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

samsingh

(18,418 posts)

20. this is huge

Reply to hue (Original post)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 03:15 PM

Mar 2014

I agree with the ruling.
this also makes the stupid 'infringe' argument a joke. it has been used to say that no matter what damage is caused, we cannot infringe on people having guns.

so now the repug loaded supreme court allow provides some reason in interpretation.

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