SCOTUS tramples 2nd AMED rights of domestic abusers!!

[Seahawk]

Abusers are rarely cured, that is why their guns should be taken away once they are convicted of their crime.

And yet, most killings are not because of domestic violence. The issue here is not simply domestic violence, it is the key word "reckless".

This is from the dissent, in which Sotomayor joined parts I and II.

It imposes a lifetime ban on gun ownership for a single intentional nonconsensual touching of a family member. A mother who slaps her 18-year-old son for talking back to her—an intentional use of force—could lose her right to bear arms forever if she is cited by the police under a local ordinance. The majority seeks to expand that already broad rule to any reckless physical injury or nonconsensual touch. I would not extend the statute into that constitutionally problematic territory.

By criminalizing all reckless conduct, the Maine
statute captures conduct such as recklessly injuring a
passenger by texting while driving resulting in a crash.
Petitioners’ charging documents generically recited the
statutory language; they did not charge intentional, knowing,
and reckless harm as alternative counts. Accordingly,
Maine’s statute appears to treat “intentionally, knowingly,
Cite as: 579 U. S. ____ (2016) 5
THOMAS, J., dissenting
or recklessly” causing bodily injury or an offensive touching
as a single, indivisible offense that is satisfied by
recklessness.

 

[Abatis]

22 states require anyone served with a restraining order to relinquish their guns and ammunition - prior to arrest, prior to a hearing, prior to being charged with any crime, and without a conviction.

22 states and the District of Columbia prohibit subjects of domestic violence restraining orders from buying or owning guns.

These states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin

Another nine states expressly authorize—but do not require—courts to include firearm prohibitions in restraining orders.

These states are Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah.



http://everytownresearch.org/reports/guns-and-violence-against-women

But due process is met because 922(g)(8) demands that certain qualifiers be met for a restraining order to be used as a dispossession criteria.

Only RO's that are, "issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;" can be used to forbid someone from owning a gun.

Being notified of the proceeding before the action is taken and possessing the ability to defend yourself at the hearing is a requirement.

I am all for removing guns from anyone who becomes a prohibited person. The fact that some 600,000 QUALIFYING restraining orders / protection from abuse orders are issued annually, makes the fact that only 64,433 records are in the current (May 31, 2016) NICS database a fucking disgrace.

Yeah, the Oblammo administration is very concerned about protecting those women and children most at risk . . .

 

[Legion Troll]

But due process is met because 922(g)(8) demands that certain qualifiers be met for a restraining order to be used as a dispossession criteria.

I don't know where you heard that. What state are you infesting?

The issuance of any restraining order (sometimes called protective order) generally requires that all firearms belonging to the restrained person be sold or surrendered to law enforcement within 24 hours and prohibits handling or having access to any firearm, no matter whom it belongs to.

A temporary restraining order (TRO) can also be ordered by the court when there are claims by an individual of fear, intimidation or of potential for future harm.

After an emergency restraining order or a TRO has been issued, the court of first appearance may issue a criminal protective order or a more permanent restraining order. A criminal protective order is often requested by the district attorney when there are allegations of domestic violence. Non-temporary restraining orders last however long the court orders. A typical restraining order remains in effect for three years.


http://nsanders.com/Gun_Rights.php

 

[Abatis]

I don't know where you heard that. What state are you infesting?

The issuance of any restraining order (sometimes called protective order) generally requires that all firearms belonging to the restrained person be sold or surrendered to law enforcement within 24 hours and prohibits handling or having access to any firearm, no matter whom it belongs to.

A temporary restraining order (TRO) can also be ordered by the court when there are claims by an individual of fear, intimidation or of potential for future harm.

After an emergency restraining order or a TRO has been issued, the court of first appearance may issue a criminal protective order or a more permanent restraining order. A criminal protective order is often requested by the district attorney when there are allegations of domestic violence. Non-temporary restraining orders last however long the court orders. A typical restraining order remains in effect for three years.


http://nsanders.com/Gun_Rights.php

So are you telling me that states can apply a federal law to forbid people from owning a gun but ignore the part of the law that sets out precise guidelines for them to follow . . . that the person doesn't need to be notified before the imposition and there's no need to offer him the opportunity to defend himself?

You are saying that states can take the act of denying a fundamental right and invent ever diminishing criteria to apply firearm dispossession?

Whodathunk?

 

[Legion Troll]

So are you telling me that states can apply a federal law to forbid people from owning a gun but ignore the part of the law that sets out precise guidelines for them to follow . . . that the person doesn't need to be notified before the imposition and there's no need to offer him the opportunity to defend himself?

You are saying that states can take the act of denying a fundamental right and invent ever diminishing criteria to apply firearm dispossession?

Whodathunk?

Take a gander at this:


http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv110.pdf

Page 3, section 9.

At the time the subject is served with a TRO, they have had no hearing, they are not under arrest, and there are no charges pending.

And it isn't just Cali.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Nobody disputes that people who intentionally use force to cause harm to a domestic partner or a child should not own a gun. .

Actually, i would say most people would dispute that. You're saying that spanking a kid means you lose your guns. Or hitting your wife after she hits you. uranidiot

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

No matter what your crime, as long as you are no longer in prison, your gun rights should be same as everyone else. That's what the 2A says.

 

[Legion Troll]

No matter what your crime, as long as you are no longer in prison, your gun rights should be same as everyone else. That's what the 2A says.

That's not what 22 states say.

 

[christiefan915]

That's not what 22 states say.

I wonder if TDAK thinks felons who did their time should be allowed to vote.

 

[Legion Troll]

I wonder if TDAK thinks felons who did their time should be allowed to vote.

Maybe not the black ones. They may not vote the "right" way.

 

[Bill]

Christians are to always accept..... LEGAL RIGHTS. It is not the Christian position that has denied these individuals their states rights, IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT, and Christians are to obey the government powers that be as long as that power does not conflict with God's Laws. Personally I do not deem the right to have a gun after having been convicted of breaking a LAW....much of a right to CARE ABOUT. We are not speaking of a right to LIVE.... a right to food, shelter, health care. etc., that every human being needs. We are addressing a superfluous right that never even approaches any right concerning "the dignity of HUMANITY"....its just like the homosexual issue. SEX is always engaged by free will...if not, you have just been raped. Sex is not a human rights issue because sex is not a requirement to LIVE....the same for gun ownership.

Look it up. I stand by scripture. "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God (meaning these governments could not exist if God did not want them to exist), and these authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists the ordinance of God (Laws of God). And..those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves."-- Rom. 13

Lets see.....shall I pay attention to your judgment based upon ignorance of the actual content of God's ordinance...or do I prefer to be judged by the words of scripture? I choose door number 2. I prefer to be judged IN TRUTH, not ignorance.

I stand by my statement, "Who cares, besides Liberals, about the so called rights of criminals to own and sell guns?" What makes you assume that I base my opinions as a Christian on my own personal positions....when I can and do back up everything I stand for by Book, Chapter and Verse? I need only thing one in defending my position.....The word of God, everything and everyone else's OPINION is moot and I address it by considering the source of its origination....IGNORANCE.

Again....its nothing personal, I judge you to be ignorant of God's word because of the method that "YOU" used in retorting to a demonstrable TRUTH. You personally and in an ad hominem fashion attacked my character in ignorance because you could not retort to the truth being presented. Its typical of any Alinskite.

Does that include the legal right to an abortion??

 

[Abatis]

Take a gander at this:


http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv110.pdf

Page 3, section 9.

At the time the subject is served with a TRO, they have had no hearing, they are not under arrest, and there are no charges pending.

And it isn't just Cali.

I am not disputing that it is so, I'm just pointing out that for some crimes everybody is fine with states taking the federal law and considering it a starting point for restricting a right. As the topic of this thread demonstrates, the 922(g)(9) dispossession can be imposed even for non-intentional "reckless" force. Why shouldn't the 922(g)(8) restraining order criteria be lowered also?

OTOH, for other crimes, say illegally entering the country, states and cities can decide to ignore federal law and even declare their borders to be areas where federal law doesn't apply and of course the feds can forbid states from applying federal law in any manner. It is just interesting to see how the "rule of law" can be bent according to one's political agenda. It will even be more interesting to see if the current advocates of this will be so understanding if the power structure and rights restricting agenda shifts.

 

[Abatis]

Actually, i would say most people would dispute that. You're saying that spanking a kid means you lose your guns. Or hitting your wife after she hits you. uranidiot

Huh? . . . after this SCOTUS decision, the threshold for what constitutes a "Crime of Domestic Violence" now includes incidents where there was no intent to injure. As Justice Thomas said, a father could lose his guns after his child was injured in a traffic accident while he was texting.

The gun prohibition is now imposed upon conviction for "reckless" acts . . . essentially any action that has a criminal charge attached where an family member is hurt can have the "Domestic Violence" gun dispossession imposed.

 

[F_Donald_Weldon]

In a victory for women’s rights and domestic violence advocacy groups, the justices rejected arguments that the law covers only intentional acts of abuse, and held that “a reckless domestic assault qualifies as a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.’” They ruled that gun ownership rights can be denied to those who commit reckless acts of domestic violence.

This really isn’t accurate.

No rights are being ‘denied.’

Rather, a reasonable restriction is being placed on the Second Amendment right, consistent with the settled, accepted fact that no right is ‘unlimited,’ including the right enshrined in the Second Amendment.

 

[Ralph]

Does that include the legal right to an abortion??

NOPE....abortion on demand is murder.

Clearly....comprehension is not one of your better suits. What part of, "....as long as that power does not conflict with the LAWS OF GOD, which are always superior to the laws of men." DID YOU NOT COMPREHEND? In order to COMPREHEND a statement and determine its projected message.....it must be read in its entire context. You read one sentence but failed to read the "qualifier" that proceeded that statement. Not surprising in the least....GOT YA MOMENTS are often rushed into void of any understanding.

Does the government making an immoral law contrary to the laws of God....make the Christian a liar if he follows the righteous laws from that same government? Of course not. The legality of abortion on demand is a PERSONAL SIN....you can sin if you want and abort all your children, but YOUR SIN cannot be passed unto me. Now if a Government passed an immoral law that stated, ALL CITIZENS must abort any female child that is born.....Christians would have the authorized authority from God to REBEL against such unrighteousness.

Are we clear....and unambiguous now? I would label anyone claiming to be a Christian while using the excuse of "....its legal" in order to abort his/her child and the responsibility of parenthood that goes along with it..... A SINFUL HYPOCRITE. That law did not make anyone abort their children....the choice to murder their children is a personal choice.....and any Physician who had to take an oath that stated, "FIRST DO NO HARM...." that aided in that personal decision........ should be righteously labeled a criminal by any moral person.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Who cares about the rights of those who are charged, convicted and sentenced for committing a crime..ie., criminals....other than LIBERALS?

so you believe that someone who shoplifted a loaf of bread to feed their kids should be subject to jailhouse rape and violence for being convicted and sentenced for committing a crime?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Christians are to always accept..... LEGAL RIGHTS. It is not the Christian position that has denied these individuals their states rights, IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT, and Christians are to obey the government powers that be as long as that power does not conflict with God's Laws. Personally I do not deem the right to have a gun after having been convicted of breaking a LAW....much of a right to CARE ABOUT. We are not speaking of a right to LIVE.... a right to food, shelter, health care. etc., that every human being needs. We are addressing a superfluous right that never even approaches any right concerning "the dignity of HUMANITY"....its just like the homosexual issue. SEX is always engaged by free will...if not, you have just been raped. Sex is not a human rights issue because sex is not a requirement to LIVE....the same for gun ownership.

Look it up. I stand by scripture. "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God (meaning these governments could not exist if God did not want them to exist), and these authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists the ordinance of God (Laws of God). And..those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves."-- Rom. 13

Lets see.....shall I pay attention to your judgment based upon ignorance of the actual content of God's ordinance...or do I prefer to be judged by the words of scripture? I choose door number 2. I prefer to be judged IN TRUTH, not ignorance.

I stand by my statement, "Who cares, besides Liberals, about the so called rights of criminals to own and sell guns?" What makes you assume that I base my opinions as a Christian on my own personal positions....when I can and do back up everything I stand for by Book, Chapter and Verse? I need only one thing in defending my position.....The word of God, everything and everyone else's OPINION is moot and I address it by considering the source of its origination....IGNORANCE.

Again....its nothing personal, I judge you to be ignorant of God's word because of the method that "YOU" used in retorting to a demonstrable TRUTH. You personally and in an ad hominem fashion attacked my character in ignorance because you could not retort to the truth being presented. Its typical of any Alinskite.

it seems you have absolutely zero clue about what human rights are, much less legal rights.

 

[Legion Troll]

it seems you have absolutely zero clue about what human rights are, much less legal rights.

God's law.

 

[Ralph]

so you believe that someone who shoplifted a loaf of bread to feed their kids should be subject to jailhouse rape and violence for being convicted and sentenced for committing a crime?

Its moot...WHAT I BELIEVE...as I said before....its THE STATE, THE GOVERNMENT that presents the charges, introduces the evidence, and passes sentences based upon those findings of evidence. I simply adhere to the WORD OF GOD. Void of having any direct knowledge and personally witnessing any of these hypothetical crimes....I could never pass a righteous judgement one way or another. Again....is that UNAMBIGUOUS ENOUGH for your comprehension level?

 

[Ralph]

it seems you have absolutely zero clue about what human rights are, much less legal rights.

Its SEEMS?....nope,,,,there is nothing ad hominem (an emotionally based accusation void of any kind of objective evidence) whatsoever with that personal attack. Again, I have defined what constitutes a human right.....to deny anyone of a human right one would have to deny any THE RIGHT TO LIFE through taking away any of the basic requirements of life. Food, Shelter, etc.......and they would have to take away these things VOID OF ANY KIND OF "DUE PROCESS". Again....laugh my ass off to what ends some idiots will go to argue void of reason, logic or TRUTH.

Tis not MY SIN if you choose to ignore common law brought about by the will of the people....its a personal problem that you may have with authority....as for "me" I have the word of God that judges...your ignorance of that word effects me in no way. If you want to address HUMAN RIGHTS....what about the right to life for the unborn once they have been created into humanity? Who defends them with any kind of due process whatsoever? What charge might alone what conviction has the STATE brought against them that requires dismemberment? Since when is "inconvenience" a crime against humanity?

Its easy to get entertained on this site.....just wind some idiot up and watch as they come spinning out the corner their own words of ignorance have painted into. I got popcorn.....proceed with your emotionally based anger and spinning. Its proves that you most certainly are SMARTER THAN ME. As a retired military veteran I can tell you one thing......when you allow anger to dictate your actions....you have already made the first decision that will ultimately cost you THE BATTLE.