Supreme Court rules misdemeanors can remove constitutional rights

[Wolfstrike]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/ar-AAhGgKw?li=BBnb7Kz


your assumed definition of "domestic abuse" has a far wider range than you think it does

 

[PredFan]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/ar-AAhGgKw?li=BBnb7Kz


your assumed definition of "domestic abuse" has a far wider range than you think it does

Yeah that has always been the problem with that.

 

[there4eyeM]

Details are lacking, but something like this may have helped Christy Sheats avoid murdering her daughters.

 

[yiostheoy]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/ar-AAhGgKw?li=BBnb7Kz


your assumed definition of "domestic abuse" has a far wider range than you think it does

Yup they decided that the States have the right to ban violent spouse abusers from ever owning or buying guns.

Probably a good idea.

If you are going to beat up your spouse then you probably are not sane enough to own a gun.

And me, I generally believe that everyone should have their own guns -- one carbine and one pistol at least plus a sling for the carbine and a holster for the pistol and lots of ammo and mags for both.

But not for azzholes who beat their spouses.

 

[S.J.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/ar-AAhGgKw?li=BBnb7Kz


your assumed definition of "domestic abuse" has a far wider range than you think it does

Yup they decided that the States have the right to ban violent spouse abusers from ever owning or buying guns.

Probably a good idea.

If you are going to beat up your spouse then you probably are not sane enough to own a gun.

And me, I generally believe that everyone should have their own guns -- one carbine and one pistol at least plus a sling for the carbine and a holster for the pistol and lots of ammo and mags for both.

But not for azzholes who beat their spouses.

How many men do you think have been falsely accused of spousal abuse from a spouse with an ax to grind? Use your head.

 

[HUGGY]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/ar-AAhGgKw?li=BBnb7Kz


your assumed definition of "domestic abuse" has a far wider range than you think it does

Yup they decided that the States have the right to ban violent spouse abusers from ever owning or buying guns.

Probably a good idea.

If you are going to beat up your spouse then you probably are not sane enough to own a gun.

And me, I generally believe that everyone should have their own guns -- one carbine and one pistol at least plus a sling for the carbine and a holster for the pistol and lots of ammo and mags for both.

But not for azzholes who beat their spouses.

How many men do you think have been falsely accused of spousal abuse from a spouse with an ax to grind? Use your head.

Na axes either!

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/ar-AAhGgKw?li=BBnb7Kz


your assumed definition of "domestic abuse" has a far wider range than you think it does

Yup they decided that the States have the right to ban violent spouse abusers from ever owning or buying guns.

Probably a good idea.

If you are going to beat up your spouse then you probably are not sane enough to own a gun.

And me, I generally believe that everyone should have their own guns -- one carbine and one pistol at least plus a sling for the carbine and a holster for the pistol and lots of ammo and mags for both.

But not for azzholes who beat their spouses.

And I disagree with you. All too many people have no idea of how to handle a gun. They are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. I think that before you are allowed to buy a gun, you should have to pass a gun safety course. All too many 'accidents' with guns are simple criminal negligence.

 

[S.J.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/ar-AAhGgKw?li=BBnb7Kz


your assumed definition of "domestic abuse" has a far wider range than you think it does

Yup they decided that the States have the right to ban violent spouse abusers from ever owning or buying guns.

Probably a good idea.

If you are going to beat up your spouse then you probably are not sane enough to own a gun.

And me, I generally believe that everyone should have their own guns -- one carbine and one pistol at least plus a sling for the carbine and a holster for the pistol and lots of ammo and mags for both.

But not for azzholes who beat their spouses.

And I disagree with you. All too many people have no idea of how to handle a gun. They are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. I think that before you are allowed to buy a gun, you should have to pass a gun safety course. All too many 'accidents' with guns are simple criminal negligence.

The Constitution disagrees with you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yup they decided that the States have the right to ban violent spouse abusers from ever owning or buying guns.

Probably a good idea.

If you are going to beat up your spouse then you probably are not sane enough to own a gun.

And me, I generally believe that everyone should have their own guns -- one carbine and one pistol at least plus a sling for the carbine and a holster for the pistol and lots of ammo and mags for both.

But not for azzholes who beat their spouses.

The problem is that it does not require anyone to beat anyone to get charged with a domestic violence misdemeanor.

If you have an argument with your wife and the neighbor calls the cops to shut you up at 2 am, in many cities this falls under domestic violence and one partner or the other will have to go to jail under domestic violence charges when no one actually committed any violence at all.

This bullshit law does not even require a conviction, just the charges being made, so you are not losing your Constitutional rights over a conviction for a misdemeanor, but for simply being charged with a misdemeanor.

That is what the political left thinks about Constitutional rights when they have the ability to get their way due to uneducated voters.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And I disagree with you. All too many people have no idea of how to handle a gun. They are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. I think that before you are allowed to buy a gun, you should have to pass a gun safety course. All too many 'accidents' with guns are simple criminal negligence.

Another sterling example of the lefts contempt for Constitutional rights which their subordinate to their idiotology.

 

[JoeB131]

the National Rampage Association thinks that wife-beaters and terrorists should be able to buy guns...

And they wonder why the rest of us think they are nuts.

 

[martybegan]

Yup they decided that the States have the right to ban violent spouse abusers from ever owning or buying guns.

Probably a good idea.

If you are going to beat up your spouse then you probably are not sane enough to own a gun.

And me, I generally believe that everyone should have their own guns -- one carbine and one pistol at least plus a sling for the carbine and a holster for the pistol and lots of ammo and mags for both.

But not for azzholes who beat their spouses.

The problem is that it does not require anyone to beat anyone to get charged with a domestic violence misdemeanor.

If you have an argument with your wife and the neighbor calls the cops to shut you up at 2 am, in many cities this falls under domestic violence and one partner or the other will have to go to jail under domestic violence charges when no one actually committed any violence at all.

This bullshit law does not even require a conviction, just the charges being made, so you are not losing your Constitutional rights over a conviction for a misdemeanor, but for simply being charged with a misdemeanor.

That is what the political left thinks about Constitutional rights when they have the ability to get their way due to uneducated voters.

I think this ruling is more narrowly constructed, at least from what I read. the guy was convicted, and there was violence involved, not just yelling and shouting.

Now a law that removes your 2nd amendment rights permanently just for the police being called is of course unconstitutional, but I don't think that was argued in this case.

 

[Obiwan]

the National Rampage Association thinks that wife-beaters and terrorists should be able to buy guns...

And they wonder why the rest of us think they are nuts.

Actually, when I lived in Denver, all it took to get a domestic violence charge was raising your voice where a cop or neighbor could hear it...

So don't call your gay lover a DUMBASS, or we will be hearing about a gay named Joey getting waxed by a terrorist because he couldn't own a gun to defend himself!!!

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, when I lived in Denver, all it took to get a domestic violence charge was raising your voice where a cop or neighbor could hear it...

So don't call your gay lover a DUMBASS, or we will be hearing about a gay named Joey getting waxed by a terrorist because he couldn't own a gun to defend himself!!!

I don't need a gun to defend myself... but maybe you gun nuts better stop slapping around your partners or you might have to deal with your "shortcomings'....

 

[HUGGY]

the National Rampage Association thinks that wife-beaters and terrorists should be able to buy guns...

And they wonder why the rest of us think they are nuts.

Actually, when I lived in Denver, all it took to get a domestic violence charge was raising your voice where a cop or neighbor could hear it...

So don't call your gay lover a DUMBASS, or we will be hearing about a gay named Joey getting waxed by a terrorist because he couldn't own a gun to defend himself!!!

