Orlando mayor: 50 dead in nightclub shooting (Armed Suspect also arrested in L.A.)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area

PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 3:57 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Quote trees people . . . quote trees . . . come on man! Reign them in a bit please!


Didn't realize how bad it looks til I logged in on a mobile device. My apologies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rwongega
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 20510
Location: UCLA -> NY

PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:33 pm    Post subject:

[deleted by CL because it was making me crazy]

Seriously.
_________________
http://media.giphy.com/media/zNyBPu5hEFpu/giphy.gif
http://bartsblackboard.com/files/2009/11/The-Simpsons-05x18-Burns-Heir.jpg

RIP Jonathan Tang
RIP Alex Gruenberg

Free KBCB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:24 pm    Post subject:

^^^^^^

Jeez. You try and offer something productive to make a thread easier to read and then rwongega comes along . . .
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rwongega
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 20510
Location: UCLA -> NY

PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:30 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
^^^^^^

Jeez. You try and offer something productive to make a thread easier to read and then rwongega comes along . . .



_________________
http://media.giphy.com/media/zNyBPu5hEFpu/giphy.gif
http://bartsblackboard.com/files/2009/11/The-Simpsons-05x18-Burns-Heir.jpg

RIP Jonathan Tang
RIP Alex Gruenberg

Free KBCB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:39 pm    Post subject:

rwongega wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
^^^^^^

Jeez. You try and offer something productive to make a thread easier to read and then rwongega comes along . . .




Such a bastard. Opposites clearly attract.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24112
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 3:11 am    Post subject:

Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:01 am    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24995

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:12 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


I think it's possesion, not purchase so they'll take the firearm?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17196
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:14 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:33 am    Post subject:

DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:49 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


Sure you can. If they banned an AR-15 today, what do you think would happen to you if they caught you with it tomorrow?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67312
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:55 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


Sure you can. If they banned an AR-15 today, what do you think would happen to you if they caught you with it tomorrow?

Nothing if it wasn't against the law to own one when you bought it unless the ban included a phrase making it mandatory if you owned one you had to turn it it. I don't think that can be done.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Last edited by jodeke on Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:05 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


Sure you can. If they banned an AR-15 today, what do you think would happen to you if they caught you with it tomorrow?

Nothing if it wasn't against the law to own one when you bought it.


That would make bans almost unenforceable though.

"Yessir, I bought that a year ago"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67312
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:12 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


Sure you can. If they banned an AR-15 today, what do you think would happen to you if they caught you with it tomorrow?

Nothing if it wasn't against the law to own one when you bought it.


That would make bans almost unenforceable though.

"Yessir, I bought that a year ago"
Your receipt would define the date of purchase.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
20,000
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 29999
Location: Likely nowhere near you

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 11:29 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


Sure you can. If they banned an AR-15 today, what do you think would happen to you if they caught you with it tomorrow?

Nothing if it wasn't against the law to own one when you bought it.


That would make bans almost unenforceable though.

"Yessir, I bought that a year ago"
Your receipt would define the date of purchase.


Purchase of and possession of are two separate things. If the AR-15 is made illegal today, that you bought one a year ago would not be punishable.
_________________
Courage doesn't always roar.
Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying...'I will try again tomorrow.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67312
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 11:47 am    Post subject:

encina1 wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


Sure you can. If they banned an AR-15 today, what do you think would happen to you if they caught you with it tomorrow?

Nothing if it wasn't against the law to own one when you bought it.


That would make bans almost unenforceable though.

"Yessir, I bought that a year ago"
Your receipt would define the date of purchase.


Purchase of and possession of are two separate things. If the AR-15 is made illegal today, that you bought one a year ago would not be punishable.

That's why I said "nothing" The response was to the underlined, italicized.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:12 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


@DMR see this is somewhat of a grey area imho. This brings to mind the Marijuana legalization issue here in California and the prisoners who are serving time on Marijuana charges. The common belief is that those convictions would be thrown out and the prisoners freed retroactively- meaning new laws could indeed be enforced retroactively?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17196
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:35 pm    Post subject:

lakerjoshua wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


@DMR see this is somewhat of a grey area imho. This brings to mind the Marijuana legalization issue here in California and the prisoners who are serving time on Marijuana charges. The common belief is that those convictions would be thrown out and the prisoners freed retroactively- meaning new laws could indeed be enforced retroactively?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

From what I can tell, it depends. If there is any sort of punishment or punitive nature involved in a law, it's illegal to apply it retroactively.

