Skip Nav
Relationships
The 1 Sleeping Tip That Will Make Your Relationship Better
Amy Schumer
Amy Schumer Believes It's Important to Talk About Abusive Relationships
Relationships
After Her Husband Cheated, This Woman Put Her Wedding Dress on eBay With a Brilliant Listing

Briefing Book! Domestic Abusers Can Purchase Guns


Source

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
Michelann Michelann 7 years
"And sure, felons can still get their hands on guns. But simply arguing that people will still do illegal things has never been a justification NOT to have a law. No one ever says, "well, thieves are still going to steal, so we might as well not have any laws against conversion and burglary."" Your analogy is no good. Burglary hurts somebody, an ex-con owning a gun does not. And I'm really not sure why we'd have to "scrap the jury system" in order to give dangerous domestic abusers longer prison sentences.
snowbunny11 snowbunny11 7 years
And Michelin, how exactly do you think we should administer this "don't let them out while they're dangerous" plan? Just entirely scrap the jury system, the sentencing and pleading systems? If a person has served their sentence, how exactly do you plan on keeping him/her in the slammer for longer than that sentence? And who will determine if the person should stay there? That would sincerely be depriving a person of their life and liberty with no due process. Refusing to sell firearms to convicted violent felons is a simple way to reduce the casualties from firearms. We've already identified a segment of society that was violent enough to warrant a felony conviction. These people should not get access to weapons. This is a good thing for NRA freaks because it allows them to get their guns, while reducing the violent crimes committed with them. And sure, felons can still get their hands on guns. But simply arguing that people will still do illegal things has never been a justification NOT to have a law. No one ever says, "well, thieves are still going to steal, so we might as well not have any laws against conversion and burglary." Making it illegal makes it a crime for both the violent felon to possess the weapon, and the seller to sell it. So it will cut down on the number of violent felons with handguns. Just because we know these people are capable of violence does not mean they should be deprived of their freedom indefinitely, but I don't see why it's necessary to allow them access to deadly weapons. Not all people have to have access to all of their rights all of the time. If that were the case, we could never even put anyone in prison! Surely there is SOMETHING more in life for NRA members other than having their guns!
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Snow, the phrase says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which clearly implies that with due process, you may be deprived of life (or liberty, or property). I think that's obvious. It does not mean that all states should have the death penalty, just that they may. Now, about the other part, I don't think it's a prioritization issue, I think it's a logic issue. I don't think that having a law saying people convicted of domestic abuse cannot purchase firearms would really do anything to protect their victimized partners. If they want to kill the other person, they'll find a way to do it, with or without a legally purchased weapon. If they're so dangerous that they are still a deadly threat to their partner, they should not be release from prison. I don't think holding a seriously violent person in prison until they're no longer considered a threat is the same as being "unfairly held in prison indefinitely."
snowbunny11 snowbunny11 7 years
*Not Jude! Harmonyfrance posted those cases! Sorry! :)
snowbunny11 snowbunny11 7 years
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" I love how strict constructionists can see, "you should have the death penalty" from this phrase of the constitution, a phrase that actually contains the words, "nor be deprived of life." Where do you see, "also, the death penalty is fine"? Seriously, originalists read more crap into the Constitution than anyone! The origin of the death penalty is state, not federal based. It is administered on a state by state basis. The due process clause is NOT a federal mandate for the death penalty, it's merely a test that any state-based punishment must pass. It doesn't mean the origins of the death penalty aren't pursuant to the state police power. Organic- the Koramatsu case is entirely anomolous and terrible. The SC gets 150 cases a year, and pointing out the one case that was upheld under strict scrutiny is not very convincing. Especially because if this case were decided against the internment camps, I can see conservatives would have complained that it would have been a case of "legislating from the bench" like all those other civil rights cases that Jude posted in the Prop 8 thread. I didn't say that laws were ALWAYS struck down under strict scrutiny, but pointing out one case that is actually known for being an anomaly is not compelling evidence that strict scrutiny isn't usually pretty strict. Michelin- I see your point, but what I meant to imply was that when people fight for felon domestic abusers to be allowed to have access to guns when they are released, their priorities are a bit messed up. Now, I guess I don't know whether the people on this board really believe that the second amendment is more important than protecting women in these situations, but I did get that impression from UD's comments, and some other comments that seemed to state that violent felons should be given access to firearms under the second amendment. Or be unfairly held in prison indefinitely.
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" That's where the death penalty justification comes from.
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
I suppose you don't find Japanese internment to be questionable.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Snow, implying that people who fight for second amendment rights don't care about women is a pretty low (not to mention weak) debate tactic.
snowbunny11 snowbunny11 7 years
Organic- actually, questionable laws rarely withstand strict scrutiny. For a state law to pass strict scrutiny, the govt. interest must be incredibly compelling, and the means of the law must be tailored precisely to the purpose. That's why I think there's no way this law will pass strict scrutiny, which is what I'm assuming the SC justices use to evaluate any laws pertaining to the 2nd amendment rights. However, the states also have traditionally been given the police power, and the right to pass laws to protect their citizens from violence. Conservatives have used this power to justify much state legislation, including the death penalty. So I think states passing laws to prevent felons who have a history of domestic abuse and assault from owning firearms is an incredibly compelling interest. It saddens me to realize that some of the men on this forum seem to care more about their SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!! than about violence against women. Here are is some information on domestic violence. I get that you are men, but you all have mothers, sisters, and significant others who can be affected by this: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm Undave- are you suggesting that it would be better to keep someone locked up after they have served a 20 year felony sentence for assault with a deadly weapon than it would be to allow them to leave, and simply deny them access to the deadly weapon? I mean, there is no perfect test for determining whether someone who has served their sentence will turn to violence again, but it would be denying people a proportional sentence to lock everyone up indefinitely, simply because they committed a violent crime. The liberties denied to you in prison are far greater than not having access to a firearm. I'd hate to see all violent offenders get sentenced to life in prison simply because we could never be positive they were rehabilitated. That's more like Saudi Arabia than America. Simply denying violent felons the right to bear a firearm seems like a much less drastic infringement of liberties than locking them up in prison forever. I just simply don't get the irrational love of the second amendment.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 7 years
All the gun registration thing is ridiculous anyway. The courts have ruled that a felon cannot be charged with not registering his fire arm. since if he does so he would "self-incriminate" himself. So the only people that would be punished for not registering their firearms would be the law abiding citizens.
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
Strict scrutiny isn't very strict. It has been misapplied many times. Applying it here adds another.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
"Wait- Michelin, Organic, I'm so confused. I thought Conservatives were for state's rights too? Do you guys just make an exception for the all-holy Second Amendment? Eye-wink" I don't understand your question. I'm all for allowing the states to have the rights that aren't explicitly given to individuals or the federal government. The right to bear arms is explicitly given to individuals. "Even violent felons who have shot and murdered people?" I know this question wasn't directed at me, but obviously murderers should not be free from prison. And if they ARE, it should only be after they are no longer deemed a threat.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 7 years
holy moly snow we agree on something... :) And the state rights pertain to anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution BTW
janneth janneth 7 years
gunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsguns
janneth janneth 7 years
Did you ever think you would hear the sentence: He is so fertile.
snowbunny11 snowbunny11 7 years
Wait- Michelin, Organic, I'm so confused. I thought Conservatives were for state's rights too? Do you guys just make an exception for the all-holy Second Amendment? ;)
snowbunny11 snowbunny11 7 years
Hainam- unfortch. because the right to bear firearms is explicit in the Constitution, I'd have to agree with you that it's as fundamental (though probably less important) a right as voting. This is what happens when your Constitution is written at a time when your society is still a frontier society. Sigh. I'm going to have to go with Scalia on this one, it is a fundamental right and should be subject to the strictest scrutiny. Those DA's HAVE to stop pleading the felonies down to misdemeanors or women are going to get hurt! The issue is that the abusers are being charged with felonies, but the DA's plea them down to misdemeanors, not that they "only" are committing misdemeanors in the first place. So sad and scary. "Felons should not be excluded from gun ownership, once they have served a reasonable sentence." Really? Even violent felons who have shot and murdered people? I understand you like the Constitution, but luckily we don't have to chuck all common sense to protect it. Don't forget the states are given the right to protect their citizens through the police power. A state's compelling interest to keep guns out of the hands of convicted killers and domestic abusers should withhold the strict scrutiny required for abrogating a fundamental Constitutional right; the right to own a firearm. The federal Constitution does not completely invalidate all state's rights. And protecting victims of domestic violence (and violence in general) is certainly a compelling governmental interest.
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
Yep yep. Most definitely, Mich.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Jude, I'm sure you and I could spend days talking about the problems in our criminal justice system, and I bet we'd agree about a lot of things, too. The system is so flawed it makes me sick to think about it.
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
"If they are that dangerous, they should not be loose in society." I do agree with that, Mich, as well as most of the rest of your post, but unfortunately our criminal justice system doesn't seem to be set up that way.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
If somebody commits a violent act, we should incarcerate them until they are no longer considered a danger. We should not also strip them of their constitutional rights. Perhaps it could be a temporary part of their sentence, or of probation, but it should not be a permanent situation. If somebody is so violent that they can't be trusted with a gun, then they should also not be trusted with knives, hammers, rocks, matches, gasoline, etc. If they are that dangerous, they should not be loose in society.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 7 years
sorry I think the saying is you can't help those that won't help themselves// couldn't think for a minute
StolzeMama StolzeMama 7 years
I don't think that they should have their rights taken away at this point and I think the court is correct in their ruling. Misdemeanor is supposedly a minor offense. It does not set up a string of prior offenses (legally) to think that they would use a gun violently. However, stricter sentencing like charging them with a felony would let people know the severity of their actions. And if women will only press charges if it is a misdemeanor, you cant help the unwilling.
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
I tend to think that gun ownership should be less of a right for all and more of a privilege for those who haven't been convicted of violently attacking their own family members when enraged (or of violent crime in general). I just find the idea of a guy who abuses his family having access to a gun and flying into an abusive rage very frightening.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 7 years
Anyway, we are clearly never going to agree. I understand your position, I just can't bring myself to agree with it. Have a great night, all!
FROM EW: Law & Order Star Steven Hill Dead at 94
Man Allegedly Kills Roommate After Twitter Account with His Name Posts About Buying Gun, Needing Ammo
What Happens When You Leave an Abusive Relationship
SOPA Protest: List of Websites Going Dark
Why the Orlando Shooting Is Important to LGBTQ People
Briefing Book! A Closer Look at Afganistan's Marital Rape Law
Jersey Shore Slang

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X