Supreme Court gun decision

[Brain357]

Great win and unanimous.
Supreme Court rejects loophole that lets abusers own guns | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

 

[Flopper]

Good decision.
Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005. Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

 

[BillyZane]

Great win and unanimous.
Supreme Court rejects loophole that lets abusers own guns | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

A completely incorrect ruling. I mean if you buy into the whole incorporation thing, which I do not.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Horrible decision. My wife and mother got into it once and now neither can own a gun...despite being on great terms with each other now...But as usual illegal laws that go against the constitution are to be ignored and lawsuits brought against them.

 

[Flopper]

Horrible decision. My wife and mother got into it once and now neither can own a gun...despite being on great terms with each other now...But as usual illegal laws that go against the constitution are to be ignored and lawsuits brought against them.

To be barred from possession of firearms for domestic violence, the abused party or a guardian must swear out a complaint and the accused must be indited and convicted. It takes a lot more than just a family argument. Furthermore gun rights can be restored depending on state laws.

Gun laws that target specific groups such as those convicted of domestic violence or felonies makes sense, much more so than most blanket laws that effect everyone.

 

[DriftingSand]

Great win and unanimous.
Supreme Court rejects loophole that lets abusers own guns | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

A completely incorrect ruling. I mean if you buy into the whole incorporation thing, which I do not.

True. Huge loss for the 2nd Amendment. I don't believe that violent criminals should have guns but the state accuses men of "domestic violence" for the most minor things these days. Even when a wife or girlfriend doesn't want to press charges cops will often arrest a man for domestic violence when some pushing or shoving occurred.

 

[DriftingSand]

Horrible decision. My wife and mother got into it once and now neither can own a gun...despite being on great terms with each other now...But as usual illegal laws that go against the constitution are to be ignored and lawsuits brought against them.

To be barred from possession of firearms for domestic violence, the abused party or a guardian must swear out a complaint and the accused must be indited and convicted. It takes a lot more than just a family argument. Furthermore gun rights can be restored depending on state laws.

Gun laws that target specific groups such as those convicted of domestic violence or felonies makes sense, much more so than most blanket laws that effect everyone.

I used to watch the TV Show, Cops. There were several instances where folks were arrested for domestic violence when one party or the other (or both) had nothing more than a red spot on their arm. The system is literally forcing freedom-loving Americans into subservience/slavery. Buy your guns while you can and don't keep all of your eggs in one basket!!

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Horrible decision. My wife and mother got into it once and now neither can own a gun...despite being on great terms with each other now...But as usual illegal laws that go against the constitution are to be ignored and lawsuits brought against them.

To be barred from possession of firearms for domestic violence, the abused party or a guardian must swear out a complaint and the accused must be indited and convicted. It takes a lot more than just a family argument. Furthermore gun rights can be restored depending on state laws.

Gun laws that target specific groups such as those convicted of domestic violence or felonies makes sense, much more so than most blanket laws that effect everyone.

It wasn't domestic violence it was considered simple battery either way its idiotic ruling.

 

[Flopper]

Horrible decision. My wife and mother got into it once and now neither can own a gun...despite being on great terms with each other now...But as usual illegal laws that go against the constitution are to be ignored and lawsuits brought against them.

To be barred from possession of firearms for domestic violence, the abused party or a guardian must swear out a complaint and the accused must be indited and convicted. It takes a lot more than just a family argument. Furthermore gun rights can be restored depending on state laws.

Gun laws that target specific groups such as those convicted of domestic violence or felonies makes sense, much more so than most blanket laws that effect everyone.

I used to watch the TV Show, Cops. There were several instances where folks were arrested for domestic violence when one party or the other (or both) had nothing more than a red spot on their arm. The system is literally forcing freedom-loving Americans into subservience/slavery. Buy your guns while you can and don't keep all of your eggs in one basket!!

Anyone can be arrested for domestic violence, but if the spouse refuses to sign a complaint the chance of conviction is about zero. Even then, many domestic violence cases are never prosecuted unless there are multiple arrests. If you lose your right to firearms because of a domestic violence conviction, you probably deserve it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Horrible decision. My wife and mother got into it once and now neither can own a gun...despite being on great terms with each other now...But as usual illegal laws that go against the constitution are to be ignored and lawsuits brought against them.

Backwards. The law was correct, your actions were illegal, and you are paying a just price.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Great win and unanimous.
Supreme Court rejects loophole that lets abusers own guns | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

A completely incorrect ruling. I mean if you buy into the whole incorporation thing, which I do not.

True. Huge loss for the 2nd Amendment. I don't believe that violent criminals should have guns but the state accuses men of "domestic violence" for the most minor things these days. Even when a wife or girlfriend don't want to press charges cops will often arrest a man for domestic violence when some pushing or shoving occurred.

shoving and pushing by either party is domestic violence.

a woman throwing things is domestic violence.

a number of you here truly need to grow up, become adult, and condition your behavior accordingly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Great win and unanimous.
Supreme Court rejects loophole that lets abusers own guns | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Again, not a loophole.

 

[Brain357]

Great win and unanimous.
Supreme Court rejects loophole that lets abusers own guns | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Again, not a loophole.

Tell the Portland Press. Like you understand the English language better than they do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Great win and unanimous.
Supreme Court rejects loophole that lets abusers own guns | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Again, not a loophole.

Tell the Portland Press. Like you understand the English language better than they do.

You posted the definition of a loophole as something that allowed a guilty person to get away with something. Since this guy was convicted, and the conviction was upheld, there was no loophole.

Even you have to understand that.

 

[USNavyVet]

What a terrible decision. There are so many instances of the USSC making poor decisions I'm wondering if we really need them since we already have Congress and the President to make poor decisions.

 

[DriftingSand]

To be barred from possession of firearms for domestic violence, the abused party or a guardian must swear out a complaint and the accused must be indited and convicted. It takes a lot more than just a family argument. Furthermore gun rights can be restored depending on state laws.

Gun laws that target specific groups such as those convicted of domestic violence or felonies makes sense, much more so than most blanket laws that effect everyone.

I used to watch the TV Show, Cops. There were several instances where folks were arrested for domestic violence when one party or the other (or both) had nothing more than a red spot on their arm. The system is literally forcing freedom-loving Americans into subservience/slavery. Buy your guns while you can and don't keep all of your eggs in one basket!!

Anyone can be arrested for domestic violence, but if the spouse refuses to sign a complaint the chance of conviction is about zero. Even then, many domestic violence cases are never prosecuted unless there are multiple arrests. If you lose your right to firearms because of a domestic violence conviction, you probably deserve it.

Some arrests turn to convictions even though no real "violence" took place. These days a stubbed toe is considered "violent" by a society of pussies.

I know a guy (coworker) who has been "sick" 16 days already and it's only the first quarter of the year. He was sick 6 times in January (kidney stones for a couple of days and a sprained ankle for the other 4). He was sick 3 times in February (he basically had a cough and some sniffles). He's been sick 7 days so far this month (kidney stones again for 6 days and he was off today because he had diarrhea). He's a fat, lazy good-for-nothing waste of human flesh who has bought into our society's notion that little "owies" are monumental illnesses.

That's how the courts view spats between spouses. They've turned molehills into mountains. Unfortunately, a lot of really good, honest, hard-working, taxpaying, freedom-loving American men have been branded with "domestic violence" when they simply lost their temper once. I don't know a single person on earth who hasn't gotten angry at least once. Today's liberal courts and progressive legislatures have a hatred for men in general and consider them "guilty" for having testosterone.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Horrible decision. My wife and mother got into it once and now neither can own a gun...despite being on great terms with each other now...But as usual illegal laws that go against the constitution are to be ignored and lawsuits brought against them.

Backwards. The law was correct, your actions were illegal, and you are paying a just price.

No it wasn't no they weren't and I am not paying anything because it wasn't me fakey.

 

[BillyZane]

Great win and unanimous.
Supreme Court rejects loophole that lets abusers own guns | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

A completely incorrect ruling. I mean if you buy into the whole incorporation thing, which I do not.

True. Huge loss for the 2nd Amendment. I don't believe that violent criminals should have guns but the state accuses men of "domestic violence" for the most minor things these days. Even when a wife or girlfriend doesn't want to press charges cops will often arrest a man for domestic violence when some pushing or shoving occurred.

Completely irrelevant. Under the Second Amendment, Congress isn't even allowed to pass a law which prevents convicted murderers from owning guns. Nor are they allowed to pass laws limiting the type of arms we may buy. That is the definition of infringe. It doesn't say "may infringe for good reason"

I'm not suggesting that anyone ought be able own anything they want, regardless of criminal history, merely that the second amendment does not provide any wiggle room and should perhaps be amended.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

We need a STRICT adherence to the 2nd amendment. PERIOD.Nothing amended etc.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Supreme Court Backs Federal Efforts to Keep Guns Away from Domestic Abusers - Law Blog - WSJ

"A Tennessee man argued that his misdemeanor conviction for causing “bodily injury” to the mother of his child shouldn’t bar him from keeping guns because it wouldn’t qualify as a violent crime under other federal statutes.

The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the nature of domestic violence justified stricter efforts to prevent conflict between intimate partners from turning deadly.

“’Domestic violence’ is not merely a type of ‘violence’; it is a term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as ‘violent’ in a nondomestic context,” she wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Justice Department documents say most forms of domestic violence are “relatively minor and consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. While those might not be serious offenses in other situations, things are different in the home, she continued. [Disagree, crime's a crime.]

“The accumulation of such acts over time can subject one intimate partner to the other’s control,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. Moreover, she observed, traditionally battery was defined as any “offensive touching,” whether or not it caused physical injury.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately, agreeing with the outcome in Wednesday’s case but calling for a narrower definition of “physical force” that excluded “the slightest unwanted touching” and similarly minor offenses." [Agreed.]


As it stands right now, before the 'narrower/more precise' definitions it's a bad precedent. Opens the door to additional crimes revoking the right to own firearms down the line. I don't think any violent offender should get to own guns, but battery or assault or domestic violence can include throwing popcorn at a person 'any unwanted physical contact whether injury occurs or not.' That's too broad.