When gay as fuck "Joey" goes and gets himself "waxed" by gay as fuck "Bruce" and his live in lover "Harry" ( who obviously don't go for no waxings ) catches him outside Bruce's place, shoots him ... Gay as fuck Joey has no one to blame but himself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When gay as fuck "Joey" goes and gets himself "waxed" by gay as fuck "Bruce" and his live in lover "Harry" ( who obviously don't go for no waxings ) catches him outside Bruce's place, shoots him ... Gay as fuck Joey has no one to blame but himself.

Lol, if 'cheating' is justification for killing a homosexual partner, OMG, the bloodbath would be huge.

 

[yiostheoy]

Yup they decided that the States have the right to ban violent spouse abusers from ever owning or buying guns.

Probably a good idea.

If you are going to beat up your spouse then you probably are not sane enough to own a gun.

And me, I generally believe that everyone should have their own guns -- one carbine and one pistol at least plus a sling for the carbine and a holster for the pistol and lots of ammo and mags for both.

But not for azzholes who beat their spouses.

The problem is that it does not require anyone to beat anyone to get charged with a domestic violence misdemeanor.

If you have an argument with your wife and the neighbor calls the cops to shut you up at 2 am, in many cities this falls under domestic violence and one partner or the other will have to go to jail under domestic violence charges when no one actually committed any violence at all.

This bullshit law does not even require a conviction, just the charges being made, so you are not losing your Constitutional rights over a conviction for a misdemeanor, but for simply being charged with a misdemeanor.

That is what the political left thinks about Constitutional rights when they have the ability to get their way due to uneducated voters.

Violence against spouses is usually learned behavior from parents.

The little brat sees dad and mom yelling and screaming and beating the crap out of each other and throwing things and then the little brat thinks that is ok and normal.

I have never had to raise my voice to a woman nor have I ever hit one.

If the SCOTUS wants to agree with the State Legislatures that spouse abusers should not have guns that is fine with me.

If you love your gun then don't beat your wife.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/ar-AAhGgKw?li=BBnb7Kz


your assumed definition of "domestic abuse" has a far wider range than you think it does

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, it determines when government has acted in accordance with Constitutional case law, and when it has not; its rulings are the settled and accepted law of the land.

In this case, Federal law that designates domestic abusers as prohibited persons is Constitutional, it does not violate the Second Amendment, and manifests as a reasonable restriction on the Second Amendment right, consistent with the Heller Court’s reaffirmation of the fact that the right to bear arms is not unlimited.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/ar-AAhGgKw?li=BBnb7Kz


your assumed definition of "domestic abuse" has a far wider range than you think it does

Yup they decided that the States have the right to ban violent spouse abusers from ever owning or buying guns.

Probably a good idea.

If you are going to beat up your spouse then you probably are not sane enough to own a gun.

And me, I generally believe that everyone should have their own guns -- one carbine and one pistol at least plus a sling for the carbine and a holster for the pistol and lots of ammo and mags for both.

But not for azzholes who beat their spouses.

And I disagree with you. All too many people have no idea of how to handle a gun. They are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. I think that before you are allowed to buy a gun, you should have to pass a gun safety course. All too many 'accidents' with guns are simple criminal negligence.

The Constitution disagrees with you.

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And the Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of training courses as a condition of gun ownership, where any such measure is indeed Constitutional until the Court rules otherwise.

 

[HUGGY]

When gay as fuck "Joey" goes and gets himself "waxed" by gay as fuck "Bruce" and his live in lover "Harry" ( who obviously don't go for no waxings ) catches him outside Bruce's place, shoots him ... Gay as fuck Joey has no one to blame but himself.

Lol, if 'cheating' is justification for killing a homosexual partner, OMG, the bloodbath would be huge.

For those of you that didn't understand my post ...please allow me to clarify that the names have been changed to protect the innocent and no actual situation verified by a coroners report was used as a model to describe my wholly fictional story. I in no way condone homosexual infidelity or the resulting murders that ensue because of it.