• 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 upholds reach of US gun ban for domestic violence

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In a major victory for domestic violence advocacy groups, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the broad reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.
In a 6-2 decision, the high court ruled that reckless domestic assaults can be considered misdemeanor crimes to restrict gun ownership.

I agree with the decision. With rights come responsibilities. Break the law? Lose some of your rights.

Article is here.
 
I've got a buddy who got into an argument with his wife. During the course of the argument he snatched the phone out of her hand. She grabbed it back and called the cops. He went to jail for domestic violence.

There's a guy down here who discovered that his wife was screwing one of her friends. The "friend" came over to the house and the guy blocked the door so he couldn't get in. The wife called the cops and the guy went to jail for domestic violence.

I don't know how things are in Texas but if the cops get called to a domestic disturbance somebody is going to go to jail whether there is a bruise, a bump or just plain hurt feelings. Before someone's rights are restricted there needs to be substantial evidence that the individual is a threat to their own safety or to the safety of someone else.

-edit-

I'm going to take this one step farther. This kind of ruling will disproportionately effect men. In many cases the guy is the one who has been suffering abuse but the day he decides he had enough he suddenly becomes a "domestic abuser".
 
If they served their time exactly where does the state get off not giving their rights back in full? I swear the supreme court is retarded.
 
If they served their time exactly where does the state get off not giving their rights back in full?
I swear the supreme court is retarded.



How did anyone who was retarded get on the U.S. Supreme Court?

Explain that to us if you can.
 
How did anyone who was retarded get on the U.S. Supreme Court?

Explain that to us if you can.

How about you explain to the class why someone should not have full access to their rights after they have served their time.

How can someone like Sotomayor that thinks Hobby Lobby wasn't forced into anything because they could decide to break the law get on the bench?

Her idiotic question:

“But isn't there another choice nobody talks about, which is paying the
tax, which is a lot less than a penalty and a lot less than -- than the
cost of health insurance at all?"
 
Last edited:
I agree with the decision. With rights come responsibilities. Break the law? Lose some of your rights.

Article is here.

I don't, it should require a felony conviction. Lots of men who were charged with what they thought was a simple misdemeanor by often vengeful ex wives pled them out rather than paying big bucks to defend against the charges and then years later-lost their rights to own firearms by the retroactive application of the expansion of the 68 GCA. as an attorney, I saw dozens of cases where women claimed DV knowing that this was a nuclear bomb to deploy in a contested divorce-especially if the husband was a cop, a Reservist or an armed security guard
 
I've got a buddy who got into an argument with his wife. During the course of the argument he snatched the phone out of her hand. She grabbed it back and called the cops. He went to jail for domestic violence.

There's a guy down here who discovered that his wife was screwing one of her friends. The "friend" came over to the house and the guy blocked the door so he couldn't get in. The wife called the cops and the guy went to jail for domestic violence.

I don't know how things are in Texas but if the cops get called to a domestic disturbance somebody is going to go to jail whether there is a bruise, a bump or just plain hurt feelings. Before someone's rights are restricted there needs to be substantial evidence that the individual is a threat to their own safety or to the safety of someone else.

-edit-

I'm going to take this one step farther. This kind of ruling will disproportionately effect men. In many cases the guy is the one who has been suffering abuse but the day he decides he had enough he suddenly becomes a "domestic abuser".

Going to jail for something and ending up convicted are 2 different animals. Looks to me like you are attempting to muddy the waters here, because if that's all that happened to your buddies, then there is no way they were convicted.
 
I've got a buddy who got into an argument with his wife. During the course of the argument he snatched the phone out of her hand. She grabbed it back and called the cops. He went to jail for domestic violence.

There's a guy down here who discovered that his wife was screwing one of her friends. The "friend" came over to the house and the guy blocked the door so he couldn't get in. The wife called the cops and the guy went to jail for domestic violence.

I don't know how things are in Texas but if the cops get called to a domestic disturbance somebody is going to go to jail whether there is a bruise, a bump or just plain hurt feelings. Before someone's rights are restricted there needs to be substantial evidence that the individual is a threat to their own safety or to the safety of someone else.

-edit-

I'm going to take this one step farther. This kind of ruling will disproportionately effect men. In many cases the guy is the one who has been suffering abuse but the day he decides he had enough he suddenly becomes a "domestic abuser".

Before you go too far with this argument, it needs to be understood that there's a difference between being charged and subsequently arrested for domestic violence and being convicted of same which is what the Supreme Court upheld.
 
If they served their time exactly where does the state get off not giving their rights back in full? I swear the supreme court is retarded.

Agreed.

If convicted of domestic violence and you've served your time with good behavior you should have your rights restored. But shouldn't this follow for all such convicts who serve out their time under what could be construed as "honorable time served"? Keep in mind we're generally talking about convicted felons when such an argument has been made.
 
I've got a buddy who got into an argument with his wife. During the course of the argument he snatched the phone out of her hand. She grabbed it back and called the cops. He went to jail for domestic violence.

There's a guy down here who discovered that his wife was screwing one of her friends. The "friend" came over to the house and the guy blocked the door so he couldn't get in. The wife called the cops and the guy went to jail for domestic violence.

I don't know how things are in Texas but if the cops get called to a domestic disturbance somebody is going to go to jail whether there is a bruise, a bump or just plain hurt feelings. Before someone's rights are restricted there needs to be substantial evidence that the individual is a threat to their own safety or to the safety of someone else.

-edit-

I'm going to take this one step farther. This kind of ruling will disproportionately effect men. In many cases the guy is the one who has been suffering abuse but the day he decides he had enough he suddenly becomes a "domestic abuser".

Domestic Violence is the new fraudulent charge that's going to be flung around to deny people their rights. Domestic Violence is the new marijuana possession.
 
Going to jail for something and ending up convicted are 2 different animals. Looks to me like you are attempting to muddy the waters here, because if that's all that happened to your buddies, then there is no way they were convicted.

Actually that's all that needs to happen to be convicted or the charges get trumped up so that a guilty plea is more appealing than fighting the corrupt system.

Domestic Violence is the new drug possession.
 
How about you explain
to the class why someone should not have full access to their rights after they have served their time.

How can someone like Sotomayor that thinks Hobby Lobby wasn't forced into anything because they could decide to break the law get on the bench?

Her idiotic question:

“But isn't there another choice nobody talks about, which is paying the
tax, which is a lot less than a penalty and a lot less than -- than the
cost of health insurance at all?"



I wouldn't waste my time explaining to you how to turn your brain on before you open your mouth.

:lol:




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
I agree with the decision. With rights come responsibilities. Break the law? Lose some of your rights.

Article is here.
As well intentioned as it may be - I don't agree with this.

Once a debt is fairly paid to society, it's time to move on and rejoin society as a free rightful individual. We don't punish based upon what we think an individual may possibly do, but to what an individual actually does. A Constitutional right (any Constitutional right) is not a driving privilege or any other privilege to be allowed or removed upon the government's discretion; they are fundamentally unalienable rights.

And justice Thomas speaks to the larger issue here:

"The Supreme Court initially said it would only deal with the intentional domestic assault question, but during oral arguments in February Justice Clarence Thomas brought up the question of whether being convicted of a misdemeanor violation “suspends a constitutional right."

So now misdemeanors suspend Constitutional rights? For one's lifetime?

Will we someday say the same for ordinance?

Wake-up, America!
 
I agree with the decision. With rights come responsibilities. Break the law? Lose some of your rights.

While I do generally agree with the sentiment of this law you do have to be careful with that line of thinking. Rights generally do not come with responsibilities. That's why they are called rights. Could you lose your freedom of speech or freedom of religion if you broke the law? Furthermore just because something is a law does not necessarily mean it makes sense. Furthermore domestic violence is a difficult thing to deal with.
 
No nominee who was a 'reprobate' would ever make it past a Senate hearing.

:lol:

Plenty have. These unprincipled folks speak their oaths of office with fingers crossed behind their backs. They exercise a power never granted them, solely self-granted by precedent. Throughout the court's history they have done this.
 
While I do generally agree with the sentiment of this law you do have to be careful with that line of thinking. Rights generally do not come with responsibilities. That's why they are called rights. Could you lose your freedom of speech or freedom of religion if you broke the law? Furthermore just because something is a law does not necessarily mean it makes sense. Furthermore domestic violence is a difficult thing to deal with.

I strongly disagree with you. Rights DO come with responsibilities. The most famous example of this is not shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. But there is one class of people who are given a pass on responsibility...... That is babies. Why? Because they don't know any better. But, when they grow up, they need to start acting like adults. Seems that some adults need to start acting like adults too. They want to have their cake and eat it too, but that's not going to happen. They can either act like babies and throw tantrums, or be adults and suck it up.
 
While I do generally agree with the sentiment of this law you do have to be careful with that line of thinking. Rights generally do not come with responsibilities. That's why they are called rights. Could you lose your freedom of speech or freedom of religion if you broke the law? Furthermore just because something is a law does not necessarily mean it makes sense. Furthermore domestic violence is a difficult thing to deal with.
Exactly! :cheers:

I see it as:

'Privileges' come with responsibilities.

'Rights' are intrinsic & unalienable.


But then Constitutional rights can be restricted and further removed via due process, which makes the whole thing murky as hell I suppose ...
 
I strongly disagree with you. Rights DO come with responsibilities. The most famous example of this is not shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
You would not loose your right to free speech in general just because you yelled fire one time. You might go to jail if people got hurt, but you'd always retain your right to speak in public.
 
I strongly disagree with you. Rights DO come with responsibilities. The most famous example of this is not shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. But there is one class of people who are given a pass on responsibility...... That is babies. Why? Because they don't know any better. But, when they grow up, they need to start acting like adults. Seems that some adults need to start acting like adults too. They want to have their cake and eat it too, but that's not going to happen. They can either act like babies and throw tantrums, or be adults and suck it up.
Yes, but in the above you still have your 1A right and it hasn't been removed; you used it in a detrimental fashion, and pay the consequence for that specific action.

Here, the Court is seemingly "removing" one's right!

(But I can see your justification in the application of the term "responsibilities")
 
I agree with the decision. With rights come responsibilities. Break the law? Lose some of your rights.

Article is here.

That (bolded above) sounds almost reasonable until you consider that this allows granting a life sentence for a (any?) misdemeanor. Why should we allow only that particular misdemeanor to trump the many other misdemeanors? Is slapping a stranger or kicking a dent into their car any less serious than slapping your domestic partner? IMHO, a life sentence should require a felony conviction as a bare minimum.
 
How about you explain to the class why someone should not have full access to their rights after they have served their time.

How can someone like Sotomayor that thinks Hobby Lobby wasn't forced into anything because they could decide to break the law get on the bench?

Her idiotic question:

“But isn't there another choice nobody talks about, which is paying the
tax, which is a lot less than a penalty and a lot less than -- than the
cost of health insurance at all?"

A valid question, but we do it all the time. Sex offenders serve their time, but then get put on lists which severely restrict their rights for years.

The answer to your question is that the sentence is not the sentence, the whole sentence, and nothing but the sentence. In most cases the residual effect are spelled out prior to the commission of the offense.
 
there is more then 1 meaning, it can mean someone who sees right as wrong, and wrong as right.

and we have that already



If we would look all of the way back to the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court we could find more than one judge who shouldn't have been on the court and more than one ruling that shouldn't have been made.
 
Back
Top Bottom