- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DO NOT ever threaten someone for risk of losing gun rights.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 11:14 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 6/21/24 at 11:14 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Ok great job tiger. But still no.
1
Posted on 6/21/24 at 11:15 am to davyjones
K.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 11:27 am to Timeoday
Don't get convicted of domestic abuse and you'll be fine.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 11:32 am to andwesway
I will say sometimes they do need a little pop in the mouth when they get to sassing the head of household. Just a quick little overhand jab. Then that’s where the gun comes in handy because you let em know if they call the cops, it’s curtains.
See that’s how the armed spousal abuser thinks.
See that’s how the armed spousal abuser thinks.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 11:41 am to Indefatigable
Damn! Talk about exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.
I mean, in this case what else would you have the court do? A stern admonishment?
I mean, in this case what else would you have the court do? A stern admonishment?
Posted on 6/21/24 at 11:41 am to Timeoday
Innocent until Proven guilty ….
Posted on 6/21/24 at 12:11 pm to Timeoday
It appeared to me that the opinion was intentionally very narrow and written to allow a future challenge.
1. The use of "intimate" relationship. Hmm, define intimate?
2. Ordered by a court. Does this mean the gun owner must be afforded an opportunity to defend themselves in court before the order?
For a SCOTUS decision, it just seems to make the issue more cloudy.
1. The use of "intimate" relationship. Hmm, define intimate?
2. Ordered by a court. Does this mean the gun owner must be afforded an opportunity to defend themselves in court before the order?
For a SCOTUS decision, it just seems to make the issue more cloudy.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 12:34 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The guy in the case beat his girlfriend in a parking lot and shot at a witness, violated a restraining order multiple times, and threatened someone else with a gun while under that order. Oh and it gets better, he was involved in numerous additional shootings after that where he did things like shoot at another driver in a traffic accident.
If you do this kind of shite, you do not need firearms. Or air for that matter.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 12:45 pm to Timeoday
I presume you're referring to the SCOTS Rahimi ruling.
The background of this case makes it seem like a no brainer. Dude drags his girlfriend to his car, throws her inside, and subsequently fires at someone outside of the car. In this case a protective order was issued and his guns confiscated. Seems rightfully so.
The ruling basically confirmed that personal protective orders are enough for a citizens guns to be confiscated.
Thomas was the lone dissenter here, and he argued that the laws already provide a mechanism to take guns away from dangerous people, and that is an aggravated assault charge. The requirement that a protective order be filed is an unecessary step when there are already laws that allow for confiscation.
This here is another one of those slippery slopes in my opinion. At what point will law enforcement and local judges begin weaponizing this particular ruling? Is it a bridge to far to assume that personal vendettas can cause people to file for a PPO that's ran through the system and functionally disarm a law abiding citizen? What are the guide rails? It doesn't appear there are enough, in my opinion.
The background of this case makes it seem like a no brainer. Dude drags his girlfriend to his car, throws her inside, and subsequently fires at someone outside of the car. In this case a protective order was issued and his guns confiscated. Seems rightfully so.
The ruling basically confirmed that personal protective orders are enough for a citizens guns to be confiscated.
Thomas was the lone dissenter here, and he argued that the laws already provide a mechanism to take guns away from dangerous people, and that is an aggravated assault charge. The requirement that a protective order be filed is an unecessary step when there are already laws that allow for confiscation.
This here is another one of those slippery slopes in my opinion. At what point will law enforcement and local judges begin weaponizing this particular ruling? Is it a bridge to far to assume that personal vendettas can cause people to file for a PPO that's ran through the system and functionally disarm a law abiding citizen? What are the guide rails? It doesn't appear there are enough, in my opinion.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 12:53 pm to andwesway
quote:
Don't get convicted
That's the thing here.. a conviction isn't even necessary for rights to be taken.
A disgruntled woman (or man for that matter), could quite easily file for a PPO, that if granted, rights are taken without there EVER being a trial or conviction. This is left up to a judges whim, and can happen very quickly without due process because the judges often times err on the side of caution and put the onus on the accused.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 12:57 pm to Timeoday
I am a gun rights advocate, but there has to be some common sense utilized. If someone has demonstrated threatening behavior, and in cases of domestic violence where emotional instability may be at play, they really do not need access to a firearm. Not only for the safety of others but for themselves as well.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 1:08 pm to Timeoday
You’re seriously over-reacting. Domestic abuse TRO’s are vetted in court. There must be an actual threat.
In many cases I’ve seen, there is good reason to believe a pissed off spouse or boyfriend would shoot the object of their anger. People get crazy in those cases.
In many cases I’ve seen, there is good reason to believe a pissed off spouse or boyfriend would shoot the object of their anger. People get crazy in those cases.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 1:55 pm to Timeoday
quote:
because someone I do not even know
if you are giving threats in a domestic violence issue you would know the person.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 1:57 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
Are you innocent until proven guilty or guilty with rights taken without due process?
There are some people who do not need guns. If you are a POS and abusing women you dont get guns.
There are a lot of cases that red flag laws have helped. If it was used in FL it would have prevented the parkland shooting.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 2:01 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The guy in the case beat his girlfriend in a parking lot and shot at a witness, violated a restraining order multiple times, and threatened someone else with a gun while under that order. Oh and it gets better, he was involved in numerous additional shootings after that where he did things like shoot at another driver in a traffic accident.
And they want to take away his guns for that?
Posted on 6/21/24 at 2:03 pm to FCarole
This sounds like a family court problem. Maybe we should work to reform those.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 2:05 pm to andwesway
quote:
This sounds like a family court problem. Maybe we should work to reform those.
You can put an op on anyone …
Posted on 6/21/24 at 2:27 pm to AubieinNC2009
quote:
There are some people who do not need guns.
Nope. No fricking way.
It's not a fricking Bill of Needs. We either have those rights, or we don't.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 2:33 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The "if you've done nothing wrong, what are you worried about" argument from these Fudds is amazing to watch.
All you need to do is look around at these Soro DAs in action with Trump.
If you think your rights are going to be respected and justice will be fair to you, you haven't been keeping up with current events.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 2:44 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
If you think your rights are going to be respected and justice will be fair to you
Some of us were around before 2016...
Page 5 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News