|
BamaD -> RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law (3/28/2014 5:11:48 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
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
Funny right that a court a legislature can take away from you forever for a misdemeanor conviction.
IOW that's not a right.
Try writing that again in a coherent sentence
I believe you meant to say was :
Funny that a court or legislature can take a right away from you for a
misdemeanor conviction. See that was coherent.
|
|
|
|
