Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/26/2014 10:21:56 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
"High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law"


A small but stingy hit....



The right people won and on a good issue.



http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/high-court-bolsters-domestic-violence-gun-ban-law-23065060

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:32:56 AM >


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/26/2014 3:03:47 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
"High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law"
A small but stingy hit....
The right people won and on a good issue.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/high-court-bolsters-domestic-violence-gun-ban-law-23065060


Wow. That might not be that small a hit.

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:33:10 AM >


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/26/2014 3:23:41 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
Good, the Supreme Court finally ruled on that challenge to the Lautenberg Ammendment. This isn't new; it is a challenge to one provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and has been wending its way up the court structure since 2001.

One of the things that is in law to prevent you from buying firearms or ammunition is having been convicted of domestic violence and you have a peace bond on you. In other words; no matter how pissed you are at your ex; once you have resorted to violence you are barred from buying a gun or ammunition to shoot your ex spouse.

The ban on firearms purchase was challenged because domestic violence is a misdemeanor. A lower court ruled it was not legal. That decision was overturned in appellate court. Then it went to the supreme court for a final ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act
quote:

Under the GCA, selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:33:23 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/26/2014 6:46:10 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
"High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law"
A small but stingy hit....
The right people won and on a good issue.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/high-court-bolsters-domestic-violence-gun-ban-law-23065060


Wow. That might not be that small a hit.




Anything that knocks the nra/geopee back a notch, is a good day.....

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:33:57 AM >


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/27/2014 5:57:01 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Good, the Supreme Court finally ruled on that challenge to the Lautenberg Ammendment. This isn't new; it is a challenge to one provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and has been wending its way up the court structure since 2001.

One of the things that is in law to prevent you from buying firearms or ammunition is having been convicted of domestic violence and you have a peace bond on you. In other words; no matter how pissed you are at your ex; once you have resorted to violence you are barred from buying a gun or ammunition to shoot your ex spouse.

The ban on firearms purchase was challenged because domestic violence is a misdemeanor. A lower court ruled it was not legal. That decision was overturned in appellate court. Then it went to the supreme court for a final ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act
quote:

Under the GCA, selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


And that puts an end to the 2nd amendment is a personal right nonsense. Courts can't take away your personal rights for misdemeanors.

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:34:10 AM >

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/27/2014 6:12:33 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
"High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law"
A small but stingy hit....
The right people won and on a good issue.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/high-court-bolsters-domestic-violence-gun-ban-law-23065060


Wow. That might not be that small a hit.




Anything that knocks the nra/geopee back a notch, is a good day.....



A slap to those who might want to buy a gun after being involved in domestic violence, sure. But then again why would I care about some asshole who can't control his temper. A slap to the nra or gop, nope, that just another lie or in your case wet dream.


So tell us honestly. You giggle every time you type the word 'pee', don't you?


Now be honest

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:34:25 AM >


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/27/2014 1:28:59 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
"High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law"
A small but stingy hit....
The right people won and on a good issue.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/high-court-bolsters-domestic-violence-gun-ban-law-23065060


Wow. That might not be that small a hit.




Anything that knocks the nra/geopee back a notch, is a good day.....



A slap to those who might want to buy a gun after being involved in domestic violence, sure. But then again why would I care about some asshole who can't control his temper. A slap to the nra or gop, nope, that just another lie or in your case wet dream.


So tell us honestly. You giggle every time you type the word 'pee', don't you?


Now be honest


Fight for wife beaters if you will.....with your party......we got it....


Sometimes I write pee-pee....and it bothers exactly those who it`s intended to bother......

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:34:41 AM >


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/27/2014 1:53:28 PM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
FR

I'm not going to agree that a misdemeanor should be used to take away a constitutional right. Back when they started enforcing this, just after passing the Brady Bill, there were thousands of cops who were disqualified to possess guns. I remember hearing about it for a short time then nothing. Much of the time with this domestic violence stuff, the violence doesn't rise to a level of battery. It could have been a push or a loud verbal altercation. It could have been just an arrest but no conviction.

In most states now, if the cops show up on a domestic, someone is going into custody regardless of whether they can figure out who is at fault. IMO, if a domestic doesn't rise to the level of a felony then a person shouldn't be stripped of anything.

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:35:00 AM >


_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/27/2014 3:59:02 PM   
DaNewAgeViking


Posts: 1009
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
That's one small step for mankind.


< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:35:13 AM >

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/27/2014 4:01:37 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
And one moderate dick-punk to real jerk-offs.....

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:35:28 AM >


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to DaNewAgeViking)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/27/2014 7:31:50 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
"High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law"
A small but stingy hit....
The right people won and on a good issue.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/high-court-bolsters-domestic-violence-gun-ban-law-23065060


Wow. That might not be that small a hit.




Anything that knocks the nra/geopee back a notch, is a good day.....



A slap to those who might want to buy a gun after being involved in domestic violence, sure. But then again why would I care about some asshole who can't control his temper. A slap to the nra or gop, nope, that just another lie or in your case wet dream.


So tell us honestly. You giggle every time you type the word 'pee', don't you?


Now be honest


Fight for wife beaters if you will.....with your party......we got it....


I can understand your need to lie about what I say but it is down right pathetic when you quote me saying something entirely different at the same time.

quote:


Sometimes I write pee-pee....and it bothers exactly those who it`s intended to bother......


It doesn't bother me if that's what you are implying. In fact it's kinda cute like when peter does the same thing on family guy.

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:35:41 AM >


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/27/2014 8:28:45 PM   
MalcolmNathaniel


Posts: 1394
Joined: 9/20/2010
Status: offline
No, they screwed up. They got it backwards.

Wife-beaters should be held to felony charges and only then be stripped of their rights.

They took the easy, feel-good but do nothing real, path.

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:35:56 AM >

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/28/2014 3:41:38 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
A slap to those who might want to buy a gun after being involved in domestic violence, sure. But then again why would I care about some asshole who can't control his temper.


I do not think you have thought that statement out of yours. Michael Dunn shot up a car full of teenagers after losing his temper. Some guy shot another teenager after his daughter invited him into the house. There are threads on both, so no need to bring those up here any further. Those are the most recent, nationally known cases of a firearm owner losing their temper.

What you really fail understand is how easily one can go from being angry at something to blind rage. What happens when blind rage takes hold? They stop being in control of their temper. An there are thousands of examples of former gun owners, losing their tempers and shooting someone. That is what is implied with being 'responsible with power'. An when gun owners behave irresponsibly with firearms; new laws going into effect are not to far behind.

Anyone can understand a gun owner getting mad at a situation, so long as they keep their firearm under control as well.



< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:36:05 AM >

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/28/2014 4:25:48 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
A slap to those who might want to buy a gun after being involved in domestic violence, sure. But then again why would I care about some asshole who can't control his temper.


I do not think you have thought that statement out of yours. Michael Dunn shot up a car full of teenagers after losing his temper. Some guy shot another teenager after his daughter invited him into the house. There are threads on both, so no need to bring those up here any further. Those are the most recent, nationally known cases of a firearm owner losing their temper.

What you really fail understand is how easily one can go from being angry at something to blind rage. What happens when blind rage takes hold? They stop being in control of their temper. An there are thousands of examples of former gun owners, losing their tempers and shooting someone. That is what is implied with being 'responsible with power'. An when gun owners behave irresponsibly with firearms; new laws going into effect are not to far behind.

Anyone can understand a gun owner getting mad at a situation, so long as they keep their firearm under control as well.





So you are saying I should care about these poor fellows who got their guns taken away because they have proven they can't control their temper? Sorry but all your cute little examples do is back up what I said in the first place.

< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 3/28/2014 4:36:15 AM >


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/28/2014 4:39:24 AM   
VideoAdminChi


Posts: 3086
Joined: 8/6/2012
Status: offline
In the interests of civil discourse, I have edited the title of this thread. Your posts all show as being edited by me, but all that has changed is the title.

Please do not use thread titles that are so inflammatory as to impede civil discourse.

_____________________________

"The administration has the authority to handle situations in whatever manner they feel to be in the best interests of the forum, at that moment, in response to that event. "

http://www.collarchat.com/m_72/tm.htm

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/28/2014 4:40:32 AM   
VideoAdminChi


Posts: 3086
Joined: 8/6/2012
Status: offline
Thread has been returned.

