Liberals judges write new law - You can't have a gun if your WIFE has a felony conviction

[paddymurphy]

But, here, the law is most certainly right. Keeping guns away from those whose past conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to obey the law and whose more recent conduct demonstrates a tendency towards violence when they are drunk is a proper object of the law.

The law is never right when a person's Constitutionally protected rights are denied because of the actions of another

That did not happen here. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. Not allowing a felon with a recent history of violence and alcohol abuse to have access to a gun is reasonable. If Dylann Roof were allowed out on bail, would you think his parents right to keep and bear arms were being violated if the bail condition were that they remove all guns from the home and were forbidden from having any brought in?

The husband was not a felon was he?

The husband's rights are being denied because of someone else's crimes.

As I said people are allowed to keep firearms in a house with other people who have no legal right to access them (CHILDREN) and that's just fine.

And yes Roof's parents rights would be violated if their guns were confiscated because their son killed someone.

Unlike you I do not believe people should be punished for crimes they did not commit.

No. The other person in the house with access to the gun is. She also is a drunk who gets violent when she drinks. He is not being punished. Not being able to bring a gun into the home of a felon is not punishment.

Hos rights are being violated, taken away which is how we punish criminals

His rights are not unlimited. They are limited where his exercise would endanger public safety.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You post this from the law and then claim the denial was not based on the law.

Absolutely true - you deliberately missed the part where I said:

And so.... the denial was based on an arbitrary decision, rather than based on the actual laws of NJ, as the laws of NJ in no way specify or imply that co-habitation with a spouse who cannot legally own a gun is grounds for denial of possession or purchase.

Please cite the text of the law that does state or implies that co-habitation with a spouse who cannot legally own a gun is grounds for denial of possession or purchase.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The law is never right when a person's Constitutionally protected rights are denied because of the actions of another

That did not happen here. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. Not allowing a felon with a recent history of violence and alcohol abuse to have access to a gun is reasonable. If Dylann Roof were allowed out on bail, would you think his parents right to keep and bear arms were being violated if the bail condition were that they remove all guns from the home and were forbidden from having any brought in?

The husband was not a felon was he?

The husband's rights are being denied because of someone else's crimes.

As I said people are allowed to keep firearms in a house with other people who have no legal right to access them (CHILDREN) and that's just fine.

And yes Roof's parents rights would be violated if their guns were confiscated because their son killed someone.

Unlike you I do not believe people should be punished for crimes they did not commit.

No. The other person in the house with access to the gun is. She also is a drunk who gets violent when she drinks. He is not being punished. Not being able to bring a gun into the home of a felon is not punishment.

Hos rights are being violated, taken away which is how we punish criminals

His rights are not unlimited. They are limited where his exercise would endanger public safety.

Then you have to prove that he and he alone is a danger if he is allowed to own guns not that someone else is.

By your shep logic I could revoke your drivers license because your husband killed someone while driving drunk

 

[paddymurphy]

You post this from the law and then claim the denial was not based on the law.

Absolutely true - you deliberately missed the part where I said:

And so.... the denial was based on an arbitrary decision, rather than based on the actual laws of NJ, as the laws of NJ in no way specify or imply that co-habitation with a spouse who cannot legally own a gun is grounds for denial of possession or purchase.

Please cite the text of the law that does state or implies that co-habitation with a spouse who cannot legally own a gun is grounds for denial of possession or purchase.

I already did cite to the law. So did you. If you are not bright enough to understand the law we both just posted, have your mommy read it to you and explain it. An arbitrary decision is one that is not based on any evidence or any consideration of the law. These judges wrote an opinion explaining why they agreed with the lower court judge and the Chief of Police in the town. They considered the evidence and they consider the law and rendered an opinion. Do you even know the definition of the word "arbitrary"? Cause a decision based on the facts and the law and made after giving both side the opportunity to present their evidence and make argument is not arbitrary. I guess to you arbitrary means one you do not agree with.

 

[paddymurphy]

That did not happen here. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. Not allowing a felon with a recent history of violence and alcohol abuse to have access to a gun is reasonable. If Dylann Roof were allowed out on bail, would you think his parents right to keep and bear arms were being violated if the bail condition were that they remove all guns from the home and were forbidden from having any brought in?

The husband was not a felon was he?

The husband's rights are being denied because of someone else's crimes.

As I said people are allowed to keep firearms in a house with other people who have no legal right to access them (CHILDREN) and that's just fine.

And yes Roof's parents rights would be violated if their guns were confiscated because their son killed someone.

Unlike you I do not believe people should be punished for crimes they did not commit.

No. The other person in the house with access to the gun is. She also is a drunk who gets violent when she drinks. He is not being punished. Not being able to bring a gun into the home of a felon is not punishment.

Hos rights are being violated, taken away which is how we punish criminals

His rights are not unlimited. They are limited where his exercise would endanger public safety.

