• 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

CalGun said:
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.
Click to expand...

The catalyst for changing a statute is irrelevant.

Either Justice Scalia was incorrect in predicting public interest groups' "definitions" wouild influence domestic violence convictions[without corresponding legislation]...or he was incorrect in predicting that, public interest groups' "influence" that would change statutes, is a unwanted outcome.
 
Last edited:
Justice Scalia was warning that the broad scope and possibly broader scope of the term warrant concern - if you can't see that thru your partisan colored glasses they'll too thick to see thru.

1750Texan said:
The catalyst for changing a statute is irrelevant.

Either Justice Scalia was incorrect in predicting public interest groups' "definitions" wouild influence domestic violence convictions[without corresponding legislation]...or he was incorrect in predicting that, public interest groups' "influence" that would change statutes, is a unwanted outcome.
Click to expand...
 
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...

Well, I have a friend who was a victim of domestic violence by her mentally-unstable husband. He used to cross his arms in front of him and walk into her pushing her into walls, over cocktail tables, etc. He didn't beat her, he didn't grab her, but he treated her violently nonetheless.

Domestic violence has a nasty habit of escalating. It seems over the top for it to be a lifetime ban, but I understand their reasoning.
 
apdst said:
It's already illegal to sell a firearm to someone who has a restraining order.
Click to expand...

That's my point, it shouldn't be. You can get a restraining order simply on a lie. No proof necessary. Just a "oh he scares me!"
 
CalGun said:
Justice Scalia was warning that the broad scope and possibly broader scope of the term warrant concern - if you can't see that thru your partisan colored glasses they'll too thick to see thru.
Click to expand...

You view my opinion as "partisan colored". That is on you.

May opinion was based on a simple opinion by Justice Scalia...It had nothing to do with gun rights, drunk driving, domestic violence, sexism, male rights, conservatism or liberalism. It was my assessment of an 'incorrect" prediction.
 
Last edited:
Are those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence also banned (for life) from becoming law enforcement, security guards or joining the military?
 
1750Texan said:
Whatever the caveat...each are a restriction to free speech. Are they not?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying the rights are unlimited. The point is the restrictions on free speech are very very narrow and each successive SCOTUS case has reduced the restrictions on free speech.
 
Crovax said:
I don't think anyone is saying the rights are unlimited. The point is the restrictions on free speech are very very narrow and each successive SCOTUS case has reduced the restrictions on free speech.
Click to expand...

This is your response[#10] when Tecoyah agreed with erring on the side of caution.

You can't err on the side of caution when it comes to constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

My initial response was to show that indeed it had been done.
 
Shameful nonsense. Anyone with any sense should see this is a violation of the second amendment.
 
There are sio many questions...

What exactly is "domestic violence". Violence and abuse are radically different. In the fed system for military personnel, abuse includes physical, verbal, sexual, mental abuse, as well as neglect and threats to withhold both fiscal support and emotional support.

Assuming the legislation SPECIFIES battery type offenses...I think I would support it. Still...is that a lifetime ban? Then surely no one can be upset about felon loss of rights for their lifetime as well. And what of the all too common instance where the couple stays together? Does the battered spouse also lose their rights? What of children living in the home or for that matter...other adults? Lots of questions.
 
Henrin said:
Can you show how libel and slander violate your rights?
Click to expand...

do those limitations not impair your right to free speech?
 
justabubba said:
do those limitations not impair your right to free speech?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is why I was asking what rights are violated by libel or slander.
 
Henrin said:
Shameful nonsense. Anyone with any sense should see this is a violation of the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Anyone with a brain cell that would understand this law will save lives.
 
Henrin said:
It also violates rights.
Click to expand...

does refusing you permission to personally own a nuclear warhead violate your second amendment right to keep and bear arms?
 
justabubba said:
does refusing you permission to personally own a nuclear warhead violate your second amendment right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...

How would I ever acquire a nuclear warhead?
 
Deuce said:
So it's ok to ban arms that are tough to get. Good to know!
Click to expand...

I never said that. I'm just wondering how I would get one if they were legal. Would companies be able to make them cheap enough so that the common man can buy them at the store?
 
Henrin said:
I never said that. I'm just wondering how I would get one if they were legal. Would companies be able to make them cheap enough so that the common man can buy them at the store?
Click to expand...

Why is the difficulty or expense in acquiring a weapon part of your equation regarding the second amendment?
 
Deuce said:
Why is the difficulty or expense in acquiring a weapon part of your equation regarding the second amendment?
Click to expand...

because he knows what is coming once he directly answers the asked question
his answer will be used to destroy his argument
 
Henrin said:
It also violates rights.
Click to expand...

What people do not understand is that rights come with responsibilities. Who can do absolutely anything they want without having to worry if they are bothering somebody else? The answer to that question is easy.... A baby. He will cry when he is hungry, will scream when he wants his diaper changed, and throw a tantrum when he is told he has to take a nap. But we understand that, because he is a baby after all. As he matures, he then begins to take on responsibility, and tantrums are then returned with punishment. It's the same with our rights. We have the first amendment, but we are not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. And we have the second amendment, but are not allowed to threaten our neighbors or family with violence. Those who scream bloody murder that limiting gun ownership in this way are just like the babies I mentioned earlier. They want all the rights without any of the responsibilities that go with those rights. In the real world, and in America, it just does not work that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom