PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Upholds Domestic Assault Gun Ban



Shang
06-27-2016, 03:53 PM
The Supreme Court ruled in a decision announced Monday that a domestic violence assault committed “recklessly” qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, and therefore triggers the federal ban on gun ownership.

“A person who assaults another recklessly ‘use[s]’ force, no less than one who carries out that same action knowingly or intentionally,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the majority opinion. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito.

The case, Voisine v. United States, was brought by two men who lost their right to own or buy guns after being convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors in the state of Maine.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 03:59 PM
a misdemeanor crime can cost your constitutional rights?

voting?
4th amendment?
14th amendment?
all others?
freedom of expression?

the list goes on

Canoez
06-27-2016, 04:01 PM
a misdemeanor crime can cost your constitutional rights?

voting?
4th amendment?
14th amendment?
all others?
freedom of expression?

the list goes on

Yes - a specific misdemeanor crime. If you are convicted. A good idea, don't you think?

TomF
06-27-2016, 04:05 PM
Apparently it's Constitutional, Phillip. Even before Clinton appoints anyone, or the Senate deigns to hold hearings.

ljb5
06-27-2016, 04:10 PM
a misdemeanor crime can cost your constitutional rights?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about a difference between felony crimes and misdemeanor crimes.

In Article IV, Section 2, it refers to "Felony or Other Crime" and treats them the same.

In Article II, Section 4, it refers to "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," again, without drawing a distinction between them.

Of course, you don't automatically lose all your constitutional rights just because you've been convicted of a crime. You lose the ones that the law says you lose. Presumably, the law has been written to effect a certain intended outcome. So, while it's easy to see why the right to own a gun should be denied to a violent person, the same person might not be denied the right to free speech. 'Cause they aren't the same and we're not bound to treat them all as if they were.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 04:22 PM
so... we can put lj down as demanding that any misdemeanor crime should result in a life sentence of loss of constitutional rights... sure looks that way to me

for about 10K you can 'possibly' win back your rights... no prize, just a revocation of an injustice... strong central government, all right

ljb5
06-27-2016, 04:25 PM
so... we can put lj down as demanding that any misdemeanor crime should result in a life sentence of loss of constitutional rights... sure looks that way to me

I said nothing of the sort.

No honest person could have interpreted what I wrote in the way that you interpreted it.

There is something about this topic that really seems to impair your ability to be rational and honest.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 04:26 PM
I said nothing of the sort.

No honest person could have interpreted what I wrote in the way that you interpreted it.

no honest person would have written such a red herring

hokiefan
06-27-2016, 04:32 PM
so... we can put lj down as demanding that any misdemeanor crime should result in a life sentence of loss of constitutional rights... sure looks that way to me

for about 10K you can 'possibly' win back your rights... no prize, just a revocation of an injustice... strong central government, all right

No honest person would have read that in the words lj wrote. You're making stuff up.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 05:13 PM
No honest person would have read that in the words lj wrote. You're making stuff up.

felony or misdemeanor... they are life sentences as they don't go away even after the sentence is served

including misdemeanors in cause for removal of constitutionally guaranteed rights is what he has said

he doesn't need for you to carry his water for him, bobby... he's laughing up his sleeve at you

TomF
06-27-2016, 05:17 PM
Who took away the convict's rights then, Phillip? Wasn't it arguably the person themselves, when choosing to do the criminal act?

BrianW
06-27-2016, 05:17 PM
It's been such for years. Which is why that question is on the NICS background check form.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 05:21 PM
Who took away the convict's rights then, Phillip? Wasn't it arguably the person themselves, when choosing to do the criminal act?

guilty of a crime?
serve the sentence and receive restoration of rights
otherwise, it's a life sentence... I just want you to admit it and that applies to all felony's and misdemeanors... time for some honesty

TomF
06-27-2016, 05:30 PM
I have no notion, Phillip. But in principle there is no reason why an action can't have permanent consequences. Marriage, for instance.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 05:34 PM
I have no notion, Phillip. But in principle there is no reason why an action can't have permanent consequences. Marriage, for instance.

red herring... it is a contract act

Ian McColgin
06-27-2016, 05:41 PM
Phillip is partly right and mostly wrong about what's up with the federal law [ 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9)] barring many FELONS convicted to more than a year imprisonment from owning firearms.

In general, misdemeanors do not lead to a ban on firearms possession.

Many felons who have more than a year but whose crimes are not violent, not gun related, and not drug related can get approval to purchase and own firearms.

Domestic abusers, including not just those convicted of a misdemeanor but also those subject to a restraining order related to the threat of domestic violence. In the latter case, the ban on firearms possession lasts only as long as the restraining order.