Then you have to prove that he and he alone is a danger if he is allowed to own guns not that someone else is.

By your shep logic I could revoke your drivers license because your husband killed someone while driving drunk

No, you dumb ****, you don't. You have to prove that allowing him to have a gun in that home would pose a danger to the public. The law allows the denial of a gun to a person never convicted of a crime if there is a patter of violent, yet uncharged, conduct.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already did cite to the law

No, you didn't.
An arbitrary decision is one that is not based on any evidence or any consideration of the law; unless you can cite the statement or implication from the law as asked, the decision is arbitrary.
Please try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, you dumb ****, you don't.

Are you typing from the computer in your school library? Have you made it past your 8th birthday?

 

[paddymurphy]

I already did cite to the law

No, you didn't.
An arbitrary decision is one that is not based on any evidence or any consideration of the law; unless you can cite the statement or implication from the law as asked, the decision is arbitrary.
Please try again.

Jesus, but you are a dense one. The law allows the denial of a gun if granting the gun would endanger the public safety and welfare. There is a written decision by the judge where he reviews the evidence. Evidence of her two felony convictions; of her recent assault on husband that prompted him to call the police; evidence of a drinking problem that led to a recent conviction for DUI. That evidence led five people now to conclude that allowing him to take a gun into that home would endanger the public health, safety and welfare, which is the legal test.

 

[paddymurphy]

No, you dumb ****, you don't.

Are you typing from the computer in your school library? Have you made it past your 8th birthday?

I am typing from a computer where I have access to the actual opinion that was written by the three judges who decided this case; an opinion you are too ******* stupid to read or understand, apparently.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The law allows the denial of a gun to a person never convicted of a crime if there is a patter of violent, yet uncharged, conduct.

Sad that you find it acceptable to deny people the exercise of their rights absent ever being charged for a crime, much less convicted.

 

[paddymurphy]

The law allows the denial of a gun to a person never convicted of a crime if there is a patter of violent, yet uncharged, conduct.

Sad that you find it acceptable to deny people the exercise of their rights absent ever being charged for a crime, much less convicted.

Happens all of the time. The only thing that is required before you can have a right infringed is due process of law. He got that. You can ask for a permit to hold a protest parade at 5:00 a.m. in front of a hospital and have that denied. I guess you do not think that there is any valid reason to deny anyone a gun absent a criminal conviction? Ok for mental defects like Dylann Roof to get a gun?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, you dumb ****, you don't.

Are you typing from the computer in your school library? Have you made it past your 8th birthday?

I am typing from a computer where I have access to the actual opinion that was written by the three judges who decided this case; an opinion you are too ******* stupid to read or understand, apparently.

Ah,.,.,. but you have -not- yet paseed your 8th birthday,
It was apparent, but I thought I would ask anyway,
Into the pit with you son. Let us know when you grow up and can discuss issues like an adult.

 

[paddymurphy]

No, you dumb ****, you don't.

Are you typing from the computer in your school library? Have you made it past your 8th birthday?

I am typing from a computer where I have access to the actual opinion that was written by the three judges who decided this case; an opinion you are too ******* stupid to read or understand, apparently.

Ah,.,.,. but you have not -yet- paseded your 8th birthday,
It was apparent, but I thought I would ask anyway,
Into the pit wit you son. Let us know when you grow up and can discuss issues like an adult.

Right. I provide you with access to the actual opinion of the actual judges who ruled; an opinion that recites the actual evidence presented by both sides; that summarizes the argument made by both sides and then explains why that evidence warrants the denial of the gun permit to this man based on the actual New Jersey law while you repeat the same false nonsense and I am the 8 year old? That is what all of you right wing idiots do when faced with facts; you retreat to juvenile name calling.

 

[paddymurphy]

From the opinion:
"In denying J.H.'s application, both the Chief and Judge Kelly reasoned that J.H. and his two children reside with J.H.'s wife, who is disqualified from possessing firearms. Specifically, the judge found that J.H.'s wife's background raised serious concerns about her living in a house with firearms, even if owned by her husband, who states he will keep them locked up and out of her control. At the evidentiary hearing on J.H.'s application, it was determined that his wife had been sentenced on June 16, 2000, to probation for possession of a controlled dangerous substance 3 A-4538-13T4 (CDS) with the intent to distribute. She had also been sentenced on December 9, 2005, to probation for possession of CDS. These convictions bar J.H.'s wife from possessing firearms. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(1). More recently, in December 2011, police were called to the family residence by J.H. because his wife had hit him. At that time, J.H. told officers that his wife was drinking a lot and needed help. Additionally, in 2013, J.H.'s wife was convicted of driving while intoxicated after mixing alcohol and Ambien. She was stopped by the police twice on the same day. During one of those encounters, officers found a bayonet inside her vehicle. At the hearing J.H. admitted that the bayonet was his, and that he had left it in the car after taking it to a trade show." Those are called facts derived from evidence.

