightest is infringing (limiting, encroaching upon, undermine, etc).

Waiting periods, background checks, going through a FFL, filling out forms - even tax - is all considered an infringement on a right. Yet the courts look at it form the other end and claim if you can eventually have even one firearm then the 2nd amendment is alive an well.

Consider all the restriction put on firearms as infringement as that's exactly what they are. Now consider each and every other right listed in the BOR having the same restrictions.

What if every single word ever typed and posted on the internet or in print had to be approved with a form similar to a 4473. Or if you were a felon you could no longer speak your mind.

Consider that before going to worship you had to apply for and receive a permit to do so.

 

[PaulB47]

Between the ballot box and the bullet box there are a lot of options that one must avail themselves of. You have to exhaust all your non-violent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions... then there are many other non-violent avenues you have to pursue.

Well, I obviously failed to state my position clearly. I was not advocating going to war (not this time, anyway). I was suggesting (too coyly, apparently) that one simply ignore the law, and what the court says about it. That is, to go ahead and arm oneself, using the black market if necessary. That is a non-violent option. People don't get to tell us we can't protect our families just because we had an argument with the wife. Nothing could be more ridiculous. Anybody who thinks he is in a position to do so clearly loses any claim to legitimacy as a "leader" or "representative".

As to political remedies, yeah, maybe spending years or decades you might be able to get a legislature to right this situation. Good luck!

In the meantime your family still needs protection. Remember, when seconds count, a cop is only hours away.