- Messages
- 5,152
- Reactions
- 11,453
US court strikes down domestic violence gun law
The ruling says the law barring domestic abusers from owning firearms is unconstitutional.
news.yahoo.com
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is a huge issue as it takes no effort to go downtown to fill out a paper full of lies , then a Judge reads it and issues a restraining order after that the police come to your home and hand you the legal restraining order with a court date, Violating this means your arrest and or loss of rights.no charges are ever filed on the person that makes these false claims
The main problems most people have with red flag laws:My read of the article that you link to from BBC News, Washington, says it was a Fifth Circuit Court decision, not SCOTUS directly. Though the 5th Circuit Court does cite Bruen.
Aside from that, I have very little 2A sympathy for someone under a restraining order for confirmed or alleged domestic violence. Just my opinion. YMMV.
Me too, and here it is:I have a very strong opinion on this.
Admittedly, I've used monotone, cold logic, and an uncompromising view of genders before. Tragically many feelings have been hurt.Well, back when I carried badge and gun, I thought it a great injustice to be denied a fundamental civil and human right for a conviction of a single finger poke in the chest.
This needs to be applied NATIONALLY by the Supremes.US court strikes down domestic violence gun law
The ruling says the law barring domestic abusers from owning firearms is unconstitutional.news.yahoo.com
So, basically, you don't think it should be important or worthwhile to combat infringments against inalieanable rights... that have national impact? It's perfectly reasonable that a certain class of people (firearm owners) only have second class rights and not be allowed due process like every other person in the U.S., right?bubblegum like this is why I dont like giving money to some gun rights groups.
How much did this fight cost? Is this law a priority for their membership?
Of all the things they could be challenging in court... this is what they back?
My point is priorities.So, basically, you don't think it should be important or worthwhile to combat infringments against inalieanable rights... that have national impact? It's perfectly reasonable that a certain class of people (firearm owners) only have second class rights and not be allowed due process like every other person in the U.S., right?
I dunno. Maybe I'm just bias because I own a firearm, but having the same rights as everyone else seems pretty darn critial and worthwhile to me. Law abiding firearm owners are people too, ya know.
Difference of perspective I guess. I do feel it was of extreme importance. To me... having our inalienable rights protected is far more important than... say.... if I'm legally allowed to own a braced pistol or not (I have other firearm options). Or... even mag bans or carry restrictions.My point is priorities.
Youre telling me that New York Rifle & Pistol Assoc. made the highest and best use of hundreds of thousands of dollars of their members money here?
Personally, I want to see rights restored to all shooters before I see guys who slap their families around get theirs back.
Of ALL the laws plaguing gun owners... Lets fight mag restrictions, ammo restrictions, AW bans, CCW protections, open carry laws, etc
Then when we all have those rights back, then we can talk about the guy who beat up his girlfriend (or accused) his guns back.
When all Americans can,own guns free & unencumbered by BS regulations... I dont care if we give felons their guns back...
Innocent until proven guiltyThe key element being that you must be guilty... not simply accused or some arbitrary person thinking you "might" be a danger because they don't like you and want to jam you up... or simply don't like guns and YOU have one. If we allow the law to strip our rights without due process... no other law matters.