SCOTUS vs Domestic Violence prohibition of firearms.

[DadSmith]

Advocates: Next SCOTUS gun rights decision will clarify N.Y. laws

The decision isn't expected until late spring 2024.

spectrumlocalnews.com

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this fall to decide if a 1994 federal statute prohibiting anyone actively subject to a domestic violence restraining order from having firearms is constitutional. It will likely impact legal challenges to new gun laws New York lawmakers passed quickly in response to SCOTUS' decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen last year. (AP)

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Advocates: Next SCOTUS gun rights decision will clarify N.Y. laws

The decision isn't expected until late spring 2024.

spectrumlocalnews.com

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this fall to decide if a 1994 federal statute prohibiting anyone actively subject to a domestic violence restraining order from having firearms is constitutional. It will likely impact legal challenges to new gun laws New York lawmakers passed quickly in response to SCOTUS' decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen last year. (AP)

I have mixed feelings about that. If someone has been convicted and served their time (real time, not a slap on the wrist and right back out on the streets) for domestic abuse, then maybe they should have their rights restored. A repeat offender? Nope. I have no use for men that abuse women. Best possible outcome is for the woman to be armed and kill her abuser.

 

[actaeon277]

I have mixed feelings about that. If someone has been convicted and served their time (real time, not a slap on the wrist and right back out on the streets) for domestic abuse, then maybe they should have their rights restored. A repeat offender? Nope. I have no use for men that abuse women. Best possible outcome is for the woman to be armed and kill her abuser.

Then, the best solution for a felon that doesn't "learn".. keep him in, or execute.
After all, if they can't get a gun (somehow), plenty of other ways to commit violence.

 

[radar8756]

Isn't the Restraining Order BEFORE they are Convicted ?

Had a Ex-Girlfriend lie to the cops which ended up costing me $$$ ... but that is à really long story

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Then, the best solution for a felon that doesn't "learn".. keep him in, or execute.
After all, if they can't get a gun (somehow), plenty of other ways to commit violence.

Bullet from the woman is quicker, and no court or lodging costs.

 

[actaeon277]

Though, this is about a restraining order, and not on whether felons can have guns.

I would think the argument would be, stopping someone who hasn't had a trial.
On the other hand, if someone is doing certain things, do you wait for them to kill.

If someone keeps voicing intent, and intimidating, are you going to wait?

 

[radar8756]

...
If someone keeps voicing intent, and intimidating, are you going to wait?

my point is the Proof -

Just going on "she said" he threatened is NOT Proof -

Especially with all the Cellphone Cameras & Go-Pros --- get it on Video

Video can also be faked / edited - see how many are posted that start several minutes into the encounter - just their point of view

 

[actaeon277]

my point is the Proof -

Just going on "she said" he threatened is NOT Proof -

Especially with all the Cellphone Cameras & Go-Pros --- get it on Video

Video can also be faked / edited - see how many are posted that start several minutes into the encounter - just their point of view

And if you have the proof, such as the cell phone provider has records of calls made, and threatening texts sent
police witnesses
neighbors
etc?

 

[Mgderf]

Best....is for the woman to be armed

This is all that needs said.

 

[Ark]

The notion of being able to cry to a judge and get a piece of paper signed taking someone's rights away without trial is unconstitutional on its face.

 

[actaeon277]

I have mixed feelings about that. If someone has been convicted and served their time (real time, not a slap on the wrist and right back out on the streets) for domestic abuse, then maybe they should have their rights restored. A repeat offender? Nope. I have no use for men that abuse women. Best possible outcome is for the woman to be armed and kill her abuser.

I know someone that was very anti-gun.
Till... she needed a pistol.

Now, she's "okay" with pistols.
But we don't need those "assault rifles".

Sigh.
I told her, if she'd have had her way with the pistols, she'd be dead right now cause she would have banned the pistol she needed.

 

[TrueSeanamus]

It’s unconstitutional to curtail someone’s constitutional rights until they are restricted by a judge after a fair trial from my understanding.

that would make red flag laws and being disarmed by the state without said trial unconstitutional from my point of view.

And I think abusers are disgusting pieces of but I also acknowledge there are a lot of false accusations especially in the heat of an argument. Best solution to me is for the vulnerable party to have a restraining order against the person they are threatened by to hopefully cool things down, and when the piece of paper fails, have a gun to be able to protect themselves if they are truly in danger.

My stance on felons/criminals and guns is, If they are able to be out of jail/prison, their rights should no longer be curtailed.

If they can’t be trusted to be in society as full members, then they should stay locked up until they can. (Obviously only for physically violent offenders ie rapists, convicted abusers, murderers, etc. not stuff like Perry potheads doobie or something.)

 

[radar8756]

And if you have the proof, such as the cell phone provider has records of calls made, and threatening texts sent
police witnesses
neighbors
etc?

Due Process

Each side presents and Judge decides

 

[KellyinAvon]

Not enough time to type out everything I'm thinking. One can be against domestic violence and for Constitutional Rights at the same time.

TV behind me had more info on Deputy Durm's murder. The POS murderer (who was in jail because he murdered his baby-Momma in front of the child's daycare last Fall, IIRC had an domestic violence order of protection on him at the time) had a long history of domestic and other violence.

Is this a lack of laws or a lack of prosecution?

I work with a lady whose sister was murdered by her ex. He was out on an ankle monitor after assaulting her with a hammer when he committed the murder.

And Revolving Door Ryan got 60% of the vote.

 

[KLB]

And if you have the proof, such as the cell phone provider has records of calls made, and threatening texts sent
police witnesses
neighbors
etc?

There are actual crimes that people can be charged with if there is evidence of death threats.

Not to mention someone intent on killing someone else isn't going to follow this restriction anyway.