Why was a woman on probation for a non-violent crime not allowed to own a gun?

[TheGreatGatsby]

Jamie Lee Chaffin was sentenced to 14 months Friday in Kitsap County Superior Court. She initially faced third-degree assault charges but was eventually prosecuted for unlawful possession of a firearm. She was convicted of forgery in 2007 and barred from owning or accessing weapons.

This is a tangent to a story__ Why would a woman who was convicted of forgery not be allowed to own or possess a gun? Was the second ammendment abolished?

Mother of boy who brought gun to school sentenced

 

[Noomi]

She's a convicted criminal. Convicted criminals should be allowed to own a weapon.

 

[Pogo]

Jamie Lee Chaffin was sentenced to 14 months Friday in Kitsap County Superior Court. She initially faced third-degree assault charges but was eventually prosecuted for unlawful possession of a firearm. She was convicted of forgery in 2007 and barred from owning or accessing weapons.

This is a tangent to a story__ Why would a woman who was convicted of forgery not be allowed to own or possess a gun? Was the second ammendment abolished?

Mother of boy who brought gun to school sentenced

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

She's a convicted criminal. Convicted criminals should be allowed to own a weapon.

So, anybody who convicts any crime should have their gun rights stripped? That doesn't make sense. And in fact, The Constitution was ratified by The Union to protect ourselves against such nonsense.

 

[Noomi]

She's a convicted criminal. Convicted criminals should be allowed to own a weapon.

So, anybody who convicts any crime should have their gun rights stripped? That doesn't make sense. And in fact, The Constitution was ratified by The Union to protect ourselves against such nonsense.

Well, what is the biggest crime one can commit and still be able to own a gun? In your opinion, what should that crime be?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The SCOTUS ruled back in 1980 that preventing felons from owning or possesing guns did not violate the 2nd.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

She's a convicted criminal. Convicted criminals should be allowed to own a weapon.

So, anybody who convicts any crime should have their gun rights stripped? That doesn't make sense. And in fact, The Constitution was ratified by The Union to protect ourselves against such nonsense.

The law is clear - convicted felons lose their gun rights. It doesnt apply to "any crime" - just felonies.

 

[Noomi]

She's a convicted criminal. Convicted criminals should be allowed to own a weapon.

So, anybody who convicts any crime should have their gun rights stripped? That doesn't make sense. And in fact, The Constitution was ratified by The Union to protect ourselves against such nonsense.

The law is clear - convicted felons lose their gun rights. It doesnt apply to "any crime" - just felonies.

What's the most 'minor' felony then?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

She's a convicted criminal. Convicted criminals should be allowed to own a weapon.

So, anybody who convicts any crime should have their gun rights stripped? That doesn't make sense. And in fact, The Constitution was ratified by The Union to protect ourselves against such nonsense.

Well, what is the biggest crime one can commit and still be able to own a gun? In your opinion, what should that crime be?

If a person demonstrates nothing in the way of (gun) violence, then he/she should not be losing the right to bare arms (possess firearms).

Imagine this; an intruder breaks into that lady's house, and she can't defend herself because she forged something, somewhere, sometime? That's moronic on its face.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The SCOTUS ruled back in 1980 that preventing felons from owning or possesing guns did not violate the 2nd.

You would have to post a link. I cannot trust your interpretation as the truth. But in any event, the SCOTUS has routinely ignored The Constitution. They have become the high kangaroo court of the land.

The law is clear - convicted felons lose their gun rights. It doesnt apply to "any crime" - just felonies.

The state law? Yea, The Constitution trumps that. Americans should not so easily have their sacred rights stripped.

What's the most 'minor' felony then?

I don't think that people should have their gun rights stripped except possibly in rare circumstances. But no judge should be arbitrarily making such determinations. People that commit heinous offenses should serve serious time. But I am not for stripping free people of their rights; and I don't believe that the founding fathers were for such things either. They knew that this would only aid a tyrannical government.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The SCOTUS ruled back in 1980 that preventing felons from owning or possesing guns did not violate the 2nd.

You would have to post a link. I cannot trust your interpretation as the truth. But in any event, the SCOTUS has routinely ignored The Constitution. They have become the high kangaroo court of the land.

