Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Defiantly Cuts Legs Off Of NRA With This Historic Ruling (VIDEO)
BiPartisan Report ^ | June 27, 2016 | Pearson McKinney

Posted on 07/01/2016 6:03:23 AM PDT by Kaslin

The Supreme Court of the United States has finally ruled on an issue mentioned in the October 2015 syllabus, and first argued in February of 2016. The decision ruled that people convicted of any domestic abuse crimes can no longer legally own firearms.

The efforts were taken in order to “close a dangerous loophole” that allowed people convicted of “minor” domestic abuse to purchase and own weapons legally. Now, the ban on felons owning firearms has been extended to include people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Supreme Court documents state:Screen Shot 2016-06-27 at 9.08.29 AMScreenshot via Mother Jones

This is a huge step forward for women’s rights, as more than 1/3 of women who fall victim to homicide, fall victim at the hands of their significant other. According to studies, spouses are the murderers of women 38.6% of time, whereas, for murdered men, it is only 6.3% of their partners who are responsible for their deaths.

Video courtesy of Wochit via YouTube:

Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban For Domestic Violence Convicts


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; guns; nra; pearsonmckinney; supremcourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last
To: Blueflag

I heard of a case where a woman spanked her child and lost her 2nd amendment rights.


41 posted on 07/01/2016 6:57:42 AM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (Ban muslims, NOT guns.....Register liberals, NOT guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

In a follow up it is now federal law that any person who has never thought of, heard of, listened to, wrote about, or referred to the song “Hey Joe” performed by Jimi Hendrix cannot possess any firearms.


42 posted on 07/01/2016 6:58:51 AM PDT by disndat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pb929

Regardless whether you think it’s reasonable or not, the bigger issue is of the definitions that are created for which category of citizens may, or may not, legally own a firearm. The slope is indeed slippery. Stalin famously said “You know, comrades,” (says Stalin,) “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.” So who is it that creates the future definitions of these persona non grata citizens?


43 posted on 07/01/2016 7:01:43 AM PDT by ColoCdn (Neco eos omnes, Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pb929
Personally I think this ruling is quite reasonable.

I disagree. The main issue to me is the conflation of misdemeanor level behavior with felony. Add in the permanency of the ban, and we have the probability that a man (or woman) who loses their temper one time can be permanently prevented from possessing a weapon for self defense.

If the anecdotes and statistics of spurious domestic violence charges during divorce proceedings are even half correct, this is a definite abusive abridgment of what is supposed to be a fundamental constitutional right.

I do agree on your point regarding the need to debate on this site with facts and opinion, as opposed to vitriol.

44 posted on 07/01/2016 7:03:03 AM PDT by MortMan (Let's call the push for amnesty what it is: Pedrophilia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Right Brother
Liberties are usually lost incrementally in seemingly "harmless" ways. Its like pulling out one stone from the dike. Pull out enough stones and the whole thing is eventually gone.

This whole thing is so vague because the "domestic violence" issue is so over-broad that simply coming to the home of your ex-spouse to see your children could be prosecuted as "domestic violence" if the other ex for whatever reason refuses entry. And yes, it works both ways, husband or wife could be equally charged if they are the "abuser". So now the slope gets slipperier. Like you say, a traffic ticket, not curbing your dog, littering, what else is going to be an excuse to deny ones constitutional rights?

45 posted on 07/01/2016 7:05:27 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sam 911

The SECOND AMENDMENT only goes away IF and WHEN the
ordinary AMERICAN CITIZEN allows it to go away. -


46 posted on 07/01/2016 7:06:54 AM PDT by Twinkie (Cowards die a thousand deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Great, now we need a ruling on hammers, baseball bats, kitchen knives, automobiles, plumbing pipes, 2x4’s, ropes, rocks, screw drivers, box cutters, etc. etc. etc.???


47 posted on 07/01/2016 7:08:06 AM PDT by Bringbackthedraft (HILLARY 2016 - SERIOUSLY? What are they thinking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

His point is that we’re coming across as defending rights of terrorists & abusers. It is our verbose precision in language that loses attention and thus the public argument. Alas: if it doesn’t fit in an emotional sound bite, the audience ignores.


48 posted on 07/01/2016 7:10:42 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ("Get the he11 out of my way!" - John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pb929
"Personally I think this ruling is quite reasonable.

Uh, no. FELONY domestic violence, great. MISDEMEANOR domestic violence....not only no, but HELL no. There is a reason for the separation between felony and misdemeanor. Bad, bad law.

49 posted on 07/01/2016 7:12:15 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel and NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ColoCdn

When people commit crimes they lose some of their rights. It’s not unreasonable to lose your right to own a gun if you were convicted of say, armed robbery.

I don’t see how a conviction for domestic violence is that far off, it’s a violent crime and as such, it’s perpetrator should lose their right to own a gun which would allow them to potentially do more damage the next time they commit the crime...which they probably will.

Most of the arguments here center around people being falsely accused or convicted of these crimes, or possibly being convicted for something extremely minor. These are all real concerns but it speaks to a different issue which needs to be addressed regardless of the gun ban.

If someone is falsely convicted of domestic violence, not being able to buy a gun is probably the least of their troubles. It may impact their ability to get/keep a job, may impact their relationships with friends/family/neighbors, etc., as well as many other things. So I say deal with the real problem which is frivolous or vindictive complaints about domestic violence, but make sure those convicted of real crimes do in fact lose their rights.


50 posted on 07/01/2016 7:13:43 AM PDT by pb929
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sam 911

These crimimals....?

Do you know what kinds of things fall under the vague term domestic violence?

I hope you don’t ever raise your voice at your wife during an argument.


51 posted on 07/01/2016 7:27:13 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paulie

In,particular, white men.

Convicted black men continue to walk around with guns on them.


52 posted on 07/01/2016 7:28:14 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

With this ruling, more women will be killed outright because of an angry outbreak in the home or a threat to call the LEO for being “allegedly” abused. People who own guns, really like their guns. To lose them all, over a snit, drastically changes the whole relationship very quickly.


53 posted on 07/01/2016 7:31:59 AM PDT by SgtHooper (If you remember the 60's, YOU WEREN'T THERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

And frankly they dont need a gun. Whatever is handy will be used. And THAT has also been proved time and agaim.

The real problem is “domstic violence” can cover a whole range of stuff that is not physical abuse. It can be yelling during an argument.


54 posted on 07/01/2016 7:32:18 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

It is called rejecting the stated premise, and reframing the debate.


55 posted on 07/01/2016 7:34:01 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sam 911
"Meanwhile the 2nd amendment goes away one bite at a time."

This is the year. 2016, the year their "end game" plays out.
Like Nazi Germany, I think many of us will be shocked to see whose names (ours) are on that "no fly list/terrorist watch list".

I said it November 2012: "2016 will be the last year we exist in one piece".
Stay armed (no matter what), stay safe.

56 posted on 07/01/2016 7:36:49 AM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

And pass them they will.


57 posted on 07/01/2016 7:39:07 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

The Court should have declared this unConstitutional and sent it back to Congress.


58 posted on 07/01/2016 7:39:44 AM PDT by SgtHooper (If you remember the 60's, YOU WEREN'T THERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
"...it has to do with lists and god forbid a person may be on it that doesn’t need to be, but we are talking mostly Muslims..."

Really? So, you have seen this list? The entire list?
Please tell me where I can see it, and what are the rules for getting on (and getting off) that list?

Have you ever heard of "Due Process"?

59 posted on 07/01/2016 7:39:50 AM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

And many will suffer in silence, not fighting back in proportional fairness, not wanting to risk losing tools for greater conflicts.


60 posted on 07/01/2016 7:42:07 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ("Get the he11 out of my way!" - John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson