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

Latest Breaking News

hack89

(39,181 posts)

5. There should be uniformity as to how the states define domestic violence

Reply to hlthe2b (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 02:07 PM

Mar 2014

and they should take a hard line to ensure there is no lee way for violent people to get guns.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

US top court rules domestic abusers can't own guns [View all] hue Mar 2014 OP

Good. nt enlightenment Mar 2014 #1

+1 sakabatou Mar 2014 #36

It will be interesting to see if states actually step up and address this retrospectively... hlthe2b Mar 2014 #2

There should be uniformity as to how the states define domestic violence hack89 Mar 2014 #5

Pretty sure most states already enforce the Lautenberg Amendment. AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #8

This ruling prevent many of the Tea/Repukes/NRA from owing their firearms! hue Mar 2014 #3

This ruling will prevent many from owning firearms, uncommonlink Mar 2014 #6

Domestic abuse isn't tied to one party. eggplant Mar 2014 #16

Very true. hue Mar 2014 #18

I'm afraid it wont stop them from owning them, Mr.Bill Mar 2014 #29

It won't, any more than making drugs illegal keeps people from using them. Jgarrick Mar 2014 #30

I agree... Deuce Mar 2014 #38

MRA and gundamentalist blogs will be in total meltdown today. alp227 Mar 2014 #4

As will the Gungeon. KamaAina Mar 2014 #14

Doubtful. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #17

Make that four- I agree with it. Your interlocutor needs to be reminded of... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2014 #25

No - this is a 17 year old law hack89 Mar 2014 #31

Wait....! Is that a CAMEL'S NOSE I see?!? n/t TygrBright Mar 2014 #7

This isn't a new thing. This has been the law since what, 1986? AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #9

The Supreme Court gets something right for a change! perdita9 Mar 2014 #10

NRA Flipout in 3..2..1.. berni_mccoy Mar 2014 #11

NRA gun rights nuts heads exploding kimbutgar Mar 2014 #12

cool bowens43 Mar 2014 #13

I might even break strict protocol and head over to the Gungeon KamaAina Mar 2014 #15

It's not even posted there. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #19

Welcome back!!! LanternWaste Mar 2014 #21

Welcome back? uncommonlink Mar 2014 #24

+100 billh58 Mar 2014 #35

What about the returnee that speaks rather Loudly against guns? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2014 #39

Still trying to figure out what welcome back means. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #40

He's implying you're a zombie, a previously banned poster under a new name friendly_iconoclast Mar 2014 #42

Zombie? What an interesting way to describe a banned person. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #43

I'll let Wikipedia explain: friendly_iconoclast Mar 2014 #44

Ok. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #45

You will find support for the law hack89 Mar 2014 #32

this is huge samsingh Mar 2014 #20

You won't hear any complaints from me. Castleman was convicted after due process... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2014 #28

I hope Rachel does a segment on this. (nt) Paladin Mar 2014 #22

K&R. This is a good ruling friendly_iconoclast Mar 2014 #23

Excellent! n/t RKP5637 Mar 2014 #26

Here is the actual opinion happyslug Mar 2014 #27

Very good. nt awoke_in_2003 Mar 2014 #33

Good ruling Gothmog Mar 2014 #34

Dear nra DiverDave Mar 2014 #37

This is good. marble falls Mar 2014 #41

Let me get this straight... derby378 Mar 2014 #46

You obviously don't have much experience with intoxicated farm animals. nt hack89 Mar 2014 #48

Their reputations actually matter to them? dickthegrouch Mar 2014 #47