National HB1585; Violence against women act turned into gut and stuff expansion of prohibited persons

[OldTengu]

Democrats Expand the Number & Types of Prohibited Possessors, to Limit 2nd Amendment


Things are looking rough.

Read More

 

[AMT]

So, by her own words and definitions, anything that causes "emotional distress" can potentially be classified as harassment. And harassment is a misdemeanor offence which could be grounds to revoke your 2A rights. So, why hasn't someone gone after her for harassment for causing "emotional distress" for all the citizens of kommiefornia, and now in her latest role, the citizens of the Unitsd States?

 

[DB is Here]

Adding new crimes to strip you of your 2A aren't enough:

"Finally, the prohibitions in H.R. 1585 would apply retroactively to convictions that occurred before the legislation was passed."

 

[Basedgreaser]

Adding new crimes to strip you of your 2A aren't enough:

"Finally, the prohibitions in H.R. 1585 would apply retroactively to convictions that occurred before the legislation was passed."

Wait isnt that illegal too?
Maybe im misremembering but i remember learning about a provision that doesnt allow people to be tried for "crimes" they commited at a time they were legal. In other words arent they not allowed to, say, make smoking cigarettes illegal tommorow then convict everyone who smoked prior to the law being passed?

Or would that not apply in this case as its an additional punishment to already existent convictions?

 

[Martini_Up]

So..... violence against women is OK now and we need a new law to protect them? What happened to the rule of thumb anyway......

 

[Mikej]

"Violence Against Women Act", sounds sexist to me. I'm against violence toward ANYONE. These so-called "Representatives" that have spent so much of their lives in the "Upper Crust" of society have no clue about the way things are. I've held a belief for many years that women are capable of the same evil as men. Granted, men running on testosterone commit physical violence toward women much more. And I'd say that men are more often abusers of women than the other way around. When women do evil toward men they use mental abuse. Scars are scars whether they came from physical abuse or mental abuse. I'm not all against a law like this, the issue is that there is no easy way for a person to be proved innocent from such charges. No easy way to regain possession of your rights if an angry partner swears false accusations. This leaves the door open for bad women to to do terrible damage to men. Unless of course you believe all women are perfect angels?

 

[Mark W.]

WOW so she should think this through cause every time I see or hear about that old cow I get emotionally distressed. I also feel like she has singled me out and is stalking me in an attempt to ruin my emotional well being.

 

[Mikej]

WOW so she should think this through cause every time I see or hear about that old cow I get emotionally distressed. I also feel like she has singled me out and is stalking me in an attempt to ruin my emotional well being.

I don't think this will work for you? Didn't see mention of Violence against men? In their mind it doesn't seem to be a problem for men.

 

[deadeye]

I don't think this will work for you? Didn't see mention of Violence against men? In their mind it doesn't seem to be a problem for men.

But.....But I self identify as a female today so therefore she is in violation of this already....

Not really but why not use their laws against them.

 

[bgdawgrr]

But.....But I self identify as a female today so therefore she is in violation of this already....

Not really but why not use their laws against them.

That's where I was going. Since you now have gender fluidity......

 

[CountryGent]

Wait isnt that illegal too?
Maybe im misremembering but i remember learning about a provision that doesnt allow people to be tried for "crimes" they commited at a time they were legal. In other words arent they not allowed to, say, make smoking cigarettes illegal tommorow then convict everyone who smoked prior to the law being passed?

Or would that not apply in this case as its an additional punishment to already existent convictions?

You're probably referencing ex post facto law, which is generally prohibited by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. However, they likely argue it is regulatory, not punitive. They did exactly that with Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban of 1997 and it was upheld in court, so there is precedence.

Total crap, of course, but what else is new.

 

[jackrv]

Adding new crimes to strip you of your 2A aren't enough:

"Finally, the prohibitions in H.R. 1585 would apply retroactively to convictions that occurred before the legislation was passed."

Isn't this an example of an ex post facto law?

 

[DB is Here]

Isn't this an example of an ex post facto law?

Or double jeopardy? All all know is it stinks to high heaven.

 

[MannyGlocks]

The Anti-Gunner crowd..., over the top insanity continues to rear it's ugly head...

 

[DB is Here]

Lets stay away from the labels please. Let's remember we're a single issue forum. Thank you in advance.

Epithets, labels, and generalizations against another person or group of people, whether they are members here or not. These serve absolutely no purpose other than to divide us, directly opposite to our goal of uniting gun owners. This is especially relevant in regard to political labels (such as 'the liberal media', 'those right-wingers', and even 'left/right'). Pro-gun and anti-gun are the only labels that should be applied here, as we are a single issue community.

 

[Stomper]

So..... violence against women is OK now and we need a new law to protect them? What happened to the rule of thumb anyway......

It evolved into rule of wrist....

 

[USMC1911]

It evolved into rule of wrist....

Limp wrist?

 

[Basedgreaser]

You're probably referencing ex post facto law, which is generally prohibited by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. However, they likely argue it is regulatory, not punitive. They did exactly that with Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban of 1997 and it was upheld in court, so there is precedence.

Total crap, of course, but what else is new.

Thank you i knew there was a name i wasnt remembering. And also for the clarification.

 

[Mark W.]

But.....But I self identify as a female today so therefore she is in violation of this already....

Not really but why not use their laws against them.

Hey if it will help the team I'll wear a shirt that buttons on the other side.