https://mic.com/articles/147147/in-voisine-v-u-s-scotus-just-ruled-people-convicted-of-domestic-violence-can-t-buy-guns?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.IHtanf0GQ
People in the U.S. convicted of Domestic violence can now no longer legally buy guns, it doesn't really effect fuckall but it is an interesting precedent
>>78996363
Yeah, this one pissed me off.
One more reason to avoid women that I don't need.
>>78996363
As a victim of domestic violence I'm perfectly OK with that. Praise be the ghost of scalia.
>>78996363
That's just extremely ineffectual and the only use of it is as even more reason to make false domestic abuse claims.
Anyone legitimately *convicted* of domestic abuse is probably going to have guns and any crime he wishes to commit thereafter is irrespective of the law.
What's the crime rate for individuals convicted of domestic abuse and gun crime after their conviction? I imagine extremely fucking minute and irrelevant.
>>78996935
it's slippery slope though
now that this precedence has been set further steps can be taken down the line to enact further control measures
NRA's strangle hold is slipping, there is just too much united effort now among the American people to atleast review gun control measures
so....does this fuck over army people and law enforcement officers now who get charged with domestic abuse?
Kek. A college roommate assaulted me. Under state law, the assault charges fell under domestic violence.
Get fucked, asshole.
>>78996363
>People in the U.S. convicted of Domestic violence can now no longer legally buy guns, it doesn't really effect fuckall but it is an interesting precedent
OP there was already a domestic violence restriction.
>This ruling simply upheld those existing laws.
>Don't beat your wife, husband, children, or anyone in your household.
>Even a misdemeanor conviction is enough to fuck you up.
>>78996363
The problem is that felony disenfranchisement is currently held as constitutional so restricting or removing rights is currently interpreted as constitutional (which it isnt)
>>78996363
this is not news what so ever. this has been in effect for a long ass time. you fucking suck at basic research. kill urself my friend.
>>78996363
>People in the U.S. convicted of Domestic violence can now no longer legally buy guns, it doesn't really effect fuckall but it is an interesting precedent
You mean people in the U.S. convicted of Domestic violence STILL can not legally buy guns.
This law has been on the books since the 90s.
>>78997598
On the one hand that sucks. On the other hand do we really want millions of nigger and spic felons voting?
>>78996809
>As a victim of domestic violence
So ... Your boyfriend yelled at you? How many years until he gets out?
>>78997190
>The (((American people)))
>>78996363
People convicted of domestic violence couldn't purchase guns legally since 1994, when the Lautenburg Amendment was added to Komrade Klinton's "Crime Bill".
So, when will you be rebelling, yanks?
All anyone on /pol/ ever talks about is MUH COLD DEAD HANDS. Off you go, cunts. Go murder some police officers. Civil War now?
You aren't going to do shit, and when they come for your guns you'll hand them over gladly.
>>78997765
See that's the problem
If this country was like 90% white and 10% asian like Australia we wouldn't have a problem but we have all these niggers that fuck everything up
>>78996363
>interesting precedent
It's a dangerous and terrifying precedent. This means they can bar people from buying guns for any other reason, in the future.
>>78998200
We have to wait at least to see if we get Trump elected or not.
After that hopefully race war
>>78997190
>(((the American people)))
>>78998200
S T R A Y A
T
R
A
Y
A
>>78997190
>NRA's strangle hold
Are you high? Their lobbying budget is miniscule, compared to dozens of other lobbying groups. Their actual power is small, and most of their donations are from small donors.
>there is just too much united effort now among the American people
Which ones are those?
>>78996363
>caring about what a bunch of old jewish slaves in robes have to say about the constitution
The unabashedly most corrupt, paid for and distant from neutral branch in the government, a la, the rats on the bench, are little more than pawns to legally sign away the United States to the banks and other, similarly powerful international institutions. Nothing they say matters, not a damn single ruling.
domestic violence can be a felony, and felons can't buy guns
They aren't the ones who made the violent crimes gun restriction legislation, they're just upholding it (in line with what even the most pro-gun-rights, now-deceased Justice Scalia asserted in his majority opinion in Heller). Got a problem with the law, bitch to Congress. SCotUS doesn't write laws.
>>78996363
That was already the case you niggerfaggot. Also I don't want wife-beating dindus to get guns.
sue me
>>78996363
>People in the U.S. convicted of Domestic violence can now no longer legally buy guns
This literally already existed. Nothing has changed. He's just repeating shit that's already on the firearm buyer form so that people think he's doing actual good. Onl y someone who's never bought a firearm (i.e. all his supporters) will think he's done something important.
>>78998506
The dems love to pick on the NRA. It's probably one of the most straightforward organizations there is. Everyone knows what they do, people personally donate to them specifically because of what they do. No one is being mislead by them.
>>78998203
Pretty sure Aussies shank and pummel each other on the regular.
>>78999104
Besides, there's a little money to be made in guns, but it's not like it has Big Oil kind of money to throw around. The Gun's Rights issue has just become this whole partisan thing. People who historically couldn't care less support it because "that's what Republicans do" (even though not so long ago that was very much not the case) and people who are normally all about liberties and trusting the common sense of people oppose it because "that's what Democrats do." And so every gun rights case is fought long and hard because any loss of rights is considered a loss for the Republican side and so on. People who think the NRA controls Republicans has got it backwards.
No shady backroom deals, just toxic, right-in-front-of-your-eyes politics.
>>78997417
fuck you brian
Apparently Sotomayor was one of the ones that ruled on our side, along with based Thomas
>>78999104
This. The NRA is slmost the only true lobby in Washington. It is exactly what lobbies are supposed to be, it defends the Constitution and it properly represents a very wide range of people. Compare that to Ken Lay, AIPAC or Huma Abedin.
>>78996363
Yep, I'm now officially living #TheSw1tcherLife.
>>78998200
What guns? I lost them in a fishing accident.
Report it? They're not stolen. I'll dredge em up as soon as I've got cash... But now that they're illegal, I guess they can rot.
Have a nice day officer!
>>78996363
I thought this was already the case. It's a standard item on the form.
>>78998200
all this projection
>>78997351
Yes, and this has been the case for some time.
When I was an MP we had to sign an affadavit stating that we had never been convicted of a "violent domestic offense".
Good thing, I'm foreveralone...
>>78998203
Australia has all the same problems, if not more.
>>78996363
The constitution says liberty can be restricted upon conviction of a crime.
A misdemeanor is a crime.
That being said the policy is stupid and should be repealed.
Stupid, but not unconstitutional.
>>78997190
>the American people
>>78997190
>it's slippery slope though
not really
the 14th is clear that courts can strip you of your rights
>>79002700
Yes yes, well done America, yes
H O W E V E R
>>78996363
It's not really.
SCOTUS ruled a LONG time ago that people convicted of a crime could have certain rights taken away, as long as it was reasonable.
Easy easy call.
>>79002769
It's actually one of the first SCOTUS cases that ruled that.
>>79002938
I believe we should restore all rights after a sentence is over for non-violent misdemeanors at least. If they served out their sentence to completion I don't see why they should be limited in their ability to protect themselves or their families any more than anyone else.
>>78997190
>American people
Jews and liberals don't really make up nearly enough to be considered "the American people".
>>79003976
I think prison behavior should be taken into account.
>>78997943
Excuse you. It's current year. Men can be victims of domestic violence at the hands of women.
>>79004341
Cuck a doodle doo
>>79004245
That's a good point too. Especially if they put their time toward getting an education or doing some kind of labor and they stayed out of trouble while they were in.
>>79003782
im pretty sure america has been able to deprive people of their liberties for crimes since day 1.
That article is frankly bad and misleading. Here is a much clearer article on the subject: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-federal-use-of-force-encompasses-reckless-domestic-violence-misdemeanor-offenses/
Reading the decisions themselves is always an option too.
1. Decisions
2. Law professors who know what they are talking about
3. Reputable, high level news orgs like Reuters
Stay away from shit like the OP
>>78996363
Bury your cache now, people, before it's too late.
>>78996363
I thought this was already the case, they even ask you if you have been charged with a domestic violence crime.
>>79005137
>not wrapping in cheesecloth
>not greasing liberally
>not sealing in 50 gallon drums.