_____________________________

"The administration has the authority to handle situations in whatever manner they feel to be in the best interests of the forum, at that moment, in response to that event. "

http://www.collarchat.com/m_72/tm.htm

(in reply to VideoAdminChi)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/28/2014 4:59:53 AM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
A slap to those who might want to buy a gun after being involved in domestic violence, sure. But then again why would I care about some asshole who can't control his temper.


I do not think you have thought that statement out of yours. Michael Dunn shot up a car full of teenagers after losing his temper. Some guy shot another teenager after his daughter invited him into the house. There are threads on both, so no need to bring those up here any further. Those are the most recent, nationally known cases of a firearm owner losing their temper.

What you really fail understand is how easily one can go from being angry at something to blind rage. What happens when blind rage takes hold? They stop being in control of their temper. An there are thousands of examples of former gun owners, losing their tempers and shooting someone. That is what is implied with being 'responsible with power'. An when gun owners behave irresponsibly with firearms; new laws going into effect are not to far behind.

Anyone can understand a gun owner getting mad at a situation, so long as they keep their firearm under control as well.






So you are saying I should care about these poor fellows who got their guns taken away because they have proven they can't control their temper? Sorry but all your cute little examples do is back up what I said in the first place.


I don't have a problem taking gun rights from wife beaters and guys who hit but they should be charged with felonies. I doubt if there's anyone on this forum who hasn't lost their temper or gets pissed off now and then. I've lost my temper with women and others while having access to loaded firearms. It never once crossed my mind to shoot somebody I was pissed at.

I think if we stopped going easy on woman beaters lettin em off with a midomeaner it would pretty much be the same thing. Many times these guys get off to do it over and over until they do some serious damage or kill them.

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/28/2014 9:34:42 AM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

FR

I'm not going to agree that a misdemeanor should be used to take away a constitutional right. Back when they started enforcing this, just after passing the Brady Bill, there were thousands of cops who were disqualified to possess guns. I remember hearing about it for a short time then nothing. Much of the time with this domestic violence stuff, the violence doesn't rise to a level of battery. It could have been a push or a loud verbal altercation. It could have been just an arrest but no conviction.

In most states now, if the cops show up on a domestic, someone is going into custody regardless of whether they can figure out who is at fault. IMO, if a domestic doesn't rise to the level of a felony then a person shouldn't be stripped of anything.


I agree with so much of that, having had one of my (several) ex-wives accuse me of "violence" for shouting.
The relevant quote from the source cited seems to me to be from Sotomayor:

""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,'" Sotomayor said."

"Physical force" is still a requirement, not just loud arguing.

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/28/2014 9:41:25 AM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I don't have a problem taking gun rights from wife beaters and guys who hit but they should be charged with felonies.


Should all assaults be felonies? Or, only all domestic assaults?
If two people are arguing, and one grabs the arm of the party trying to leave, is that a (felonious) assault/battery?
What if it leaves marks (bruises/ nail marks)?

My point herein is that the term "felony" used to mean something serious, but I expect soon to see that some legislative body somewhere in this down-trending, ever more feminized society has proposed/passed/signed into law a new charge of felony jaywalking.



_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 3/28/2014 9:45:46 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Good, the Supreme Court finally ruled on that challenge to the Lautenberg Ammendment. This isn't new; it is a challenge to one provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and has been wending its way up the court structure since 2001.

One of the things that is in law to prevent you from buying firearms or ammunition is having been convicted of domestic violence and you have a peace bond on you. In other words; no matter how pissed you are at your ex; once you have resorted to violence you are barred from buying a gun or ammunition to shoot your ex spouse.

The ban on firearms purchase was challenged because domestic violence is a misdemeanor. A lower court ruled it was not legal. That decision was overturned in appellate court. Then it went to the supreme court for a final ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act
quote:

Under the GCA, selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


And that puts an end to the 2nd amendment is a personal right nonsense. Courts can't take away your personal rights for misdemeanors.

The same SCOTUS said it is an individual right so .....WRONG

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109