• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms | Government and Politics | nwitimes.com
Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms



The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously agreed Tuesday that Hoosiers convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can be prohibited from possessing a gun for at least five years.
In its 5-0 ruling, the state's high court rejected the claim that an Indiana law temporarily stripping domestic abusers of their 2nd Amendment and separate state right to bear arms is an unconstitutional additional punishment……….

……… weighing of the punitive effects is not needed to justify the gun restriction, because courts consistently have upheld the Legislature's authority to deprive numerous constitutional rights to Hoosiers convicted of crimes as a "collateral consequence" of their actions, including the right to vote and sit on a jury.”



SEE COURT RULING AT:
Hitch v. State ruling of Indiana Supreme Court | | nwitimes.com

Here is another ruling (state) confirming the right5 of state to regulate and proscribe punishment for violations..........
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,801
Reaction score
79,571
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms | Government and Politics | nwitimes.com
Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms



The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously agreed Tuesday that Hoosiers convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can be prohibited from possessing a gun for at least five years.
In its 5-0 ruling, the state's high court rejected the claim that an Indiana law temporarily stripping domestic abusers of their 2nd Amendment and separate state right to bear arms is an unconstitutional additional punishment……….

……… weighing of the punitive effects is not needed to justify the gun restriction, because courts consistently have upheld the Legislature's authority to deprive numerous constitutional rights to Hoosiers convicted of crimes as a "collateral consequence" of their actions, including the right to vote and sit on a jury.”



SEE COURT RULING AT:
Hitch v. State ruling of Indiana Supreme Court | | nwitimes.com

Here is another ruling (state) confirming the right5 of state to regulate and proscribe punishment for violations..........


do you believe that misdemeanors are sufficient to abrogate fundamental constitutional rights?
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
do you believe that misdemeanors are sufficient to abrogate fundamental constitutional rights?

The question makes no sense...........and I am finish answering your post...... I have better things to do with my time...............tata
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,801
Reaction score
79,571
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The question makes no sense...........and I am finish answering your post...... I have better things to do with my time...............tata

well you are batting 1000 of failing to answer easy questions. Its a common trait we see on this sub forum from one side of the issue

I merely asked you if you agree with an abrogation of constitutional rights for a MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE

guess what-I do not. I have posted-long before you joined this board-that the LAUTENBERG amendment is "yes dear legislation" pandering to female voters and should have been stricken down by the courts
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
well you are batting 1000 of failing to answer easy questions. Its a common trait we see on this sub forum from one side of the issue

I merely asked you if you agree with an abrogation of constitutional rights for a MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE

guess what-I do not. I have posted-long before you joined this board-that the LAUTENBERG amendment is "yes dear legislation" pandering to female voters and should have been stricken down by the courts

Nope, it was victim culture advocates who were satisfied, with particular attention the feminists. I say everyone was clear that this is about promoting victim culture so as to keep the issue front and center and the jobs creating victim services industry expanding in both jobs and power.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,801
Reaction score
79,571
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Gun haters would make a DUI, simple assault, or if they could-parking tickets-grounds to prevent someone from owning a gun. and this is in the era when left-wingers are trying to argue that people who have done 30 years for murder or armed robbery ought to have their "constitutional rights" to vote back
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms | Government and Politics | nwitimes.com
Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms



The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously agreed Tuesday that Hoosiers convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can be prohibited from possessing a gun for at least five years.
In its 5-0 ruling, the state's high court rejected the claim that an Indiana law temporarily stripping domestic abusers of their 2nd Amendment and separate state right to bear arms is an unconstitutional additional punishment……….

……… weighing of the punitive effects is not needed to justify the gun restriction, because courts consistently have upheld the Legislature's authority to deprive numerous constitutional rights to Hoosiers convicted of crimes as a "collateral consequence" of their actions, including the right to vote and sit on a jury.”



SEE COURT RULING AT:
Hitch v. State ruling of Indiana Supreme Court | | nwitimes.com

Here is another ruling (state) confirming the right5 of state to regulate and proscribe punishment for violations..........

Which in no way regulates the 2A. Commit a crime pay the price.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
well you are batting 1000 of failing to answer easy questions. Its a common trait we see on this sub forum from one side of the issue

I merely asked you if you agree with an abrogation of constitutional rights for a MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE

guess what-I do not. I have posted-long before you joined this board-that the LAUTENBERG amendment is "yes dear legislation" pandering to female voters and should have been stricken down by the courts

That is exactly what gun control does is use every opportunity to play the idiot game. Can we fool these ignorant fools into removing guns because we tell them it will save lives/babies/woman/children/politicians/cats/dogs and anything else they can dream up. Sensible people call it abuse of power which authority always seems eager to indulge in.
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Which in no way regulates the 2A. Commit a crime pay the price.

Don't tell me. Tell it to the Court.

You will just never accept the FACT that the government has the right/duty to regulate guns and set penalties for those who do not follow them.

Now I see no0 need to discuss this with you any more..............bye
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,801
Reaction score
79,571
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Don't tell me. Tell it to the Court.

You will just never accept the FACT that the government has the right/duty to regulate guns and set penalties for those who do not follow them.

Now I see no0 need to discuss this with you any more..............bye

you seem to confuse gun control which prevents or impedes anyone from obtaining a firearm or type of firearm with restrictions that come after you are convicted of another crime
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
do you believe that misdemeanors are sufficient to abrogate fundamental constitutional rights?

I have a serious moral problem with the fact that laying your hands on your spouse or your children is only a misdemeanor offense.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,801
Reaction score
79,571
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I have a serious moral problem with the fact that laying your hands on your spouse or your children is only a misdemeanor offense.

Perhaps, but slapping your son because he told you he wrecked the car driving drunk or your daughter because she said she's contracted four strains of the Clap turning tricks in the HS locker room is not grounds to be banned from life owning firearms. Lots of "DV" charges come from divorcing wives claiming they were hit to gain leverage in the court proceedings.

Lots of guys, before the Lautenberg act and its retroactive application-pled out these misdemeanor cases rather than spend the money defending against a he said, she said nonsense.

Now if you engage in FELONIOUS assault you should be charged of FELONIOUS assault. IF IT DOES NOT RISE to a felony you should not lose your rights
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you can't be trusted not to commit acts of violence against your own family, how can you be trusted in public? I think such restrictions should certainly have a time limit attached-- nobody should be punished for life-- but I have no moral objections to people convicted of acts of unlawful violence being restricted from keeping weapons until they've proven they've got their **** back together.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,801
Reaction score
79,571
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If you can't be trusted not to commit acts of violence against your own family, how can you be trusted in public? I think such restrictions should certainly have a time limit attached-- nobody should be punished for life-- but I have no moral objections to people convicted of acts of unlawful violence being restricted from keeping weapons until they've proven they've got their **** back together.


I used to get into fights with my brothers all the time. if its not violence that rises to felony violence where do we draw the line?
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms | Government and Politics | nwitimes.com
Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms



The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously agreed Tuesday that Hoosiers convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can be prohibited from possessing a gun for at least five years.
In its 5-0 ruling, the state's high court rejected the claim that an Indiana law temporarily stripping domestic abusers of their 2nd Amendment and separate state right to bear arms is an unconstitutional additional punishment……….

……… weighing of the punitive effects is not needed to justify the gun restriction, because courts consistently have upheld the Legislature's authority to deprive numerous constitutional rights to Hoosiers convicted of crimes as a "collateral consequence" of their actions, including the right to vote and sit on a jury.”



SEE COURT RULING AT:
Hitch v. State ruling of Indiana Supreme Court | | nwitimes.com

Here is another ruling (state) confirming the right5 of state to regulate and proscribe punishment for violations..........

It's a violation of federal law for people with DV convictions to own guns. What the state rules doesn't matter.

If you can't be trusted not to commit acts of violence against your own family.

What precisely do you mean by "acts of violence"? You consider a parent disciplining their kid to be a wrongful act?
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,533
Reaction score
7,690
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The real problem is domestic violence being sentenced as a misdemeanor. Change the sentencing guidelines via legislation and leave their rights alone unless they get a felony conviction. I wonder if this will appeal even higher or not.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04121601rdr.pdf
Read the ruling and they added the domestic violence charge onto the battery without sending it through trial and then argued he did not place the objection at the time of trial when the point of objection stems from the additional charge being levied but not adjudicated through a court. It sounds an awful like an end run around due process that could have been rendered moot by just changing the existing domestic violence laws to net the same results without nullifying rights without a court adjudication.

Hitch is a scumbag, but he still has rights.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What precisely do you mean by "acts of violence"? You consider a parent disciplining their kid to be a wrongful act?

Depends on the degree of violence. An open hand across a child's backside does no lasting harm and is not a criminal offense in any State of the Union.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Depends on the degree of violence. An open hand across a child's backside does no lasting harm and is not a criminal offense in any State of the Union.

Several of the examples that TurtleDude came up with (which you responded to without disputing their status as wrongful acts) included things as simple a parent slapping their kid.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Several of the examples that TurtleDude came up with (which you responded to without disputing their status as wrongful acts) included things as simple a parent slapping their kid.

Physical discipline of teenagers is ****ing ridiculous and nobody should ever slap a child across the face.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

Because teenagers are practically adults and if you still need to smack them around, it's too late for parenting; you've already failed. As for slapping children across the face, slapping someone across the face is not discipline, it is an insult and should only be done when you are ready for combat. If you are not justified in engaging in combat with someone, you have no business slapping them across the face.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Because teenagers are practically adults and if you still need to smack them around, it's too late for parenting; you've already failed. As for slapping children across the face, slapping someone across the face is not discipline, it is an insult and should only be done when you are ready for combat. If you are not justified in engaging in combat with someone, you have no business slapping them across the face.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that teenagers don't need correction.

Yeah, I guess it's an insult, if intended that way. Striking someone anywhere could be an insult if so intended, so this seems to be an arbitrary distinction based on your personal taste.
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,801
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have a serious moral problem with the fact that laying your hands on your spouse or your children is only a misdemeanor offense.

well, first, it's not just your spouse or children... DV covers any relatives , by blood or marriage, anyone you live with ( roommate), have lived with, dated, or had a relationship with.

2nd, there doesn't even need ot be actual violence to convict a person of DV.... I know people who were convicted of DV1 because they blocked hte door so the wife couldn't' leave.. .and another was convicted when he hung up the phone his wife was using to call her mom.

I plead guilty to DV1 back on 2001... I knocked out my brother in law and screwed him up pretty bad. ( brain aneurysm, broken eye socket, broken jaw.)... he showed up to my house tweaking and talking to his sister is a very rude manner, so I handled it.
it turns out that people who get knocked out aren't so rude anymore. <shrug>


In any event, I too lost my 2nd amendment rights for a period of time...after i had my record expunged , I was good to go again.

I have no constitutional issue with this punishment, it's valid and constitutional.( because it's a punishment for a crime committed)
 

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
3,671
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms | Government and Politics | nwitimes.com
Indiana high court OKs restriction on right to bear arms



The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously agreed Tuesday that Hoosiers convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can be prohibited from possessing a gun for at least five years.
In its 5-0 ruling, the state's high court rejected the claim that an Indiana law temporarily stripping domestic abusers of their 2nd Amendment and separate state right to bear arms is an unconstitutional additional punishment……….

……… weighing of the punitive effects is not needed to justify the gun restriction, because courts consistently have upheld the Legislature's authority to deprive numerous constitutional rights to Hoosiers convicted of crimes as a "collateral consequence" of their actions, including the right to vote and sit on a jury.”



SEE COURT RULING AT:
Hitch v. State ruling of Indiana Supreme Court | | nwitimes.com

Here is another ruling (state) confirming the right5 of state to regulate and proscribe punishment for violations..........

He concluded the loss of gun rights is nonpunitive, and therefore permitted as a regulatory tool to promote public safety — even if the offender did not use a firearm in committing domestic violence.

How exactly is this gun control? Its more like criminal control.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not sure where you get the idea that teenagers don't need correction.

Teenagers still need correction, but they are past the age where physical correction is either effective or justifiable. Teenagers have fully functioning brains and can be reasoned with; they are more likely to respond to the loss of privileges or the imposition of extra obligations than non-damaging physical force.
 
Top Bottom