Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So someone who would kill their significant other will be stopped because a piece of paper says they have turn in their gun.
Here in California you have to either sell them to a gun shop, which you will get pennies on the dollar, or turn them into police. The process to get them back from police takes over 60 days once you are cleared from the TRO. No one should lose their civil rights for over 2 months without a hearing where they can face their accuser.
I didn't claim it would stop the crime. I said it would minimize the crime. These domestic crimes are usually done with a hot head, spur of the moment type of thing. Once cooler heads prevail, common sense takes over.
Please provide a link to your take on the dispossession of a firearm in Cali under a TRO. It is my understanding that if you can show proof that you have disposed of your firearm through a pawn shop ticket you are in the clear. The state just doesn't want you having a firearm if there is any chance you are a danger to your children or spouse. And it would be a court proceeding.
So explain to me again why people should lose their civil rights for trival crimes?
Because conservative, morally judgmental legislators pass laws in an attempt to structure society to their moral standards. Get caught tootin on the meat whistle and you're a felon for life and denied gun ownership.
Because conservative, morally judgmental legislators pass laws in an attempt to structure society to their moral standards. Get caught tootin on the meat whistle and you're a felon for life and denied gun ownership.
Wow. All this time and you've only come up with two people.
Yes, felons and insane people should definitely be allowed to have guns because of those two people. You do have you principles, after all.
I didn't claim it would stop the crime. I said it would minimize the crime. These domestic crimes are usually done with a hot head, spur of the moment type of thing. Once cooler heads prevail, common sense takes over.
Please provide a link to your take on the dispossession of a firearm in Cali under a TRO. It is my understanding that if you can show proof that you have disposed of your firearm through a pawn shop ticket you are in the clear. The state just doesn't want you having a firearm if there is any chance you are a danger to your children or spouse. And it would be a court proceeding.
It won't minimize crime. Like you said, it is in the heat of the moment, someone who will kill their significant other wont follow the restraining order to begin with.
Wow. All this time and you've only come up with two people.
Yes, felons and insane people should definitely be allowed to have guns because of those two people. You do have you principles, after all.
Many others have been arrested and convicted for illegal download, but you keep moving the goal line farther and farther back. Why can't you just admit that we have a problem with how we classify criminals in this country?
Hm, according to your link, the NH law makes it a felony only if A. it's a controlled substance and B. if you're convicted.
Wait - did you really just write that??
OF COURSE your rights aren't restricted or you aren't otherwise punished unless you're convicted of a crime! We have the presumption of innocence in this country!! Why do certain people always forget that?!
That was a nice little window into your thought process there, jm, unintentional as it may have been.
I give up with the anti-gun types. They say they want only to be "reasonable," but what they actually want is full capitulation, and nothing less will do. Gun rights supporters have given way to "reasonable restrictions" time and time again since 1934, and not a single one of those laws has done a lick of good to reduce violent crime. Screw ALL of you anti-gunners. I will give you NOTHING MORE. You MUST address the root causes of violence in this country, and I have a newsflash for you - my guns have NOTHING to do with that.
You're damn right people with domestic abuse orders against them should not own a firearm. Do you know how many people violate those restraining orders violently? And with their firearm? A lot. Yes, anyone with a restraining order against them, too bad for you, say buh-bye to your security blanket.
You're damn right people with domestic abuse orders against them should not own a firearm. Do you know how many people violate those restraining orders violently? And with their firearm? A lot. Yes, anyone with a restraining order against them, too bad for you, say buh-bye to your security blanket.
So much contradiction in one post, didnt think it was possible.
It won't minimize crime. Like you said, it is in the heat of the moment, someone who will kill their significant other wont follow the restraining order to begin with.
Take Martha Stewart. She was never convicted of insider trading, but she was convicted of lying to feds, which to me is kind of like being convicted of being rude to Howard Stern. Nonetheless she is now a felon. Does it really make sense to deny her a gun?
A few years ago legislators in my state (WA) made it a felony to lie on a resume. Lie on a resume, and lose a constitutional right. Does that sound about right to you libs?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
