ScaupHunter wrote:SCOTUS should settle it once and for all here shortly. I know a federal court in Texas found the law unconstitutional.
It is pretty sad when you get less time and trouble for killing someone than for threatening them.
Glimmerjim wrote:ScaupHunter wrote:SpinnerMan wrote:I'll give a note of caution. What other rights should you lose without being convicted in a court of law? While if what you said is what is happening, I agree, but you also need to acknowledge that we are in dangerous territory when the government is punishing you without having convicted you.Glimmerjim wrote:No response, scaup? This issue came up previously and you went all Tasmanian Devil on taking gun rights away from veterans with PTSD.
And once the person is competent, their rights should instantly be restored. Is that happening?
We just need to remember this is out there on the thin ice and needs to be watched very carefully. It is a whole lot of power being consolidated into the hands of a few. While necessary, it needs to be watched carefully, particularly in an area where people have a clear agenda.
Do you mean like the right to keep and bear arms when accused of domestic violence without conviction? That would be one that has already happened.
Not to my knowledge, scaup. I have a friend that has fought the ex post facto Lautenberg's Law for years, but he wasn't prohibited from possessing a gun until his misdemeanor conviction. Now it is a lifetime ban. The law is up for Supreme Court consideration this month, however, based on its ex post facto unconstitutionality. By the way....you can get convicted for murder...have it reduced to a misdemeanor after a certain length of trouble-free time, and then have your gun rights restored. But a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence is a Lifetime ban.
In other words.....don't blithely threaten her, shoot her.
It shouldn't just be SCOTUS that we hope defends the Constitution. They are all sworn to do so. Every law maker that doesn't repeal that law should be treated as rejecting the Constitution and that should be a deal breaker as far as ever voting for them.Glimmerjim wrote:It's gone before SCOTUS at least twice before, however, and been upheld. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
ScaupHunter wrote:That guy knew how to work the system. The problem is the system that allows a murderer to get off that way instead of just having him returned to court for a guilty finding and a hanging.