• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights, Supreme Court Rules : The Two-Way : NPR
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms. The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.

The plaintiffs in this case, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, both of Maine, had pleaded guilty in state court to misdemeanor assault charges after slapping or shoving their romantic partners. Several years later, each man was found to have firearms and ammunition in their possession in violation of a federal law affecting convicted domestic abusers………….



“Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence. Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.2
Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm………….

More than half of women murdered with guns in the U.S. in 2011 — at least 53 percent — were killed by intimate partners or family members
….”(Using) data from 2012, the most recent year for which national data are available. In that year, 1,706 females were murdered by males in single-victim/single-offender incidents. That’s 33 victims every week and more than four every day...........

AND ALSO HAVE MAINTAINED: States have the constitutional right to pass laws regulating the use of guns; and denying the rights of ownership to wife beaters and other sorts of riff-raff.......

SEE:
Statistics on Domestic Violence & Firearms | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/guns-and-violence-against-women/
For Women, Gun Violence Often Linked to Domestic Violence
 
I am not opposed to this as long as due process was carried out.
 
Taking guns away from abusive husbands and wives will solve nothing. Even if you do disarm them, they will obviously find another way to hurt or kill their spouse. What would the government do next? Strip them of their kitchen knives? Hammers? Gardening tools? IT WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. The more you try to disarm those people, the more you'll encourage them to become more creative and MORE DANGEROUS. The government wants to find another excuse to throw their weight around and show America who's boss with their useless gun control. The government should not intervene with anyone's lives.
 
RELATED
Justice Clarence Thomas Passionately Defends Spousal Abusers' Right To Guns | Crooks and Liars
Justice Clarence Thomas Passionately Defends Spousal Abusers' Right to Guns

You just cannot make this stuff up…………Never said anything for over 10 years on the bench…..the man is dead wood and needs to retire ……..like right away

what a biased take on what he said. Slapping your wife since she was screwing your best friend could lead to a DV misdemeanor conviction
 
A misdemeanor should never automatically remove a Constitutional right permanently.


IF a judge believes Abusive Spouse A is a genuine threat to Victim Spouse B, then a temporary order removing his right to arms is appropriate... but not permanently for a misdemeanor.



And in any case, its not as if he (or she) couldn't arm himself illegally if he wanted to badly enough.
 
A misdemeanor should never automatically remove a Constitutional right permanently.


IF a judge believes Abusive Spouse A is a genuine threat to Victim Spouse B, then a temporary order removing his right to arms is appropriate... but not permanently for a misdemeanor.



And in any case, its not as if he (or she) couldn't arm himself illegally if he wanted to badly enough.

Read 'em and weep ...............SCOTUS says.........."Let me tell you the way it is"


Sure one can go out get a gun without the right to do so.............that's what one calls a criminal.............
 
Read 'em and weep ...............SCOTUS says.........."Let me tell you the way it is"


Sure one can go out get a gun without the right to do so.............that's what one calls a criminal.............


So what good does it do then.



(Hint: very damn little, but you never did care about that really did you?)
 
So what good does it do then.


(Hint: very damn little, but you never did care about that really did you?)

Sorry the SCOTUS relieved you of your delusions on astates's right to regulate guns...........You should say "Thank you SCOTUS"
 
Read 'em and weep ...............SCOTUS says.........."Let me tell you the way it is"


Sure one can go out get a gun without the right to do so.............that's what one calls a criminal.............

what a ridiculous response to Goshin's well reasoned argument. we get the fact that you are close to being orgasmic everytime you think the government has deprived yet another group of people to own guns but your posting is dishonest and evasive
 
Sorry the SCOTUS relieved you of your delusions on astates's right to regulate guns...........You should say "Thank you SCOTUS"

Great only criminals have guns, thank you SCOTUS.
 
Taking guns away from abusive husbands and wives will solve nothing. Even if you do disarm them, they will obviously find another way to hurt or kill their spouse. What would the government do next? Strip them of their kitchen knives? Hammers? Gardening tools? IT WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. The more you try to disarm those people, the more you'll encourage them to become more creative and MORE DANGEROUS. The government wants to find another excuse to throw their weight around and show America who's boss with their useless gun control. The government should not intervene with anyone's lives.

While that line of reasoning has some merit in regards to premeditated killing, I doubt most deaths from domestic violence are premeditated. By their very nature they tend to happen in the heat of the moment.

And yes, there are other household items a person could use to do the job, but the would-be killer is less likely to succeed with those.
 
While that line of reasoning has some merit in regards to premeditated killing, I doubt most deaths from domestic violence are premeditated. By their very nature they tend to happen in the heat of the moment.

And yes, there are other household items a person could use to do the job, but the would-be killer is less likely to succeed with those.

You are wrong on that. A knife is just as deadly as a firearm. When you strike or slash the right part of the body, the victim can die instantly. You can even end someone's life with your own bare hands. And as I stated earlier: trying to control people will only leave behind terrible consequences. It's not right for the government or the public to interfere with people's lives. We should be responsible for our own lives, for our own safety. The government should not hold the keys to our fate.
 
