• 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 gun ban for domestic violence

danarhea

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
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal law intended to keep guns away from domestic violence offenders can apply even if their crime was nothing more than "offensive touching."
The decision was a victory for gun control advocates and groups that work to protect battered spouses and children, and a defeat for gun rights organizations that argued the federal law goes too far.
Click to expand...

The ruling by the Roberts court was unanimous, but I have to ask a question.... What constitutes domestic violence? Is someone who engages in offensive touching prone to become violent with a gun? I agree that that who commit domestic violence, or any crime that involves violence, should lose his right to own a gun, but I believe that the Supreme Court went too far in defining what constitutes the kind of domestic violence that would make someone lose his Second Amendment rights.

Comments?

Article is here.
 
By erring on the side of extreme caution I feel the decision may very well prevent terrible outcomes. When legislating for the millions, there will obviously be times when the hundreds are not covered as intended, yet those few are not terribly effected and in this case might be positively effected in the long run.

Likely the person who was on the other end of the domestic violence will feel some measure of relief.
 
In agreement with Scalia's observation, this is a poor decision; such should be left to the states where the laws may be more easily defended or protested and possibly common sense might prevail.

But that's where Scalia drew the line. In a separate concurring opinion, he ridiculed the court's inclusion of "offensive touching" as a crime triggering the gun ban. Under the definitions of domestic violence used by public interest groups, he said, that could sweep up "acts of omission," "repeated accusations of infidelity" and "name-calling."

"When they (and the court) impose their all-embracing definition on the rest of us, they not only distort the law, they impoverish the language," Scalia wrote. "When everything is domestic violence, nothing is."

Howdy Dana.....:cool:

Thom Paine
 
Thom Paine said:
In agreement with Scalia's observation, this is a poor decision; such should be left to the states where the laws may be more easily defended or protested and possibly common sense might prevail.

But that's where Scalia drew the line. In a separate concurring opinion, he ridiculed the court's inclusion of "offensive touching" as a crime triggering the gun ban. Under the definitions of domestic violence used by public interest groups, he said, that could sweep up "acts of omission," "repeated accusations of infidelity" and "name-calling."

"When they (and the court) impose their all-embracing definition on the rest of us, they not only distort the law, they impoverish the language," Scalia wrote. "When everything is domestic violence, nothing is."

Howdy Dana.....:cool:

Thom Paine
Click to expand...

District atorneys do not use public interest group's definitions to apply the law.
 
Thom Paine said:
hmmm, I'm not following you.... could you add a sentence or two? :)

Thom Paine
Click to expand...
Sure.


he [Scalia] ridiculed the court's inclusion of "offensive touching" as a crime triggering the gun ban. Under the definitions of domestic violence used by public interest groups, he said, that could sweep up "acts of omission," "repeated accusations of infidelity" and "name-calling."
Click to expand...

Scalia's concern was that some "definitions" of domestic violence could result in a person losing gun rights. My point is that definitions that not incorporated into a statute are not considered by procecuting atorneys.
 
1750Texan said:
Sure.
Scalia's concern was that some "definitions" of domestic violence could result in a person losing gun rights. My point is that definitions that not incorporated into a statute are not considered by procecuting atorneys.
Click to expand...

Agreed. generally....

My concern arises from personal observations concerning zealous prosecutors extrapolating legal definitions and that such laws should be left to the states where the electorate can more easily voice differing considerations pre or post enactment.

Good mornin' Tex

Thom Paine
 
I don't mind keeping violent people from having guns. However the gun ban law had better only go after those CONVICTED of the crime and not just because the police intervened in a domestic squabble that they were called on or because some restraining order was put out.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't mind keeping violent people from having guns. However the gun ban law had better only go after those CONVICTED of the crime and not just because the police intervened in a domestic squabble that they were called on or because some restraining order was put out.
Click to expand...


Bingo !!

G' mornin' Kal

Thom Paine
 
tecoyah said:
By erring on the side of extreme caution I feel the decision may very well prevent terrible outcomes. When legislating for the millions, there will obviously be times when the hundreds are not covered as intended, yet those few are not terribly effected and in this case might be positively effected in the long run.

Likely the person who was on the other end of the domestic violence will feel some measure of relief.
Click to expand...

You can't err on the side of caution when it comes to constitutional rights. The SCOTUS many times in cases has chosen the constitutional right over what might be considered common sense. You cannot abridge the constitutional rights of many just to protect a few, that SCOTUS has up help that thinking for many decades
 
Crovax said:
You can't err on the side of caution when it comes to constitutional rights. The SCOTUS many times in cases has chosen the constitutional right over what might be considered common sense. You cannot abridge the constitutional rights of many just to protect a few, that SCOTUS has up help that thinking for many decades
Click to expand...


....Uh....they just did.
 
tecoyah said:
....Uh....they just did.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make it right or consistent with past defenses of constitutional rights

Lets hear you err of the side of caution tale when they start limiting down the 1st amendment.
 
Crovax said:
That doesn't make it right or consistent with past defenses of constitutional rights

Lets hear you err of the side of caution tale when they start limiting down the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that?
 
danarhea said:
The ruling by the Roberts court was unanimous, but I have to ask a question.... What constitutes domestic violence? Is someone who engages in offensive touching prone to become violent with a gun? I agree that that who commit domestic violence, or any crime that involves violence, should lose his right to own a gun, but I believe that the Supreme Court went too far in defining what constitutes the kind of domestic violence that would make someone lose his Second Amendment rights.

Comments?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

then it would appear the court is telling us the right to bear arms can be abridged in particular circumstances
 
If you poke someone with your finger, does that constitute offensive touching?
 
PoS said:
If you poke someone with your finger, does that constitute offensive touching?
Click to expand...

what about restraining someone who is about to commit an act in anger
 
Crovax said:
That doesn't make it right or consistent with past defenses of constitutional rights

Lets hear you err of the side of caution tale when they start limiting down the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

It has already been done in the forms of libel, slander, and assault.
 
1750Texan said:
It has already been done in the forms of libel, slander, and assault.
Click to expand...

libel and slander are a civil matter and are exclusively applied to published works. As for assault you have to show intent, imminence and likelihood which was expanded from "clear and present danger" when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the KKK's rally that called for violence. There was no erring on the side of caution there where the expanded the right despite a possible terrible outcome.
 
tecoyah said:
By erring on the side of extreme caution I feel the decision may very well prevent terrible outcomes. When legislating for the millions, there will obviously be times when the hundreds are not covered as intended, yet those few are not terribly effected and in this case might be positively effected in the long run.

Likely the person who was on the other end of the domestic violence will feel some measure of relief.
Click to expand...

If a person is too dangerous to own a gun, then that person is too dangerous not to be in jail.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't mind keeping violent people from having guns. However the gun ban law had better only go after those CONVICTED of the crime and not just because the police intervened in a domestic squabble that they were called on or because some restraining order was put out.
Click to expand...

It's already illegal to sell a firearm to someone who has a restraining order.
 
Crovax said:
libel and slander are a civil matter and are exclusively applied to published works. As for assault you have to show intent, imminence and likelihood which was expanded from "clear and present danger" when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the KKK's rally that called for violence. There was no erring on the side of caution there where the expanded the right despite a possible terrible outcome.
Click to expand...

Whatever the caveat...each are a restriction to free speech. Are they not?
 
However definitions change and public interest groups often change them. I'll give you a simple example. Mothers Against Drunk Drive changed the legal definition of driving under the influence from .10 to .08 in some places. .07 in one that I know.


1750Texan said:
Sure.




Scalia's concern was that some "definitions" of domestic violence could result in a person losing gun rights. My point is that definitions that not incorporated into a statute are not considered by procecuting atorneys.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom