Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

US supreme court upholds ban on domestic abusers possessing guns


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

 

Seems reasonable to me. But hey, I suppose that explains why Clarence "RV" Thomas dissented.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good ruling.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Good ruling.

Agreed.  As Roberts said - it's just common sense.  A violent, abusive, threatening person is a serious danger.  My only caveat would be that that person - male or female - should have the chance to defend themselves in court and if a judge determined they'd been set up or maligned by the former partner, they should be able to have those accusations struck from their record and have their 2A right returned to them.  It's pointless to imagine that both men and women might not decide to harm a former partner out of sheer spite.  In those cases, keep a restraining order in place but restore their 2A right.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and-then said:

Agreed.  As Roberts said - it's just common sense.  A violent, abusive, threatening person is a serious danger.  My only caveat would be that that person - male or female - should have the chance to defend themselves in court and if a judge determined they'd been set up or maligned by the former partner, they should be able to have those accusations struck from their record and have their 2A right returned to them.  It's pointless to imagine that both men and women might not decide to harm a former partner out of sheer spite.  In those cases, keep a restraining order in place but restore their 2A right.

I was thinking of that too.  If a man has several nice guns he really likes and likes to shoot them at the range with friends, an ex wife (or girlfriend) could get them taken away pretty easily.  

i'm glad I have guns that are not registered.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 If there is enough evidence of the possibility of physical violence  to justify a restraining order ….then…uh,  hello?  
   ..does the first amendment give everyone the immutable right to talk someone else to death?     Rights must have limits…because we are not alone in this world.

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are frequent stories about women being shot by ex-husbands or boyfriends  under restraining orders.  Restraining orders are for honest people just like the10 Commandments are for real Christians. .

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, lightly said:

does the first amendment give everyone the immutable right to talk someone else to death?  

A married man say what? :lol:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lightly said:

 If there is enough evidence of the possibility of physical violence  to justify a restraining order 
   ..

That is what is unclear.  If a woman says she feels threatened, typically a restraining order is granted.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is gonna make at least 40% of police very upset

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lightly said:

If there is enough evidence of the possibility of physical violence  to justify a restraining order ….then…uh,  hello?

Absolutely true, so the person who brings the action should have no problem with being able to offer evidence to convince a jury or a non-politicized bench.  I'm not saying it has to be adjudicated before confiscating the weapon.  Remember "#me too"?  That turned out to be a rather sketchy, hit or miss proposition.  All I'm saying is, no one should have a basic Constitutionally declared Right, arbitrarily removed without the citizen getting Due Process.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Myles said:

That is what is unclear.  If a woman says she feels threatened, typically a restraining order is granted.  

And in such situations it is appropriate to err on the side of her safety.  BUT, sometimes these are based on lies and the person making the charge should easily be able to bring video, audio, or eyewitness evidence to back the claim.  If she or HE can't do that then a judge can still keep a restraining order in place but the accused should not be stripped of a basic right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

There are frequent stories about women being shot by ex-husbands or boyfriends  under restraining orders.  Restraining orders are for honest people just like the10 Commandments are for real Christians. .

If a free nation's responsibility to provide Due Process isn't for ALL of its citizens, then it isn't a free nation.  If a woman is threatened in such a way, it is telegraphed well in advance of the predator taking action.  She can go to law enforcement to remove him for the short term while she proves he's actually a danger.  In those situations cops can verify the behaviors of the spouse/partner and the firearm(s) be confiscated.  There is no reason that confiscation needs to be permanent unless the accusation is proved in court.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lightly said:

Rights must have limits…because we are not alone in this world.

Does that include a woman's right to make such an accusation without need of proving the claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who are nattering on about due process without looking into the relevant facts:

Quote

18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8), a federal statute that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. A prosecution under Section 922(g)(8) may proceed only if the restraining order meets certain statutory criteria.

To wit:

Quote

(8)is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—

(A)
was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i)
includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii)
by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

So, I'm sure everyone will be happy, now that they've learned things.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, and-then said:

If a free nation's responsibility to provide Due Process isn't for ALL of its citizens, then it isn't a free nation.  If a woman is threatened in such a way, it is telegraphed well in advance of the predator taking action.  She can go to law enforcement to remove him for the short term while she proves he's actually a danger.  In those situations cops can verify the behaviors of the spouse/partner and the firearm(s) be confiscated.  There is no reason that confiscation needs to be permanent unless the accusation is proved in court.  

I agree.  I'm just saying it becomes an irresolvable tragedy.  The telegraph part is why she gets the restraining order.  If he comes back again, she may already be shot by the  time the cops show up.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone here at all surprised that AT takes issue with abusers not being able to own guns and has gripes with the MeToo movement?

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, and-then said:

Does that include a woman's right to make such an accusation without need of proving the claim?

As far as I know,  yes.  As far as I know accusations are not illegal.  Until and unless someone takes your to court over it..and it is then decided that the ,unproved, accusation was  “ illegal “. .in as much as it Violated someone else’s rights.  As with  Slander, Liable, or whatever legal charge can be made.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, and-then said:

My only caveat would be that that person - male or female - should have the chance to defend themselves in court and if a judge determined they'd been set up or maligned by the former partner

Umm, yea, I think that occurs during the, you know...trial?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, and-then said:

And in such situations it is appropriate to err on the side of her safety.  BUT, sometimes these are based on lies and the person making the charge should easily be able to bring video, audio, or eyewitness evidence to back the claim.  If she or HE can't do that then a judge can still keep a restraining order in place but the accused should not be stripped of a basic right.

Another option is to expand the stand your ground law and keep 2A unchanged.   If a person threatens to kill you, then you have the right to shoot them right on the spot then and there because you felt your life was in danger.  A body cam or phone footage would help establish ones defense.  Everybody should have one along with a firearm.

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

 Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.