A misdemeanor should never automatically remove a Constitutional right permanently.


IF a judge believes Abusive Spouse A is a genuine threat to Victim Spouse B, then a temporary order removing his right to arms is appropriate... but not permanently for a misdemeanor.
I agree; and I'll even go you one better!

Neither should certain non-violent felony convictions justify nullification of a citizens Constitutional Rights!

It seems Big Brother is exponentially creating loopholes to skirt the US Constitution in some way or other!

And in any case, its not as if he (or she) couldn't arm himself illegally if he wanted to badly enough.
Such a defiant nature will only serve to compound the problem Goshin!
 
You are wrong on that. A knife is just as deadly as a firearm. When you strike or slash the right part of the body, the victim can die instantly. You can even end someone's life with your own bare hands. And as I stated earlier: trying to control people will only leave behind terrible consequences. It's not right for the government or the public to interfere with people's lives. We should be responsible for our own lives, for our own safety. The government should not hold the keys to our fate.

I'm not disagreeing on your legal points. I am disagreeing with the lethality aspect. Yes, a knife CAN be as lethal as a gun in the right (wrong) hands but most people don't know what they are doing. There is a reason knife attacks result in fewer fatalities than gun attacks.

Also, it is a hell of a lot easier to run from a knife than a bullet.
 
You are wrong on that. A knife is just as deadly as a firearm. When you strike or slash the right part of the body, the victim can die instantly. You can even end someone's life with your own bare hands. ...



Well, yes and no. At arm's reach I'd arguably rather face a novice with a gun than someone with a knife and a clue.

Instant death, though, is largely a myth short of decapitation or something similarly drastic. Humans are not easy to kill outright. We're rather easy to suffer critical wounds... a punctured lung is usually fatal if untreated but death can take hours in many cases. There was a guy at a crash with a pipe through his head and brain, walked around talking for a couple minutes then suddenly keeled over dead. Then sometimes people collapse from being nicked and think they're gonna die. Funny creatures, humans.



So anyway, yeah if a Gurkha veteran decided to go juramentado (mixing cultures I know) then yeah, he could rack up one hell of a body count with a good sharp Kukri.... but most people lack the blade skills to pull that off.


Of course, if all people had were blades, those skills might become suddenly more popular...
 
I think they are starting to crack down on known violent offenders from having guns.
 
I think they are starting to crack down on known violent offenders from having guns.

I don't like the idea of the government "cracking down" on anyone. All this will do is encourage us to let our guard down and be consumed by this false sense of security. It's like they're encouraging us to think "Well, everything is going to be okay now that the government is watching my back a little better." What FOOLISHNESS. We have to be responsible for our own protection instead of allowing big-daddy government to interfere with our lives and tell us what to do with ourselves. Government-intervention will only make us Americans weaker and more vulnerable to the enemy. Many people died from massacres and fall victim to serial killers not because the enemy possessed certain weapons but because the American people ALLOWED themselves to be weak and vulnerable. We need to adopt a completely different method as how we should prepare ourselves for the enemy instead of looking to the government for protection. Right now: it's not working. The government should stop controlling us.
 
Taking guns away from abusive husbands and wives will solve nothing. Even if you do disarm them, they will obviously find another way to hurt or kill their spouse. What would the government do next? Strip them of their kitchen knives? Hammers? Gardening tools? IT WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. The more you try to disarm those people, the more you'll encourage them to become more creative and MORE DANGEROUS. The government wants to find another excuse to throw their weight around and show America who's boss with their useless gun control. The government should not intervene with anyone's lives.

Your speculation of whaty the outcome maybe is silly.........The fact is a state has passed a constitutional law to hopefully meet a community need.......
 
I agree; and I'll even go you one better!

Neither should certain non-violent felony convictions justify nullification of a citizens Constitutional Rights!

It seems Big Brother is exponentially creating loopholes to skirt the US Constitution in some way or other!

Such a defiant nature will only serve to compound the problem Goshin!

The SCOTUS believes otherwise...........and that's the way it is.......
 
I don't like the idea of the government "cracking down" on anyone. All this will do is encourage us to let our guard down and be consumed by this false sense of security. It's like they're encouraging us to think "Well, everything is going to be okay now that the government is watching my back a little better." What FOOLISHNESS. We have to be responsible for our own protection instead of allowing big-daddy government to interfere with our lives and tell us what to do with ourselves. Government-intervention will only make us Americans weaker and more vulnerable to the enemy. Many people died from massacres and fall victim to serial killers not because the enemy possessed certain weapons but because the American people ALLOWED themselves to be weak and vulnerable. We need to adopt a completely different method as how we should prepare ourselves for the enemy instead of looking to the government for protection. Right now: it's not working. The government should stop controlling us.

Please tell us how the government is controlling your life?
 
Back
Top Bottom