Supreme Court to Decide this Week to Hear Two Gun Control Cases

[Osarion]

Justices will meet behind closed doors this week to determine whether or not to take up a constitutional challenge to a Connecticut ban of certain semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

The court is also poised to rule by the end of the month on the case of a Maine man who says that his prior misdemeanor under state law for domestic violence should not have caused him to lose his right to possess a firearm under federal law.

Supreme Court to act on gun ownership cases - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/supreme-court-gun-control-connecticut-heller/index.html)

Read More

 

[206thsense]

Stephen Voisine pled guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge in 2004 against a girlfriend. Five years later, he was investigated for shooting a bald eagle and as part of the investigation he turned over a firearm to authorities.
After reviewing his criminal record, Voisine was then charged with unlawful possession of a firearm pursuant to a federal law which makes it unlawful for a person who has been convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to possess a firearm or ammunition.

I used to think differently, but I believe the firearm rights of non-violent felons should be restored.

But if you're a d-bag that beats women / children / kills protected wildlife (bald eagle, WTH!) and you've been convicted of it? Sorry, no guns for you.

 

[Osarion]

I used to think differently, but I believe the firearm rights of non-violent felons should be restored.

But if you're a d-bag that beats women / children / kills protected wildlife (bald eagle, WTH!) and you've been convicted of it? Sorry, no guns for you.

Here in Washington, we have no specific charge of domestic abuse. It is just simply charged as assault. All three degrees of which are considered various degrees of felonies.

I disagree though about non violent felons. My fiancee was just recently the victim of identify fraud (felony), where the POS criminal stole her tax return out of the mail (felony). It's actually only a class C felony in WA, which pisses me right the hell off. I'll be happy knowing this guy will never legally own a gun. Especially given the fact that thanks to all this he now knows our address... though he's welcome to come and try something if he ever gets out.

 

[Goosebrown]

I used to think differently, but I believe the firearm rights of non-violent felons should be restored.

But if you're a d-bag that beats women / children / kills protected wildlife (bald eagle, WTH!) and you've been convicted of it? Sorry, no guns for you.

Bald eagle is yummy though.

Just say'n.

 

[206thsense]

^LOL. I have never eaten an eagle. Tastes like chicken?

Whale is crazy tasty, though. It's like a fatty steak. Two thumbs up!

 

[Goosebrown]

^LOL. I have never eaten an eagle. Tastes like chicken?

Whale is crazy tasty, though. It's like a fatty steak. Two thumbs up!

I couldn't tell you... I mean I CANNOT tell you...

LOL

 

[PaulB47]

But if you're a d-bag that beats women / children / kills protected wildlife (bald eagle, WTH!) and you've been convicted of it? Sorry, no guns for you.

Amazing that anyone on this forum would fall for this ploy. Gun owners are their own worst enemies.

Let's be clear. Any laws against possession of anything, are laws with no victims, "mala prohibita". Such are what tyranny is built from. Even Hitler promised to protect the children.

BTW, most laws against wife-beaters owning guns, prohibit guns in the household. Having attempted (and probably failed, but it doesn't matter either way) to disarm the wife beater, you've also disarmed the wife. That's why L Neil Smith calls gun control "victim disarmament".

 

[Osarion]

Amazing that anyone on this forum would fall for this ploy. Gun owners are their own worst enemies.

Let's be clear. Any laws against possession of anything, are laws with no victims, "mala prohibita". Such are what tyranny is built from. Even Hitler promised to protect the children.

BTW, most laws against wife-beaters owning guns, prohibit guns in the household. Having attempted (and probably failed, but it doesn't matter either way) to disarm the wife beater, you've also disarmed the wife. That's why L Neil Smith calls gun control "victim disarmament".

Just to be clear on what you're saying here...
Violent felons legally owning guns is OK and so is a wife beating husband keeping one in the house.

 

[Martini_Up]

If you are an adult and can't legally own a firearm, you shouldn't even walk the streets.

 

[RicInOR]

Just to be clear on what you're saying here...
Violent felons legally owning guns is OK and so is a wife beating husband keeping one in the house.

