Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[vaeevictiss]

"You had one job..."



How do you lose 12 grenade launchers?

I mean I doubt they are dangerous because lack of munitions, but I am come on for real? LOL

im more curious what exactly a sniper rifle is. Do you just throw a scope and a bipod on a bolt action rifle and it becomes a sniper rifle? maybe they had a dope chart taped to the butt of the stock?

[TITAN308]

I meant that some domestic violence cases are only misdemeanors and in some states the maximum is only 1 year. I'm sure there is some circumstance in which a person can be convicted of a violent crime (and, imo, even threats of violence should be considered) and not be barred from firearm ownership.

If you ask me, if you get convicted of any violent crime, or even a threat of violent crime, bam, no guns.

Georgia state law bars you from firearm ownership for any domestic abuse charges, felony or not. So our state is pretty much already ahead of this federal ruling. (if my memory is correct)

Or maybe it just pertains to getting one of our carry permits, memory is a bit fuzzy.

Our state will also put the clinkers on someone for domestic abuse whether the spouse wants to level charges or not. Basically if a cop goes out to a DV call and there are visible signs of DV, someone is going to jail, period.

[PhaelixWW]

Voisine v United States didn't get much coverage yesterday, given the much more significant ruling on abortion. But it's certainly not every day that the Supreme Court upholds broad restrictions on firearm ownership.

I'm not sure why you think this is a "broad restriction" on firearm ownership, other than the fact that you want to perceive it as a major win.

But I don't think you're going to find too many arguments against this ruling here. This falls under the "proven danger to self or others" restriction, which is fine by me.

[Tinykong]

I'm not sure why you think this is a "broad restriction" on firearm ownership, other than the fact that you want to perceive it as a major win.

But I don't think you're going to find too many arguments against this ruling here. This falls under the "proven danger to self or others" restriction, which is fine by me.

This is actually something that surprising to me, only because I assumed it was already a restriction/law.

[Tijuana]

"You had one job..."



How do you lose 12 grenade launchers?

I mean I doubt they are dangerous because lack of munitions, but I am come on for real? LOL

Yeah just because they are missing, doesn't mean they are lost. I'm sure there are 12 officers that now have grenade launchers.

[PhaelixWW]

im more curious what exactly a sniper rifle is. Do you just throw a scope and a bipod on a bolt action rifle and it becomes a sniper rifle? maybe they had a dope chart taped to the butt of the stock?

The original source set up a database of the firearms.

The "sniper rifle" in question? A Remington 700 .308. Lulz.

[TZucchini]

I'm not sure why you think this is a "broad restriction" on firearm ownership, other than the fact that you want to perceive it as a major win.

Because Thomas was arguing for a much more narrow interpretation of the restriction. As was the petitioner Stephen Voisine. As were many firearm lobbying groups.

Yet the court upheld the more broadly interpreted restriction. Just calling it how I see it.

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah just because they are missing, doesn't mean they are lost. I'm sure there are 12 officers that now have grenade launchers.

I dunno... It's nearly the 4th of July. Perhaps they just made an unauthorized IFD (improvised fireworks device)?

[petej0]

https://medium.com/@yishan/you-canno...974#.cnpw8uy8e

[PhaelixWW]

Yet the court upheld the more broadly interpreted restriction.

More broad than narrow is not the same thing as broad.

Just calling it how I see it.

And my comment was an indictment on how you choose to see it. I thought that was obvious.

[lockedout]

https://medium.com/@yishan/you-canno...974#.cnpw8uy8e

Good read thanks for linking, hard to believe he is anti 2nd amendment though.

[TZucchini]

More broad than narrow is not the same thing as broad.

Well, as Thomas puts it, a mother that slaps her 18 year old child in the face could result in a lifetime firearm ban.

Seems pretty broad to me, but you can feel free to disagree if you'd like.

[lockedout]

Well, as Thomas puts it, a mother that slaps her 18 year old child in the face could result in a lifetime firearm ban.

Seems pretty broad to me, but you can feel free to disagree if you'd like.

That would be domestic violence, no?

[Tinykong]

Well, as Thomas puts it, a mother that slaps her 18 year old child in the face could result in a lifetime firearm ban.

Seems pretty broad to me, but you can feel free to disagree if you'd like.

As it should.

Don't want a firearm ban? Don't commit violent crimes. Easy.

[TZucchini]

That would be domestic violence, no?

Yes, it certainly would by definition.

Do you agree? Say an 18 year old that lives with their parents, talks back to them during dinner, and the mother slaps the *18 year old. Should she have her firearms revoked permanently?

[lockedout]

Yes, it certainly would by definition.

Do you agree? Say an 18 year old that lives with their parents, talks back to them during dinner, and the mother slaps the *18 year old. Should she have her firearms revoked permanently?

No, she shouldn't.

[TZucchini]

No, she shouldn't.

Then would you agree that the ruling was a broad restriction?

[PhaelixWW]

Well, as Thomas puts it, a mother that slaps her 18 year old child in the face could result in a lifetime firearm ban.

Except for the fact that it requires a conviction in a trial by jury. If the jury, having heard the evidence in the case, feel that a domestic violence misdemeanor charge is warranted by the slap, then it's domestic violence and should be treated as such.

The act of slapping a child without a conviction doesn't do anything.

Checks and balances at work.

And those misdemeanor charges can be later set aside or expunged (much more easily than a felony, naturally), restoring full rights to said person.

[lockedout]

Then would you agree that the ruling was a broad restriction?

Yes which is why Thomas was against it. There would have to be defined domestic violence and domestic violence is one of those 0 tolerance things.

- - - Updated - - -

Except for the fact that it requires a conviction in a trial by jury. If the jury, having heard the evidence in the case, feel that a domestic violence misdemeanor charge is warranted by the slap, then it's domestic violence and should be treated as such.

The act of slapping a child without a conviction doesn't do anything.

Checks and balances at work.

And those misdemeanor charges can be later set aside or expunged (much more easily than a felony, naturally), restoring full rights to said person.

Except that even being charged with domestic violence can have your firearms taken in some circumstances, at least for a period of time.

[PhaelixWW]

Except that even being charged with domestic violence can have your firearms taken in some circumstances, at least for a period of time.

Only if a protective order is requested and granted, unless I'm mistaken. And unlike other forms of police seizure, I believe that it's much easier to receive your firearms back from a temporary relinquishment for a protective order that's been set aside or finished.

The process is much more difficult if those firearms were officially seized as part of a criminal charge. So unless your domestic violence was such that the police seized those firearms on the spot, then it's not quite as bad.

I could be wrong, though, I haven't looked too closely into this area of law.

- - - Updated - - -

Then would you agree that the ruling was a broad restriction?

Do you view the Lautenberg Amendment to be broadly restrictive?