Individual not convicted of domestic abuse loses gun rights.....

[Luddly Neddite]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

here are various things that being CONVICTED for a crime disqualifies someone from.

This man was found innocent.

No he was not found "innocent".

He was found "not guilty" of the 1998 charges.

 

[Agit8r]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

Blind people CAN own cars but NOT drive them. That mans RIGHT to own a gun was removed with NO proven legal cause.

Well, if cops have shown up to five separate domestic disturbances, and one resulted in an arrest (as is the case here), he's not gonna pass the background check anyway (at least if the system works at all). They saved the FFL license holder the time and trouble.

 

[DarkFury]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Didn't read my post very well did you.

What you say is true and I agree with it.

BUT, it should be true for all American accused but not convicted, as well as those who never even get the chance to be accused. And yes, I'm talking about the murders of Blacks by police officers.

Do you agree they should have the same protection, under the law?

That is an apple vs orange argument or in this case CITIZEN vs EMPLOYEE.

 

[Ernie S.]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

here are various things that being CONVICTED for a crime disqualifies someone from.

This man was found innocent.

No he was not found "innocent".

He was found "not guilty" of the 1998 charges.

He was acquitted. In a court of law, acquitted means innocent. I had a domestic arrest way back when. I was acquitted due to the fact that she had hit me 3 times prior to me restraining her. It was all bullshit, as the courts found due, in part, to a new domestic dispute law in CT. I have passed numerous background checks to purchase firearms and to obtain concealed carry permits since.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Didn't read my post very well did you.

What you say is true and I agree with it.

BUT, it should be true for all American accused but not convicted, as well as those who never even get the chance to be accused. And yes, I'm talking about the murders of Blacks by police officers.

Do you agree they should have the same protection, under the law?

That is an apple vs orange argument or in this case CITIZEN vs EMPLOYEE.

So the murderer being an employee" means he is not subject to the same constitution as the rest of us?

Surely you don't believe that.

All Americans are guaranteed due process. Deal with it.

And, I take it you went back and read my first post?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

here are various things that being CONVICTED for a crime disqualifies someone from.

This man was found innocent.

No he was not found "innocent".

He was found "not guilty" of the 1998 charges.

He was acquitted. In a court of law, acquitted means innocent. I had a domestic arrest way back when. I was acquitted due to the fact that she had hit me 3 times prior to me restraining her. It was all bullshit, as the courts found due, in part, to a new domestic dispute law in CT. I have passed numerous background checks to purchase firearms and to obtain concealed carry permits since.

*** shudder ***

'nuff said.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If he went to trial, somebody pressed charges.

So what? He was not convicted. One can not be denied their rights because someone accused you of something it was proven false.

Acquittal is not proof of innocence. It's only a proof of a lack of evidence.

For the slow and stupid, no conviction no loss of rights, or shall we take your car away cause you might drive drunk?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

here are various things that being CONVICTED for a crime disqualifies someone from.

This man was found innocent.

No he was not found "innocent".

He was found "not guilty" of the 1998 charges.

So we can remove rights just because you were accused but never found guilty? What a fucking moron you are.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

New Jersey is a "may issue" state, not a "shall issue" state.

 

[Ernie S.]

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

here are various things that being CONVICTED for a crime disqualifies someone from.

This man was found innocent.

No he was not found "innocent".

He was found "not guilty" of the 1998 charges.

He was acquitted. In a court of law, acquitted means innocent. I had a domestic arrest way back when. I was acquitted due to the fact that she had hit me 3 times prior to me restraining her. It was all bullshit, as the courts found due, in part, to a new domestic dispute law in CT. I have passed numerous background checks to purchase firearms and to obtain concealed carry permits since.

*** shudder ***

'nuff said.

I did not assault her. I simply restrained her and prevented her from striking me a 4th time. Shudder all you want, fella.

 

[Agit8r]

If he went to trial, somebody pressed charges.

So what? He was not convicted. One can not be denied their rights because someone accused you of something it was proven false.

Acquittal is not proof of innocence. It's only a proof of a lack of evidence.

For the slow and stupid, no conviction no loss of rights, or shall we take your car away cause you might drive drunk?

What are you talking about? I have no problem with safe, sane, law-abiding citizens being armed. I'm not for the insane, irresponsible, or scoff-laws owning guns. This guy had multiple domestic disturbances. He should not have a gun. In most states there are no such permits necessary, but the background check will (or should) keep such people from arming themselves. There isn't anything unconstitutional about that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

here are various things that being CONVICTED for a crime disqualifies someone from.

This man was found innocent.

No he was not found "innocent".

He was found "not guilty" of the 1998 charges.

So we can remove rights just because you were accused but never found guilty? What a fucking moron you are.

So you didn't read my post either.

If you judge someone without knowing the facts, YOU are the moron.

Read my posts above ^^^ and quit being the knee-jerk idiot we all know you are.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I read your posts, you are an idiot. The man was NEVER convicted of a crime. Using your logic we should accuse you of drunk driving then have the State remove your license cause well you were accused.

