Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
52. well what you posted is just not correct
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:10 PM
Jun 2016
military grade

No, they are semi-automatic rifles. No military uses them.

without restrictions

Many laws and restrictions on the books, see PROHIBITED PERSONS and the Lautenberg law.

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

The definition of 'convicted' can be found in the chapter 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) and has exceptions:

(33) (B)
(i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless—
(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
(aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Here... ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2016 #1
thanx Fuck the NRA Botany Jun 2016 #2
In contrast, here's the Post's: Night Watchman Jun 2016 #6
Yellow journalism at its worst. DinahMoeHum Jun 2016 #27
Bullshit rag. It's the NRA against the U.S. nt valerief Jun 2016 #48
Unfortunately, the 2013 Assault Weapons Ban would not have stopped this massacre aikoaiko Jun 2016 #3
Oh, so 'do nothing'. louis-t Jun 2016 #4
My point is that passing an Assault Weapons Ban is actually doing nothing. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #5
Then what, in your opinion, will? justiceischeap Jun 2016 #7
How about we examine more restrictions on the freedom of expression, religion, Marengo Jun 2016 #9
Focus on identification of legitimately prohibited people and the NICS background check aikoaiko Jun 2016 #10
Think there may be a flaw in that. lark Jun 2016 #13
Not really a flaw in what I said. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #16
Ugly as shit ... Jopin Klobe Jun 2016 #18
yes it is and unreliable often aikoaiko Jun 2016 #25
Well, if that ain't phallic, nothing is. Ew. catbyte Jun 2016 #61
It appears more testicular to me, but to each their own. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #62
Stop the cultural poison coming out of mosques, churches, and other radicalizing institutions Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #26
Isn't that what gun humpers want? Do nothing, or pass the weakest laws possible that don't work Feeling the Bern Jun 2016 #50
If laws don't make a difference than why fight against them? Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #14
Because a law that makes no practical difference shouldn't exist. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #19
LOL! You consider owning a gun "liberty"? Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #20
Yes, owning a firearm is a civil liberty protected by the 2nd Amendment. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #21
It was written when the local cops were Redcoats. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #30
Ok, but still it protects civil liberties. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #33
No. Laws do that. Not guns. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #37
Yes, keeping and bearing arms is a civil liberty protected by law (specifically the 2nd amendment). aikoaiko Jun 2016 #40
The Founders didn't believe in maintaining a standing army.... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #44
I dont' think so Wibly Jun 2016 #31
It also says the militia should be "well regulated" and Conservatives are into deregulation. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #35
The Bill of Rights was written in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of govenment powers aikoaiko Jun 2016 #36
First time I've heard of an amendment called a preamble. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #38
There is a preamble to the Bill of Rights which the 2nd Amendment is one. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #39
The Bill of Rights is not part of the Preamble. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #41
Spit you are incorrect. The Bill of Rights is comprised its preamble and 10 amendments. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #43
Do I REALLY need to post the dramatic reading by Shatner? Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #45
We do need to include that in the AWB elljay Jun 2016 #59
Most Americans do. beevul Jun 2016 #24
Actually, most Americans DON'T own guns. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #32
Drop the goalposts. Put them down. beevul Jun 2016 #54
Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that you owning a gun is protecting MY liberty? Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #55
Who said anything about your liberty? Or protecting it? beevul Jun 2016 #56
Just saw a Gallup poll that shows 55% believe we need stricter gun laws.... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #57
Tl;DR version... MynameisBlarney Jun 2016 #15
And in today's edition, they have this Lonusca Jun 2016 #8
BS, is what I think. lark Jun 2016 #22
thank you, daily news niyad Jun 2016 #11
This is an incredibly true description of what happened and who enabled it. MariaThinks Jun 2016 #12
The Second Amendment was written in the late 1700s ... Jopin Klobe Jun 2016 #17
+1,000,000 lark Jun 2016 #23
Agreed Dem2 Jun 2016 #42
So was the First- does it still apply to Internet postings? friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #49
well what you posted is just not correct Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #52
Trump's statement HockeyMom Jun 2016 #28
I agree with the sympathy but Wibly Jun 2016 #29
K&R mcar Jun 2016 #34
Their titles and articles are usually spot on. liberalnarb Jun 2016 #46
You gotta love NY Daily News for making headlines even Fox News viewers can understand. valerief Jun 2016 #47
We should begin referring to the NRA as the many a good man Jun 2016 #51
Yes because guns shoot themselves. texasmomof3 Jun 2016 #53
K & R SunSeeker Jun 2016 #58
it is nice to know DonCoquixote Jun 2016 #60
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New York Daily News Tells...»Reply #52