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..........
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
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
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..........
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
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
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.
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.
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..........
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?
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.
Physical discipline of teenagers is ****ing ridiculous and nobody should ever slap a child across the face.
.
Why?
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 have a serious moral problem with the fact that laying your hands on your spouse or your children is only a misdemeanor offense.
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.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that teenagers don't need correction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?