The Supreme Court in a unanimous 9-0 vote strengthened the law that states if someone is found guilty of domestic violence, even if no actual violence was proved, they can’t own a gun.
What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ regarding the 2nd Amendment do these ‘justices’ not understand?
To take someone’s gun because they have been involved in domestic violence will NOT stop domestic violence from occurring in the future.
These 2 issues are not related in any way.
See Page 2 For Complete Story:
Dumb!
impeach the Supreme Court, they do not follow constitutional law !
this is another mistake by the supreme court, when are they going to follow the constitution like it says instead of following Obama in destroying the rights of the American people.
Understand also, The Violence Against Women Act!! Under it, A MAN is denied “Equal Protection Under The Law” AND “Due Prossess Under The Law”!! Any man that goes up against this Law/Group/A Woman, LOOSES in every COURT because The Lawyers and Judges are paid to JUDGE AGAINST THE MAN. It’s CORRUPTION at it’s best!! There isn’t any Violence Against Men Act!! Every State also has a LAW JUST FOR WOMEN!! NONE for men!! The whole thing is BS and Illegal, a LIE, when you start compairing numbers!! The woman doesn’t even have to prove abuse, can lie in Court, say whatever she wants!! Then the Lawyers and JUDGES, BOTH, rob the man of anything that woman wants!! Further, The PuppetMasters make Statutes not LAWS!! Laws don’t count in the Illegal Admirility COURTS!!!
It’s supposed to be 10 years and the if they go 10 yrs then it’s ok and I agree
Oh gee that is sure to stop a man from beating up his wife and kids… How dumb are these Justices??? Most Proven criminals can’t own guns anyway… duh..
But most state and federal laws preclude a person suffering from a violent mental illness or having committed and found guilty of violent crime from purchasing or owning firearms. This doesn’t seem to be an actual gun control issue. Unstable violent criminals have given up the right to own guns by their own actions. This is part of allowing law abiding citizens to own firearms but not allowing criminals. I do not see the conflict. We need correct gun ownership protections. I do not want a violent uncontrolled person misusing a gun to infringe on my rights to own one.
What is the problem with this is making sure that te law is ultra specific and not too general and open to multiple interpretations. We have too many laws that are not specific enough and that allows lawyers and courts to bend and reshape the actual intent of a law.
This ruling may need refinement to make sure that the guilty party has more than one incident of proven violence. If written tightly enough this can be a deterrent to some crime by keeping a firearm or making a firearm much harder to acquire for an unstable person. The only other problem I see is that it has to be enforced and we already know how difficult enforcement is in this country.
Dennis Deitsch
But most state and federal laws preclude a person suffering from a violent mental illness or having committed and found guilty of violent crime from purchasing or owning firearms. This doesn’t seem to be an actual gun control issue. Unstable violent criminals have given up the right to own guns by their own actions. This is part of allowing law abiding citizens to own firearms but not allowing criminals. I do not see the conflict. We need correct gun ownership protections. I do not want a violent uncontrolled person misusing a gun to infringe on my rights to own one.
What is the problem with this is making sure that te law is ultra specific and not too general and open to multiple interpretations. We have too many laws that are not specific enough and that allows lawyers and courts to bend and reshape the actual intent of a law.
This ruling may need refinement to make sure that the guilty party has more than one incident of proven violence. If written tightly enough this can be a deterrent to some crime by keeping a firearm or making a firearm much harder to acquire for an unstable person. The only other problem I see is that it has to be enforced and we already know how difficult enforcement is in this country.
Dennis Deitsch http://to-be-prepared.com
That’s not constitutional..
http://behindthebluewall.blogspot.com/2008/01/vt-cpl-daniels-gets-sweet-for-tactical.html#comment-form