In what I think is a landmark case on gun control in the US, the Supreme Court ruled that those who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence may be restricted from legally purchasing firearms.
This is monumental. A number of high profile shootings in the US were committed by men and women who have been arrested for and found guilty of domestic abuse.
Such behavior is a good indicator of an unstable state of mind that could lead to future gun violence.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 4_19m1.pdf
No, it will not solve all our problems, and no, it will not prevent all shootings, but if just one person lives because of this decision, it will have been worth it.
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
LarsMac;1497919 wrote: In what I think is a landmark case on gun control in the US, the Supreme Court ruled that those who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence may be restricted from legally purchasing firearms.
This is monumental. A number of high profile shootings in the US were committed by men and women who have been arrested for and found guilty of domestic abuse.
Such behavior is a good indicator of an unstable state of mind that could lead to future gun violence.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 4_19m1.pdf
No, it will not solve all our problems, and no, it will not prevent all shootings, but if just one person lives because of this decision, it will have been worth it.
Doesn't this just extend an existing prohibition to reckless as well as intentional misdemeanours?
I thought that there was already a list of cases where people were banned from owning guns such as the insane, drug addicts and felons.
This is monumental. A number of high profile shootings in the US were committed by men and women who have been arrested for and found guilty of domestic abuse.
Such behavior is a good indicator of an unstable state of mind that could lead to future gun violence.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 4_19m1.pdf
No, it will not solve all our problems, and no, it will not prevent all shootings, but if just one person lives because of this decision, it will have been worth it.
Doesn't this just extend an existing prohibition to reckless as well as intentional misdemeanours?
I thought that there was already a list of cases where people were banned from owning guns such as the insane, drug addicts and felons.
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
LarsMac;1497919 wrote: In what I think is a landmark case on gun control in the US, the Supreme Court ruled that those who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence may be restricted from legally purchasing firearms.This is monumental..
Did that just happen today? YAY! They also decided NOT to hear any cases protesting Assault Rifle bans which mean they tacitly agreed with such bans.
Did that just happen today? YAY! They also decided NOT to hear any cases protesting Assault Rifle bans which mean they tacitly agreed with such bans.
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
Bryn Mawr;1497926 wrote: Doesn't this just extend an existing prohibition to reckless as well as intentional misdemeanours?
I thought that there was already a list of cases where people were banned from owning guns such as the insane, drug addicts and felons.
Basically, convicted Felons are not allowed to own, possess, or purchase firearms. This will extend that law to include misdemeanor convictions for Domestic Violence and misdemeanors where guns were involved.
I know of at least four situations where lives would have been saved, if this law had been in force. And had it been in force, and the wife had called authorities on Omar Mateen, he would not have been able to purchase the rifle that he used in the Pulse shooting.
No, it will not prevent a determined criminal, but it very well could prevent the impulsive, or disturbed individual from getting their hands on a gun legally.
I thought that there was already a list of cases where people were banned from owning guns such as the insane, drug addicts and felons.
Basically, convicted Felons are not allowed to own, possess, or purchase firearms. This will extend that law to include misdemeanor convictions for Domestic Violence and misdemeanors where guns were involved.
I know of at least four situations where lives would have been saved, if this law had been in force. And had it been in force, and the wife had called authorities on Omar Mateen, he would not have been able to purchase the rifle that he used in the Pulse shooting.
No, it will not prevent a determined criminal, but it very well could prevent the impulsive, or disturbed individual from getting their hands on a gun legally.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
Saint_;1497929 wrote: Did that just happen today? YAY! They also decided NOT to hear any cases protesting Assault Rifle bans which mean they tacitly agreed with such bans.
It was yesterday.
It was yesterday.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
LarsMac;1497934 wrote:
No, it will not prevent a determined criminal, but it very well could prevent the impulsive, or disturbed individual from getting their hands on a gun legally.
Next step is to deal with the wide-open gun shows...
No, it will not prevent a determined criminal, but it very well could prevent the impulsive, or disturbed individual from getting their hands on a gun legally.
Next step is to deal with the wide-open gun shows...
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
Saint_;1497937 wrote: Next step is to deal with the wide-open gun shows...
I think that folks should have to pass the background check before even being allowed to enter the area. But then, I am one of those librul guys out to take all your guns away.
I think that folks should have to pass the background check before even being allowed to enter the area. But then, I am one of those librul guys out to take all your guns away.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
LarsMac;1497939 wrote: I think that folks should have to pass the background check before even being allowed to enter the area. But then, I am one of those librul guys out to take all your guns away.
durn dem libruls!
But seriously, check out the cool car magnet I got on Amazon the other day!
durn dem libruls!
But seriously, check out the cool car magnet I got on Amazon the other day!
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
Saint_;1497942 wrote: durn dem libruls!
But seriously, check out the cool car magnet I got on Amazon the other day!
Hah. That's great. I am sure that Anne will want one.
But seriously, check out the cool car magnet I got on Amazon the other day!
Hah. That's great. I am sure that Anne will want one.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
LarsMac;1497934 wrote: I know of at least four situations where lives would have been saved, if this law had been in force.
Is THIS one of those situations ?
Or yet another incident ?
Is THIS one of those situations ?
Or yet another incident ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
I don't feel this will stop anything.
Felons - criminals will always have access to weapons.
I know a Felon who owns & possess several guns - kegs of black powder & on & on.
Owns a large gun safe - full of rifles - scopes - guns he inheritated from his grandfather.
I reported this to authorities - Nothing was done.
unfortunately this is a small band aid.
Patsy
Felons - criminals will always have access to weapons.
I know a Felon who owns & possess several guns - kegs of black powder & on & on.
Owns a large gun safe - full of rifles - scopes - guns he inheritated from his grandfather.
I reported this to authorities - Nothing was done.
unfortunately this is a small band aid.
Patsy
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
Well, I doubt that this ruling will have much affect on people who already own guns. And yes, I know several felons who are in possession of multiple weapons.
No, this law is one small step in the right direction. It basically denies the claims made by many of the gun nuts that they have a right to unhindered access to all the firearms that they want, without some legal limitations, or responsibilities.
That is, indeed, a small step. but it is a step.
The legal precedent of this decision will have long term benefits, though, that we may only begin to anticipate.
No, this law is one small step in the right direction. It basically denies the claims made by many of the gun nuts that they have a right to unhindered access to all the firearms that they want, without some legal limitations, or responsibilities.
That is, indeed, a small step. but it is a step.
The legal precedent of this decision will have long term benefits, though, that we may only begin to anticipate.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
LarsMac;1497969 wrote: The legal precedent of this decision will have long term benefits, though, that we may only begin to anticipate.
I wonder of the unintended consequences of such a decision.
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins
as to Parts I and II, dissenting.
This decision many give you the results you desire, but me wonder how it sets a precedence which may apply to cases not related to firearms.
I wonder of the unintended consequences of such a decision.
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins
as to Parts I and II, dissenting.
This decision many give you the results you desire, but me wonder how it sets a precedence which may apply to cases not related to firearms.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
larsmac;1497944 wrote: hah. That's great. I am sure that anne will want one.
I want it!!!!!!!!!
I want it!!!!!!!!!
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
LarsMac;1497939 wrote: I think that folks should have to pass the background check before even being allowed to enter the area. But then, I am one of those librul guys out to take all your guns away.
You are a gun owner -correct?
Do you have a FOID? What is the purpose of the card, if not to do some type of a background check?
You are a gun owner -correct?
Do you have a FOID? What is the purpose of the card, if not to do some type of a background check?
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
flopstock;1497979 wrote: You are a gun owner -correct?
Do you have a FOID? What is the purpose of the card, if not to do some type of a background check?
I am.
No, I do not. It's not a bad idea, but Probably not doable federally. That would really set the ammosexual paranoids off.
Do you have a FOID? What is the purpose of the card, if not to do some type of a background check?
I am.
No, I do not. It's not a bad idea, but Probably not doable federally. That would really set the ammosexual paranoids off.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
Patsy Warnick;1497949 wrote:
Felons - criminals will always have access to weapons.
That's actually a myth. In both Australia and Japan, who enacted gun reform, that access for weapons for both law-abiding citizens and criminals is severely limited. And they are all safer for it.
Felons - criminals will always have access to weapons.
That's actually a myth. In both Australia and Japan, who enacted gun reform, that access for weapons for both law-abiding citizens and criminals is severely limited. And they are all safer for it.
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
Yes, Criminals will likely acquire guns illegally. However, one of the most common sources of guns for criminals is to take them from law-abiding citizens who do not properly secure their legally acquired firearms.
And another source is to simply go buy them at a gun store.
The point of this exercise, however is to try and limit access to firearms by people who have proven that they lack the self discipline that should be required for gun ownership.
A firearm should NEVER be seen as a part of the solution to a domestic dispute.
And another source is to simply go buy them at a gun store.
The point of this exercise, however is to try and limit access to firearms by people who have proven that they lack the self discipline that should be required for gun ownership.
A firearm should NEVER be seen as a part of the solution to a domestic dispute.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
The argument against banning the use of firearms by saying that felons will always manage to acquire them anyway is a pointless one. You might as well say that you may as well allow heroin to be sold openly at Tesco as drug addicts will always manage to acquire the stuff anyway. Of course they will be able to acquire them illicitly in one way or another. That doesn't mean you should make it easier for them to do so.
Furthermore, there is the argument in the U.K. against the routine arming of the Police. The vast majority of the Police do not want to be armed. The reasoning behind it is simple. While the Police remain unarmed, there is less reason for the criminals to be so as well. If they were, then the criminal would have a reason to arm themselves, just to place themselves on a level playing ground - and so it would progress. When there is the situation that everyone is allowed to own a whole armoury of firearms that would put a small country's military to shame, then there is the perpetual motivation to outclass them. In essence, it's exactly the same regarding international Nuclear Weapons.
Furthermore, there is the argument in the U.K. against the routine arming of the Police. The vast majority of the Police do not want to be armed. The reasoning behind it is simple. While the Police remain unarmed, there is less reason for the criminals to be so as well. If they were, then the criminal would have a reason to arm themselves, just to place themselves on a level playing ground - and so it would progress. When there is the situation that everyone is allowed to own a whole armoury of firearms that would put a small country's military to shame, then there is the perpetual motivation to outclass them. In essence, it's exactly the same regarding international Nuclear Weapons.
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
FourPart;1498113 wrote: The argument against banning the use of firearms by saying that felons will always manage to acquire them anyway is a pointless one.
The last two guns I bought were totally legal for felons to buy and possess. Bought them online, delivered to my doorstep.
FourPart;1498113 wrote: You might as well say that you may as well allow heroin to be sold openly at Tesco as drug addicts will always manage to acquire the stuff anyway.
There are those who make that argument.
FourPart;1498113 wrote: Of course they will be able to acquire them illicitly in one way or another. That doesn't mean you should make it easier for them to do so.
I agree. The problem is you want to restrict a natural, civil and Constitutional right. Not any different than restricting the freedom of speech.
FourPart;1498113 wrote: Furthermore, there is the argument in the U.K. against the routine arming of the Police. The vast majority of the Police do not want to be armed. The reasoning behind it is simple. While the Police remain unarmed, there is less reason for the criminals to be so as well. If they were, then the criminal would have a reason to arm themselves, just to place themselves on a level playing ground - and so it would progress.
If that works for ya all, just fine and dandy with me.
FourPart;1498113 wrote: When there is the situation that everyone is allowed to own a whole armoury of firearms that would put a small country's military to shame, then there is the perpetual motivation to outclass them. In essence, it's exactly the same regarding international Nuclear Weapons.
I can't speak for other people, but a couple of years ago before my best friend passed
away he gave me his guns. Been lazy about it but I do want to sell all but one. Imagine a GUN NUT with too many guns.
The last two guns I bought were totally legal for felons to buy and possess. Bought them online, delivered to my doorstep.
FourPart;1498113 wrote: You might as well say that you may as well allow heroin to be sold openly at Tesco as drug addicts will always manage to acquire the stuff anyway.
There are those who make that argument.
FourPart;1498113 wrote: Of course they will be able to acquire them illicitly in one way or another. That doesn't mean you should make it easier for them to do so.
I agree. The problem is you want to restrict a natural, civil and Constitutional right. Not any different than restricting the freedom of speech.
FourPart;1498113 wrote: Furthermore, there is the argument in the U.K. against the routine arming of the Police. The vast majority of the Police do not want to be armed. The reasoning behind it is simple. While the Police remain unarmed, there is less reason for the criminals to be so as well. If they were, then the criminal would have a reason to arm themselves, just to place themselves on a level playing ground - and so it would progress.
If that works for ya all, just fine and dandy with me.
