• 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 Justice Clarence Thomas Breaks Courtroom Silence

I'd say it should be dependent on the class of misdemeanor.

Let's say you have 4 assault and battery convictions. Or 8. At a certain point, aren't you generally a violent person who maybe shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm?
 
calamity said:
Is the ban for life? If so, I agree it is over the top. But, I would definitely support a moratorium on the domestic abuser, male or female, owning or possessing a gun for at least a year.

While we are at it. I totally support banning anyone convicted of using a gun illegally from ever again owning a gun. And, that includes misdemeanor menacing or vandalism type charges. If you misuse a gun, you lose your rights to own one.
Click to expand...

I vandalized a transformer on a telephone pole when I was 18 with a 30-30 rifle. 1 year probation. I have a concealed carry permit today, and held a secret clearance in the Navy in the late 70's. Must be a scary thought for you.....eh? LMAO!
 
calamity said:
Is the ban for life? If so, I agree it is over the top. But, I would definitely support a moratorium on the domestic abuser, male or female, owning or possessing a gun for at least a year.

While we are at it. I totally support banning anyone convicted of using a gun illegally from ever again owning a gun. And, that includes misdemeanor menacing or vandalism type charges. If you misuse a gun, you lose your rights to own one.
Click to expand...

Not for life. You can get your gun back, but with conditions. You must apply to have your rights restored. You can do that 5 years after serving your sentence, and not getting in any trouble during that period. In Texas, you can own a long gun after 2 years without having your rights restored, but are not allowed a hand gun until 5 years and applying for restoration of rights. If owning a long gun with a criminal record, you are not allowed to take it out of your house unless rights have been restored.
 
danarhea said:
Not for life. You can get your gun back, but with conditions. You must apply to have your rights restored. You can do that 5 years after serving your sentence, and not getting in any trouble during that period. In Texas, you can own a long gun after 2 years without having your rights restored, but are not allowed a hand gun until 5 years and applying for restoration of rights. If owning a long gun with a criminal record, you are not allowed to take it out of your house unless rights have been restored.
Click to expand...

IMO, 5 years is too long for a misdemeanor, if no gun violation was involved.
 
Last edited:
BrewerBob said:
I don't know. This doesn't bother me too much. It requires a conviction which is dues process. If you want to know where to draw the line I draw it at violence. Hitting your spouse is violence. Spitting on the sidewalk or shoplifting is not.

Of course, people do change so I would be in favor of there being an expiration date on that gun ban if they don't commit anymore violent crimes.
Click to expand...



CDV convictions do not always involve actual violence.
 
Beaudreaux said:
You may be correct. however, for us to believe that you are in fact correct, we must first believe that Thomas is, as you said, hackish, which I do not agree with. Even in his concurring opinions, he sometimes takes a different route to get there than the majority did. For instance, he believes that the Due Process Clause is used in cases where it doesn't actually work legally, but rather the Privileges and Immunities Clause would have been the more correct legal stance upon which to uphold a right from the Bill of Rights as incorporated to the states. To me, breaking from the majority to speak to an entirely different reason to rule is the opposite of hackish in that although he agrees that a right is a right, he doesn't go along with the overuse and stretched use of both the Commerce Clause to give the Federal Government power over the people as well as the Due Process Clause being used to allow the Federal Government to strip the states and their legislatures of powers intended to be theirs by the 10th Amendment, where the strict textual reading of the Constitution should prevail.

Can you answer Justice Thomas' questions quoted in the article?



They seem like very good questions that deserve an answer. Not hackish at all in my opinion, but direct to the point regarding freedom and liberty and one's individual Constitutional Rights. But, maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...

My answer would be "No, I can't think of another. This is a little different than banning a person from free speech because he yelled at someone. Possession of weapons by a person who has demonstrated a propensity for violence and been convicted of it, rises to a different level."
 
RetiredUSN said:
I vandalized a transformer on a telephone pole when I was 18 with a 30-30 rifle. 1 year probation. I have a concealed carry permit today, and held a secret clearance in the Navy in the late 70's. Must be a scary thought for you.....eh? LMAO!
Click to expand...

In Texas, it is now a LTC (License To Carry) permit, which allows both concealed and open carry. My concealed carry permit automatically converted to a LTC permit when the law went into effect.
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
There are cases where one's rights are limited when they have been convicted of no misdemeanor or crime whatsoever, so the answer is trivially yes.

Can you think of a question that actually backs up his hackish pre-concluded opinion ?
Click to expand...

You are correct. People have their property seized without even being charged with a crime.
 
I wonder if he long ago decided that he would always look like a poor copy next to scalia, and that Scalia always asked the right questions, but that now that he is gone Thomas has decided to step up so that his concerns get addressed.
 
danarhea said:
In Texas, it is now a LTC permit, which allows both concealed and open carry. My concealed carry permit automatically converted to a LTC permit when the law went into effect.
Click to expand...

Virginia is pretty much gun friendly. If I get stopped by LEO's, all I do is tell them I have a weapon with me. They could care less about it, and thank me for telling them.

I recovered Fannie Mae properties throughout Hampton Roads for 4 1/2 years and some of the neighbors would call 911 on me while I was breaking into some of the properties for recovery. I probably had 45-50 call ins. Some times, there would be 5-6 cruisers would come screeching up. After a while, the responding police would ask the 911 dispatcher if it was a tall guy with a white Ford Transit. They knew I was working the area and would stop by to see if I was OK.
 
roguenuke said:
I don't agree with this law at all. There are so many lesser forms of domestic violence that have little connection with intending to do any real harm to that person or any person. Even simply pushing your spouse (like you pushing them away) can be reason for a domestic violence conviction. There is also way to many ways to abuse this law. While I understand that domestic violence is worse in nature than assaulting someone else, there should not be this extra, serious punishment for it because there is no evidence that someone convicted of a single count of misdemeanor domestic violence is going to try to kill their spouse, particularly shoot their spouse. In fact, this also seems to in essence keep the other person from owning a gun as well, otherwise it would be pointless.
Click to expand...

The solution is apply the law better or make the laws differentiate between actual assault and domestic violence.
 
domer76 said:
You are correct. People have their property seized without even being charged with a crime.
Click to expand...

I disagree from Thomas and Scalia on this one. Both supported the police power to collect these when they were used in connection with a crime. I believe there should be a burden of proof met and the asset should have limits to avoid unconstitutional fines.

Thomas leaned towards the unconstitutional but Im not sure why either of them wouldn't find on unlawful seizure.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The solution is apply the law better or make the laws differentiate between actual assault and domestic violence.
Click to expand...

The solution is to use common sense. There are plenty of things that an actual abuser can use to kill the person they are abusing. They don't need a gun. Once it reaches the point where they have shown some inclination to actually be a legitimate threat to someone else's life, they are likely eligible for a felony conviction of some sort. If not, then maybe we should consider changing the domestic violence laws to recognize a person who has multiple such charges and convictions and there is evidence that they are an abuser. I don't like laws that basically guess at someone's future intentions or punish someone for what they might do in the future.
 
roguenuke said:
The solution is to use common sense. There are plenty of things that an actual abuser can use to kill the person they are abusing. They don't need a gun. Once it reaches the point where they have shown some inclination to actually be a legitimate threat to someone else's life, they are likely eligible for a felony conviction of some sort. If not, then maybe we should consider changing the domestic violence laws to recognize a person who has multiple such charges and convictions and there is evidence that they are an abuser. I don't like laws that basically guess at someone's future intentions or punish someone for what they might do in the future.
Click to expand...

Right and that would come down to some sentencing guidelines that will allow the correct application to move away from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Meaning we would have to trust the prosecutor and the judge, to apply the sentencing and plea bargain correctly.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Right and that would come down to some sentencing guidelines that will allow the correct application to move away from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Meaning we would have to trust the prosecutor and the judge, to apply the sentencing and plea bargain correctly.
Click to expand...

We're trusting them now with this, why shouldn't we trust them to have a little more flexibility in applying the law?
 
roguenuke said:
We're trusting them now with this, why shouldn't we trust them to have a little more flexibility in applying the law?
Click to expand...

Im ok with trusting them on the sentencing and which classification to charge under, I refuse to trust them on constitutional rights.
 
nota bene said:
That's what I do--avoid political and religious topics. What ticks me off is that apropos of absolutely nothing, somebody will make an inflammatory remark on _____, and all the others will enthusiastically agree...while I just sit there silently, stifling myself. :twisted:
Click to expand...

i've been in situations like that. when that happens in a social situation, i excuse myself for another drink, and then hope that the conversation somehow shifts to more interesting topics. if it happens at work, i don't touch it with a forty foot cattle prod. i like discussing politics, but i am pretty sensitive about choosing the right time and place.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Im ok with trusting them on the sentencing and which classification to charge under, I refuse to trust them on constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

We essentially are trusting them more by allowing them to be able to even charge them with domestic violence, which leads to a conviction that takes away a person's right to own guns, at least temporarily. Making it so that it takes more than a conviction, but rather having to show an actual pattern in specifically domestic violence convictions in order to take away their ability to own weapons would be much less likely to take away the rights of someone innocent. I'd rather make it simply that they have to be charged with a felony domestic violence conviction, even if that is a new law that requires some sort of evidence of a pattern of abuse, sort of like three strikes laws.
 
roguenuke said:
We essentially are trusting them more by allowing them to be able to even charge them with domestic violence, which leads to a conviction that takes away a person's right to own guns, at least temporarily. Making it so that it takes more than a conviction, but rather having to show an actual pattern in specifically domestic violence convictions in order to take away their ability to own weapons would be much less likely to take away the rights of someone innocent. I'd rather make it simply that they have to be charged with a felony domestic violence conviction, even if that is a new law that requires some sort of evidence of a pattern of abuse, sort of like three strikes laws.
Click to expand...

Right, craft a better law.

Its funny people like to crab about SCOTUS decisions but when they hand one political side of the other a defeat this is usually what they are saying.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Im ok with trusting them on the sentencing and which classification to charge under, I refuse to trust them on constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

If you don't rely on judges re: Constitutional rights, who DO you rely upon?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Right, craft a better law.

Its funny people like to crab about SCOTUS decisions but when they hand one political side of the other a defeat this is usually what they are saying.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine with scrapping this law completely, whatever the SCOTUS decision is on this. I think this federal law is wrong and goes too far. If someone really feels like those who commit domestic violence is a threat to others, to the point where they shouldn't own weapons, then they need to prove the individual himself or herself is a threat, not have a blanket law that declares everyone convicted of this is automatically enough of a threat to not be allowed to own a weapon.
 
domer76 said:
My answer would be "No, I can't think of another. This is a little different than banning a person from free speech because he yelled at someone. Possession of weapons by a person who has demonstrated a propensity for violence and been convicted of it, rises to a different level."
Click to expand...

First, I want it made clear that I feel that any person that physically attacks to harms their spouse or partner is sub-human and should be treated as such. However, they still have rights, as long as their action doesn't rise to the level of a felony. If the person used a gun in their act of violence, then yes, you would be correct because that would be a felony not a misdemeanor. However, there is no logical, legal, or ethical way to create a correlation between a person acting physically violent toward their spouse or partner and them using a gun to kill or attempt to kill a person. And, no, there is no difference between banning someone's right to self defense by preventing them from keeping and bearing arms, and them being banned from exercising their right to freedom of speech - speech is not just words that come out of a person's mouth. For the record, both are acts of tyranny.
 
Beaudreaux said:
First, I want it made clear that I feel that any person that physically attacks to harms their spouse or partner is sub-human and should be treated as such. However, they still have rights, as long as their action doesn't rise to the level of a felony. If the person used a gun in their act of violence, then yes, you would be correct because that would be a felony not a misdemeanor. However, there is no logical, legal, or ethical way to create a correlation between a person acting physically violent toward their spouse or partner and them using a gun to kill or attempt to kill a person. And, no, there is no difference between banning someone's right to self defense by preventing them from keeping and bearing arms, and them being banned from exercising their right to freedom of speech - speech is not just words that come out of a person's mouth. For the record, both are acts of tyranny.
Click to expand...

Not possessing a weapon removes your ability to defend yourself? Where do you live?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom