Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Huge Gun Rights Loss

Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.

The Lautenberg amendment was the camel's nose under the tent, this was the camel coming completely into the tent.

It's insane that a right could be taken after a misdemeanor conviction. If it's serious enough to deprive someone of their rights then it's serious enough to be a felony.

Well, they can get one on the "black market" anyway, there are so many out there. Or so the logic goes

Why should anyone here g.a.f. what you think?

You are on a pro-gun, pro-freedom site and you support more gov't and anti-gun, anti-freedom creeps like Obama and Clinton.
Crawl back into your progressive hole with your other socialist minions...

Actually, laws prohibiting ex felons (felons who served their time and "paid their debt to society") from owning a firearm was the camel's nose under the tent. If it's an actual right, then being an ex felon should not have any effect on it, so long as one is not currently and lawfully in the custody of the state.

Why should anyone here g.a.f. what you think?

You are on a pro-gun, pro-freedom site and you support more gov't and anti-gun, anti-freedom creeps like Obama and Clinton.
Crawl back into your progressive hole with your other socialist minions...

Do you see the irony in what you said?

Or did you mean "pro-freedom as long as you agree with me"?

That is true. There was no prohibition on felons owning firearms until the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed.

Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.

Obviously "Gun Rights" is not a right, but a privilege easily taken away, about like a drivers license.

No one likes people that beat their partners, but the precedent set is a open door to other similar restrictions.

Nibble, nibble, nibble, that is how they will get the guns.

.

It's insane that a right could be taken after a misdemeanor conviction. If it's serious enough to deprive someone of their rights then it's serious enough to be a felony.

All for a misdemeanor.

Thomas was right - find ANY other Constitutionally protected, enumerated right you can lose for a mere misdemeanor. There are none.

We've been sold out, wholesale, by the supposed R "conservative" Justices.

I'm guessing Ike Turner lost his gun rights for slappin a ho.

Well, they can get one on the "black market" anyway, there are so many out there. Or so the logic goes

Where were the defenders of our 2nd rights.
Where was the NRA?
I didn't receive any, not one Email regarding this being before the court from them.

Where were the people that have been using the 2nd to help advance their careers?
Not one word from Ted Cruz or anyone else, not one.

Serious issues and apparently for Political Correctness, or fear of public perception, this has just let slip thru with no outrage, NONE at all.

Felons have since GCA of 68 lost the right to bear arms, and I see no reason that if a domestic attack is serious enough to loose a Constitutional right, then why were not felony charges brought in the first place?

We all just got the shaft, and take it like the good sheeple we are. Nowhere do I hear or see any outrage, just a few posts on the internet. Sad to say the least.

Folks seem much more interested in abortion, than the right to keep and bare arms.

The NRA probably supports this decision

The NRA Is Now Helping Advance Anti-Domestic Violence Laws

Thanks to clandestine support from the National Rifle Association (NRA), domestic violence victims in several states have been granted a major protection from their abusers. Lawmakers are taking guns away from offenders who are issued protective orders — with the backing of the country’s most prominent gun rights organization.

As the Huffington Post reports, the NRA consented to HB 1840, a Washington state bill making it legal to strip abusers of their guns if they are served with “no-contact orders, protection orders, [or] restraining orders.” And while the bill was signed into law last month, the NRA also approved similar measures elsewhere, within the last year. Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Minnesota have signed or advanced legislation banning abusers from keeping guns if they’ve been issued an order or charged with misdemeanors, all with NRA support.

The NRA’s latest stance contrasts its previous attitude toward campaigns against domestic violence. Previously, if legislation was on the table to take guns away from offenders, the NRA adamantly opposed it. Specifically, the lobby consistently argued that guns should only be stripped from abusers convicted of a felony, and lawmakers under its influence refused to advance new gun laws. But the NRA’s new position is clearing the path for lawmakers to target perpetrators in a substantial way.

The shift can be attributed, in part, to ongoing efforts aimed at boosting gun rights support among women. For instance, the NRA sold bras with holsters and pink guns at a convention last year, in an attempt to make the weapons more appealing to women. And a campaign by NRA Women encourages women to embrace guns and “Refuse To Be A Victim.’ In reality, arming women doesn’t actually protect them from their abusers.

The NRA’s approval of slightly stricter gun laws is part of a larger trend: Strategies to address domestic violence are advancing at local, state, and national levels. Activists are developing creative ways to assist victims, such as teaching beauticians how to identify signs of abuse. Police departments are also implementing policies to identify perpetrators. The Supreme Court recently took a step toward ensuring that domestic abusers can’t get their hands on guns, and survivors of domestic violence have new medical benefits under the Affordable Care Act.

Today, roughly one-third of all women living in the U.S. have experienced domestic violence