 

[rightwinger]

We are all better off if this creep is not armed

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

here are various things that being CONVICTED for a crime disqualifies someone from.

This man was found innocent.

No he was not found "innocent".

He was found "not guilty" of the 1998 charges.

He was acquitted. In a court of law, acquitted means innocent. I had a domestic arrest way back when. I was acquitted due to the fact that she had hit me 3 times prior to me restraining her. It was all bullshit, as the courts found due, in part, to a new domestic dispute law in CT. I have passed numerous background checks to purchase firearms and to obtain concealed carry permits since.

*** shudder ***

'nuff said.

I did not assault her. I simply restrained her and prevented her from striking me a 4th time. Shudder all you want, fella.

In point of fact, men are the victims of domestic abuse as often and possibly more often than women are. While the abuse of women is poorly supported, men report even fewer.

The plight of male victims is especially difficult because they are not allowed to fight back and their very manhood is called into question because some very ignorant cave man types will believe they allowed themselves to be beaten up by a mere woman.

My response to you is based on posts of yours that I've read over a period of time.

Simply put, you're not very bright, you carry around a lot of anger and, not to put too fine a point on it, you have issues.

Got that?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

theDoctorisIn


I want to believe in the mercy of the world again.

Your sig line.

Gives me pause and its something I think about a lot. Its what I would like as well but I have to say, I don't hold out much hope.

There are small pockets of humanity around the planet, each struggling to save their little corner. But that's as good as it gonna get and maybe that's the best we can hope for.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Didn't read my post very well did you.

What you say is true and I agree with it.

BUT, it should be true for all American accused but not convicted, as well as those who never even get the chance to be accused. And yes, I'm talking about the murders of Blacks by police officers.

Do you agree they should have the same protection, under the law?

That is an apple vs orange argument or in this case CITIZEN vs EMPLOYEE.

So the murderer being an employee" means he is not subject to the same constitution as the rest of us?

Surely you don't believe that.

All Americans are guaranteed due process. Deal with it.

And, I take it you went back and read my first post?

Exactly.

The appellant is being afforded his right to due process, where there is yet to be a final determination of the issue; indeed, this decision will likely be appealed to the State supreme court.

Consequently, the notion that someone has had his rights 'removed' is ignorant nonsense. No one's rights have been 'removed,' no one has 'lost' his rights; the individual's Second and Fifth Amendment rights remain intact and in full effect.

Moreover, he has the right to appeal the State supreme court's ruling to a Federal court if warranted, and after that an appellate court, perhaps even the Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If he went to trial, somebody pressed charges.

So what? He was not convicted. One can not be denied their rights because someone accused you of something it was proven false.

Acquittal is not proof of innocence. It's only a proof of a lack of evidence.

For the slow and stupid, no conviction no loss of rights, or shall we take your car away cause you might drive drunk?

What are you talking about? I have no problem with safe, sane, law-abiding citizens being armed. I'm not for the insane, irresponsible, or scoff-laws owning guns. This guy had multiple domestic disturbances. He should not have a gun. In most states there are no such permits necessary, but the background check will (or should) keep such people from arming themselves. There isn't anything unconstitutional about that.

At least until a Federal court rules otherwise.

In the meantime it's idiocy to be talking about one's rights being 'violated' or something being 'un-Constitutional.'

 

[DarkFury]

If he went to trial, somebody pressed charges.

So what? He was not convicted. One can not be denied their rights because someone accused you of something it was proven false.

Acquittal is not proof of innocence. It's only a proof of a lack of evidence.

For the slow and stupid, no conviction no loss of rights, or shall we take your car away cause you might drive drunk?

What are you talking about? I have no problem with safe, sane, law-abiding citizens being armed. I'm not for the insane, irresponsible, or scoff-laws owning guns. This guy had multiple domestic disturbances. He should not have a gun. In most states there are no such permits necessary, but the background check will (or should) keep such people from arming themselves. There isn't anything unconstitutional about that.

At least until a Federal court rules otherwise.

In the meantime it's idiocy to be talking about one's rights being 'violated' or something being 'un-Constitutional.'

IF they have his ACTUAL firearm they HAVE deprived him of personal property AND are in violation of LAW. And THAT is IN his Bill of Rights.

 

[Agit8r]

If he went to trial, somebody pressed charges.

So what? He was not convicted. One can not be denied their rights because someone accused you of something it was proven false.

Acquittal is not proof of innocence. It's only a proof of a lack of evidence.

For the slow and stupid, no conviction no loss of rights, or shall we take your car away cause you might drive drunk?

What are you talking about? I have no problem with safe, sane, law-abiding citizens being armed. I'm not for the insane, irresponsible, or scoff-laws owning guns. This guy had multiple domestic disturbances. He should not have a gun. In most states there are no such permits necessary, but the background check will (or should) keep such people from arming themselves. There isn't anything unconstitutional about that.

At least until a Federal court rules otherwise.

In the meantime it's idiocy to be talking about one's rights being 'violated' or something being 'un-Constitutional.'

DC v. Heller is the precedent, so it's unlikely they would waste their time with such a case.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
-- Antonin Scalia; from District of Columbia v. Heller