View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
lakerjoshua Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007 Posts: 11277 Location: Bay Area
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
rwongega Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 20510 Location: UCLA -> NY
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52660 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
rwongega Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 20510 Location: UCLA -> NY
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52660 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
ChefLinda Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006 Posts: 24166 Location: Boston
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
governator Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 25092
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
DuncanIdaho Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17251 Location: In a no-ship
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
DaMuleRules Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52660 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
jodeke Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67744 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
jodeke Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67744 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
20,000 Retired Number
Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 29999 Location: Likely nowhere near you
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
jodeke Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67744 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
lakerjoshua Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007 Posts: 11277 Location: Bay Area
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
DuncanIdaho Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17251 Location: In a no-ship
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
lakerjoshua Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007 Posts: 11277 Location: Bay Area
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
vanexelent Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005 Posts: 30081
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Beating your wife is a privilege, not a right. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52660 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
DaMuleRules Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52660 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: 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 |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|