|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,511 |
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"? Well, considering that O' and Hildabeast (those maggots that NWA loves) would love to shut this site down (along with Limbaugh, Drudge and every other outlet that espouses some candor about the corruptocrats, gun ownership and the hypocrite progressives) no, there is no irony there. The irony is on you. You're defending freedom of speech which those you defend want to take from us! Seriously? Take a big swig from the cup of common sense...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 15,593
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 15,593 |
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. Where I live, husbands who get angry, and go to the garage to get away from their wives have been charged with domestic abuse. Seems that ignoring them for a few hours constitutes a crime. I used to go for a drive if the wife and I had been feuding. She was counseled by a preacher that she should seek to file charges. She laughed it off, or I'd be one of "them" today. This is not about justice and or violence...
Last edited by johnw; 06/28/16.
"Chances Will Be Taken"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,591
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,591 |
As I read the case, the defendant did not challenge the Constitutionality of whether a misdemeanor conviction results in a firearms disability. The challenge was whether the particular type of misdemeanor of which he was convicted fit within the definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" for purposes of the Lautenberg amendment. So, it really doesn't break much new ground. There was a case decided after Heller 7-2 that also dealt with a similar issue.
"Don't believe everything you see on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,412
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,412 |
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.
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. That is true. There was no prohibition on felons owning firearms until the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed. Correct, and once you allow for one exception, where the state may violate the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement on the RTKABA, there's no logical stop to the progression of this trend. It should never have been allowed to start with. For example in California you are prohibited from possessing a weapon if you: 1. are a Felon. 2. adjudicated mentally insane. 3. convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence. 4. convicted of a misdemeanor battery (10 year limit) and since Jerry Brown came back... 5. have had a dui in the last seven years. 6. been detained for a temporary mental/emotional observation. 7. owe the State back taxes. Inch by inch.
Me solum relinquatis
Molon Labe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,030
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,030 |
...and since Jerry Brown came back...
5. have had a dui in the last seven years.
6. been detained for a temporary mental/emotional observation.
7. owe the State back taxes.
Inch by inch. This is so bad.
"There's more to optics than meets the eye."--anon
"...most of us would be better off losing half a pound around the waist than half a pound on our rifle."--dhg
|
|
|
|
|
583 members (12344mag, 163bc, 1lessdog, 16penny, 007FJ, 06hunter59, 61 invisible),
1,992
guests, and
1,105
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,195
Posts18,465,925
Members73,925
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
