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

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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

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....

quote:


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

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

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.