Silver Lifetime
- Messages
- 42,603
- Reactions
- 110,599
People under domestic violence orders can own guns -U.S. appeals court rules
Last June, a Supreme Court ruling granted people the right to carry firearms outside the home.
www.reuters.com
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Carol Browne would like to have a word…What always fails to get reported is that the people who the restraining order protects can ALSO own guns and protect THEMSELVES. I know, echo chamber here and all, but FFS, take some responsibility on your own and don't expect a piece of paper from a judge to blanket you from bad peopel.
I have LONG told people that piece of paper is about worth TP. Someone who is going to come after them is not going to not commit a crime due to a piece of paper. Get a gun, works FAR better than that paper does.What always fails to get reported is that the people who the restraining order protects can ALSO own guns and protect THEMSELVES. I know, echo chamber here and all, but FFS, take some responsibility on your own and don't expect a piece of paper from a judge to blanket you from bad people.
The author equates being alleged (not even charged) with a crime, with being guilty of a crime - as do many red flag laws.Warning Opinion Piece.
Brett Kavanaugh May Have Quietly Sabotaged Clarence Thomas’ Extreme Gun Ruling
Don’t assume the Supreme Court will uphold recent decisions vastly expanding the Second Amendment.slate.com
I don't think Slate writers are big 2A fans.The author equates being alleged (not even charged) with a crime, with being guilty of a crime - as do many red flag laws.
Warning Opinion piece
Brett Kavanaugh May Have Quietly Sabotaged Clarence Thomas’ Extreme Gun Ruling
Don’t assume the Supreme Court will uphold recent decisions vastly expanding the Second Amendment.slate.com
The author equates being alleged (not even charged) with a crime, with being guilty of a crime - as do many red flag laws.
From Slate... "But even where the record is clear, Thomas' test leads to heinous results given that the "ancestors" in question were often violently racist and misogynistic white men."I don't think Slate writers are big 2A fans.
I did not read anywhere here that this was for those convicted. "Looks" to me like its about those accused. HUGE difference between accused and convicted. Even for those convicted if they use a gun do you really think some new law is going to change that? Like I thought there was already a law against them shooting the person? So one more law will stop them? What would slow this way down is if some scum is convicted he never sees freedom again. Instead of the revolving door system then pass more laws.It will be interesting to see where SCOTUS is going with this. Do they really think no one in the distant pass was disarmed for their bad behavior? If you can't block someone found guilty of domestic violence from owning a gun, who can you block? Or will murderers just turn in their guns when they go to prison and get them back on the day they are released?
It is a similar standard to restraint on the mentally ill. There is also a difference between temporary and permanent.Red Herring.
Long tradition of taking guns away from dangerous and violent criminals. Not as long history for someone who only has a domestic order against them and accused but not convicted.
There are three things at stake here:I did not read anywhere here that this was for those convicted. "Looks" to me like its about those accused. HUGE difference between accused and convicted. Even for those convicted if they use a gun do you really think some new law is going to change that? Like I thought there was already a law against them shooting the person? So one more law will stop them? What would slow this way down is if some scum is convicted he never sees freedom again. Instead of the revolving door system then pass more laws.
Mental illness covers a lot of ground.It is a similar standard to restraint on the mentally ill.
That has nothing to do with the discussion of deeming someone "mentally ill" with a court order to restrain them.Mental illness covers a lot of ground.
Asperger's Syndrome could be considered a mental illness (it is considered a Autism Spectrum Disorder).
Being "mentally ill" doesn't make you violent. In fact, there are not a lot of mental illnesses that have anything to do with violence.
The author equates being alleged (not even charged) with a crime, with being guilty of a crime - as do many red flag laws.
Some Judges just "rubber stamp" those orders. Thinking that......It is a common tactic for the wife's divorce lawyer to file a restraining order just to F with the husband.
Such a slippery slope. What's next, denying folks on SSRI drugs their 2A rights?Mental illness covers a lot of ground.
Asperger's Syndrome could be considered a mental illness (it is considered a Autism Spectrum Disorder).
Being "mentally ill" doesn't make you violent. In fact, there are not a lot of mental illnesses that have anything to do with violence.