Individual not convicted of domestic abuse loses gun rights.....

[2aguy]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

 

[DarkFury]

Liberal thinking. "They MIGHT drive drunk in the future, TAKE their car.".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Civil action require only a preponderance of proof: 51%.

 

[Ernie S.]

But Libs will insist this woman gets her voting rights back.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What an irrelevant comment from an irrelevant far right reactionary wing nut, our very own Ernie S.

 

[Agit8r]

If he went to trial, somebody pressed charges.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If he went to trial, somebody pressed charges.

So what? He was not convicted. One can not be denied their rights because someone accused you of something it was proven false.

 

[DarkFury]

But Libs will insist this woman gets her voting rights back.

From your link...
"
Last week Al Sharpton embraced convicted vote fraudster Melowese Richardson at a “voting rights” rally in Cincinnati. The United States Department of Justice under Eric Holder has done nothing to Melowese Richardson 410 days after she admitted on camera that she committed multiple federal felonies by voting six times for President Obama’s reelection."

Yeah, Libs are always saying there is NO voter fraud. Is there ONE lib who has never lied?

 

[Agit8r]

If he went to trial, somebody pressed charges.

So what? He was not convicted. One can not be denied their rights because someone accused you of something it was proven false.

Acquittal is not proof of innocence. It's only a proof of a lack of evidence.

 

[DarkFury]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

 

[Agit8r]

But Libs will insist this woman gets her voting rights back.

Straw man.

Both parties jeer embrace of fraudulent voter

 

[Agit8r]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

 

[Ernie S.]

But Libs will insist this woman gets her voting rights back.

Straw man.

Both parties jeer embrace of fraudulent voter

Not at all. Liberals will support returning voting rights to felons every time.

 

[Agit8r]

But Libs will insist this woman gets her voting rights back.

Straw man.

Both parties jeer embrace of fraudulent voter

Not at all. Liberals will support returning voting rights to felons every time.

Some will. Not all.

 

[Ernie S.]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

here are various things that being CONVICTED for a crime disqualifies someone from.

This man was found innocent.

 

[Ernie S.]

But Libs will insist this woman gets her voting rights back.

Straw man.

Both parties jeer embrace of fraudulent voter

Not at all. Liberals will support returning voting rights to felons every time.

Some will. Not all.

Not all but most.

 

[DarkFury]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Yet blind people need not have committed no crime to disqualify them. Same with the mentally disabled or insane. They nonetheless pose a threat to society. There are various things that being arrested for a crime disqualifies someone from.

Blind people CAN own cars but NOT drive them. That mans RIGHT to own a gun was removed with NO proven legal cause.

 

[Agit8r]

But Libs will insist this woman gets her voting rights back.

Straw man.

Both parties jeer embrace of fraudulent voter

Not at all. Liberals will support returning voting rights to felons every time.

Some will. Not all.

Not all but most.

I live in a liberal state. Felons can eventually apply for the restoration of their voting rights, but they have to meet certain criteria, and jump through some hoops.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well.....if you are brought to trial and found not guilty of the charges leveled against you.......should just the fact those charges were brought against you deprive you of your right to keep and bear arm........I think not.......this needs to go to a higher court....

NJ Court Gun Permit Can Be Denied for Domestic Violence Accusation - Breitbart

okay....so you gun grabbers will say.....but he might do it in the future.....alright...if one right can be denied because of an accusation and a non guilty verdict....what about the right to vote......if you are charged with a felony but found not guilty....since felons aren't allowed to vote and you might be a felon later....can you be denied the right to vote?

What the judge said is true:

But Superior Court Judge John Kennedy wrote:


The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal. Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges. The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.

You're wrong. Its not that he "might do it in the future". Stats tell us that perps of domestic violence most certainly will do it again and will almost certainly escalate. Way too often, its not until she is killed that he gets arrested. With his long history of domestic violence, he probably is not a man who should be allowed to have guns and I'm not at all sorry that his permit was denied.

OTOH, while the rabid RW racists say that its okay for cops to murder Blacks on the street with no due process, no arrest, no conviction, gunning them down for just running away or resisting arrest, under the law, the wife beater in the OP is innocent until proven guilty.

But there are women who are sleeping easier tonight because this jackass doesn't LEGALLY have a gun.

Will that stop him from owning a gun? Probably not. Idiots like him think they have a right to whatever they want.

A person found NOT guilty or INNOCENT regains and retains ALL rights of a FULL citizen NOT just the ones you "want" to give them.

Didn't read my post very well did you.

What you say is true and I agree with it.

BUT, it should be true for all American accused but not convicted, as well as those who never even get the chance to be accused. And yes, I'm talking about the murders of Blacks by police officers.

Do you agree they should have the same protection, under the law?