This is the law: "An individual's Second Amendment right to bear arms, U.S. Const. amend. II, is "subject to reasonable limitations." Crespo v. Crespo, 201 N.J. 207, 209-10 (2010). To purchase a handgun in New Jersey, a person must apply for a FPIC and a permit. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3. A "person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives . . ." must be issued an FPIC and permit unless, among other reasons not relevant for 5 A-4538-13T4 purposes of this appeal, "issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare." N.J.S.A. 2C:58- 3(c)(5); N.J.A.C. 13:54-1.5(a)(5)."

This is where he explains how that law, applied to the facts, require the permit be denied:
"
In Clark, supra, the trial court held that an application to purchase handguns could be denied because the applicant's spouse, with whom she resided, was disqualified from owning a gun for a prior burglary conviction. Id. at 153-54. In that case, there was a substantial likelihood that the applicant's spouse would have access to her handguns because the applicant testified that she intended to attend target practice with her husband, and keep the guns in the marital residence. Id. at 154. The facts of the present matter differ from those in Clark in that the applicant testified his wife had no interest in guns and he would keep them locked away from her, although in the residence. However, the facts in this case suggest an even higher risk than existed in Clark, where the spouse solely had a prior burglary conviction. Here, the spouse had two convictions relating to CDS, and an alcohol problem that had led to domestic violence."

Arbitrary - "not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence." The decision was based on evidence and reason. Since you do not know what evidence is and lack reason, your opinion is expected.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then you have to prove that he and he alone is a danger if he is allowed to own guns not that someone else is.
By your shep logic I could revoke your drivers license because your husband killed someone while driving drunk

Or... you can be denied the purchase/possession/registration of a car because your DUI-convicted spouse might drive it.
Preposterous. Absurd on its face. Supportable only by the unthinking.

 

[paddymurphy]

Then you have to prove that he and he alone is a danger if he is allowed to own guns not that someone else is.
By your shep logic I could revoke your drivers license because your husband killed someone while driving drunk

Or... you can be denied the purchase/possession/registration of a car because your DUI-convicted spouse might drive it.
Preposterous. Absurd on its face. Supportable only by the unthinking.

There is no law that restricts the purchase of a car. You can buy a car if you don't have a license. You just cannot drive it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The husband was not a felon was he?

The husband's rights are being denied because of someone else's crimes.

As I said people are allowed to keep firearms in a house with other people who have no legal right to access them (CHILDREN) and that's just fine.

And yes Roof's parents rights would be violated if their guns were confiscated because their son killed someone.

Unlike you I do not believe people should be punished for crimes they did not commit.

No. The other person in the house with access to the gun is. She also is a drunk who gets violent when she drinks. He is not being punished. Not being able to bring a gun into the home of a felon is not punishment.

Hos rights are being violated, taken away which is how we punish criminals

His rights are not unlimited. They are limited where his exercise would endanger public safety.

Then you have to prove that he and he alone is a danger if he is allowed to own guns not that someone else is.

By your sheep logic I could revoke your drivers license because your husband killed someone while driving drunk

No, you dumb ****, you don't. You have to prove that allowing him to have a gun in that home would pose a danger to the public. The law allows the denial of a gun to a person never convicted of a crime if there is a patter of violent, yet uncharged, conduct.

One can have a gun in the home and not be a danger to the public. And who has to commit the patter of violent uncharged conduct?

Someone other that the person getting his rights violated?

HE is not a danger to the public so HE should be able to keep his firearms.

All that need be done is he keep them away from the wife.

IT AIN"T ******* ROCKET SCIENCE

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then you have to prove that he and he alone is a danger if he is allowed to own guns not that someone else is.
By your shep logic I could revoke your drivers license because your husband killed someone while driving drunk

Or... you can be denied the purchase/possession/registration of a car because your DUI-convicted spouse might drive it.
Preposterous. Absurd on its face. Supportable only by the unthinking.

There is no law that restricts the purchase of a car. You can buy a car if you don't have a license. You just cannot drive it.

So my statement stands.

In your little sheep brain you think it would be OK to have you drivers license permanently revoked because a person in your house drove drunk and killed someone.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

This is the law: "An individual's Second Amendment right to bear arms, U.S. Const. amend. II, is "subject to reasonable limitations." Crespo v. Crespo, 201 N.J. 207, 209-10 (2010). .

That's not a law, you moron. That's a federal court ruling. The constitution says only congress can write laws. Show us a law written by the NJ legislature that says you can't have a gun if anyone in your home has a felony conviction.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Or... you can be denied the purchase/possession/registration of a car because your DUI-convicted spouse might drive it.
Preposterous. Absurd on its face. Supportable only by the unthinking.

Actually denying gun rights is even crazier since you have a constitutional right to bear arms. There is no constitutional right to own a car.