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
Supreme Court to hear "the bitch wouldn't shut up" defense for
Domestic abuse.
The Supreme Court Is Taking a Case That Could Let Unintentional Domestic Abusers Own Guns
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/supreme-court-domestic-violence-misdemeanor-voisine-armstrong/
e Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a case about the gun rights of two men found to have committed domestic abuse in Maine. Central to the Justices eventual decision is this question: What kind of domestic abuse do you have to be convicted of to have your gun rights taken away?
====
According to the documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Voisine (one of the petitioners) was charged with domestic violence in June 2003 after slapping his girlfriend while he was intoxicated. During the incident, his girlfriend had called 911 and told authorities that it was not the first time Voisine had hurt her. He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor crime of simple assault, resulting in a conviction. Authorities didnt learn that Voisine owned a gun until 2009, after a stranger reported to the police that Voisine had killed a bald eagle with a rifle. (The Wall Street Journal notes that Voisine may have been the first person to kill one of the birds in the state since President Franklin Roosevelt signed a law granting them protected status 75 years ago.)
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of guy we want having access to guns. Anger management issues so severe that he can't physically control himself and so law abiding that he kills protected bald eagles.
But, ya' know, gunz is sooooooooo special.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 2067 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (17)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court to hear "the bitch wouldn't shut up" defense for (Original Post)
flamin lib
Nov 2015
OP
For some reason, I picture Dave Chappelle arguing this case before the Supreme Court. . .
Journeyman
Nov 2015
#1
Journeyman
(15,144 posts)1. For some reason, I picture Dave Chappelle arguing this case before the Supreme Court. . .
mountain grammy
(27,273 posts)2. That's about the most reasonable thing I can think of for this case.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)3. The Lautenberg Amendment states
that any person who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot purchase or receive a firearm.
This might be the problem right there. Domestic violence is not taken seriously in some or most cases there is a fine and very little jail time. Which is the wrong approach as it obviously doesn't work. Violent people should be required to do a whole lot of therapy and they shouldn't be able to use the "the bitch wouldn't shut up" defense for their crimes. Fines and jail time can be a tool to combat the problem as well, but the focus should be on making sure it doesn't happen again.