Supreme Court could end domestic violence gun ban

[chariot13]

old

Read More

 

[billdeserthills]

It was surprising to me just how often this question comes up to deny a sale of gun.
There exist a huge number of people who carry this stigma & many don't even seem
to discover it until they fill out the form to purchase a firearm. I hope the supremes do
the right thing & invalidate domestic violence as a reason to interrupt gun rights, except
in the most serious of cases.

 

[Misterbill]

This law, especially as it applies to those "convicted" long before it was ever passed, is the poster child of Ex-Post-Facto laws. Yet our supreme court allowed it.

Note to self. The SC is the tool of the reigning elites. Anyone who is depending on the SC ro protect them under the US Constitution should kiss their as goodbye.

In other words, for you in WA who are too stupid to grasp it, you just declared open season on the Federal government, since you have abrogated an essential right of the people.

But hey, we're all crazy, there's NO substance to what we say.... Keep telling yourselves that. This is 1859. Seriously, you DON'T want this to go to 1861.

 

[ma96782]

No shi*, only NOW someone has the b@!!$ to challenge this stupid law?

I'm old enough to say..............

IF you voted for CLINTON, you're part of the problem.

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

It was surprising to me just how often this question comes up to deny a sale of gun.
There exist a huge number of people who carry this stigma & many don't even seem
to discover it until they fill out the form to purchase a firearm. I hope the supremes do
the right thing & invalidate domestic violence as a reason to interrupt gun rights, except
in the most serious of cases.

That was the reason for the NO FELONs law of the past. But, as I said above.......

It's this guy, CLINTON's fault.



Aloha, Mark

 

[Burt Gummer]

To think that some hen can falsely accuse you of physical abuse and you lose your gun 'privileges/liberties' forever is disgusting.

SO many men are successfully accused of domestic abuse who are 100% innocent. Worse yet, they are then convicted because they are assumed guilty. After all, women are delicate flowers and would never lie or be vengeful or vindictive.

Note to the henpecks, care of Elvis:

Well a hard headed woman,
a soft hearted man
been the cause of trouble
ever since the world began.
Oh yeah, ever since the world began
a hard headed woman been
a thorn in the side of man.

Now Adam told to Eve,
"Listen here to me,
don't you let me catch you
messin' round that apple tree."
Oh yeah, ever since the world began
a hard headed woman been
a thorn in the side of man.

Now Samson told Delilah
loud and clear,
"Keep your cotton pickin' fingers
out my curly hair."
Oh yeah, ever since the world began
a hard headed woman been
a thorn in the side of man.

I heard about a king
who was doin' swell
till he started playing
with that evil Jezebel.
Oh yeah, ever since the world began
a hard headed woman been a thorn in the side of man.

*** LOL - Damn Funny - and TRUE ****

 

[Redcap]

"Domestic violence" is a joke. Assault is assault.

 

[mkwerx]

"Domestic violence" is a joke. Assault is assault.

THink about this - in the state of Washington, if you break or damage your own property during an argument, it is a Domestic Violence crime and a mandatory arrest. Wife pisses you off, so you stomp off into the living room and smash a picture frame or a lamp? Guess what - you most likely just cost yourself your gun rights for life, and soon you'll get to see the inside of your local jail.

Oregon isn't quite that bad, yet, but we have mandatory arrest also if there was actual assault (even if there's no bruising).

Guys who hit women are ball-less sacks of crap - most of the time. Sadly though, if you're defending yourself from some psycho hose beast, even if she is the same size as you - and you touch her, guess who gets the ride? Your only option is to stand there and take her abuse, because if you touch her, she'll call the cops, you go to jail. Her word v. yours, and the lawmen and law almost always side with the chick. She'll get half your crap, more than half your take home pay, and you get to give up guns and hunting, pay out the ***, live in your car or on your buddy's couch, and have to take counseling for your violent behavior. Because you made the mistake of schtooping a psycho.

Should a guy go to jail, if he really hits his wife/gf? Damn right. Should the woman go to jail if she hits her husband? You bet. Women are manipulative, and they can turn on the water works, play the hurt wilting flower routine, and your *** is grass.

DV needs to be removed as a reason to deny ownership rights - or it needs to be strictly defined and not expanded to include property damage, nasty words, etc. If it wouldn't rate as a felony without the DV enhancement - it shouldn't be reason to loose your rights.

And a felony in general, shouldn't be grounds for lifetime removal of rights. If you're too dangerous to get your rights restored upon completion of your sentance, you shouldn't be out of prison anyway. Lock up the real bad guys, and let liberty reign for the rest of us.

 

[Brutus57]

Actually, the guy doesn't always go to jail. Back in the late 1990s and after the mandatory someone goes to jail for DV call. My best friend was having an argument with his X who came over to his house. He told her to get out, they are yelling and screaming as he is ordering her off his property. She blows a gasket and slaps him. She calls the cops and says he did it. Cops show up take the separate stories and my buddy's neighbor comes over and said: "Officer, I saw the whole thing. He did nothing and she slapped him. She gets hauled away in cuffs. Ultimately my friend didn't press charges because she would have lost her job for sure which would have really negatively affected the quality of life of their son.
Me, I probably wouldn't have been quite as understanding. Washington is no country for old white men, I can tell you that.

Brutus Out

 

[guyfromChina]

<broken link removed>

I imagine they're taking it up so they can reaffirm the ban, not to reaffirm the 2nd amendment.....

I highly recommend the book "All the Laws but One" to anyone who needs to be disabused of the notion that we've ever lived in a Constitutional Republic

 

[SCARed]

Brutus- Your friend had no say in pressing charges. Part of the mandatory go to jail, is the state presses charges. The victim has no say in the matter.

On a side note, I am one of the lucky males who didn't go to jail. I had an argument with an ex-GF who was bi-polar. She escalated things to the point of hitting me several times. Luckily, she caused me to bleed. I'd push her back, but largely just took it. It spilled outside and a next door neighbor called the police. The police showed up and after talking to the neighbor, they hauled the ex-GF away. I was never asked about filing charges. When it went to court, her attorney who was a female, lambasted me, saying it was all my fault and I was to blame for the whole thing.

Sad thing is, had it been someone off the streets, it would have been justified self-defense if I laid them out. But because it was a GF, all the rules change. And as a male, your forced to just take the assault/battery.

 

[Misterbill]

I just read a brief post by a lawyer on this and it appears this is a purely technical issue where there is some confusion on the circuit level over "force," with no one even asking for the law to be overturned. (The court heard the ex-post-facto stuff years and still allowed it).

So in other words, I don't think the Lautenberg amendment is going anywhere.