Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-01-2016, 06:47 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,264 posts, read 26,192,233 times
Reputation: 15637

Advertisements

This case is currently being heard in the supreme court addressing the issue of what constitutes domestic abuse. I find that amusing in that one of the two men bringing this to the supreme court was convicted 14 times for assault and domestic violence. It also goes into the issue regarding why his name was not in Federal Background Check System, Maine and around 12 other states are not in compliance. This is also an issue regarding people with mental issues not being in the system.


This all began when he was arrested for shooting a Bald Eagle. then it came to light that he should not be in possession of a gun.


Quote:
The officers who arrived at Voisine’s home asked a question that comes up in any potential crime involving a gun: whether he was legally allowed to have the firearm allegedly used to commit the offense. A set of federal laws makes it illegal for certain people — primarily, convicted felons and convicted domestic abusers — to possess guns. If it’s illegal to shoot a protected bird of prey, it’s doubly illegal to do that with a gun you’re not even supposed to own.


Voisine shouldn’t have had guns. His criminal record included 14 convictions for assault and domestic violence spanning 28 years. When Voisine admitted that he shot the bald eagle with a rifle, he unwittingly confessed to owning a gun as a domestic abuser.

Voisine Vs. U.S.: The Supreme Court Case That Could Let 'Lesser' Domestic Abusers Own Guns
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2016, 07:33 AM
 
13,898 posts, read 6,442,664 times
Reputation: 6960
I agree about letting people with a lesser degree of DV, especially made up stuff, to let them keep their guns. I've seen several times where the GF or the wife simply lies to the police about some made up threat or violence and the BF or husband's guns are taken without question and sometimes they can't even get them back. It's an automatic thing, nothing has to even be proven or true. Make the accusation and they take your guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 07:39 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,264 posts, read 26,192,233 times
Reputation: 15637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
I agree about letting people with a lesser degree of DV, especially made up stuff, to let them keep their guns. I've seen several times where the GF or the wife simply lies to the police about some made up threat or violence and the BF or husband's guns are taken without question and sometimes they can't even get them back. It's an automatic thing, nothing has to even be proven or true. Make the accusation and they take your guns.


No doubt it has happened but how pervasive are the numbers, appears to be quite the opposite in these states. You need to shoot a bald eagle before you lose you guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 09:18 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,269 posts, read 47,023,439 times
Reputation: 34060
Just more evidence BC are useless. Why a felon would even bother filling out a form when they can just buy everything legally. They can't legally own but they can legally buy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,771,962 times
Reputation: 24863
It seems to me the Domestic Abuse problem can be reduced if the victim is issued and firearm and provided with training in how and when to use it.


Think of a scene from the old "Honeymooners" TV show. Ralph raises his fist and shouts, "One of these days, Alice!" and she replies, "How about today, Ralph?" Boom. "Yeah, how about today?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 09:37 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
12,755 posts, read 9,645,078 times
Reputation: 13169
Well then, let's just wait until the abuser kills the woman before taking away his gun.

An eagle's life is more important than a woman's, apparently.

I hope this is laughed out of court. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Abusers should not have access to weapons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,264 posts, read 26,192,233 times
Reputation: 15637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
Well then, let's just wait until the abuser kills the woman before taking away his gun.

An eagle's life is more important than a woman's, apparently.

I hope this is laughed out of court. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Abusers should not have access to weapons.
Evidently Maine feels that killing of wildlife is more important than human life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,771,962 times
Reputation: 24863
Given their current RWA governor I can see him considering eagles to be worth more then abused women because eagles bring in tourist dollars and abuse victims do not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 02:06 PM
 
Location: United States
12,390 posts, read 7,095,135 times
Reputation: 6135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Evidently Maine feels that killing of wildlife is more important than human life.
But no human was killed.

As far as the issue of false claims of abuse, I wish we know the real numbers. We do know that is it a fairly common tactic used for women filing for a divorce. The sad thing is that women do this on the advice of their lawyers, as there are no legal repercussions for filing a false protection from abuse order.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 02:09 PM
 
17,273 posts, read 9,556,326 times
Reputation: 16468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Evidently Maine feels that killing of wildlife is more important than human life.
He killed a protected animal. He did not kill a human. However, it's just a matter of time. What a POS. I FIRMLY believe domestic abusers should be kept the h*ll away from guns. I don't care if their sensibilities are hurt. Those people are much more likely to use a gun to kill their partner/spouse, etc. Anyone who denies that is straight up ignorant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top