Federal appeals court expands gun rights

[MadonnaProject]

I know there's americans in this thread (mostly) so whilst not intending to cast pearls at swine, if I may say - why are you focusing on this being an issue where the domestic abuser might be able to get a gun. If someone is going to break the law they will get a gun irrespective, however wouldn't it stand to reason this also allows a victim of abuse or someone intending on self defense to have the firearm which may save their life?

but no, aericans hear the word trump and start frothing at the mouth.

Post automatically merged: Feb 4, 2023

I know there's americans in this thread (mostly) so whilst not intending to cast pearls at swine, if I may say - why are you focusing on this being an issue where the domestic abuser might be able to get a gun. If someone is going to break the law they will get a gun irrespective, however wouldn't it stand to reason this also allows a victim of abuse or someone intending on self defense to have the firearm which may save their life?

but no, aericans hear the word trump and start frothing at the mouth.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

however wouldn't it stand to reason this also allows a victim of abuse or someone intending on self defense to have the firearm which may save their life?

By the time I have sent this message, the victim would be dead. In less than a full complete second.
Again, ya'll assume that they abuser is going to scream and shout. AND THEN the pull the gun out, for the victim to see and pull out theirs.

That's not how that would play out, the abuser is going to be extra pissed that they got a restraining order against them. and they'll pop that person without warning, no indication.
20 milliseconds is what your up against. 20 milliseconds is the amount of time it takes to pull the trigger.
For comparison, it takes 100 milseconds for us to complete a full blink.

Instead of presuming the victim is going to have enough time to pull out their weapon in less than 20 miliseconds and fire. Or be lucky to at least see the abuser pulling out the gun and comprehend it within that time frame. And have the training and the skill to both pull out the fire arm, and aim it within that near exact time period. Which is pretty unrealistic because the abuser pulled out the gun first and likely will be able to fire first.

It's better to prevent the abuser from getting a firearm.
Because with this court ruling, it punishes the victims, and enables the abuser.
Instead of the victim having to worry about that abuser most likely violating the restraining order. They now have to worry about a unforseen gun they can pull. And have MUCH MUCH easier access to that option.

Edit: for some reason I said microseconds. That is incorrect. 0.2 was referring to seconds. I have amended my posts with that change.

Post automatically merged: Feb 4, 2023

You are admitting that restraining orders are worthless. The aggressor should be nowhere close to the other person to even use a gun

Not really. And two
The aggressor shouldn't have a damn gun in the first place.
The aggressor comes at any point close the victim. The victim can call police fight back whatever it takes. Including, threatening with a gun.
and threaten even more legal action.
You can't do that while your dead.
The victim cannot do that when they are shot first. And that's a situation they should never be put in.
The abuser is going to have to make their case why they should be able to have a fire arm again. That's how it should be.

Not this insane court ruling where the victim has to defend themselves, AGAIN.
The victim shouldn't have to make a case asking that they (the government) don't give the piece of crap who has already assaulted them, more power.

 

[TraderPatTX]

The fourth amendment requires a judge or jury consider the case, and due process requires the same. Proper legal procedure is followed when it comes to red flag laws, certainly more so than when it comes to no-knock warrants being issued.

The 4th Amendment requires a judge or jury to make a decision of guilty/not guilty in a case. Due process requires both parties to be present in court so the defendant can actually, you know, defend themselves. Restraining orders are served to people outside of court along with a court summons.

And you know full well that there has been no meaningful police reform since 1991, if anything they've since been granted carte blanche to get away with even more criminal activity. Once again you demonstrate that you aren't capable of arguing in good faith.

Doesn't matter. You can't assign malice to people from a source of different people. You continue to gaslight and then say I don't argue in good faith. Gtfoh, LOL!!!!

 

[x65943]

I know there's americans in this thread (mostly) so whilst not intending to cast pearls at swine, if I may say - why are you focusing on this being an issue where the domestic abuser might be able to get a gun. If someone is going to break the law they will get a gun irrespective, however wouldn't it stand to reason this also allows a victim of abuse or someone intending on self defense to have the firearm which may save their life?

but no, aericans hear the word trump and start frothing at the mouth.

Post automatically merged: Feb 4, 2023

I know there's americans in this thread (mostly) so whilst not intending to cast pearls at swine, if I may say - why are you focusing on this being an issue where the domestic abuser might be able to get a gun. If someone is going to break the law they will get a gun irrespective, however wouldn't it stand to reason this also allows a victim of abuse or someone intending on self defense to have the firearm which may save their life?

but no, aericans hear the word trump and start frothing at the mouth.

Victims of abuse could always get guns in the US so I don't know what this comment has to do with the news story

The only thing that changed is those under restrictions for domestic abuse/accused of such no longer have the restrictions

 

[The Catboy]

Anyone convinced of demotic abuse shouldn’t be allowed to get a gun. Not just that but honestly a lot of people shouldn’t be allowed to have guns and a basic psychological test and social media screening could easily weed them out. There’s a reason why the US is literally the only devolved country with such a massive gun problem and it’s definitely not because the “good guys” don’t have guns. And no, denying these people guns doesn’t not violate their 2nd amendment rights. It is not your God given right to own a gun.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Anyone convinced of demotic abuse shouldn’t be allowed to get a gun. Not just that but honestly a lot of people shouldn’t be allowed to have guns and a basic psychological test and social media screening could easily weed them out. There’s a reason why the US is literally the only devolved country with such a massive gun problem and it’s definitely not because the “good guys” don’t have guns. And no, denying these people guns doesn’t not violate their 2nd amendment rights. It is not your God given right to own a gun.

Your authoritarianism is showing.

 

[Hanafuda]

Anyone convinced of demotic abuse shouldn’t be allowed to get a gun.

I assume you meant "convicted" and "domestic," but that is the law and has been the law for a long time. Almost 30 years. Look up: Lautenburg amendment.

Of course, a lot of people out there who've been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors possess a firearm anyway, just as many convicted felons do, even though the law prohibits it. That's because gun control laws only restrict the behavior of people who obey the law. Just like how drunks and drug addicts keep on driving DUI even after their license is revoked. The law only works on people who obey it. And people who obey the law, generally, don't do violence anyway, without justifiable circumstances. Ironic, isn't it?

Anyway, the decision being discussed in this thread is about "domestic violence restraining orders" which are issued when a person simply alleges to a magistrate, family law judge, or other judge (depending on state law) that they are in fear of their domestic partner. It's not an allegation of a crime, it's not a conviction for committing any crime. It's just a warning to stay away from the person who asked for the order. Until this decision, 18 US Code 922(g)(8) said those people also couldn't possess firearms, and if they already owned any then law enforcement would require their surrender. It was a deprivation of their civil rights, even though there had been no proof or adjudication that they had done anything wrong. Well, unless the US Supreme Court reverses the decision (it's possible, but I wouldn't hold breath waiting), 922(g)(8) is now defunct.

 

[The Catboy]

I assume you meant "convicted" and "domestic," but that is the law and has been the law for a long time. Almost 30 years. Look up: Lautenburg amendment.

Of course, a lot of people out there who've been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors possess a firearm anyway, just as many convicted felons do, even though the law prohibits it. That's because gun control laws only restrict the behavior of people who obey the law. Just like how drunks and drug addicts keep on driving DUI even after their license is revoked. The law only works on people who obey it. And people who obey the law, generally, don't do violence anyway, without justifiable circumstances. Ironic, isn't it?

Anyway, the decision being discussed in this thread is about "domestic violence restraining orders" which are issued when a person simply alleges to a magistrate, family law judge, or other judge (depending on state law) that they are in fear of their domestic partner. It's not an allegation of a crime, it's not a conviction for committing any crime. It's just a warning to stay away from the person who asked for the order. Until this decision, 18 US Code 922(g)(8) said those people also couldn't possess firearms, and if they already owned any then law enforcement would require their surrender. It was a deprivation of their civil rights, even though there had been no proof or adjudication that they had done anything wrong. Well, unless the US Supreme Court reverses the decision (it's possible, but I wouldn't hold breath waiting), 922(g)(8) is now defunct.

I am sorry but why is it always an argument of "bad people will do bad thing anyways?" Just because they will doesn't mean they should be enabled to through legal means. If someone shouldn't legally own a gun, then their guns should be taken away from them for violating the restrictions put on them. Someone convicted of domestic violence they should not own a gun, they are a threat to their victims and future victims. You can explain the law to me but honestly, I do not care.

 

[Hanafuda]

Someone convicted of domestic violence they should not own a gun

I already said, they can't. Not legally. This thread is about something different.

 

[TraderPatTX]

I am sorry but why is it always an argument of "bad people will do bad thing anyways?" Just because they will doesn't mean they should be enabled to through legal means. If someone shouldn't legally own a gun, then their guns should be taken away from them for violating the restrictions put on them. Someone convicted of domestic violence they should not own a gun, they are a threat to their victims and future victims. You can explain the law to me but honestly, I do not care.

You want to take guns away from people who can legally have them and make it easier for the police, who I believe somebody mentioned earlier tend to abuse their power, to take guns away from people, giving the police even more power.

In a nutshell, the left wants to give the police even more power to take away people's right to self defense over accusations of thought crimes (not actual crimes), but also complain that the police abuse their power and are domestic abusers themselves from a poll taken in 1991.

Riddle me this... why would any gun owner hand over their weapons to a bunch of white supremacist cops? Isn't police brutality bad enough right now? Imagine if we were all disarmed.

You guys need to work this out amongst yourselves and come back with something coherent.

 

[Xzi]

You want to take guns away from people who can legally have them and make it easier for the police, who I believe somebody mentioned earlier tend to abuse their power, to take guns away from people, giving the police even more power.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I want the laws to be consistent, which means taking guns away from abusive police officers just the same. And since we know far too many judges play buddy-buddy with cops, making convicting them exponentially more difficult, a restraining order obtained against them on grounds of domestic violence should prove they aren't responsible enough to own firearms. Therefore limiting them to desk jobs or, preferably, removing them from the force altogether.

This is one area where Biden has been weak, given that he promised a police misconduct database and hasn't delivered.

 

[Dinomite]

...a restraining order obtained against them on grounds of domestic violence should prove they aren't responsible enough to own firearms.

Why? Because someone has accused them? That isn't proof of anything.
As members have stated many times in this thread, an accusation isn't a conviction, therefore the citizen's right to arms shall not be infringed. That includes people employed in law enforcement.
No one here is saying a convicted felon should have firearms, that's long been established in the US.

 

[Xzi]

Why? Because someone has accused them? That isn't proof of anything.

No, a restraining order requires more than a simple accusation to be granted, and the burden of proof to have one granted against a police officer is even greater. It has to be reviewed by a judge all the same.

 

[Dinomite]

No, a restraining order requires more than a simple accusation to be granted, and the burden of proof to have one granted against a police officer is even greater. It has to be reviewed by a judge all the same.

If someone makes an accusation when filing a petition for a protective order, the judge will issue a temporary restraining order until the date of the hearing. So yes, it does require a simple accusation.

 

[MariArch]

Why do the courts focus on this shit instead of not going after the ATF for their bullshit gun accessory confiscations or striking down Ronald Reagan's Fully automatic ban?

 

[x65943]

Why do the courts focus on this shit instead of not going after the ATF for their bullshit gun accessory confiscations or striking down Ronald Reagan's Fully automatic ban?

courts aren't allowed to review any law they want. They can only review cases brought to them naturally - and if they feel the law in question in the case is unconstitutional they can effectively nullify it

So you're gonna have to wait for such a case to organically happen

 

[MariArch]

courts aren't allowed to review any law they want. They can only review cases brought to them naturally - and if they feel the law in question in the case is unconstitutional they can effectively nullify it

So you're gonna have to wait for such a case to organically happen

Ok bad examples, but an instance I can think of is that NY and CA conceal carry challenge from this summer. They could’ve easily said constitutional carry is the law of the land and it would’ve been constitutionally coherent (and probably favored by the population writ large), but instead they just sort of skirted around the issue. Dunno why they don’t have the balls to protect our rights as much as they possibly can.

 

[BlazeMasterBM]

guns are epic

 

[Deleted member 586536]

You want to take guns away from people who can legally have them and make it easier for the police, who I believe somebody

Formerly before this stupid court case. It was illegal.
Have fun spinning yourself into a pretzel

 

[Xzi]

If someone makes an accusation when filing a petition for a protective order, the judge will issue a temporary restraining order until the date of the hearing. So yes, it does require a simple accusation.

Well I'm not suggesting guns be taken away before the hearing, so any temporary orders are moot. Hell, I'm not even suggesting normal citizens should have their guns taken away before a criminal domestic violence conviction, only that we hold those who are supposed to protect and serve the citizenry to a slightly higher standard.