Posted on 03/26/2014 12:30:59 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
WASHINGTON (AP) -- People convicted of minor domestic violence offenses can be barred from possessing guns even in states where no proof of physical violence is required to support the domestic violence charge, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The ruling was a victory for the Obama administration, gun control groups and advocates for victims of domestic abusers who say the gun ban is critical in preventing the escalation of domestic violence.
The justices unanimously rejected the argument put forth by gun rights groups and a Tennessee man who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault against the mother of his child in 2001. The man, James Castleman, was then charged in 2009 with illegal possession of a firearm after he and his wife were accused of buying guns and selling them on the black market.
Federal law bars a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence involving the use of physical force or a deadly weapon from possessing a firearm.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I’ve gotten the same crap you have; ie, that I’m in favor of smacking women around.
Never have, don’t see any reason to.
The VAWA is plainly unconstitutional for many reasons, and it strips men of a whole lot of rights, starting with due process and ending with their rights to own guns. The entire premise of the law is hostile to the US Constitution, starting from the notion that the federal government has anything to say about simple criminal behavior outside their jurisdiction. There’s no interstate commerce going on here. There’s no protected class. There’s no Fourteenth Amendment issue. The Federal government has no interest or power over this issue, if we read the Constitution as strict constructionists.
Well, my solution to this situation is to tell young men “Opt out. The cows want to give free milk, no money down, so take them up on their offer.”
Today, the only reason to get married is to have children. If young men don’t want children (and most don’t now, for obvious reasons), then don’t get married. Don’t shack up. Live as a free man instead.
The statistics show that I’m not the only one giving out this advice, and there’s many young men hearing the same words from other sources.
As for women who might ask “Well why should we be penalized if we’re not crazy witches?”
Well, gals, you allowed the feminists to do this crap in your name and your sex, and your silence was taken as assent.
If mere allegations are enough then lying to the police is now practically legal. Especially when a woman is lying about a man...to the police!
The 9 “wise” did at least look at the specific of the case
Because Castleman’s indictment makes clear that physical force was an element of his conviction, that conviction qualifies as a `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
Had it not been so the case would be less easy to call violent.
Now of course the solution is to have the state legislators REQUIRE prof of PHYSICAL violence to the statues. In effect make the misdemeanor require felony level proof as it now will have felony level punishment.
Yeah well, that’s just too logical for it apply in this day and age...A black eye should not be proof enough unless the knuckle prints match his and not hers!
I agree with you, but the courts don't.
The statute technically prohibits only possession of a firearm by a felon (or DV misdemeanant) "in or affecting [interstate] commerce," but SCOTUS held in Barrett v. United States (1976) that, to get a conviction, all the prosecution has to show is that the firearm, or any of its component parts, once moved in interstate commerce, even if that movement happened long before this defendant ever acquired the gun.
Just as an aside, Congress used that same legal legerdemain in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban act. That statute bans partial birth abortions "in or affecting commerce," which is defined as an abortion performed in a clinic which uses any medical supplies which ever moved in interstate commerce.
This is an evil opinion. Does someone accused of wrongdoing - which is all some states require - lose their right to self-defense? Frankly, does ANY ex-con lose the right to defend himself, and does that loss continue forever and ever? It goes against the laws of nature and the Lord to say that a man cannot defend himself from attack, unless it is a very special situation such as a prison.
The statute at issue in this case requires a conviction, not merely an accusation.
“even in states where no proof of physical violence is required to support the domestic violence charge”
Essentially, it requires an accusation. I’ve been married for 27 years, but I’ve seen some vicious, lying ex-wifes who, with support from their friends, would gladly lie to persecute their ex-husband.
The majority of Americans need to take our country back. . Is it time? Time to water the tree of liberty yet?
Personally, I'm waiting to see if America does a complete tsunami on November 4, 2014. If not, or if the elections are hijacked, count me in November 5th!
“Enhanced” Lautenturd Amendment... coming to MN soon:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3137325/posts
Read the statute on what constitutes 5th degree domestic assault in MN-in most cases it’s far from anything close to “beating” anyone or hitting anyone, yet will be included in the bill proposed in current form.
This is like giving someone a DUI AND taking their car for being at .02 BAC ( only a driving is not a right )
(That could even include college roomates screaming at each other.)
That's why prosectuors throw everything at people and see what sticks- they can threaten something else and the get people to plead to a lesser charge like this. Either way, you're on their magic 'no guns' list. Just like they want.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ("Atlas Shrugged", 1957)
Which is why the divorce lawyers usuually start the ball rolling by having the wife initiate with a restraining order, OFP and/or allegation of abuse.
Next thing you know, you’re fighting a 2 or 3 front war you’ll never win.
I happy to report that seven of my direct ancestors were part of that 3%.
Anti-RKBA, sure. Not sure I see this as anti-marriage or anti-family.
The key words there are, "can't be compelled". Your spouse can testify against you if he/she wants to.
Piss off your spouse enough and he/she certainly will testify.
It's apparently too much trouble for them to read the Constitution literally.
Anyone who thinks the supreme court is going to protect our rights simply hasn't been paying attention.
The defendant in this case did not challenge the constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment. (Not that I think the Court would ever hold it unconstitutional--Heller explicitly said that the Second Amendment doesn't protect "criminals"-- but the Supreme Court does not consider the constitutionality of a statute unless one of the parties raises the issue.)
You are one qualified FReeper Patriot!
What I’m getting at here is the High Court is creating another “special relationship” for the purpose of claiming the power to assign our rights. If assault is bad, then assault is bad.
Why does it become special if it involves a “domestic relationship”? Find that clause in the constitution. This is not different from gay marriage or government finance of abortion.
Just because it “feels right” seems to be the judicial standard.
ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION
March 27, 2014
ALERT - SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT
Accessories to (Your) Murder
When it became inevitable that Illinois would finally enact concealed carry, leaders of the pro-self defense movement began preparing for the political and legislative backlash that was sure to follow. After all, the gun-grabbers had invested a lot of money and political capital into stalling Illinois’ efforts to become the 50th state permitting citizens to defend themselves. Oddly, some within the anti-self defense camp believed that, pass or fail, Illinois’ concealed carry efforts would be the catalyst needed to spark a nationwide repeal of concealed carry laws.
So here we are in late March and the anti-CCW barrage is well underway at the Illinois Capitol. Gun-grabbing legislators are tripping all over themselves to introduce legislation to eliminate advantages concealed carry gives the citizen over violent muggers, murderers, robbers and rapists. Once again, the gun-hating left has made its expectations abundantly clear. The gun-haters expect citizens to learn to live with and accept criminal behavior rather than expect criminals to conform to society’s norms.
Here is a taste of just some of the anti-self defense legislation introduced during this session of the Illinois General Assembly.
SB2669 - introduced by Sen. Don Harmon, this bill could change the law and only permit persons to carry defensive firearms where and when signs are displayed specifically stating that concealed carry was allowed. Thus, Sen. Harmon would force you to remain defenseless against criminals unless you could find a location where Harmon’s special sign was posted. A similar bill (HB4779) was introduced in the House by Rep. Emanuel Welch.
SB3559 - introduced by Sen. Kwame Raoul, this bill would prohibit concealed carry permit holders from having more than one firearm or more than 10 rounds of ammunition on their person. Of course, nothing in Raoul’s proposal limits how many guns or how much ammunition criminals may carry. Raoul is not shy about his dislike of firearm owners and SB3559 indicates just how little he cares about the well being of the good people of Illinois.
SB3561 and 3572 - introduced by veteran gun grabber Sen. Dan Kotowski, each of these two bills would have the state step in and direct churches and other houses of worship to prohibit concealed firearms on their property. Kotowski enthusiasm for destroying the 2nd Amendment is now bleeding over to the 1st Amendment as well.
HB4319 - introduced by gun-hater Rep. Scott Drury, this bill would prohibit members of the VFW or American Legion from carrying concealed firearms in their own Posts. Eliminating the right to self defense is a great way to honor our vets, right?
HB4517 - introduced by anti-gun Rep. Kenneth Dunkin, this bill would prohibit concealed carry in ALL restaurants. In effect, Dunkin’s bill would let criminals declare open season on restaurant-goers.
Each of the above proposals would seriously diminish the effectiveness of concealed carry - and that’s something that you should take very personally. Let’s face it, we’re talking about the safety of you and your family. The more the antigunners whittle away at the scope of concealed carry, the more dangerous the world becomes for the rest of us.
The fact of the matter is, legislators who promote an anti-self defense agenda are turning you and your family into sitting ducks for violent thuggery. Guys like Kwame Raoul, Dan Kotowski and Scott Drury pose as much of a threat to your family’s security as does the guy hiding in the shadows with a bludgeon in his hand. In effect, anti-self defense legislators like Raoul, Kotowski and Drury become accessories to whatever crimes you and your family are forced to endure.
Self preservation requires swift and decisive action. If the good citizens of Illinois are to maintain even a moderate degree of safety and security, then these anti-self defense proposals need to be defeated before they ever get to the floor for debate. These are the things you need to do, NOW, to help maintain the safety and security of you and your family:
1. Call your State Senator and State Representative, TODAY, and politely tell them to vote against he above listed proposals and any other such anti-self defense legislation that comes down the pike. Tell your elected officials that you do not want the scope of concealed carry diminished, taxed or further regulated. Make it clear that you believe that you have a right to defend yourself and your family from harm using the most effective means known - the defensive firearm. If you do not know who your senator or representative is, then click here: http://www.elections.il.gov/districtlocator/districtofficialsearchbyaddress.aspx
2. Pass this alert along to all your friends and family and tell them to contact their elected officials as well. Remind your friends and family that there are politicians out there who really don’t care what happens to them.
3. Post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards or blogs to which you belong.
4. Help us, help you by making a generous legislative donation here.
Posted Wed Mar 26 20:03:43 CST 2014
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.