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

[Ernie S.]

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?

Do you really think I consider you, of all people qualified to judge my intelligence?

I do have issues, we all do. Your's is ignorance and mine is intolerance for the ignorant.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.'

Your fag militia does it all the time.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I live in a liberal state. Felons can eventually apply for the restoration of their voting rights, but they have to meet certain criteria, and jump through some hoops.

Some states do not take voting rights from felons (except while incarcerated) at all.