Screenshot via Mother Jones 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:Screenshot 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
I heard of a case where a woman spanked her child and lost her 2nd amendment rights.
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.
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?
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.
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?
The SECOND AMENDMENT only goes away IF and WHEN the
ordinary AMERICAN CITIZEN allows it to go away. -
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.???
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.
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.
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.
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.
In,particular, white men.
Convicted black men continue to walk around with guns on them.
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.
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.
It is called rejecting the stated premise, and reframing the debate.
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.
And pass them they will.
The Court should have declared this unConstitutional and sent it back to Congress.
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"?
And many will suffer in silence, not fighting back in proportional fairness, not wanting to risk losing tools for greater conflicts.
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.