"This Court has recognized repeatedly that a legislature constitutionally may prohibit a convicted felon from engaging in activities far more fundamental than the possession of a firearm....These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 307 U. S. 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia')"

From the decision Lewis v. United States, 1980

 

[Pogo]

The SCOTUS ruled back in 1980 that preventing felons from owning or possesing guns did not violate the 2nd.

You would have to post a link. I cannot trust your interpretation as the truth. But in any event, the SCOTUS has routinely ignored The Constitution. They have become the high kangaroo court of the land.

The SCOTUS is the arbiter of Constitutionality. Them's the rules. So your pre-emptive whine amounts to the little kid who gets beat on the playing field and starts crying "no fair I wasn't ready!"

 

[jon_berzerk]

She's a convicted criminal. Convicted criminals should be allowed to own a weapon.

So, anybody who convicts any crime should have their gun rights stripped? That doesn't make sense. And in fact, The Constitution was ratified by The Union to protect ourselves against such nonsense.

The law is clear - convicted felons lose their gun rights. It doesnt apply to "any crime" - just felonies.

and misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

From the decision Lewis v. United States, 1980

Yup, the SC just decided to make up more laws like usual:

"Any person who —
"(1) has been convicted by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of a felony, or
"(2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, or
"(3) has been adjudged by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of being mentally incompetent, or
"(4) having been a citizen of the United States has renounced his citizenship, or
"(5) being an alien is illegally or unlawfully in the United States, "and who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce, after the date of enactment of this Act, any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The SCOTUS ruled back in 1980 that preventing felons from owning or possesing guns did not violate the 2nd.

You would have to post a link. I cannot trust your interpretation as the truth. But in any event, the SCOTUS has routinely ignored The Constitution. They have become the high kangaroo court of the land.

The SCOTUS is the arbiter of Constitutionality. Them's the rules. So your pre-emptive whine amounts to the little kid who gets beat on the playing field and starts crying "no fair I wasn't ready!"

The SC are the great purveyors of The Constitution. That does not mean that these/those nine men and/or women are immune to corruption. In fact, they are often some of the most corrupt people you will find.

 

[Pogo]

The SCOTUS ruled back in 1980 that preventing felons from owning or possesing guns did not violate the 2nd.

You would have to post a link. I cannot trust your interpretation as the truth. But in any event, the SCOTUS has routinely ignored The Constitution. They have become the high kangaroo court of the land.

The SCOTUS is the arbiter of Constitutionality. Them's the rules. So your pre-emptive whine amounts to the little kid who gets beat on the playing field and starts crying "no fair I wasn't ready!"

The SC are the great purveyors of The Constitution. That does not mean that these/those nine men and/or women are immune to corruption. In fact, they are often some of the most corrupt people you will find.

What you or I think of what they do is irrelevant. They are the law of the land; your opinion doesn't change that.

 

[Pogo]

From the decision Lewis v. United States, 1980

Yup, the SC just decided to make up more laws like usual:

"Any person who —
"(1) has been convicted by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of a felony, or
"(2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, or
"(3) has been adjudged by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of being mentally incompetent, or
"(4) having been a citizen of the United States has renounced his citizenship, or
"(5) being an alien is illegally or unlawfully in the United States, "and who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce, after the date of enactment of this Act, any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."

Your challenge was whether the SCOTUS ruled that. Now you want to move the goalposts to whether they're "corrupt".

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Your challenge was whether the SCOTUS ruled that. Now you want to move the goalposts to whether they're "corrupt".

Terrible use of 'the goalposts' application. I was discussing something properly in the natural course of discussion. And I have moved no goalposts either. Nice try though, wanker.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

What you or I think of what they do is irrelevant. They are the law of the land; your opinion doesn't change that.

You're great at highlighting your trite personality. And before you go on your bla bla bla so you have to insult me spill, I'm simply referencing how you mention nonsense that doesn't need to be mentioned. I know that my opinion doesn't change the law. Seriously, start thinking about whether your post adds anything to the conversation, dude. Think more, post less is my advice to you.

 

[House]

If a person demonstrates nothing in the way of (gun) violence, then he/she should not be losing the right to bare arms

There's nothing stopping that woman from baring anything she wants. I'm sure there's plenty of guys that'd be willing to pay to witness her exercise that right, too.