Real News Real Fast –  Nobody Gets There Faster!

SCOTUS Ruling Strips 2nd Amendment Right if Convicted of Misdemeanor

NATIONAL – The U.S. Constitution is supposed to be a foundation by which all laws are developed in the United States. The 10th Amendment is the ratification that provides sovereignty for each of the 50 States, allowing them to create their own system of governments and pass their own laws.

Some say those rights are slowly being chipped away and in some cases flatly ignored by lawmakers, due to special interests groups and an out of control political correctness that is void of common sense.

Take gun control for instance. There are already strict federal laws that ensure background checks and waiting periods are enforced prior the purchase of a firearm. But Liberal lawmakers say more restrictions should be put in place to reduce the number of violent incidents involving guns, specifically, the banning of assault style rifles. Conservatives believe additional measures would infringe on the 2nd Amendment and open the door to eventually doing away with the right to bear arms.

In short, Liberals blame the firearm, while Conservatives blame criminals who illegally gain access to firearms and could care less what laws are passed to restrict access.

The same principles apply to Federal Domestic Violence Laws, which were enacted by liberals and feminist groups during the early 1990’s. When VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) was ratified in 1994, domestic violence was being addressed to help provide women the ability to escape abusive relationships. Little did they know, 30-years later, programs devised under the guidelines of VAWA would become a multi-billion dollar industry that, according to studies, actually hurt more families than it helped. In fact, statistics show that the rate of domestic violence has virtually gone unchanged but the effects on victims and the accused have been devastating.

When you tie the two efforts together, you have a formula that some say is a recipe to destroy the Constitution and the rights of every man woman and child in America.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court, less conservative Justice, the late Antonin Scalia, upheld a broad reaching law that pleased both Domestic Violence and Gun Control Advocates.

The law would now prevent anyone convicted of a reckless misdemeanor domestic violence charge, which by statute could be as simple as an unwanted touching, to never be in possession or own a firearm again. The same rule that historically only applied to convicted felons.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented Monday as did Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But the collusion between DV and Gun Control Advocates has long been in practice even before Monday’s decision. A civil judgement, one that doesn’t require Due Process, has stripped away 2nd Amendment rights from gun owners for years. Civil Domestic Violence Courts allow the use of ex parte orders to help alleged abuse victims take sole possession of property and children without prior notice to the respondent. These orders also force the respondent to surrender their firearms until a Judge hears the case. If a permanent restraining order put in place the respondent will never have the ability to posses a firearm ever again. Even if they have never been arrested or convicted of a crime at all.

Finally, proponents of the 10th Amendment,which protects state’s rights are also upset because this decisions essentially nullifies many state laws that do not strip gun rights from individuals with misdemeanor DV convictions.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ™2013 – 2016 Real News Real Fast, Inc.

scotis

Share With:
Rate This Article
;
Comments
  • To you liberalsblaming the guns instead of the criminals and the mentally disturbed, orlando would never have happened if your muslim president and his muslim cabinet had not tied the hands of federal law enforcement when it comes to dealing with muslims! Wake up people the democrats have a one world nation in mind controlled by the banks and corporations! Once we are disarmed and overpopulated with america hating refugees it will be easy to institute marshall law! The UN already has military equipment deployed on our soil thanks too Obummer! Get ready folks your liberal dreams of the government ru ning your life is coming true! Luckily you sheep still have the Sheepdog to watch over you!

    Wednesday, 29 June 2016, 9:13 am
    • BiggS, I think Trump is going to sue you for plagiarism.

      Wednesday, 29 June 2016, 5:21 pm
  • Stricter gun laws won’t stop the criminals from killing people they will find a gun if they want one. It will however stop non-criminals from being able to protect themselves with deadly force if the situation arose. However assault style rifles have no real use in that setting. Even if they are banned though criminals will still get ahold of them.

    Wednesday, 29 June 2016, 1:16 am
  • You are so right there mr tom, and not many people know what the constitution of the United states of America means nor know what it says nor who and why it was written up. Check it out people it’s worth read and understanding all rights

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 9:34 pm
  • concerned n. you had FOX NEWS on when you typed it.admit it!

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 6:57 pm
  • Willie instead of flapping your pie hole why don’t you just change the channel and go some place else for your news. As far as *** hats go your seems to fit a lot better .

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 5:18 pm
  • Please keep this a news source. We have enough political opinions already. To merge news and political opinion only muddles both.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 3:30 pm
  • Tom,You are only proving you are a world class ASSHAT!

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 2:14 pm
  • Wow! This site really needs an op-ed section if they are going to post opinion pieces. I realize the author has a bit of an activist history on this topic, which is great, but is should be labeled as an op-ed.

    Op-eds pieces use only facts that push a certain view point. Some examples:

    “There are already strict federal laws that ensure background checks and waiting periods are enforced prior the purchase of a firearm.” True, but not at gun shows or private transactions which the article omits.

    “In short, Liberals blame the firearm, while Conservatives blame criminals who illegally gain access to firearms…” So, all liberals and all conservatives fall in to these two camps? That is the stuff of right and left wing talk show. I know liberals who are staunch 2nd amendment supporters and conservatives who want more background checks. Again, this is just opinion on matters of philosophy.

    Also, if I am not mistaken, most guns used in mass shootings were acquired legally.

    “When you tie the two efforts together, you have a formula that some say is a recipe to destroy the Constitution and the rights of every man woman and child in America.” – “some say” Yeah, no opinion there…

    The article paints this as a liberal vs. conservative decision, but of the two dissenters, one is considered liberal and the other conservative. Both liberal and conservative justices were on the majority side as well.

    I do not agree with the SCOTUS decision either, but to present this as a balanced news piece is just wrong.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 12:45 pm
      • Are you assuming I am a liberal? Did you read the last line of my comment?

        To be fair, conservatives call me liberal and liberals call me conservative. Guess that makes me the CNN of the posters here.

        Wednesday, 29 June 2016, 5:19 pm
  • TOM,you have done it again.You claim there was no bias in your report.BULL##T! Why would you publish it then? You do realize that anyone arrested for ANY violent crime(accused or real) are ordered by the judge upon release that there is to be no contact with the victim(man or woman) and no possession of guns? This is not a new thing.You are truly a JERK.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 11:33 am
  • @mike working out real good in eu isint it why don’t you move there. 330 million guns in u.s that they know of . Those who forget there history are bound to repeat it. The only way to take over a people is to disarm them Adolf Hitler and he did with registration first. Now to common sense it would be like the drug war hahahaha dont work will never work.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 11:22 am
  • Thank you Tom for presenting this, it does help clear up this argument to me. I totally believe and support the Constitution.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 10:43 am
  • Look I’m probably going to make people mad but honestly I don’t care because this is my opinion I do not believe that civilians need RPGs, automatic weapons, or missiles I do believe we have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves with normal guns not mass killing machines The right to bear arms was put in place so you can protect yourself and your loved ones If you have to use automatic weapons, RPGs, or missiles to do that then you need to go to the gun range and learn how to shoot Furthermore I believe that the strict laws that are on gun regulations now are not upheld by a lot of places that sell guns That I do not agree with I think if you’re going to sell a gun you should have the same standards as anywhere else Lastly I do not believe guns kill people I believe people kill people If we make it harder for those people to get guns we would all be safer Hence any place that sells guns should have to uphold the strict laws on gun regulations that are in place now which a lot of them do not I am done with my opinion now so take it or leave it.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 10:03 am
    • What is your definition of a “normal” gun. You start off blaming the gun, then say, rightly, it’s the person. The rifle used in these events is one in common use nationwide for legal purposes, as are hammers, bats & knives…
      The Federal Firearm Licensed retailer is not to “enforce” the laws regulating sales, but conform (follow) the regulatory statutes… The retailer is to report to state & federal authorities those instances that they encounter which violate the sale of firearms. It’s the Justice system not investigating & prosecuting. The DOJ has consistently not done what it’s tasked with, & of course they play the “funding card”. Prosecuting these violators would remove many, keeping others who shouldn’t posses is one thing, but due process is also a guaranteed right.
      One more item, the individual responsible for the carnage in Orlando, investigated by the FBI, at least twice, was not on any of the so called “watch lists”, the current clamor. He was employed as security guard, and licensed to be armed as such if required; and as such was screened, passed the same and owned guns before Orlando.

      Wednesday, 29 June 2016, 2:37 am
  • It’s way too easy to get guns here. Other countries have freedoms, more than us; plus the bonus freedom of not getting shot.

    The gop brainwashing is pathetic, guns the economy, none of their nonsense benefits Americans. A simple look at Europe, Canada, Australia proves this.

    Our country has drifted so far right, IKE and probably even Reagan would have to be democrats today.

    The dem party certainly is far from perfect, but is certainly the only thing close to science and mortality that w have.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 9:52 am
  • RAWANDA THATS ALL I HAVE TO SAY 800,000 DEAD MOSTLY DONE WITH MACHETES, WHOS GOING INTO CHICAGO TO GET THERE ILLEGAL GUNS SMH.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 9:52 am
  • I think the real point is that in Hernando county like many other counties, the restraining and ex parte orders are issued everyday without any evidence. Most of the time its a judgement call (on the judges part) based soley on how believable the statement is written. This process is used and abused very often. If a police report of a crime was required it would stop many of these. This system is abused by men and women, in the heat of the moment, to assist with marital and child custody disputes. It even benefits them when they know which judge is working that day, when know which are quicker to approve the order. So why should gun rights be taken away from these individuals based soley on the how well the other can write a drama statement.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 9:28 am
  • J D
    Would you say the same if the government started chipping away at your freedom of speech? How about your freedom of religion?
    Your rights are your rights. That’s what makes this country GREAT. Want stricter gun laws so YOU feel safer? There are other countries that are not as free as American. Moving companies I am sure would certainly help you pack and move.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 9:06 am
    • Mark Preston – Based on your response, do you think that those with felony convictions should be allowed to own guns? Isn’t that chipping away at their rights?

      If you believe that convicted felons should not be able to legally own guns, than your argument is flawed.

      Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 9:37 am
  • One way to turn people against one another
    Boy
    Some people think the problem solving is best to be done by the government
    When in fact it was created by the very same ones that want to help now

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 9:04 am
  • “There are already strict federal laws that ensure background checks and waiting periods are enforced prior the purchase of a firearm.”
    yeah, except that isn’t true. Private sellers without a federal license can sell a gun without running a background check.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 8:36 am
  • Actually, the case involved “reckless” domestic assault, not “non-reckless” as the article claims. The stats and studies on links between DV and gun ownership is very telling. Victims of domestic violence are 5x more likely to be killed if the abuser has access to a gun.

    Very small percentages of DV cases result in a Felony conviction due to lack of victim cooperation.

    Part of what bothers me so much about the NRA and gun right advocates is the “line in the sand” mentality. They refuse any discussion about possible ideas to address the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence. Every proposal to try to DO SOMETHING is shot down immediately without any consideration. “THEY GON” TAKE OUR GUNZ!”

    I mean, are we really defending the rights of CONVICTED WIFE BEATERS to own a GUN?!?!?

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 8:33 am
      • While i disagree with your contention that men rank equally with women among abuse victims (i read that 2012 CDC study, it contrasts greatly with MANY other CDC studies), it doesn’t change my opinion that SCOTUS got it right. And even without Scalia on the bench, the vote was 6-2 (ALITO even agreed), so his vote would NOT have swung the decision.

        Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 4:29 pm
        • I find it amazing that Sonia Sotomayor dissented in this case.

          Wednesday, 29 June 2016, 1:44 am
    • JD I think you missed the point. Yes, we all want to protect the wife that has been beaten by her spouse, but the picture is much bigger (of course you are also forgetting many times it is a man). The majority of emergency (temporary) restraining orders don’t actually involve those wife beaters. Any individual can walk into the court house and claim to be in fear of someone, without there being any real crime, and get an emergency order. This would even include someone pointing at you, with their finger actually touching you, as Tom suggested.
      When that person is served with this emergency restraining order, they have to give up all weapons, and stay 500 feet from that individual. Many times this also included giving the children to the other individual. Which is why it’s used by individuals and attorneys to gain a upper hand in a custody and/or marital dispute. Also used when someone is mad with another individual. I’m sure any judge in Hernando County could tell you there are many cases that the to people have solved their differences and are sitting next to each other by the time it makes it’s way to court (which is a crime)!!!
      Should this take away someones right to own a gun? They have not even been convicted of a crime, only had a dramatized statement written about them. This process is abused, and can ruin an individuals reputation, job, and family. Should it also take away their legal right to own a gun? Guns are not just used for crimes, shooting a water moccasin in my back yard is a good example.

      Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 10:42 am
      • You mention I missed the point, but I believe it is you who missed the point. I’m referring to the recent SCOTUS ruling dealing with convictions of reckless DV charges. You are referring to a domestic violence injunction or a temporary restraining order, which is a completely different situation.

        But since you brought it up, isn’t the individual who is the subject of a DVI required to be served in order for it to be granted? otherwise, it is a valid due process argument. However, if served, they have to opportunity to rebut the accusations.

        Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 3:09 pm
  • Un freakin believable…

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 7:15 am
  • Great opinion piece, There is already a line drawn with 2nd amendment rights. I cant have a fully automatic weapon, RPG or a shoulder fired missile. These are “arms” and my 2nd amendment right. Republicans always try to conflate the issue of tighter gun control to Liberals taking your guns away or violating your 2nd amendment rights. Its a weak pathetic childish argument that throws red meat to an uneducated base. Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans support a more aggressive stance on gun control. The people murdered by these assault style rifles bought LEGALLY have rights too, the right to be alive.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 5:56 am
    • Wrong on fully automatic weapon (made prior to 1986), however, a very difficult process (back round checks, paperwork, etc.), costly, taxed & owners subjected to unannounced, warrantless searches at the whim of BATFE… your reference to various “polls” is also inaccurate & have been debunked.The uneducated base you site are actually the the ones the anti-gun groups are looking to convince more ineffective restrictions are needed, since they have no idea as to current laws, using distorted facts which also have been disproved… you apparently are unaware also… I will not argue the right to life (as stated in the Declaration of Independence), “liberty and the pursuit of happiness”… do have a great day…

      Wednesday, 29 June 2016, 1:35 am
  • Thanks. I can’t remember how long it’s been since I’ve seen fair legislation.

    Tuesday, 28 June 2016, 3:28 am

Leave a Reply

})(jQuery)