Osborne Russell
06-27-2016, 05:51 PM
This Second Amendment stuff is getting kind of weird. Never mind the militia -- throw a plate and give up your right to self-defense.

The militia, whoever that might be, might decide, no wife beaters allowed -- or not; if so, the feds or the states could have taken guns from wife beaters. But the Heller decision said, the militia angle is out. OK, it's out. But the wind-up is, you can be deprived of the right to keep and bear for something the militia might take no position on. You wind up with a broader field for restrictions, not a narrower one.

Meanwhile:


Federal law prohibits any person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing a firearm. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9). That phrase is defined to include any misdemeanor committed against a domestic relation that necessarily involves the “use . . . of physical force.” §921(a)(33)(A). The question presented here is whether misdemeanor assault convictions for reckless (as contrasted to knowing or intentional) conduct trigger the statutory firearms ban. We hold that they do.


The court then proceeds to define "use" in this context.


Consider a couple of examples to see the ordinary meaning of the word “use” in this context. If a person with soapy hands loses his grip on a plate, which then shatters and cuts his wife, the person has not “use[d]” physical force in common parlance. But now suppose a person throws a plate in anger against the wall near where his wife is standing. That hurl counts as a “use” of force even if the husband did not know for certain (or have as an object), but only recognized a substantial risk, that a shard from the plate would ricochet and injure his wife.

Then comes:
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins as to Parts I and II, dissenting.


. . . which, all by itself, looks weird at first glance; maybe not so on further examination.

Both dissenters say the definition of use is too broad, as shown by two examples:


1. The Text-Messaging Dad: Knowing that he should not be texting and driving, a father sends a text message to his wife. The distraction causes the father to rear end the car in front of him. His son, who is a passenger, is injured.

2. The Reckless Policeman: A police officer speeds to a crime scene without activating his emergency lights and siren and careens into another car in an intersection. That accident causes the police officer’s car to strike another police officer, who was standing at the intersection . . . In these cases, both the unleashing of the “force” (the car crash) and the resulting harm (the physical injury) were reckless. Under the majority’s reading . . . the husband “use[d] . . . physical force” against his son, and the police officer use[d] . . . physical force”against the other officer.

Sotomayor does not join Thomas' part 3, where he says, seems odd that the right to keep and bear, which is rooted in the right of self-defense, should be forfeit for things like texting while driving. Oh wait, you can still defend yourself, you just can't own a gun. Serves you right if the home invader kills you, you bad text messager, you. A strange state of affairs. Thomas says this makes the Second Amendment a Second Class right.

Chris Smith porter maine
06-27-2016, 05:54 PM
I don't get it commit a violent crime, be it felony or misdemeanor, and to me you do not have the temperament or judgement needed to own a gun, slap around, shove, and injure a woman and double it down as far as I'm concerned. This is a domestic violence issue not a gun rights issue. Here in Maine were these 2 guys live, most of them can get a pass (charge dismissed and forgotten) on such violence a time or even two if they do AA and stay sober or do other counselling as part of there court deal. This is one issue I agree with my very conservative republican governor on, he put this law in effect here, only certain states seem to apply it, he also supported and we now have concealed carry no permit needed here. I got a very low tolerance on domestic abuse, any low life scum bucket that would beat his wife or any woman for that matter should not own a gun.
I have few issues with guns, my problem is irresponsible, criminal, or crazy gun owners, you beat a woman your crazy and criminal in my mind.

Gerarddm
06-27-2016, 06:12 PM
And the vote wasn't even close.

Remember: no guns=no gun deaths.

Tom Wilkinson
06-27-2016, 06:19 PM
There is almost no circumstance which PA would agree to giving up his beloved gun. Don't waste your breath arguing with him.

Willin'
06-27-2016, 06:22 PM
Now, if we could just do something to keep guns out of those Mainers hands who have been prescribed anti-depressants.

Of course, being depressed isn't a crime, so give all those good guys all the guns they want until they forget to be good.

Osborne Russell
06-27-2016, 06:27 PM
I don't get it commit a violent crime, be it felony or misdemeanor, and to me you do not have the temperament or judgement needed to own a gun . . .

The problem is, what is a "violent crime" for these purposes. Actually, a "crime of domestic violence".

Two situations:

1. You rear end someone at a stop sign because you were fishing in your pocket for your sunglasses. But you were alone, so you keep your guns.
2. Same, except your wife was with you, who gets a bruise from the seatbelt. You lose your gun for life, same as if you'd pulled it out and shot her with it.

They're both "crimes of domestic violence".

Captain Intrepid
06-27-2016, 06:49 PM
a misdemeanor crime can cost your constitutional rights?

Lets step back from broad categories and look at the individual acts and ramifications covered by this law.


