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

General Discussion

mr_liberal

(1,017 posts)

3. She and Thomas think the law is too braod.

Reply to Jitter65 (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:30 PM

Jun 2016

For example, you could lose you gun rights for life just for something like a Mother slapping her son for talking back or something like that.

Id have to read the law in depth but if it is like that I think I agree that it is too broad. Im surprised that it was upheld.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can someone explain Justice Sotomayor's dissent on the SCOTUS gun ruling? [View all] Jitter65 Jun 2016 OP

This WaPo piece might help IronLionZion Jun 2016 #1

The issues where she agreed, from a quick reading: elleng Jun 2016 #2

She and Thomas think the law is too braod. mr_liberal Jun 2016 #3

Thanks. nt Jitter65 Jun 2016 #4

It was a highly technical court case. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #5

Actually Not True-There Was an Amicus Brief Filed by Several Guns Rights Non-Profits Stallion Jun 2016 #7

No actual party in the case was arguing that. So yes, it's true. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #8

This Statement Was Incorrect Stallion Jun 2016 #9

No one in the actual case at hand. So no it isn't incorrect. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #10

Read this djg21 Jun 2016 #6