If you are an adult and can't legally own a firearm, you shouldn't even walk the streets.

If you are still under control, after being convicted of a felony - in prison, jail - then no guns for you. We all agree with this?

If you are still under control - parole, probation, half-way house, bracelet - then no weapons for you. My opinion.

Once you are released from control, then your God granted rights are restored.
Not after a court case, hearing whatever. When we release you, you are a citizen in good standing. My opinion.

If we can not restore those rights for reason, then they shouldn't be walking the streets. (example Repeat offenders) My opinion.

The problem is that we all commit 3 felonies a day.

Spoiler: Eagle Feathers

Example - the Eagle Felony.
USFWS: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (https://www.fws.gov/midwest/midwestbird/eaglepermits/bagepa.html)
You and your family are on vacation in Southern Oregon near New Years.
You are watching the Bald Eagles which winter there. Your child finds a feather and brings it to you. You take the feather.
The Fed-man jumps out from the scrub, throws you to the ground, beats the ever-living crap out of you, shoots your dog and takes your children away. You are a PoS felon! God help your wife as the go thru your house looking for any hidy-hole which might contain an .22 short.

 

[Nocaster]

No offense meant to anyone, but it is scary to me that there are gun owners out there that can get behind disarmament initiatives and laws. I just recently went shooting with my wife's coworker and a couple of his buddies, and I wound up getting into a gun control discussion with one of them. So this guy claims to be into guns, quote "more pro 2a than anyone", proceeds to tell me how UBC laws are great, keep guns out of the hands of criminals, NICS system stops lots of murderer's from buying guns, etc. Oh, and the NRA is a bunch of wacko extremists.

Then on top of it, he wouldn't let me into his house unless I disarm. Because he keeps all guns in his house unloaded.

smh

So basically, guns don't kill people, people kill people, err unless those people are identity thiefs. In that case, guns kill people.

 

[Slobray]

Instead of arguing about felons, everyone should focus on the fact that the CT ban may make it to a split SCOTUS or not......

If the SCOTUS takes this, there would likely be a 4-4 split (depending Roberts), which would allow last years 2nd Circus decision to stand and may not be overturned in our lifetime. You can be damned sure that if that were the case, every state that is controlled by dem's will have the same or worse bans of CT, NY, CA, MD, NJ, HI, MA and DC.

Then again, if SCOTUS doesn't hear it, the 2nd Circus decision will still stand, but for how long? I think the only difference is, that if SCOTUS passes on it and we get a conservative judge appointed, it just may not stand as long as if there was a split, god willing.



Ray

 

[Nocaster]

Instead of arguing about felons, everyone should focus on the fact that the CT ban may make it to a split SCOTUS or not......

If the SCOTUS takes this, there would likely be a 4-4 split (depending Roberts), which would allow last years 2nd Circus decision to stand and may not be overturned in our lifetime. You can be damned sure that if that were the case, every state that is controlled by dem's will have the same or worse bans of CT, NY, CA, MD, NJ, HI, MA and DC.

Then again, if SCOTUS doesn't hear it, the 2nd Circus decision will still stand, but for how long? I think the only difference is, that if SCOTUS passes on it and we get a conservative judge appointed, it just may not stand as long as if there was a split, god willing.



Ray

This is definitely much more significant, but there's not much to be done about it, other than voting for notHillary.

 

[Hawaiian]

I believe there should be an avenue for reinstatement of gun rights for those prohibited.
I totally agree that any guy that beats his wife has major anger management problems and has no business having a firearm. Fork him.
However, years ago a gal in my office lived in an apartment and was having a fight with her husband and threw her phone at him. It hit a glass picture on the wall behind him and he got a small nick on his neck. Neighbors called the police due to the yelling and bang on the wall. When the cops arrived, the husband was the one with the injury so she was arrested for domestic violence. IMHO, she does not deserve to lose a constitutional right for throwing a phone at her husband.

 

[Osarion]

I believe there should be an avenue for reinstatement of gun rights for those prohibited.
I totally agree that any guy that beats his wife has major anger management problems and has no business having a firearm. Fork him.
However, years ago a gal in my office lived in an apartment and was having a fight with her husband and threw her phone at him. It hit a glass picture on the wall behind him and he got a small nick on his neck. Neighbors called the police due to the yelling and bang on the wall. When the cops arrived, the husband was the one with the injury so she was arrested for domestic violence. IMHO, she does not deserve to lose a constitutional right for throwing a phone at her husband.

That is perfectly reasonable. And dare I say...

common sense? (queue incoming flame wars)


Listen guys, the people who are out there doing bad with guns are the enemy of responsible gun owners. They are the ones that are bringing down the anti-gunner machine on us and making us ALL look bad. Don't defend them. Let them defend themselves and not F things up for the rest of us.
One thing that pisses me off to NO end is when the few bad apples ruin it for the rest of the bunch. And I'm done making or hearing excuses about it.

 

[PaulB47]

When the cops arrived, the husband was the one with the injury so she was arrested for domestic violence.

And will never be able to buy a gun for her defense again, if convicted (other than accessing the black market, another felony).

This is the way things work, folks. This is the good our criminal "Justice System" does.

You talk about felons? Why assume they are violent? There are an awful lot of felonies out there that are not violent, victimless, like selling some pot. There are plenty of others that are trivially violent, like domestic arguments (and even misdemeanors for that). Really, people lose the right to defend their lives, for that?

This is gun control. This is what you are supporting, gun control, AKA "victim disarmament".

Anyone, anyone who wants a gun should have one. Owning something is not a crime, or shouldn't be anyway - there is no victim. If someone attacks another, that is a real crime that should be punished. But worrying about the tool used? How much sense does that make? Are you going to make it illegal for felons to own hammers? People are killed with hammers, you know.

If a man has a right to life, then he has a right to defend that life. Firearms are the most effective tool for that purpose.

A man who has been disarmed because he argues with his wife, has not been magically rendered unable to harm her. You've only provided the illusion of safety for her - while making her own access to a firearm for defense more difficult. Why are people satisfied by these fake measures? Advocates of victim disarmament do not care about the victims. Stop being like that. Care about people. Get out of the way, and let them defend themselves.

 

[Nocaster]

In my previous job as a divorce lawyer, I spent a LOT of time dealing with orders of protection, as well as domestic violence proceedings. Orders of protection are handed out left and right, with very little proof needed. Domestic violence charges are similar, and many plead guilty without knowing better. If you think permanent disarmament after a conviction is a good idea, you are basically saying that gun control works. You know, if this "bad guy/girl" "can't get a gun" because of "effective" NICS system, then they won't go on to commit "gun crime". That is exactly the same as saying that if we get "assault weapons" "off the streets" there won't be any more mass shootings. Period. Either gun control works or it doesn't. Either you are for it, or you are against it. There is no middle ground.

ETA: I'm not even going to get into the idea that the state should have the power to tell someone what they can and cannot own.

 

[Hayshaker]

One good example of reinstatement of gun rights is My son. He had a car accident that ended up with a fatality because the deceased person was NOT wearing a seat belt and was thrown out of the vehicle. He was convicted of manslaughter and spent 5 years. NO drugs/booze/speed involved . No traffic tickets were issued. Did the time ~ out early but to this day cannot own a gun without spending big bucks to get his hunting rights back.
I'm sure the there a lot of other cases just like this.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

If you are an adult and can't legally own a firearm, you shouldn't even walk the streets.

That is exactly my problem with all of the background check chatter. "We want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people." Well, if they can't be trusted on the streets with a gun, then they shouldn't be on the streets. I was once a mental health care professional in CA, back when violent crazies were locked up for treatment prior to 1970. When they closed the state hospitals I predicted we'd start seeing a whole lot of really horrific crimes committed by people who should have been under lock and key. Sadly, I wasn't wrong. It wasn't more than 18 months before one of our former "guests" chopped his mother up in her bathtub.

 

[jbett98]