In Voisine v. US, SCOTUS just ruled people convicted of domestic violence can't buy guns

AOL ^ | June 27, 2016 | Marie Solis

[Mr. Mojo]

On Monday, in the case of Voisine v. the United States, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from purchasing guns in a 6-2 vote, according to SCOTUSBlog.

This was the case of two Maine men who were convicted on state domestic violence charges and then found with firearms and charged with violating a federal law that prohibits domestic abusers from having firearms," reads the live blog. "The question was whether their convictions qualified under the statute."

[Kickass Conservative]

Where is the asterisk, *if they are convicted Felons?

[HiTech RedNeck]

nowhere in existence

[HiTech RedNeck]

If we want policy to be different, this is going to have to be done at the constitutional amendment level, if not at the legislative level.

[StormEye]

"On Monday, in the case of Voisine v. the United States, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from purchasing guns in a 6-2 vote, according to SCOTUSBlog."

And "domestic violence" will eventually be defined down to
having an argument with your spouse about whose turn
it is to do the dishes.

[elcid1970]

Back door gun confiscation. Like in California. Soon to be applied to misdemeanor domestic complaints and coming to a state near you.

In Hell they call him “Laughing Lautenberg”.

[Mr. Mojo]

You got it. Plus if one’s crazy GF or wife makes completely false accusations that the liberal judge buys, then goodbye guns.

[HiTech RedNeck]

While ignoring Sharia.

[Cboldt]

The new standard is that recklessness is enough to trigger deprivation. This is a significant shift in mens rea.

[BitWielder1]

At least they say "convicted", not "suspected" or "accused" of.
Still, another fraction of an inch of the camel's nose...

[\/\/ayne]

If we ever get some constitutional justices they will have tons of reversing to do.

[Cboldt]

Under this case, no argument required. If you are reckless, and an injury results to your family, you are barred.

[Bringbackthedraft]

BFD!! Guns will always be there, if you have $$$. If not, there is an axe, a hammer, a kitchen knife, a car, a rope, a box cutter, etc. etc. Do you really think the politicians give a crap about the gun violence? The only violence they are worried about is the one directed against them if they screw up grabbing too much power for them selves and no one else. Liberté, égalité, fraternité !!!!

[firebrand]

That’s better than Connecticut state law, where if your “other” gets an order of protection, you lose your guns.

How’s that for due process? A vindictive spouse gets to take them away.

[napscoordinator]

If we get Hillary in November, that’s never happening. One of the liberals voted no. Many conservatives voted yes.

[DungeonMaster]

“She fell”

[sailor76]

If you are reckless, and an injury results to your family, you are barred.

What other rights should the gov be able to strip from you? The 4th, the 5th?

[VanShuyten]

Unless you’re a felon in Virginia, and McAwful gives you all your rights back, whether or not you’ve completed your entire sentence.

[chris37]

Then no spouses.

[Cboldt]

-- What other rights should the gov be able to strip from you? The 4th, the 5th? --

It depends who you are, and exactly what it is that you prpose to undertake.

Obviously, the government hasn't exceeded its power. It it had, the people would put up at least passive resistance, and there is none of that.