Infringed. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted on 03/31/2014 2:54:44 PM PDT by neverdem
Since almost all such charges are filed against men, isn’t this discriminatory?
...”the People’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”
People will still get guns no matter what.
It’s really good to be single.
“It’s really good to be single.”
That doesn’t insulate you from a claim. Watch your back, always.
Insane....
The violence was against ‘the mother of his child,’ so apparently he’s ‘single.’
The only people who shouldn’t be able to own a gun are those who are incarcerated. If a person is too dangerous to have the means of self defense, they are too dangerous to be out on the streets. Period.
I smell big rats with this one.
In 1994, congress passed the “Violence Against Women Act”, which *federalized* domestic violence laws in some cases. Then they immediately, and two years later, made changes to the federal gun control law outlawing possession of guns by those convicted by VAWA.
This suggests that it may have been done as a backdoor form of gun control.
More details:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/documents/federallaws.pdf
So the way out of this federal sneak might be found at the state level, in *renaming* domestic abuse laws, to make them again state law only. Likely keeping the existing laws on the books, but making it clear that they are not to be enforced.
Don’t ever marry anyone that you may have to beat up.
* Unless the government doesn't want you to bear arms.
You probably didn't see the asterisk because you were looking at an old copy of the Constitution instead of the New and Improved Constitution.™
In the New and Improved Constitution™ you will find the "you can't bear arms if the government doesn't want you to" clause just after the "Freedom from Religion" clause and before the "Right to Homosexual Sodomy" provision.
Most of the newly discovered "rights" are in the "Penumbras formed by Emanations" Article.
Sorry I was behind in my reading.
Well that is true, we can just ask George Zimmerman about that.
But when I say single, I mean really single.
Like, I just ain’t even playing the game, and haven’t been for a very long time and really do not intend to in the future.
Posted this to another reply to me in this thread, but it applies here too:
“But when I say single, I mean really single.
Like, I just ain’t even playing the game, and haven’t been for a very long time and really do not intend to in the future.”
We conditionally release a lot of people early, under conditions, for instance not letting a child molester child model agent, go back to that same job, or a CPA con man go back to being a CPA, or a drug cartel enforcer/hit man go back to immediately reacquiring and carrying the tools of his trade.
Infringed. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
lol............
The disparate impact should invalidate the law.
Self defense is a fundamental human right, unlike say, accounting or being a model agent. If a person is too dangerous to be allowed to defend themselves, they shouldn’t be allowed out. And a drug cartel enforcer will get a gun if he wants one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.