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

[House]

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

 

[House]

You're great at highlighting your trite personality. And before you go on your bla bla bla so you have to insult me spill

Spiel, idiot.

 

[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.

and misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Didn't know that, but it makes sense. I think some white collar felonies are exempt as well.

 

[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

Didn't know that, but it makes sense. I think some white collar felonies are exempt as well.

i could be wrong but i believe it is all felonies

however i do seem to remember a case where a law enforcement officer

was able to retain his side arm after a felony conviction

 

[Politico]

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.

Wrong answer. You were supposed to say committing the act of breathing.

 

[Pogo]

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.

And melting down less when you're caught with your logical pants around your ankles would be mine to you.

Aloha.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You're great at highlighting your trite personality. And before you go on your bla bla bla so you have to insult me spill

Spiel, idiot.

Needlessly harsh. Otherwise, I appreciate the correction.

 

[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.

And melting down less when you're caught with your logical pants around your ankles would be mine to you.

Aloha.

That's not a melt-down; not even close. That's not the first time you've ineptly used a clique analogy in this thread. Again, my advice remains; more thinking, less posting.

 

[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.

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

and misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Didn't know that, but it makes sense. I think some white collar felonies are exempt as well.

I'm guessing that you guys are referring to this:

George Calvin Lewis, Jr., upon his plea of guilty, was convicted in a Florida state court of a felony

Page 445 U. S. 57

for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor.

This Lewis character was a felon regardless of the misdemeanor talk.

And if I'm surmising correctly based upon what I browsed, then the state/feds can 'constitutionally' revoke the gun rights of any felon.

Section 1202(a) reads in full:

"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"