Court's decision offers some clarity ...

Court's decision offers some clarity on gun laws

There are 121 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Jul 14, 2010, titled Court's decision offers some clarity on gun laws. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

A federal appeals court upheld a ban on gun possession for a domestic violence offender in a ruling that several anti-violence advocates applauded Wednesday for providing some clarity after the U.S. Supreme Court's recent landmark decision on gun restrictions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Border Native-American

Florissant, CO

#1 Jul 14, 2010
"Court's decision offers some clarity on gun laws"

Uhh.... no it doesn't.

Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't these activist judges understand? Where are these judges going to law school is my next question.
Buck

Livonia, MI

#2 Jul 14, 2010
Border Native-American wrote:
"Court's decision offers some clarity on gun laws"
Uhh.... no it doesn't.
Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't these activist judges understand? Where are these judges going to law school is my next question.
My question is where did you go to school? Support the responsable person behind the gun, not the gun itself. With your mode of thinking,criminals behind bars should be able to posess guns. You dont have a lick of common sense!
last stand

Auburn, MI

#3 Jul 14, 2010
ATF - last of a rare breed

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#4 Jul 15, 2010
Article wrote:
The presence of a gun in the home of an abused woman increases her risk of death many times over," said Tony Gibart, a policy coordinator with the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. "It makes sense to restrict people who have domestic violence offenses from having a gun"
Not true, and another typical lie from a liar Nazi.

Men don't need a gun to kill women. This decision proves the unAmerican bias that Judges have for the Bill of Rights.

And confiscating personal property from men accused of battery only makes them more angry, angry enough to want to beat a women to death with a bseball bat (something more cruel or more painful). More proof the govt can exacerbate social problems.

Most Americans wrongly or incorrectly think people don't have a right to carry a weapon for self defense. That thinking is flawed. The solution is not to disarm people, it's to arm them.

Disarming a convicted batterer won't protect the victim, arming the victim will. Judges can't be that stupid.
Article wrote:
"It makes sense to restrict people who have domestic violence offenses from having a gun"
A person who would beat a woman probably won't obey any law or court order prohibiting him from possessing a gun or using one. And the law that prohibits him from having a gun could make him angry enough to beat a woman with some other tool.

The case is an example of govt using an excuse to regulate guns. That's why the 2nd amendment was created, to prohibit govt from regulating guns.
Border Native-American

Florissant, CO

#5 Jul 15, 2010
Buck wrote:
<quoted text>My question is where did you go to school? Support the responsable person behind the gun, not the gun itself. With your mode of thinking,criminals behind bars should be able to posess guns. You dont have a lick of common sense!
No, it is you without a "lick of common sense". Where did I post "criminals behind bars should have guns"? May I suggest you take a reading comprehension class at your local comunity college? stay away from the drama classes though, you don't need them.
Robert

Bronx, NY

#6 Jul 15, 2010
Here is another serious matter that has not received much media attention;



May God bless and have mercy on us.
Zombie Corpse Rental

San Jose, CA

#8 Jul 15, 2010
Robert wrote:
Here is another serious matter that has not received much media attention;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =JznYKx8N54sXX
May God bless and have mercy on us.
That's because it's bullpoop, Robert.
The Accountant

United States

#9 Jul 15, 2010
Border Native-American wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is you without a "lick of common sense". Where did I post "criminals behind bars should have guns"? May I suggest you take a reading comprehension class at your local comunity college? stay away from the drama classes though, you don't need them.
Then what do you mean by shall not be infringed? Selective infringement?

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#10 Jul 15, 2010
Criminals in jail should not have any weapons. The safety of the jailers would be compromised.
Border Native-American

Florissant, CO

#11 Jul 15, 2010
The Accountant wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what do you mean by shall not be infringed? Selective infringement?
None whatsoever, really. A law abiding citizen has a right to defend himself, his family and his interests unencumbered by the government.
The Accountant

United States

#12 Jul 15, 2010
Border Native-American wrote:
<quoted text>
None whatsoever, really. A law abiding citizen has a right to defend himself, his family and his interests unencumbered by the government.
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
Border Native-American

Florissant, CO

#13 Jul 15, 2010
The Accountant wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
So which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
The Accountant

United States

#14 Jul 15, 2010
Border Native-American wrote:
<quoted text>
So which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
The part where you say we should infringe on some people but not others. Unless you want to give criminals and mentally ill folks loaded guns. Do you? If you don't then you support infringement. So which is it, selective infringement or none?
Ahh yes

Albuquerque, NM

#15 Jul 15, 2010
The Accountant wrote:
<quoted text>
The part where you say we should infringe on some people but not others. Unless you want to give criminals and mentally ill folks loaded guns. Do you? If you don't then you support infringement. So which is it, selective infringement or none?
The standard and very ignorant response from the anti-gun freaks.
Law

Omaha, NE

#16 Jul 15, 2010
The Accountant wrote:
<quoted text>
The part where you say we should infringe on some people but not others. Unless you want to give criminals and mentally ill folks loaded guns. Do you? If you don't then you support infringement. So which is it, selective infringement or none?
It's not infringement where "due process" has been served. Do you support prior restraint?
Border Native-American

Florissant, CO

#17 Jul 15, 2010
The Accountant wrote:
<quoted text>
The part where you say we should infringe on some people but not others. Unless you want to give criminals and mentally ill folks loaded guns. Do you? If you don't then you support infringement. So which is it, selective infringement or none?
Of course I don't want to give criminals and mentally ill folks guns (in certain contexts). I definitely don't want law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendement rights infringed via other people using criminals and mentally ill as "examples" of why American citizens can't excercise their Constitutional rights via the 2nd Amendment. If the citizens have guns, they can defend themselves from criminals and mentally ill. When the right is infringed upon they are now vulnerable. If you don't want to excercise your rights, don't, but don't try and stop others and don't infringe on their Constitutional right to do so.
Zombie Corpse Rental

San Jose, CA

#18 Jul 15, 2010
Ahh yes wrote:
<quoted text>The standard and very ignorant response from the anti-gun freaks.
Hardly standard, far from ignorant, and I have no clue if the poster is a freak - but you didn't answer the question.

My position: once you're out of jail and off probation, unless you're a violent criminal (rapist, arsonist, murderer, armed robbery) you get your rights restored, period.

Right now Martha Stewart can't go duck hunting because she's a felon.

Stupidest
law
ever.
Buck

Livonia, MI

#19 Jul 15, 2010
Ahh yes wrote:
<quoted text>The standard and very ignorant response from the anti-gun freaks.
I am no anti gun freak. I have three,enjoy hunting, target shooting,and if nessessary personal protection. The problem with you gun nuts is that your world revolves around this self promoting NRA BS paranoia about the govt taking your guns away, stripping you of your security blanket. That is not their intent, they want to reduce the number of gun related crimes in this country, by known criminals,and those practicing juvenile delinqents who think every problem in life can be solved with a gun. As I said before, support the the responsible person behind the gun, not the gun itself!
bluntsn40s

Santa Cruz, CA

#20 Jul 15, 2010
so what go get a gun if you want it bad enough. if nobody can trace the firearm to you, even better. you scum wife beater!
Buck

Livonia, MI

#21 Jul 15, 2010
Border Native-American wrote:
<quoted text>
None whatsoever, really. A law abiding citizen has a right to defend himself, his family and his interests unencumbered by the government.
This guy in the article is not abiding by the law twice convicted of domestic violence. He is not the type to protect his family. The fact is if he had a family they would encounter the same fate as his girlfriends, possibly worse.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Schumer blasts 'appalling' Senate GOP flip-flop... May 8 BHM5267 1
News Appeals Court Hears Indy Atheist Group's Demand... (Apr '13) Mar '18 Fallen Role Models 4
News Growing Trend: 2nd and 6th Circuits Join 7th in... Mar '18 Kasick of Pancakes 9
News Judge refuses to order school to suspend transg... Jan '18 BHM5267 60
News Republicans: 'Catholic bigotry' over Democrats ... (Oct '17) Oct '17 mr gleeble 2
News Sexual orientation Title VII cases work way tow... (Aug '17) Sep '17 Rubio s Foam Partays 16
News DOJ asks to keep 'Making a Murderer' inmate loc... (Jun '17) Jun '17 CodeTalker 1