SCOTUS: Upholds Ban on Gun Ownership with Domestic Violence

#2
#2
I don't see those laws as being restrictions on 2A. I see them as restrictions on people known to be violent. I believe The Court got this one right also.

However IMO the laws should allow a person to petition the court for restoration of their rights if they stay out of trouble for a given amount of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
#4
#4
MT LeConte said:
I don't see those laws as being restrictions on 2A. I see them as restrictions on people known to be violent. I believe The Court got this one right also.

However IMO the laws should allow a person to petition the court for restoration of their rights if they stay out of trouble for a given amount of time.
Click to expand...

My issue with this law is that if you get convicted of something when you are 18. Such as hitting a girlfriend in the heat of the moment. You can never own a gun ever again. 30 years later you are still done in by a heat of the moment decision that is a misdemeanor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
Not to mention that many of these cases are he said/she said and the court will often side with the women. I am sure there are many convictions out there that are wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
MT LeConte said:
I don't see those laws as being restrictions on 2A. I see them as restrictions on people known to be violent. I believe The Court got this one right also.

However IMO the laws should allow a person to petition the court for restoration of their rights if they stay out of trouble for a given amount of time.
Click to expand...


Seems reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
InVOLuntary said:
Not to mention that many of these cases are he said/she said and the court will often side with the women. I am sure there are many convictions out there that are wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe one of the lawyers can chime in on this...the court upheld the restriction on conviction but could states allow a petition after a certain time of good behavior?
 
#8
#8
RollinVol said:
My issue with this law is that if you get convicted of something when you are 18. Such as hitting a girlfriend in the heat of the moment. You can never own a gun ever again. 30 years later you are still done in by a heat of the moment decision that is a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

It's not just hitting a girlfriend or woman. Friend of mine was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence for a fight with his azzhole father-in-law who was living with them at the time. Boom! Right to own a firearm gone!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
I admire the SC for preventing ALL future gun related homicides committed by those with a domestic violence record. It is comforting to know this particular group of people will never be able to acquire, or use, a firearm. Now that this law has been upheld, can we agree the SC should have simply criminalized domestic violence thus eliminating the need for the recent ruling?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
I know a guy now who was just convicted of domestic assault because because his wife was in his face screaming at him while he was trying to go into the bedroom to get away from her. He finally used his forearm to wedge past her into the room and closed the br door. (Didn't push her or shove her. Just pushed past her.)

Opened the BR door to an officer arresting him for DA. Convicted. Given probation.

Cost him court costs and attorneys. Still a bad rap, but not that big of a deal. Unless they want to tell him he can never own a firearm again because of it.

Marry a crazy chick, give up your 2A rights...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
Court got it wrong, IMO. Congress should rewrite 922 to close the loophole. SCOTUS simply closed it through judicial activism with this decision. I am not opposed to the result, but the method and their reasoning was flawed.
 
#16
#16
InVOLuntary said:
Not to mention that many of these cases are he said/she said and the court will often side with the women. I am sure there are many convictions out there that are wrong.
Click to expand...

I had a cousin that ended up arguing with his girlfriend and he left the house. Turns out, she had called the police on him when he left and accused him of hitting her. 6 months later, he gets pulled over in a routine traffic stop (probably busted tail light or going 40 mph in a 30) and ended up having an outstanding warrant.
 
#17
#17
hog88 said:
It's not just hitting a girlfriend or woman. Friend of mine was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence for a fight with his azzhole father-in-law who was living with them at the time. Boom! Right to own a firearm gone!
Click to expand...

Bet not argue with and spank your kids...
 
#18
#18
Hey, is it only limited to a geographic location? What if you hit your wife or father-in-law at a bar but not inside your house? Is that still "domestic" violence?
 
#19
#19
Rasputin_Vol said:
Hey, is it only limited to a geographic location? What if you hit your wife or father-in-law at a bar but not inside your house? Is that still "domestic" violence?
Click to expand...

Yes. If they reside with you it is DA no matter where you are. I think in some cases if they are related to you or in/were a relationship with you it's DA regardless if they live with you or not.
 
#20
#20
VolnJC said:
Maybe one of the lawyers can chime in on this...the court upheld the restriction on conviction but could states allow a petition after a certain time of good behavior?
Click to expand...


No, this was a violation of a federal statute. The crime is federal, so it would have to be Congress that deals with this.

The argument was that it is possible to commit DV more with a sense of recklessness than with intent to cause actual harm, and so, the argument went, such a minor offense with the possibility of no ill will should not qualify.

The interesting thing to see will be whether the NRA gets the GOP to introduce legislation to reform that provision. My guess is that, given the terrible optics of the current gun control issue for the GOP, there is no way they touch it until after November.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
No, this was a violation of a federal statute. The crime is federal, so it would have to be Congress that deals with this.

The argument was that it is possible to commit DV more with a sense of recklessness than with intent to cause actual harm, and so, the argument went, such a minor offense with the possibility of no ill will should not qualify.

The interesting thing to see will be whether the NRA gets the GOP to introduce legislation to reform that provision. My guess is that, given the terrible optics of the current gun control issue for the GOP, there is no way they touch it until after November.
Click to expand...

Yeah not only guns but the "war on women" issue so they get the double whammy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
Are alcoholics (recovering and practicing) allowed driver's licenses? If not, do they cease using automobiles?

Are journalists who knowingly lie denied freedom of the press?

Is a criminal who has served their time and arrested years later for another crime denied presumed innocence until proven guilty in a court because of their history?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top