FourPart;1498113 wrote: When there is the situation that everyone is allowed to own a whole armoury of firearms that would put a small country's military to shame, then there is the perpetual motivation to outclass them. In essence, it's exactly the same regarding international Nuclear Weapons.
I can't speak for other people, but a couple of years ago before my best friend passed
away he gave me his guns. Been lazy about it but I do want to sell all but one. Imagine a GUN NUT with too many guns.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
Imagine a nation of gun nuts with attitude, if that works for y'all.....fine and dandy.......if it don't........shoot the gun nuts........that'll do it.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
Bruv;1498122 wrote: Imagine a nation of gun nuts with attitude,
Whatever fits your fanciful imagination. Go with it.
Bruv;1498122 wrote: if that works for y'all.....fine and dandy.......if it don't........shoot the gun nuts........that'll do it.
Whatever story fits your imagination. Works for me.
Whatever fits your fanciful imagination. Go with it.
Bruv;1498122 wrote: if that works for y'all.....fine and dandy.......if it don't........shoot the gun nuts........that'll do it.
Whatever story fits your imagination. Works for me.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
FourPart;1498113 wrote: The argument against banning the use of firearms by saying that felons will always manage to acquire them anyway is a pointless one. You might as well say that you may as well allow heroin to be sold openly at Tesco as drug addicts will always manage to acquire the stuff anyway. Of course they will be able to acquire them illicitly in one way or another. That doesn't mean you should make it easier for them to do so.
Furthermore, there is the argument in the U.K. against the routine arming of the Police. The vast majority of the Police do not want to be armed. The reasoning behind it is simple. While the Police remain unarmed, there is less reason for the criminals to be so as well. If they were, then the criminal would have a reason to arm themselves, just to place themselves on a level playing ground - and so it would progress. When there is the situation that everyone is allowed to own a whole armoury of firearms that would put a small country's military to shame, then there is the perpetual motivation to outclass them. In essence, it's exactly the same regarding international Nuclear Weapons.
There's a good argument that de-criminalising drugs will remove the profit from the dealers, thus disincentivising them from peddling the muck, whilst not increasing the usage as most people have more sense (and the dealers won't be outside of schools trying to get kids hooked in the first place.).
Furthermore, there is the argument in the U.K. against the routine arming of the Police. The vast majority of the Police do not want to be armed. The reasoning behind it is simple. While the Police remain unarmed, there is less reason for the criminals to be so as well. If they were, then the criminal would have a reason to arm themselves, just to place themselves on a level playing ground - and so it would progress. When there is the situation that everyone is allowed to own a whole armoury of firearms that would put a small country's military to shame, then there is the perpetual motivation to outclass them. In essence, it's exactly the same regarding international Nuclear Weapons.
There's a good argument that de-criminalising drugs will remove the profit from the dealers, thus disincentivising them from peddling the muck, whilst not increasing the usage as most people have more sense (and the dealers won't be outside of schools trying to get kids hooked in the first place.).
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
However, most Class A drugs used to be perfectly legal, and were even sold in Harrods in Comfort Boxes for the troops. Opium, Cocaine, Morphine, etc.
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
tude dog;1498120 wrote: The problem is you want to restrict a natural, civil and Constitutional right. Not any different than restricting the freedom of speech.
America I feel your pain......
If any nation allows....."Rights" ......of a natural......civil....and.....(capitalised)....Constitutional.....to over ride the 'right' of their citizens to be free from fear from their fellow citizens.......need every sympathy.
America I feel your pain......
If any nation allows....."Rights" ......of a natural......civil....and.....(capitalised)....Constitutional.....to over ride the 'right' of their citizens to be free from fear from their fellow citizens.......need every sympathy.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
magentaflame
- Posts: 3007
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
- Location: Victoria, Australia
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
The minute a victim of domestic violence reports an incident, firearms are immediately taken from the perpetrator. If convicted, you lose your lisence from 12months to six years. .....i like that law we have here.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
I can see that implementation of such a policy will be very difficult. And a problem that has always haunted domestic abuse victims in this country. The police have been known to simply not follow up after a call, especially is the "abuser" is a person of "high standing in the community"
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
US Supreme Court decision may restrict guns for domestic abusers
LarsMac;1498196 wrote: I can see that implementation of such a policy will be very difficult. And a problem that has always haunted domestic abuse victims in this country. The police have been known to simply not follow up after a call, especially is the "abuser" is a person of "high standing in the community"
Juice ?
Juice ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth