Why am I not surprised? When an individual believes themselves to be doing the right thing in restricting civil rights it's kind of like Lay's potato chips - You Can't Eat Just One:
The Supreme Court just did something big, XXXX.
Yesterday's ruling will prevent domestic abusers from owning deadly firearms. This is absolutely a lifesaving ruling: Women are five times more likely to be murdered in a domestic violence dispute when it involves a gun.
Reread that last sentence, XXX. Five times more likely. So it makes my blood boil knowing that the Supreme Court ever had to hear such a clear-cut case. This basic gun law, designed to protect victims of domestic violence, should never have been up for debate. Of course we should protect against domestic abuse. Of course abusers should not have access to guns. Of course.
We can’t wait around for court rulings on every gun violence prevention measure. And while we can’t stop every senseless killing, if our efforts can help save even one life, we have the moral obligation to try. I can’t and won’t stay silent, so I’m asking you now to stand with Gavin and me to demand change by donating today.
Give $5 today to show you are fed up with reading about endless deadly shootings. Here’s the link: http://ift.tt/296Twd9
Women trapped in abusive relationships are among the most vulnerable to gun violence – on average, 51 women in the U.S. are shot to death by a former or current intimate partner each month.
It’s beyond fathomable. We need to do more – we can do more right now – to protect women from gun violence at the hands of domestic abusers.
Can I count on you to take a stand and contribute to Safety for All today?
You can save lives and make sure no guns get into the hands of violent domestic abusers. Here’s the link to contribute to Safety for All: http://ift.tt/296Twd9
Thank you for not accepting violence as a norm and for supporting Safety for All. With your help I know we’ll make meaningful change in November.
Warmest,
Jennifer Siebel Newsom
Emphasis - underlined by me - The first issue here is that the domestic abuse as a disqualifier for firearms possession has been and will continue to be in effect for the foreseeable future.Two individuals that were convicted under USC 922 (g) 9 sued in Federal Court to overturn the lifetime firearms ban provision for misdemeanor domestic assault convictions and they lost in every venue along the way except at one point where the court remanded the decision to the lower court, which again ruled against plaintiffs, and SCOTUS again ruled against plaintiffs.
I agree with the court, and support the notion that individuals convicted of certain criminal acts can and should be faced with the loss of Constitutional Rights, including the right to possess firearms.
What is unsaid in the above Email, is that during the course of this case, from start to finish, USC 922 (g) remained fully enforced - no convicted domestic abuser got a free pass through a NICS background check and was allowed to purchase a firearm legally.
What I find extremely interesting is the section I underlined, namely:
This basic gun law, designed to protect victims of domestic violence, should never have been up for debate.
It is apparently a very short jump from disregarding 2nd Amendment Rights to disregarding 1st Amendment Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Mrs. Newsom is not in any way alone in her view on this subject, From our California state assembly:
The Supreme Court just did something big, XXXX.
Yesterday's ruling will prevent domestic abusers from owning deadly firearms. This is absolutely a lifesaving ruling: Women are five times more likely to be murdered in a domestic violence dispute when it involves a gun.
Reread that last sentence, XXX. Five times more likely. So it makes my blood boil knowing that the Supreme Court ever had to hear such a clear-cut case. This basic gun law, designed to protect victims of domestic violence, should never have been up for debate. Of course we should protect against domestic abuse. Of course abusers should not have access to guns. Of course.
We can’t wait around for court rulings on every gun violence prevention measure. And while we can’t stop every senseless killing, if our efforts can help save even one life, we have the moral obligation to try. I can’t and won’t stay silent, so I’m asking you now to stand with Gavin and me to demand change by donating today.
Give $5 today to show you are fed up with reading about endless deadly shootings. Here’s the link: http://ift.tt/296Twd9
Women trapped in abusive relationships are among the most vulnerable to gun violence – on average, 51 women in the U.S. are shot to death by a former or current intimate partner each month.
It’s beyond fathomable. We need to do more – we can do more right now – to protect women from gun violence at the hands of domestic abusers.
Can I count on you to take a stand and contribute to Safety for All today?
You can save lives and make sure no guns get into the hands of violent domestic abusers. Here’s the link to contribute to Safety for All: http://ift.tt/296Twd9
Thank you for not accepting violence as a norm and for supporting Safety for All. With your help I know we’ll make meaningful change in November.
Warmest,
Jennifer Siebel Newsom
Emphasis - underlined by me - The first issue here is that the domestic abuse as a disqualifier for firearms possession has been and will continue to be in effect for the foreseeable future.Two individuals that were convicted under USC 922 (g) 9 sued in Federal Court to overturn the lifetime firearms ban provision for misdemeanor domestic assault convictions and they lost in every venue along the way except at one point where the court remanded the decision to the lower court, which again ruled against plaintiffs, and SCOTUS again ruled against plaintiffs.
I agree with the court, and support the notion that individuals convicted of certain criminal acts can and should be faced with the loss of Constitutional Rights, including the right to possess firearms.
What is unsaid in the above Email, is that during the course of this case, from start to finish, USC 922 (g) remained fully enforced - no convicted domestic abuser got a free pass through a NICS background check and was allowed to purchase a firearm legally.
What I find extremely interesting is the section I underlined, namely:
This basic gun law, designed to protect victims of domestic violence, should never have been up for debate.
It is apparently a very short jump from disregarding 2nd Amendment Rights to disregarding 1st Amendment Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Mrs. Newsom is not in any way alone in her view on this subject, From our California state assembly:
| YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. |
| I AGREE |
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/294N1GW
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire