Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/6/2017 5:29:00 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline 		Some of the laws that seem very hinky to me deal with loss of rights just on the accusation of a crime with no evidence or conviction extant. Or, revocation of Constitutional rights for less than a Felony Conviction.

In this specific; the California provision providing for confiscation of firearms upon a person swearing out a court order with no provision for due process prior to a search and confiscation.
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

This also gets into question 11.h on the Federal Firearms Transaction Record asking if you have a court order relating to domestic violence or child abuse. What makes it hinky is that there are states, such as California, where you have to right to challenge a court order prior to it being issued resulting in a restriction of rights with no due process.

Link to ATF requirements to purchase a firearm and a copy of the Federal Firearm Transaction Form.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions

Now, in the 10th circuit, there is a challenge to the provision removing constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction.
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-3070.pdf

What is the opinion in this dungeon; should a person lose constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction on a count of domestic violence or should it remain as it historically was that it took a felony grade conviction to curtail a citizen's rights?

Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/6/2017 5:35:30 PM   
BlackSinMaster


Posts: 89
Joined: 11/15/2012
Status: offline 		Would you hate me if I said i loved the first?

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/6/2017 5:38:18 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Some of the laws that seem very hinky to me deal with loss of rights just on the accusation of a crime with no evidence or conviction extant. Or, revocation of Constitutional rights for less than a Felony Conviction.

In this specific; the California provision providing for confiscation of firearms upon a person swearing out a court order with no provision for due process prior to a search and confiscation.
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

This also gets into question 11.h on the Federal Firearms Transaction Record asking if you have a court order relating to domestic violence or child abuse. What makes it hinky is that there are states, such as California, where you have to right to challenge a court order prior to it being issued resulting in a restriction of rights with no due process.

Link to ATF requirements to purchase a firearm and a copy of the Federal Firearm Transaction Form.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions

Now, in the 10th circuit, there is a challenge to the provision removing constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction.
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-3070.pdf

What is the opinion in this dungeon; should a person lose constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction on a count of domestic violence or should it remain as it historically was that it took a felony grade conviction to curtail a citizen's rights?



When the feminists swept us all up in the national histeria about domestic violence and these sorts of laws started to pass, I realized I was witnessing how spitting on the sidewalk laws were passed. It was interesting to watch but tragic for a few. Eventually, they will go away. The same as things like thought crimes, which leftist try and dress up as hate crimes.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/6/2017 6:22:57 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline 		No Oompa Loompa presidents here. Just well intended lawmakers degrading civil rights without making any difference to the public weal. And the laws being challenged in the courts.

(in reply to BlackSinMaster)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/6/2017 6:31:36 PM   
BlackSinMaster


Posts: 89
Joined: 11/15/2012
Status: offline 		Smiles - i had the wizard of oz conversation with someone yesterday

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 5:11:47 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline 		when I first read the title, my mind immediately went to college rape and sexual harassment cases where this also occurs.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 6:24:30 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		The most egregious cases are the forfeiture (seizure) of property and money IIRC under the RICO acts.

A otherwise law abiding couple had a small business, they made regular bank deposits all just under $10,000 which technically fell under bank disclosure laws.

Yet somehow the feds tracked these deposits and moved in to seize their money and business thinking this couples. It almost completely ruined them with their business and home 'arrested' hiring lawyers etc.

In mine and many minds, this is blatantly unconstitutional and may finally be addressed by this congress.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 6:25:00 AM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
What is the opinion in this dungeon; should a person lose constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction on a count of domestic violence or should it remain as it historically was that it took a felony grade conviction to curtail a citizen's rights?


A man who can't protect himself without a gun should be allowed to beat a woman who can't protect herself from his fists, no question. End of discussion.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 6:51:39 AM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Some of the laws that seem very hinky to me deal with loss of rights just on the accusation of a crime with no evidence or conviction extant. Or, revocation of Constitutional rights for less than a Felony Conviction.

In this specific; the California provision providing for confiscation of firearms upon a person swearing out a court order with no provision for due process prior to a search and confiscation.
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

This also gets into question 11.h on the Federal Firearms Transaction Record asking if you have a court order relating to domestic violence or child abuse. What makes it hinky is that there are states, such as California, where you have to right to challenge a court order prior to it being issued resulting in a restriction of rights with no due process.

Link to ATF requirements to purchase a firearm and a copy of the Federal Firearm Transaction Form.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions

Now, in the 10th circuit, there is a challenge to the provision removing constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction.
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-3070.pdf

What is the opinion in this dungeon; should a person lose constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction on a count of domestic violence or should it remain as it historically was that it took a felony grade conviction to curtail a citizen's rights?


This shit has been going on since Reagan instigated confiscation of house and car for even a visitor smoking weed in the back yard.

So now, 35+ years later, you wake up from your stupor and become all incensed when it comes to having the gun taken away for beating women?

Jeebus. I mean . . .

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 7:25:23 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

What is the opinion in this dungeon; should a person lose constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction on a count of domestic violence or should it remain as it historically was that it took a felony grade conviction to curtail a citizen's rights?



There is no such thing as constitutional rights, only 'your' rights. All that worthless piece of toilet paper did was 'memorialize' the contract so we know what was agreed upon.

The people said no fucking constitution no fucking mobocracy UNLESS you keep your filthy fucking hands off our personal rights.

The gubmint agreed and set out to chisel away at our rights before the ink was dry.

No you do not give up your rights with the exception to injuring or damaging someone.

The constitution and BoR is the laws of the united states, everything the bureaucracy shits all over us is 'color' of law. Courts will hang you under color of law, does not matter if its in accord with the constitution or not, and attorneys dont give a fuck since like politicians if they mouts are moving they are fucking lying.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 7:29:29 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

This shit has been going on since Reagan instigated confiscation of house and car for even a visitor smoking weed in the back yard.

So now, 35+ years later, you wake up from your stupor and become all incensed when it comes to having the gun taken away for beating women?

Jeebus. I mean . . .


Because statist apologists have been pissing on our rights before the ink was dry, dissenters are conspiracy theorists!

Never forget! (the wise words of R the 1)

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!




can anyone show me where the da'mobacracy was granted the authority from the people who reserved their rights to tell anyone what drugs they can grow and or ingest?

Little gubmint sleight of hand, that market monopoly belongs to the CIA and if you grow your own you cut into their trafficking profit margin

Oh and you are FORCED to pay some asshole to give you permission and write a prescription for a drug.

Protecting the monopolies by pretending to protect you, from none other than yourself.

Oh yeh there it is

Amendment 28

All citizens are required to pledge allegiance to the flag, to protect its extortionist corporate RICO monopolies from all dissenters.


< Message edited by Real0ne -- 10/7/2017 7:37:17 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 9:37:33 AM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline 		The corp'mint.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 9:41:40 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		apparently constitutional rights are useless except to claim 2nd amendment rights, as a gun user.
Anything else is paying the price of freedom.
if only the second amendment nuts could get angry about other constitutional rights being trampled on.
Such as the rights of the victims of gun violence.


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 10:43:42 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

apparently constitutional rights are useless except to claim 2nd amendment rights, as a gun user.
Anything else is paying the price of freedom.
if only the second amendment nuts could get angry about other constitutional rights being trampled on.
Such as the rights of the victims of gun violence.


I pointed that out in the thread about the chap in Vegas who didn't like country music.
Trumptooners who don't want a free press insisting that anything else in the bill of rights must be protected is obviously picking out the bits that suit them and ignoring the rest.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 11:00:20 AM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		No person should lose any rights ever. Period.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 11:37:19 AM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Some of the laws that seem very hinky to me deal with loss of rights just on the accusation of a crime with no evidence or conviction extant. Or, revocation of Constitutional rights for less than a Felony Conviction.

In this specific; the California provision providing for confiscation of firearms upon a person swearing out a court order with no provision for due process prior to a search and confiscation.
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

This also gets into question 11.h on the Federal Firearms Transaction Record asking if you have a court order relating to domestic violence or child abuse. What makes it hinky is that there are states, such as California, where you have to right to challenge a court order prior to it being issued resulting in a restriction of rights with no due process.

Link to ATF requirements to purchase a firearm and a copy of the Federal Firearm Transaction Form.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions

Now, in the 10th circuit, there is a challenge to the provision removing constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction.
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-3070.pdf

What is the opinion in this dungeon; should a person lose constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction on a count of domestic violence or should it remain as it historically was that it took a felony grade conviction to curtail a citizen's rights?

As I'm sure you are aware, you and I probably have different thoughts on this.

First, we should kind of face the fact that the individual states do a lousy job at even removing firearms from those who DO have felony DV convictions. Yes, there are laws in place for this, but truthfully, there is lousy follow up on it. Mostly, such laws rely on the honor system. Conviction happens, a part of the sentence is to surrender said firearms, but actual law enforcement taking possession of such firearms doesn't happen. The lack of enforcing the removal of firearms is rather pathetic. This is particularly true for states such as CA, TX, and NY.

With this in mind, we have to look at the two areas that you brought up. One being accusations without due process and those with misdemeanor convictions. Let's take these two issues and address them independent.

The accusation part. It would be difficult to argue that any person involved in due process doesn't have restrictions that could be called infringement of rights. Upon a person's entering a plea during their right of due process, the court has the authority to impose certain restrictions on the individual until their case goes to trial. Some of these can include that they can not leave the jurisdiction, have contact with witnesses, a gag order has been imposed that they can not discuss the matters of the trial, no contact with children, and a number of others. Why should a person's firearm possession, or a sanction against purchasing additional firearms, be treated any differently than any of these?

The misdemeanor, rather than a felony part. I fully support ANY type of DV/familial violence conviction being a forfeiture of the person's right to carry a weapon. The conviction is already proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person was/had intention to be violent. This isn't even looking at how hard it is to get that conviction, or how more serious crimes are often plead down to get a resolution to a case. You're not talking about shoplifting or traffic tickets here. You are talking about inherently violent crime. In such cases, one conviction should be enough.



_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 11:43:47 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		Constitutional rights?

Aside from the President and his most ardent supporters claiming everything said in the press against him is fake news, even when it comes out that the report was accurate, the majority of congress members and Americans support all the rights guaranteed in the constitution.

But when I see people screaming about the rights of the victims of gun violence, I also notice their preferred solution is to walk all over those people who own guns and are not responsible, completely avoiding the reason the present laws do not work and future laws and regulations wont work either.

When I see folks scream about freedom of religion, then turn around and bitch about a Mosque or Synagogue going up in their neighborhood, you realize they are referring to the freedom to practice Christianity, nothing else.

I have seen both sides, GOP and Dems scream about illegal search and seizure, then turn right around and talk about how we need secret courts to deal with terrorism and organized crime, and how the confiscation of large amounts of cash carried by someone who has never been associated with a criminal act is justified, and of course they have to pay for proving their innocence which usually ends up bankrupting them, is equally justified.

I hear politicians, lawyers and judges from both sides praise the wonderful right of due process, and then turn around and state categorically that holding a suspected terrorist for 10 years in a prison camp is equally justified, even after it turns out that the person only had a similar name to the one they were actually looking for, oh well, better safe than sorry.

Of course there are other wonderful things the government can do that really is pushing violating citizen rights, the use of Eminent Domain to acquire property at 'fair compensation' which is usually far lower than market value.

Or how about an agency coming and telling a business owner that he has to spend a few million to update his facilities due to some obscure 125 year old law, and as soon as he does, another agency comes in and starts fining his ass because by following the first agency's orders, he is endangering some protected environment, ending up costing the poor bastard 12 million in total fines to both agencies, and a judge ruling that he has to comply with both agencies...



_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 3:44:57 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		When I first read the title, I thought "civil asset forfeiture"
FUCK firearms. This lets the cocksuckers take EVERYGODDAMTHING

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 4:53:22 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		What part of "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" are you dumb fucks not understanding

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights - 10/7/2017 9:47:47 PM   
Marini


Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Some of the laws that seem very hinky to me deal with loss of rights just on the accusation of a crime with no evidence or conviction extant. Or, revocation of Constitutional rights for less than a Felony Conviction.

In this specific; the California provision providing for confiscation of firearms upon a person swearing out a court order with no provision for due process prior to a search and confiscation.
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

This also gets into question 11.h on the Federal Firearms Transaction Record asking if you have a court order relating to domestic violence or child abuse. What makes it hinky is that there are states, such as California, where you have to right to challenge a court order prior to it being issued resulting in a restriction of rights with no due process.

Link to ATF requirements to purchase a firearm and a copy of the Federal Firearm Transaction Form.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions

Now, in the 10th circuit, there is a challenge to the provision removing constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction.
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-3070.pdf

What is the opinion in this dungeon; should a person lose constitutional rights upon a misdemeanor conviction on a count of domestic violence or should it remain as it historically was that it took a felony grade conviction to curtail a citizen's rights?



Tricky situation, if someone has been CONVICTED of a misdemeanor, I am not sure they should be able to purchase a firearm.
In situations like this, the "right" to purchase a firearm, should probably be determined on a case by case basis.


_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Accusation = Loss of Constitutional Rights Page: [1] 2   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

0.094