SCOTUS Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Gun Ownership Rights

[Hagar]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

And none of you would ever guess how they voted.

And Hoops, Thomas actually got verbal.

[TxHoops]

25 minutes ago, REBgp said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

And none of you would ever guess how they voted.

And Hoops, Thomas actually got verbal.

I look forward to his next contribution in 2026

[Hagar]

14 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I look forward to his next contribution in 2026

Where you as surprised as I was at how they voted?   I would have lost a wad of money on him & Soto ever voting together and them being the only two.  

[TxHoops]

5 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Where you as surprised as I was at how they voted?   I would have lost a wad of money on him & Soto ever voting together and them being the only two.  

Thomas no (I always expect him to make the worst decision  ).  Sotomayor, yes.   But I have not read her dissent yet so I am not sure on what basis she did so.  

Court's ruling in general doesn't surprise me.  Wife beaters don't deserve a gun IMO. 

[stevenash]

Someone will come up with the idea ( very very progressive) that being a wife beater is a disease and cant be helped and that those "poor wife beaters" need help from society to cure their illness.  Perhaps they will become the next protected class.

[Englebert]

16 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Thomas no (I always expect him to make the worst decision  ).  Sotomayor, yes.   But I have not read her dissent yet so I am not sure on what basis she did so.  

Court's ruling in general doesn't surprise me.  Wife beaters don't deserve a gun IMO. 

Should wife beaters be allowed to vote?

Should wife beaters be subject to warrantless search and seizures?

[TxHoops]

29 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Should wife beaters be allowed to vote?

Should wife beaters be subject to warrantless search and seizures?

Wife beaters often turn into wife killers.  Sorry, but if you are such a little man that you put your hands on a woman, you aren't a big enough man to carry a gun.  As far as voting, should felons be allowed to vote?   Warrantless searches and seizures should be subjected on no one IMO.  

[stevenash]

33 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Should wife beaters be allowed to vote?

Should wife beaters be subject to warrantless search and seizures?

TXHoops- do you think felons should be allowed to vote?

[Englebert]

27 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Wife beaters often turn into wife killers.  Sorry, but if you are such a little man that you put your hands on a woman, you aren't a big enough man to carry a gun.  As far as voting, should felons be allowed to vote?   Warrantless searches and seizures should be subjected on no one IMO.  

If a person is considered dangerous enough to take away their second amendment right, shouldn't the cops have unfettered access to their home to make sure they are complying with the "no gun" order? After all, if a person chooses to ignore the law and assault another person, do you think he would comply with the law that says he can't own a gun? Why is the fourth amendment so much more sacred than the second?

The majority of wife beaters that turn into wife killers don't use a gun. The majority of women who have been beaten and decide to defend themselves turn to a gun for self-defense.

If two kids get into a fist-fight (no gun used, brandished or even present), and the cops charge them with assault, should they lose their second amendment rights?

Stuff like this is exactly what the anti-gun people want. They are pushing for more and more laws that take away your second amendment right, regardless of whether a gun was involved or not. And they will keep pushing until a traffic ticket will get you on the "No Gun" list. This is why they are pushing so hard for background checks. Once background checks are accepted as a pre-requisite to own a gun, they will then start adding rules to these background checks until even the Pope will not qualify to own a gun.

I do think that a person convicted of a crime who uses a gun in the commission of that crime should lose their right to own a gun for the full term of their sentence. I also think that anyone who uses a gun while committing a crime can receive a stiffer sentence. I used the term "can receive" because I don't think that someone who shoots someone should receive a stiffer sentence than a person who beats someone to death with a baseball bat. Once the person completes their sentence (including probation) they should have all of their rights, including their second amendment right, fully restored.

 

[Englebert]

Some lawmakers have already proposed that you have to give up your fourth amendment right in order to exercise your second amendment right. I've heard about these proposals on several occasions. Here's a couple of links about the Washington State proposal.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

(I picked the first two links that came up on a Bing search. There are many links about this story from many different sources.)

 

[TxHoops]

3 hours ago, stevenash said:

TXHoops- do you think felons should be allowed to vote?

Only if they are registered democrats.  I do think women and African Americans should be allowed to vote.  Very glad the Constitution was amended to allow it.  

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

Only if they are registered democrats.  I do think women and African Americans should be allowed to vote.  Very glad the Constitution was amended to allow it.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Hagar]

5 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Thomas no (I always expect him to make the worst decision  ).  Sotomayor, yes.   But I have not read her dissent yet so I am not sure on what basis she did so.  

Court's ruling in general doesn't surprise me.  Wife beaters don't deserve a gun IMO. 

Several things not discussed yet concern me about it, but like so many, I know so little of the actual Laws, they may be unfounded.  One is the possibility of vindictive spouses using this against an innocent husband.  Say spouse attacks husband and he physically restrains her.   Would such bruising apply to a possible conviction, and gun loss, or is there a lesser charge if he's found guilty?  Another concern is the possibility of some judges that have strong Second Amendment convictions, actually allowing a real wife beater off when possible, so the slime ball doesn't lose his rights to a gun.  Are these two scenarios unlikely?

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Honestly, I have a lot less problem with a felon voting than carrying a firearm.   

[TxHoops]

27 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Several things not discussed yet concern me about it, but like so many, I know so little of the actual Laws, they may be unfounded.  One is the possibility of vindictive spouses using this against an innocent husband.  Say spouse attacks husband and he physically restrains her.   Would such bruising apply to a possible conviction, and gun loss, or is there a lesser charge if he's found guilty?  Another concern is the possibility of some judges that have strong Second Amendment convictions, actually allowing a real wife beater off when possible, so the slime ball doesn't lose his rights to a gun.  Are these two scenarios unlikely?

I don't think they are unlikely at all.  In fact, you can make a safe bet that both have happened on many occasions.  A byproduct of an imperfect justice system.  

[tvc184]

A guy beats up his neighbor 10 times giving him busted lips, black eyes, etc. It is always a misdemeanor and he can serve county jail time for up to a year on each incident. He does not lose any gun rights.

A woman is mad and pushes her husband (causing no injury) and the guy slaps her one time for the only violence after 20 years of marriage and doesn't even cause a bruise. Because she claims to have "felt pain", he loses his rights to a gun for the rest of his life.

Protection or political correctness?

[Hagar]

5 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I don't think they are unlikely at all.  In fact, you can make a safe bet that both have happened on many occasions.  A byproduct of an imperfect justice system.  

That's sad.  And don't I feel naive.  I had no idea how imperfect it is.