Should someone convicted of assault be allowed to own and use a gun?

Donn
06-27-2016, 06:53 PM
Should someone convicted of assault be allowed to own and use a gun?

Absolutely not. But assault, particularly domestic assault, should never be a misdemeanor.

McMike
06-27-2016, 06:53 PM
Absolutely not. But assault, particularly domestic assault, should never be a misdemeanor.

+1.

Captain Intrepid
06-27-2016, 06:55 PM
Absolutely not. But assault, particularly domestic assault, should never be a misdemeanor.

Y>

I can't disagree with you there.

Osborne Russell
06-27-2016, 07:18 PM
This is about a federal statute limiting the right to keep and bear, based upon conviction for state offenses having a certain character, according to federal definitions. Strictly speaking, state definitions aren't what matters. States say, we call this X and put it in category Y. Feds say, we call this what we like and put it in the category we like.

Osborne Russell
06-27-2016, 07:23 PM
Absolutely not. But assault, particularly domestic assault, should never be a misdemeanor.

Doesn't it depend on what you call assault? Is rear-ending a car, while texting, a "domestic assault" on a person in your car? OK, it's your Grandma. What if it's a hitch-hiker? One way, you keep your guns, the other way you don't.

Canoeyawl
06-27-2016, 07:31 PM
Perhaps I should reconsider my planned assault on Mt Katahdin this Summer.

Captain Intrepid
06-27-2016, 07:43 PM
Doesn't it depend on what you call assault?

Nope. It depends on what the courts call assault.

"Reckless conduct, which requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger another."

Durnik
06-27-2016, 08:12 PM
Absolutely not. But assault, particularly domestic assault, should never be a misdemeanor.

Well I'll be damned, I agree with Donn!

And a firearm possession ban for those who have assaulted others sits atop the category of 'no brainer' - PA's knee jerking being confirmation of that status.

bobby

Captain Intrepid
06-27-2016, 08:25 PM
This is basically exactly the same as the old "I was too drunk to know what I was doing" defence.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 08:30 PM
Well I'll be damned, I agree with Donn!

And a firearm possession ban for those who have assaulted others sits atop the category of 'no brainer' - PA's knee jerking being confirmation of that status.

bobby

I resent your calling my desire for justice, knee jerking... if you don't want justice then you deserve none

ljb5
06-27-2016, 08:32 PM
no honest person would have written such a red herring

What red herring? I quoted from the US Constitution. That's not a red herring.


felony or misdemeanor... they are life sentences as they don't go away even after the sentence is served

I didn't see anywhere that it says the person cannot have their rights restored. I think you're making stuff up


including misdemeanors in cause for removal of constitutionally guaranteed rights is what he has said

I merely pointed out that the Constitution makes no distinction between misdemeanors and felonies.


guilty of a crime?
serve the sentence and receive restoration of rights
otherwise, it's a life sentence... I just want you to admit it and that applies to all felony's and misdemeanors... time for some honesty

I'm okay with rights being restored, when and as appropriate. But you are taking the position that all rights must be restored instantly and automatically.

That's not what this case was about, but it sure has got you worked up.

Osborne Russell
06-27-2016, 08:34 PM
Nope. It depends on what the courts call assault.

"Reckless conduct, which requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger another."

Nope. It depends on what Congress calls a "crime of domestic violence" and how federal courts interpret what Congress says.

This is federal law.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 08:35 PM
Phillip is partly right and mostly wrong about what's up with the federal law [ 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9)] barring many FELONS convicted to more than a year imprisonment from owning firearms.

In general, misdemeanors do not lead to a ban on firearms possession.

Many felons who have more than a year but whose crimes are not violent, not gun related, and not drug related can get approval to purchase and own firearms.

Domestic abusers, including not just those convicted of a misdemeanor but also those subject to a restraining order related to the threat of domestic violence. In the latter case, the ban on firearms possession lasts only as long as the restraining order.

I understand that n Texas, filing for divorce gets an automatic restraining order...

ljb5
06-27-2016, 08:41 PM
I understand that n Texas, filing for divorce gets an automatic restraining order...

Source?

And relevance to the subject?

Captain Intrepid
06-27-2016, 08:41 PM
Nope. It depends on what Congress calls a "crime of domestic violence" and how federal courts interpret what Congress says.

This is federal law.

The laws have been drafted and passed. Unless the applicable laws are struct down as unconstitutional, or congress decides to introduce legislation that change them, it's firmly in the purview of the courts.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 08:45 PM
Source?

And relevance to the subject?

divorce happens and it demand denial of firearms ownership... you did NOT fail to make that connection and are simply trying to misdirect... you do it all the time

ljb5
06-27-2016, 08:50 PM
divorce happens and it demand denial of firearms ownership...

You're telling me that no divorced person in Texas is allowed to own a gun?

I suspect you are mistaken.

I would be interested to see if you could come up with some proof.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 08:53 PM
You're telling me that no divorced person in Texas is allowed to own a gun?

I suspect you are mistaken.

obviously there's a work-around... it's the unintended consequences of careless wording I am speaking of... you play at 'law' while I seek justice and equal protection...

Ian McColgin
06-27-2016, 08:57 PM
Phillip is sadly (or perhaps happily) ignorant of divorce law. Most states have an "automatic restraining order" form in the divorce filing packet. It's a provision to prevent either party from shuffling assets before any hearing. It has nothing to do with domestic violence and does not have an affect on firearms possession. No careless wording. No unintended consequences. Just one reader's ignorance of the law.

ljb5
06-27-2016, 08:59 PM
obviously there's a work-around... it's the unintended consequences of careless wording I am speaking of... you play at 'law' while I seek justice and equal protection...

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, but it seems less and less related to the actual topic at hand and more about pure delusion and apoplexy.

It's like this topic gets you so worked up that you literally can't control yourself until you've twisted yourself into a ridiculous position.

Osborne Russell
06-27-2016, 09:00 PM
The laws have been drafted and passed. Unless the applicable laws are struct down as unconstitutional, or congress decides to introduce legislation that change them, it's firmly in the purview of the courts.

Federal courts.

A state can say, through its courts, legislature, governor, whatever -- in our state, X is not a crime of domestic violence. Congress can say, for purposes of making it a federal crime to possess a gun, yes it is. Disputes as to how to apply what Congress said are resolved in federal courts.

And vice versa. This is federal law.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 09:00 PM
Phillip is sadly (or perhaps happily) ignorant of divorce law. Most states have an "automatic restraining order" form in the divorce filing packet. It's a provision to prevent either party from shuffling assets before any hearing. It has nothing to do with domestic violence and does not have an affect on firearms possession. No careless wording. No unintended consequences. Just one reader's ignorance of the law.

someone above stated that a restraining order should be reason enough to deny firearms ownership... pretty straight forward

Tom Wilkinson
06-27-2016, 09:01 PM
I understand that n Texas, filing for divorce gets an automatic restraining order...

Maybe it would help if you actually knew what the term meant. Hint, It has nothing to do with domestic violence.
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/automatic-temporary-restraining-orders-atro
Texas specific
http://www.dalefamilylaw.com/blog/2015/01/understanding-automatic-temporary-restraining-orders-in-texas.shtml

ljb5
06-27-2016, 09:05 PM
someone above stated that a restraining order should be reason enough to deny firearms ownership... pretty straight forward

It's difficult to understand the word 'restraining' in the term 'restraining order' other than as a restraint of some sort.

I don't think it has to automatically mean a restraint on firearm ownership, but it sure as heck means a restraint on something. I see no reason why firearm ownership should be specially privlidged against this type of legal restraint.

Tom Wilkinson
06-27-2016, 09:06 PM
divorce happens and it demand denial of firearms ownership... you did NOT fail to make that connection and are simply trying to misdirect... you do it all the time

Not someone said, YOU said that divorce demands denial of firearms ownership. That's patently false.

Ian McColgin
06-27-2016, 09:08 PM
"someone above stated that a restraining order should be reason enough to deny firearms ownership... pretty straight forward" [#45]

There is no excuse for the above statement when both the context of domestic violence was clear and when in other above posts the USC section is cited along with the paraphrase:

"Domestic abusers, including not just those convicted of a misdemeanor but also those subject to a restraining order related to the threat of domestic violence. In the latter case, the ban on firearms possession lasts only as long as the restraining order." [#16]

Phillip, you were simply wrong, you know it, and you're trying to slink out. As usual, you decline any admission of or responsibility for the error.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 09:16 PM
"someone above stated that a restraining order should be reason enough to deny firearms ownership... pretty straight forward" [#45]

There is no excuse for the above statement when both the context of domestic violence was clear and when in other above posts the USC section is cited along with the paraphrase:

"Domestic abusers, including not just those convicted of a misdemeanor but also those subject to a restraining order related to the threat of domestic violence. In the latter case, the ban on firearms possession lasts only as long as the restraining order." [#16]

Phillip, you were simply wrong, you know it, and you're trying to slink out. As usual, you decline any admission of or responsibility for the error.

shall I repeat what was said about restraining orders or do you intend to continue along the distraction... it was plain enough

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 09:18 PM
Ian, do you believe that any restraining order should deny anyone his constitutional rights...not losing focus here

Tom Wilkinson
06-27-2016, 09:23 PM
Ian, do you believe that any restraining order should deny anyone his constitutional rights...not loosing focus here

How about you ask that father whose two daughters were shot by their mother in the street in front of their own home that question. Your DAMN RIGHT there are times when limits need to be put on constitutional rights.

Those two kids lost every right they ever had by the hand of someone that had a history of mental issues and police responding to domestic calls.

Maybe it will take your own daughter or granddaughter being the gunshot victim to wake your ass up that some people can actually lose that right, by their own actions.

Sickening.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-mom-who-killed-daughters-called-family-meeting-shootout-n599961

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 09:27 PM
How about you ask that father whose two daughters were shot by their mother in the street in front of their own home that question. Your DAMN RIGHT there are times when limits need to be put on constitutional rights.

Those two kids lost every right they ever had by the hand of someone that had a history of mental issues and police responding to domestic calls.

Maybe it will take your own daughter or granddaughter being the gunshot victim to wake your ass up that some people can actually lose that right, by their own actions.

Sickening.

read it again... any restraining order? Ian mentioned automatic restraining orders... try and think this out

Tom Wilkinson
06-27-2016, 09:36 PM
Are you honestly this stupid?? It has been pointed out in several places that you are flat out wrong. Automatic restraining orders carry no such forfeiture of rights. You are flat out making crap up. I gave a cite to a Texas lawyer stating such.

You said divorce causes forfeiture. You are WRONG!

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 09:39 PM
Are you honestly this stupid?? It has been pointed out in several places that you are flat out wrong. Automatic restraining orders carry no such forfeiture of rights. You are flat out making crap up. I gave a cite to a Texas lawyer stating such.

You said divorce causes forfeiture. You are WRONG!

don't get your nickers in a twist... I said that losing ones rights because of a restraining order (implied, actually) is a bit over the top... you have put words in my mouth and that is an injustice... I see justice is not your aim in life

BTW... do not call me stupid just because you are short of defamatory words

Ian McColgin
06-27-2016, 09:41 PM
The point is what the federal law provides and how about we get clear on that right now.

Please reread the relevant posts and let me know when you understand that the federal law prohibits people served with a restraining order due to a threat of domestic violence are prohibited from possessing firearms for so long as that restraining order is in effect.

I think it a rational law. If you disagree with it, if for example you think a domestic violence restraining order should result in permanent prohibition from possession of a firearm, let us know. It's a more radical position than the law and than I believe but there are people who would join you on that.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 09:44 PM
The point is what the federal law provides and how about we get clear on that right now.

Please reread the relevant posts and let me know when you understand that the federal law prohibits people served with a restraining order due to a threat of domestic violence are prohibited from possessing firearms for so long as that restraining order is in effect.

I think it a rational law. If you disagree with it, if for example you think a domestic violence restraining order should result in permanent prohibition from possession of a firearm, let us know. It's a more radical position than the law and than I believe but there are people who would join you on that.

Ian, you're trying to lead folks off the path... if you want to redefine the topic, feel free to start a thread on it

Tom Wilkinson
06-27-2016, 09:54 PM
divorce happens and it demand denial of firearms ownership...


don't get your nickers in a twist... I said that losing ones rights because of a restraining order (implied, actually) is a bit over the top... you have put words in my mouth and that is an injustice... I see justice is not your aim in life

BTW... do not call me stupid just because you are short of defamatory words

I didn't put words in your mouth, in fact I quoted you. You said getting divorced in Texas means losing you guns. That's wrong. If you cannot understand that, even though it has been shown with accompanying legal reference, then you cannot be very smart. The term stupid was used for a specific reason, if you care to educate yourself about the topic, be my guest, but you choose not to.

You made that statement in the top quote. It's totally and utterly false.

ljb5
06-27-2016, 09:56 PM
. I said that losing ones rights because of a restraining order (implied, actually) is a bit over the top...

What do you suppose the word 'restrain' means?

It ain't called a 'permissive order' is it?

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 09:59 PM
I didn't put words in your mouth, in fact I quoted you. You said getting divorced in Texas means losing you guns. That's wrong. If you cannot understand that, even though it has been shown with accompanying legal reference, then you cannot be very smart. The term stupid was used for a specific reason, if you care to educate yourself about the topic, be my guest, but you choose not to.

You made that statement in the top quote. It's totally and utterly false.

you did NOT quote me

Ian McColgin
06-27-2016, 10:01 PM
Was that an attempted diversion or a simple "Aw shucks"?

To the topic: It was claimed or at least implied that any restraining order in a divorce would lead to permanent loss of the ability to lawfully have a firearm. It turns out that "automatic restraining orders" that are part of a divorce have nothing to do with domestic violence and do not result in a loss of firearms. It further ought to be clear to even the most obdurate by now that one need not be married and seeking divorce to take out or be served with a restraining order for domestic abuse. And finally, some restraining orders are made permanent after judicial process but most expire one way or another and any firearms ban expires with them.

If Phillip wants to stay on topic he might, besides noting that the Supreme Court decision deals with a state law and not federal law, note also what the federal law actually does.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 10:09 PM
Was that an attempted diversion or a simple "Aw shucks"?

To the topic: It was claimed or at least implied that any restraining order in a divorce would lead to permanent loss of the ability to lawfully have a firearm. It further ought to be clear to even the most obdurate by now that one need not be married and seeking divorce to take out or be served with a restraining order for domestic abuse. And finally, some restraining orders are made permanent after judicial process but most expire one way or another and any firearms ban expires with them.

If Phillip wants to stay on topic he might, besides noting that the Supreme Court decision deals with a state law and not federal law, note also what the federal law actually does.

It turns out that "automatic restraining orders" that are part of a divorce have nothing to do with domestic violence and do not result in a loss of firearms

I agree with that but did not say that

I argued that ANY restraining order was not cause to lose one's constitutional rights... there have been accusations, however indirect, that I lied and claimed that actual domestic violence (felony) should not result in a weapons ban... I did not

Ian McColgin
06-27-2016, 10:24 PM
OK Phillip. You agree that people convicted of domestic violence (you say felony but the federal law includes misdemeanor domestic violence) should not have firearms for life. But you disagree that a person found by the court to present such a threat of domestic violence as to warrant a restraining order should be denied firearms for so long as he or she presents such a threat.

Fine. It's a point of view.

What if anything has the federal law to do with the Supreme Court decision?

ljb5
06-27-2016, 10:27 PM
I agree with that but did not say that

Well, perhaps you should have. Aw shucks.



I argued that ANY restraining order was not cause to lose one's constitutional rights...

Do you mean to say that NO restraining order should result in loss of rights, or NOT ALL restraining orders should result in loss of rights?

I honestly can't tell what you're trying to say. I wonder if you even know.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2016, 10:30 PM
OK Phillip. You agree that people convicted of domestic violence (you say felony but the federal law includes misdemeanor domestic violence) should not have firearms for life. But you disagree that a person found by the court to present such a threat of domestic violence as to warrant a restraining order should be denied firearms for so long as he or she presents such a threat.

Fine. It's a point of view.

What if anything has the federal law to do with the Supreme Court decision?

I have seen domestic violence up close (not me) and it ain't pretty and insanity can't describe it... however, I want to avoid injustice... and this forum is seething with a desire to commit injustice

George Jung
06-27-2016, 10:39 PM
Seething? No. Perplexed? Likely. You're an enigma , PA- leave it at that.

BrianW
06-27-2016, 10:39 PM
Absolutely not. But assault, particularly domestic assault, should never be a misdemeanor.


+1.

++1

Captain Intrepid
06-27-2016, 11:58 PM
Federal courts.

A state can say, through its courts, legislature, governor, whatever -- in our state, X is not a crime of domestic violence. Congress can say, for purposes of making it a federal crime to possess a gun, yes it is. Disputes as to how to apply what Congress said are resolved in federal courts.

And vice versa. This is federal law.

Correct, that is how the courts work in a modern federation. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Captain Intrepid
06-28-2016, 12:09 AM
I argued that ANY restraining order was not cause to lose one's constitutional rights... there have been accusations, however indirect, that I lied and claimed that actual domestic violence (felony) should not result in a weapons ban... I did not

You are the person here who's brought up restraining orders, this law has nothing to do with them whatsoever.

This law has to do with convicted domestic abusers. The excretable individuals were arguing that since they committed assault by recklessly disregarding the safety of others, instead of explicitly setting out to commit assault, owning guns is A-OK! The difference between shooting someone in the head on purpose, and wildly firing with your eyes closed and shooting someone in the head without meaning to.

Care to talk about the subject at hand?

Phillip Allen
06-28-2016, 12:30 AM
You are the person here who's brought up restraining orders, this law has nothing to do with them whatsoever.

This law has to do with convicted domestic abusers. The excretable individuals were arguing that since they committed assault by recklessly disregarding the safety of others, instead of explicitly setting out to commit assault, owning guns is A-OK! The difference between shooting someone in the head on purpose, and wildly firing with your eyes closed and shooting someone in the head without meaning to.

Care to talk about the subject at hand?

would t be reckless to draft behind a semi truck at hiway speeds?

Captain Intrepid
06-28-2016, 02:18 AM
would t be reckless to draft behind a semi truck at hiway speeds?

Dangerous... yes. Illegal... yes. Reckless... that's a legal term, so you'll have to do some research if you want to know.

Tom Wilkinson
06-28-2016, 05:33 AM
you did NOT quote me

Yes, I did.

divorce happens and it demand denial of firearms ownership... you did NOT fail to make that connection and are simply trying to misdirect... you do it all the time

And Ian did NOT bring up automatic restraining orders, YOU did.

Domestic abusers, including not just those convicted of a misdemeanor but also those subject to a restraining order related to the threat of domestic violence. In the latter case, the ban on firearms possession lasts only as long as the restraining order.

I understand that n Texas, filing for divorce gets an automatic restraining order...

You brought up automatic restraining orders in post 36. Ian was very specifically speaking about restraining orders related to domestic violence and links were posted to show that the two are very different things. Automatic restraining orders have absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed, nor are they related to domestic violence. Getting divorced (in texas or anywhere else) does NOT "demand denial of firearms ownership".
Do try to keep up.

Tom Montgomery
06-28-2016, 05:46 AM
Whew!

Vince Brennan
06-28-2016, 07:12 AM
Well I'll be damned, I agree with Donn!

bobby

Sit down, put your head as low as possible and breathe deepl...

Oh CRAP! SO DO I!!!

Vince Brennan
06-28-2016, 07:14 AM
I resent your calling my desire for justice, knee jerking... if you don't want justice then you deserve none

Phil, when you STOP knee-jerking, we'll stop calling you on it.


Awww, shucks.

Shang
06-28-2016, 07:20 AM
Someone heah wantin' to mess 'round wiff mah gawd giffin' constitutional right to barr arms?
http://i0.wp.com/www.thomaswictor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/RPG-7.jpg

Paul Pless
06-28-2016, 08:10 AM
Awww, shucks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9aALg-ZNeQ

Waddie
06-28-2016, 08:49 AM
We should all be concerned about due process, which is often in jeopardy where "domestic violence" is concerned. Obviously, a person, usually a man, who actually acts in a violent way against others should not own a gun. But domestic violence charges are sometimes used by vindictive spouses to gain an advantage in child custody cases and/or divorce proceedings. And often domestic violence is used as a basis for restraining orders, for the same purposes. In many cases a judge will grant these orders just to be on the "safe side", without any real evidence except the spouses testimony. And there is no coordination between states as to what constitutes "domestic violence"; what gets you on the list in one state won't get you on the list in a different state. But you lose a federal right if you do make it on the list.

Another problem is how long the ban should last. Should a person accused of domestic violence twenty five years ago still be banned from owning a gun, even if their conduct has been exemplary since the offense? Or should there be a process for restoration of rights?

As an aside, you all do know that government "confiscation" now adds up to more monetary value than all the burglaries committed in this country. Turns out, government is a bigger thief than the thieves themselves........ :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/

regards,
Waddie

Phillip Allen
06-28-2016, 08:52 AM
We should all be concerned about due process, which is often in jeopardy where "domestic violence" is concerned. Obviously, a person, usually a man, who actually acts in a violent way against others should not own a gun. But domestic violence charges are sometimes used by vindictive spouses to gain an advantage in child custody cases and/or divorce proceedings. And often domestic violence is used as a basis for restraining orders, for the same purposes. In many cases a judge will grant these orders just to be on the "safe side", without any real evidence except the spouses testimony. And there is no coordination between states as to what constitutes "domestic violence"; what gets you on the list in one state won't get you on the list in a different state. But you lose a federal right if you do make it on the list.

Another problem is how long the ban should last. Should a person accused of domestic violence twenty five years ago still be banned from owning a gun, even if their conduct has been exemplary since the offense? Or should there be a process for restoration of rights?

As an aside, you all do know that government "confiscation" now adds up to more monetary value than all the burglaries committed in this country. Turns out, government is a bigger thief than the thieves themselves........ :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/

regards,
Waddie

thank you

Tom Wilkinson
06-28-2016, 08:59 AM
We should all be concerned about due process, which is often in jeopardy where "domestic violence" is concerned. Obviously, a person, usually a man, who actually acts in a violent way against others should not own a gun. But domestic violence charges are sometimes used by vindictive spouses to gain an advantage in child custody cases and/or divorce proceedings. And often domestic violence is used as a basis for restraining orders, for the same purposes. In many cases a judge will grant these orders just to be on the "safe side", without any real evidence except the spouses testimony. And there is no coordination between states as to what constitutes "domestic violence"; what gets you on the list in one state won't get you on the list in a different state. But you lose a federal right if you do make it on the list.

Another problem is how long the ban should last. Should a person accused of domestic violence twenty five years ago still be banned from owning a gun, even if their conduct has been exemplary since the offense? Or should there be a process for restoration of rights?

As an aside, you all do know that government "confiscation" now adds up to more monetary value than all the burglaries committed in this country. Turns out, government is a bigger thief than the thieves themselves........ :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/

regards,
Waddie

restraining orders are not just given out without some sort of legal process. You can't just walk in and get one without any sort of evidence to back it up. Even when one is in force that would limit the ownership of firearms, that limitation goes away when the order is removed.

Completely different scenario than the automatic order that PA is up in arms about. I know of very few cases where protective orders are put in place to be on the safe side. Maybe you can present some evidence where that happens but in from what I have seen protective orders are pretty difficult to obtain without a very valid reason.

Durnik
06-28-2016, 09:16 AM
waddie, due profess _is_ important. How I read the OP is those convicted of assault should lose the right to possess tools designed to greatly enable damage in an assault (firearms are for that purpose, eh?). Certainly a finding by the courts that the charge was invalid would result in no penalty - including no firearm possession restrictions. This brings up the horrible state of 'domestic abuse' law in the u.s. Personally, I feel assualt & battery should have no 'domestic' qualifier. I simply can't fathom why hitting a family member is less bad than hitting another. 'Your' spouse is not an ownership thing so much as a relationship thing - & relations should be as free to not fear assualt or battery as any other. Speaking of which, it might be important to note that aw, shucks once bragged about sitting on his g'daughter to 'control her' - & even ignoring his bulk, that qualifies as battery in my book.

bobby

John of Phoenix
06-28-2016, 10:22 AM
so... we can put lj down as demanding that any misdemeanor crime should result in a life sentence of loss of constitutional rights... sure looks that way to me

for about 10K you can 'possibly' win back your rights... no prize, just a revocation of an injustice... strong central government, all rightDunning Kruger in 2 posts.

:D LMAO :D

John of Phoenix
06-28-2016, 11:25 AM
BTW... do not call me stupid just because you are short of defamatory wordsWhat words would you suggest?

:D LMAO :D

Osborne Russell
06-28-2016, 12:07 PM
Correct, that is how the courts work in a modern federation. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Things kind of wandered off into how states should define domestic violence. My point is that it doesn't matter, as respects the feds defining a crime.

Seems to me this case suggests the possibility that the state could do the same. The state says, domestic crime, or any crime, means you lose your right to keep and bear. No 2d Amendment problems, anyway. If the Feds can, the states can.

Waddie
06-28-2016, 12:16 PM
Absolutely not. But assault, particularly domestic assault, should never be a misdemeanor.

I think you mean "domestic battery". If so, then right. make it a felony. Of course, then the burden of proof goes straight up as well. And you get to have a jury trial, and have a lawyer to defend you even if you can't afford one. And you can charge every high schooler who has a school yard fight with a felony and try them as an adult.

BTW folks; assault is simply threatening violence coupled with the means to do so. Battery is carrying out that threat.

regards,
Waddie

Phillip Allen
06-28-2016, 04:05 PM
waddie, due profess _is_ important. How I read the OP is those convicted of assault should lose the right to possess tools designed to greatly enable damage in an assault (firearms are for that purpose, eh?). Certainly a finding by the courts that the charge was invalid would result in no penalty - including no firearm possession restrictions. This brings up the horrible state of 'domestic abuse' law in the u.s. Personally, I feel assualt & battery should have no 'domestic' qualifier. I simply can't fathom why hitting a family member is less bad than hitting another. 'Your' spouse is not an ownership thing so much as a relationship thing - & relations should be as free to not fear assualt or battery as any other. Speaking of which, it might be important to note that aw, shucks once bragged about sitting on his g'daughter to 'control her' - & even ignoring his bulk, that qualifies as battery in my book.

bobby

the problem I see is that of plea bargaining... admit to a 'lesser' crime or pay ten grand you don't have just to get to go home again... I see problems

Tom Montgomery
06-28-2016, 04:38 PM
the problem I see is that of plea bargaining... admit to a 'lesser' crime or pay ten grand you don't have just to get to go home again... I see problems????

You do not think the right to own and possess a firearm should ever be infringed. Correct?

But now you are quibbling about a plea bargain short of a conviction for assault... why?

Your logic escapes me.

Yanno... I would rather you just dug in your heels over a principle rather than attempt to interminably debate every nuance of the arguments of those with whom you disagree.
.

ljb5
06-28-2016, 04:47 PM
the problem I see is that of plea bargaining... admit to a 'lesser' crime or pay ten grand you don't have just to get to go home again... I see problems

The problem I see is people committing crimes and then thinking that they should have a gun.

I understand when law-abiding citizens complain that their right to bear arms is being infringed (I don't always agree with them, but I do see their point)....

...but now we're talking about criminals who want guns.

If you don't wish to be treated like a criminal, DON'T BREAK THE LAW. Duh.