Relevant:

Quote:
Another example is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses and on subjects of restraining orders (which do not require criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to ten years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether the weapon was legally possessed when the law was passed.[26] The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive; it is a status offense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:51 pm    Post subject:

DuncanIdaho wrote:
lakerjoshua wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


@DMR see this is somewhat of a grey area imho. This brings to mind the Marijuana legalization issue here in California and the prisoners who are serving time on Marijuana charges. The common belief is that those convictions would be thrown out and the prisoners freed retroactively- meaning new laws could indeed be enforced retroactively?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

From what I can tell, it depends. If there is any sort of punishment or punitive nature involved in a law, it's illegal to apply it retroactively.

Relevant:

Quote:
Another example is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses and on subjects of restraining orders (which do not require criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to ten years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether the weapon was legally possessed when the law was passed.[26] The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive; it is a status offense.


Interesting read, thanks Duncan!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:17 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


Sure you can. If they banned an AR-15 today, what do you think would happen to you if they caught you with it tomorrow?

Nothing if it wasn't against the law to own one when you bought it.


That would make bans almost unenforceable though.

"Yessir, I bought that a year ago"
Your receipt would define the date of purchase.


Looks like others have already answered this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 5:33 pm    Post subject:

Beating your wife is a privilege, not a right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:20 pm    Post subject:

encina1 wrote:

Purchase of and possession of are two separate things. If the AR-15 is made illegal today, that you bought one a year ago would not be punishable.


Exactly. You handle the existing weapons by restricting their ownership to the person who owned it at the time of the new legislation. You make the sale or transfer of the weapons illegal after the new regulation. Possession of the weapon becomes a crime for anyone who wasn't the registered owner at the commencement of the law. You could throw in a provision that makes it an option to sell the weapon to the government to accommodate those that decide for whatever reason they no longer can or want to own the weapon so that they are not out their investment.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:26 pm    Post subject:

lakerjoshua wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


@DMR see this is somewhat of a grey area imho. This brings to mind the Marijuana legalization issue here in California and the prisoners who are serving time on Marijuana charges. The common belief is that those convictions would be thrown out and the prisoners freed retroactively- meaning new laws could indeed be enforced retroactively?


There's a HUGE difference between amnestying people who are serving time for something that is de-criminalized after the fact and incarcerating people for something that wasn't illegal at the time they did.

In fact "huge" doesn't even do the vastness of difference justice. The argument for releasing people for acts that have been determined not to be criminal is obvious. Conversely, the argument that someone should be punished for an act that wasn't a crime at the time they did it is preposterous.

You aren't enforcing a law retroactively by releasing someone when it becomes de-criminlaized. You are doing the opposite. You are recognizing that the law can't be enforced anymore, so prior offenders should be amnestied.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:54 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
lakerjoshua wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.


A somewhat odd, but acceptable ruling.

I would assume this includes felonies too?

And what will they do, if anything, for domestic abusers who were already convicted of misdemeanors? Will they go and take away their guns, or will this only apply going forward? I'd imagine the latter.


ex post facto -- moving foward only I assume


It would have to be. You can't make people retroactively subject to a law or regulation.


@DMR see this is somewhat of a grey area imho. This brings to mind the Marijuana legalization issue here in California and the prisoners who are serving time on Marijuana charges. The common belief is that those convictions would be thrown out and the prisoners freed retroactively- meaning new laws could indeed be enforced retroactively?


There's a HUGE difference between amnestying people who are serving time for something that is de-criminalized after the fact and incarcerating people for something that wasn't illegal at the time they did.

In fact "huge" doesn't even do the vastness of difference justice. The argument for releasing people for acts that have been determined not to be criminal is obvious. Conversely, the argument that someone should be punished for an act that wasn't a crime at the time they did it is preposterous.

You aren't enforcing a law retroactively by releasing someone when it becomes de-criminlaized. You are doing the opposite. You are recognizing that the law can't be enforced anymore, so prior offenders should be amnestied.


I agree with most of your post with the exception of the bolded as it relates to this particular case.

Where a person with a misdemeanor DV charge wouldn't get punished, is if they owned firearms prior to the ruling, but got rid of them after the ruling.

But if you have a domestic violence charge on your record, then you should have to give up your guns, no?

I mean, it's like a sex offender. At some point in time, registered offenders could not go within X feet or yards of a school or something. It's not like all of those offenders prior to that ruling are exempt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24
Page 24 of 24
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB