Supreme Court Dangerously Expands ‘Domestic Abuser’ Definition

(Photo: Post And Courier) Domestic Abuser by way of texting while driving.

Don’t text and drive.  It may now cost you your 2A rights.  (Photo: Post And Courier)

Convicted domestic abusers are prohibited from owning firearms under federal law.  We all agree with this.  You habitually beat your wife, your kids, your partner, you should lose your right to keep and bear arms.  Period.  End of story.

However, while the spirit of the law is quite easy to understand, there are gray areas where everything is not as cut-and-dried as it ought to be.  Let me point out an example of what I mean.

You’re on your way to pick up your son, Sean, from soccer practice.  You’re running late.  Your wife told you to pick him up at 5:30 p.m.  It’s now 5:45 p.m.

Your impatient son texts your wife and rats you out.  “Dad’s not here.  Where is he?”

Your wife immediately starts blowing up your phone with text messages.  “Why haven’t you picked up Sean, yet?  Where are you?  What have you been doing?”

Finally, you reach the soccer field.  You see Sean waiting there, alone.  He’s ticked off.  He gets in the car and slams the door.  “WTF, Dad!” he says.

“Hey, don’t swear.”

“I didn’t.  I said, WTF.”

“OK, whatever,” you say, followed by, “I’m sorry I’m late.”  As you pull onto the road, you begin to speed back home.  Your wife continues to blow up your phone.

“Did you get Sean?”  “Where are you?”  “I’m pissed, I told you to get him at 5:30!!!”

You go to pick up your phone to respond, to send her a quick text that you picked up Sean and that the two of you are on your way home.  As you pick up your phone, you take your eyes off the road for a split second and rear end the car in front of you.  Sean’s head snaps forward and his head hits the dashboard, connecting with a jagged air vent that leaves a slight cut on his head.  It bleeds.

Is that domestic violence?  Are you now a domestic abuser?  Should your Second Amendment rights be permanently stripped from you?  Based on the recent Supreme Court ruling, the answer to all those questions is, YES!

Yup.  That’s basically what the high court decided this week.  Let me back up a bit and explain.  See, as mentioned, federal law prohibits any person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing a firearm.  In other words, the use of physical force against a family member constitutes domestic violence.  To explicate, you intentionally or knowingly slap your wife, you lose your guns.  But, what happens when you recklessly use force against a family member, e.g. the texting while driving scenario?  Should you lose your Second Amendment rights under that circumstance?

That’s the question the high court had to address in the case, Voisine v. U.S. (.pdf), because not all uses of force are intentional, some are indeed reckless, which means that an individual is aware of the physical harm an act may cause but not certain that harm will be caused.  In the hypothetical case I illustrated above, you were generally aware that texting and driving may cause harm to you and your son, but at that moment you willingly ignored the risk.  But because of the accident, it did cause harm. 

Now, under the language of this decision, you could be charged with a misdemeanor crime of reckless assault and if you’re found guilty you will no longer be allowed to keep and bear arms.

See Also: Chelsea Clinton: With Scalia Dead, Court Will Make ‘Definitive’ 2A Ruling

“The federal ban on firearms possession applies to any person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for the ‘use. . . of physical force’ against a domestic relation,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the majority opinion. “That language, naturally read, encompasses acts of force undertaken recklessly—i.e., with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm.”

The vote was 6-2 in favor of including reckless assault as part of the domestic abuser umbrella.  The two dissenting votes came from Justice Clarence Thomas and—surprisingly—Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  Thomas used the driving-while-texting example in his opinion.

“Today the majority expands §922(g)(9)’s sweep into patently unconstitutional territory. Under the majority’s reading, a single conviction under a state assault statute for recklessly causing an injury to a family member—such as by texting while driving—can now trigger a lifetime ban on gun ownership,” wrote Thomas in his dissenting opinion.

“And while it may be true that such incidents are rarely prosecuted, this decision leaves the right to keep and bear arms up to the discretion of federal, state, and local prosecutors,” he continued.

“We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly,” Thomas wrote. “At oral argument the government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine.”

Listen, we all believe that domestic abusers shouldn’t have firearms.  But there is a difference between a domestic abuser who deliberately causes harm and one who causes harm by reckless or irresponsible behavior.  By lowering the bar on what qualifies as domestic violence, more gun owners will lose their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 65 comments… add one }
  • D.T. July 8, 2016, 1:19 pm

    A lot of interesting points. Some are even valid. But none of them matter. It’s too late. Criminals control the media and the government. People are divided intentionally to keep them fighting among themselves, while the criminals do what they do. The longest lasting Republic is on the decline.

  • Tom Horn July 4, 2016, 12:46 pm

    What’s next, lose your 2A rights for jay walking with a family member. Just another senseless erosion of our 2A rights. Be looking for many more, with the Supreme Court out of balance, since the passing of Justice Scalia.

  • gundlr July 3, 2016, 6:23 pm

    The domestic violence law is extremely flawed. First it treats a misdemeaner as a felony. Second, it was retroactive. Two very bad presidents. It was passed by Clinton to reward the NOW gang for their support. Previously, you had to be charged with felony assault. It you beat the crap out of you spouse, and or children, causing physical harm you should loose your rights. If you block a punch, or spank your children, it should be a non event. The definition of domestic violence was already flawed. Now it is obscene.

  • ricky jimenez July 3, 2016, 4:53 pm

    no. we all don’t agree that all so-called domestic abusers should have their second amendment stripped. there are many men convicted of DV that were trying to protect themselves from irate partners. many men merely pushed past their partners trying to avoid escalation. sometimes accidents do happen. time does not permit telling of all scenarios where men were convicted of this crime but charges were not warranted. in some states the accused cannot cross-examine their accuser in open court. this would nullify charges in any other crime. THE DV LAWS ARE DESIGNED TO TAKE AWAY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF MEN THAT SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE PERIOD! if you don’t understand this then you’re sipping the poison. don’t make ANY concession to the anti-gunners. don’t agree with anything that they have to say. NO COMPROMISE.

  • juap July 2, 2016, 1:43 am

    Listen, we all believe that domestic abusers shouldn’t have firearms.

    your full off shit.

  • perlcat July 1, 2016, 6:29 pm

    I have another scenario for you that is more troubling. Suppose a woman in an abusive relationship has at one time or another, struck her abuser, who, knowing how the courts work, had her arrested and pressed charges. (Or, maybe her abuser simply lied about it.) ) Now she’s a bona fide abuser according to the law, and thus no longer able to buy a firearm to defend herself against her abuser. How fair is that?

  • Dexter Winslett, B,ham. P.D. Retired July 1, 2016, 3:47 pm

    NO! No free man shall be debarred the use of firearms. Hang all of these traitors by the neck, all who defy the second amendment ought be hung.

    • ricky jimenez July 3, 2016, 4:54 pm


  • Joe Winters July 1, 2016, 3:27 pm

    Why doesn’t anyone think that a driver should lose driving privileges for life. I don’t understand how it can be legal for the gov. to take away a person’s right to have guns when they didn’t do anything wrong with a gun , they did ( in the scenario) something wrong with a mobile phone and motor vehicle , a drunk driver can get their driving privileges back. This ruling makes no sense . it seems all they are focused on is taking gun rights not driving privileges, or dealing with domestic violence and causes of. Also , why is the focus only on the male’s behavior, there’s plenty of females out there that pick fights then claim to be victims, they also text and drive , put makeup on while driving and other things that distract a driver’s ability to control their vehicle as well as other parts of life. The child yelling and screaming at his father for being late is as much a distraction if not more than anything else. No one should be treated harmless and innocent as long as they comprehend what’s going on around them, also the mother texting the father ( not responding because he’s driving ) be held equally responsible for distraction. Do these people in the scenario not know each other. 15 min. late is nothing to get upset about especially in city traffic. How much should males be expected to put up with verses everyone else. No type of violence and guns mix , also no type of ( I CAN you CAN’T ) does either. ” PEACE “

    • ricky jimenez July 3, 2016, 4:55 pm


  • Ram6 July 1, 2016, 2:35 pm

    There is only one answer to this continual legislating by the Supreme Court in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. If the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” Thomas Jefferson.

    The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court’s nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review.

    But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government. It was acquired by the SCOTUS in 1803 in the decision of Marbury v Madison. The court declared the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, essentially telling the entire Government that the court, alone, had the power to structure the Judicial Branch of the government and even to determine whether the Senate, Lower House and President — along with all departments and agencies — was following its own laws. Jefferson totally disagreed and once again I quote Thomas Jefferson who wrote, in 1823:

    “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”

    In Marbury v. Madison a bunch of unelected lawyers decided that SCOTUS rules, but who died and made them the final arbiters. If their mandate is not in the constitution then it exists merely because they say so. Really? It’s no wonder Jefferson was appalled at this decision. Consequently its ruling on “gay marriage” is NOT the law of the land. It is merely the belief of 5 lawyers in black robes in Washington D.C. and has no foundation in the constitution any more than the “emanations and penumbras” led to the usurpation of the state’s homicide laws and imposed the Roe v. Wade decision on the entire country by fiat. The court took it upon itself to become the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional and it’s time for this practice to cease.

    • Mg July 3, 2016, 4:30 pm

      So you have a great point. Scotus job is only to interpret the law not make the law or expand the law. So now what? They have done this in the past as well.
      When convicted of a misdemeanor can you argue that law is illegal using the well defined separation of powers in the constitution? Has anyone written their congressional reps to let them know job is being eroded? Has our congress considered setting a check and balance for Scotus? Can we push for the idea that a Scotus member be removed when obviously ruling to impose pubic policy or opinion vs interpretation of well defined law? Most recent example is the opinions rendered over Puerto Rico’s default. We have a great country we need to get back on the right path.

  • Elwood Ulmer July 1, 2016, 2:31 pm

    No court,Politician, or anyone else has the divine authority to remove or deny you of for GOD given rights

  • Elwood Ulmer July 1, 2016, 2:27 pm

    No court,politician, or anyone else has the power to deny you your GOD given rights.

  • Curly July 1, 2016, 1:54 pm

    It has been coming for a long time, we no longer have a Supreme Court that rules on our Constitution and a Government that upholds the Constitution and the very principles our country was founded on. Our forefathers fought, bled and died to give us the greatest Government the world has ever known, Two hundred and some years later WE THE PEOPLE HAVE ALLOWED THE THEIVES AND LIARS WE ELECT TO DESTROY our country and the greatest way of life in the world. Think we can get it back, not if we continue on the same path we seem to be too scared to change.

  • Chief July 1, 2016, 1:01 pm

    This is why we cannot let Hillary in in Nov and appoint the next 3 SCOTUS Judges !

  • James July 1, 2016, 11:58 am

    People even if it means going too prison, or die for our freedoms, like the forefathers, the legitimate, riots back in the 50s and 60s of the black people etc., Just have to accept that will happen to us, but in the name of life, liberty and the pursuit, of happiness, for our fellow Americans, family, friends who believe in the same, may enjoy, freedom even if we must be sacrificed. In the process the government looses taxes, and cost the government money too keep us locked up. Bankrupt this big entity, of a government.

  • david July 1, 2016, 11:54 am

    Two things are off here…

    1) “habitual” is the first in “You habitually beat your wife, your kids, your partner, you should lose your right to keep and bear arms. Period. End of story.” – I should be “You beat your wife, your kids, your partner, only once and you should lose your right to keep and bear arms. Period. End of story.”

    2) Justice Thomas is wrong. While the words of the law are … “use. . . of physical force’ AGAINST a domestic relation,” “That language, naturally read, encompasses acts of force…” Texting while driving resulting in an accident is not a use of physical force AGAINST a domestic relation as there is NO INTENT to use physical force against s/he.

    • vERITAS July 2, 2016, 2:41 am

      Who ties your shoelaces for you? Can’t you read what the Justice said?

    • loupgarous July 3, 2016, 1:36 am

      The ruling was clear on that point. The domestic violence occurred because the driver intentionally and knowingly whipped his smartphone out and started texting. As the ruling states, the driver had the “mens rea” (“ready mind”) to break a law and in so doing injured a family member. Almost all injuries caused by unlawful negligence are classified as “assaults.”

      I happen to believe that texting while driving is so bad that misdemeanor charges against people who do it are too mild. Someone who’s texting while driving a car is risking hitting a pedestrian who steps in front of his or her car while the driver’s attention is not on his or her car, but on a phone screen. it’s a clear decision to take a chance on killing someone so you can send or receive a message. Ought to be a felony.

  • USNVET July 1, 2016, 11:41 am

    Then neither one of the Clinton’s should be able to ever have access to a firearm

    They are on record of Wild Bill loathing his wife and his wife throwing objects at him and others.

    For over 40 years Mrs Clinton has refused to be drug tested WHY?

    • ByStander July 1, 2016, 9:37 pm

      She refuses because she pisses pure cocaine. Hillary and Ol’ Billy have been snorting coke since he got his Arkansas/Columbia import business (disguised as a Governor).

  • James July 1, 2016, 11:21 am

    Well Ezra I’m in for the fight. There’s many ways to like don’t work, protest, riot, block highways, streets etc like the liberals, black lives matter. Hit the government in there pockets, don’t pay your taxes, doesn’t matter how much or how little you have, the government will take that from you after your disarmed. Fight like our forefathers, with our heads, and physically.

  • Michael July 1, 2016, 11:08 am

    Tyranny by a committee of 9, in this case 8, is still tyranny. The supreme court is becoming one of the most dangerous threats to liberty and will be even worse if HRC gets to place 2 or 3 more liberal ideologues on the court. If that happens we can just disband the congress since the court will act as a super legislature to write and rewrite federal and state laws to bring them into compliance with progressive ideals.

  • Ezra Bean July 1, 2016, 10:44 am

    Well? Are we going to end up fighting like our Founding Fathers did or whimper in the corner and let these maggots castrate America?

    • Mark Are July 1, 2016, 11:05 am

      I’ve been willing to fight for over 32 years. I guess we will see how many more it takes to awaken before we actually start doing it. When Gordon Kahl was murdered back in the early 80’s by “our” government and the local Sheriff tried to intervene and was murdered also, I knew at that point that the people running the federal government were a bunch of psychopathic nutcases and we should start boxing them as soon as possible. The problem is that we believe in defense and they believe in offense and once they start the offense you’re pretty much screwed.

      • Miles Huggins July 1, 2016, 10:13 pm

        Your dead nuts right

  • Leighton Cavendish July 1, 2016, 10:44 am

    I understand taking/restricting guns if a gun was used in the crime/incident…but not if one was not involved.
    Perhaps restrict ownership/purchase for 6mos-1 year…like probation…if no future incidents then reinstate rights automatically.
    Further violations would result in longer or permanent loss of rights.
    The biggest farce is that no other weapons are restricted/taken. No problem with people buying/owning swords…knives…chainsaws…bats…golf clubs…etc etc etc

  • mike July 1, 2016, 10:29 am

    And THAT, my friends, is EXACTLY the CRUX of the issue when it comes to LISTS whether the list is about Domestic Violence or Mental Health or Travel or ANYTHING for that matter, WHOEVER DECIDES THE CRITERIA FOR WHO GETS ON THE LIST MAKES THE RULES. AND, they can CHANGE those rules ANYTIME they PLEASE to. So ALL you SHEEP out there who claim we HAVE to learn to COMPROMISE, SHUT THE EFF UP. THERE IS NO COMPROMISE with these “CREATURES”!!!! Understand THAT once and for ALL time. The ONLY THING THEY FEAR and RESPECT is an ARMED, INFORMED, PISSED OFF AMERICAN!!!!!!! And they will do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING to DISARM this Country AND it’s People! Take THAT to the “INTERNATIONAL BANK”!!!!!!!!

  • retrocon July 1, 2016, 10:19 am

    So how do we fix this? Other than vote out all liberals, which is NOT going to happen in my life time?

    It’s going to get worse folks. Does anyone know if there’s a call-to-action site that we can join. If someone is being confronted by ATF or others, attempting to unlawfully take our weapons (unlawfully under the constitution, not necessarily under liberal approved “laws”), i would be happy to join hundreds of other constitutional gun owners and go stand right behind that ATF SWAT team and nicely tell them to leave. But we need a place to put the call out.


    • Miles Huggins July 1, 2016, 10:15 pm

      Convention of states

  • gary sheldon July 1, 2016, 10:15 am

    Clarence Thomas for President !

    • mike July 1, 2016, 10:58 am

      NO, Vladimir PUTIN for President gary!

  • Pontificant July 1, 2016, 9:44 am

    I suspect soon enough, all these “laws” will be moot. So Folks, I suggest we start focusing on preparing and not sweat the legal stuff. If they want the laws on the books (California), they’ll put the laws on the books. There’s no shortage of innocent people they will stage to kill to get this done.

    The only one way those laws are going to come off the books is by burning the ink off the pages. Don’t get angry, get prepared.

  • Anthony Murray July 1, 2016, 9:41 am

    It is even worse than described in the article. You do not have to be angry, you do not have to physically touch anyone. She can say she was afraid of you. Bam. DV. A boyfriend and girlfriend are grabbing lunch they get into an argument one of them throws a fry at the other one. Bam. DV. This nonsense has to stop. If someone is not on the run from warrants or a crime they just committed, or are incarcerated then everyone of legal age (which should be set by the States NOT the federal government) should be able to purchase and carry a firearm without permit or registration. It used to be done and was a non issue. It needs to go back to that.

    • Mark Are July 1, 2016, 3:40 pm

      Before 1968 the only people who couldn’t own firearms “legally” were people IN a cage!

  • ACPFan July 1, 2016, 9:30 am

    The author completely misunderstands the idea of “reckless” as defined by law. To be reckless, you must act violently with the knowledge that the action could cause harm. Justice Kagan used the example of throwing a plate at a wall near where your wife is standing. Everyone agrees that its highly likely that pieces of the plate might ricochet and hit her. Throwing the plate is obviously violent, and knowing it may hurt someone is reckless. Even if you accidentally dropped the plate on her foot during an argument, if doesn’t count because there’s no violent act. That’s not to say some overzealous prosecutor might try to make the case, but at least the law is on your side here.

    The author uses a version of Justice Thomas’s counter argument, but misses the mark. Rear-ending a car while texting is negligent behavior, but not violent. Now, if you lost your temper at your son and intentionally rammed the car while yelling “I’ll shut you up!” – that could be seen as reckless domestic violence . It all depends on whether the court thinks you actually wanted to smack the kid’s head on the dash or not. That’s the difference between recklessness and a more serious crime.

    I would argue that the most important warning from this entire case came from Justice Thomas. He says that the supreme court has a habit of “relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right” and that “we treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly” as to allow it to be lost for a single reckless act. If congress created a law that absolutely forbade someone from publishing or speaking in public after committing a similar crime, it would be struck down immediately as a violation of the first amendment. The other justices did not agree and it seems whenever gun owner’s rights intersect with the rights of the majority, gun owners take a back seat.

    • grifhunter July 1, 2016, 3:49 pm

      In NY family members are routinely charged with misdemeanor assault for motor vehicle accidents that injure other family members, where any semblance of recklessness is present: any alcohol consumption, texting, speeding 20+mph, etc.

    • loupgarous July 3, 2016, 1:52 am

      Justice Thomas had the best argument – that keeping and bearing arms is an enumerated Constitutional right.
      The Obama administration has actually upheld denial of other enumerated rights by the courts. After the Benghazi debacle, they tried to pin responsibility for the killings on a filmmaker, Sam Bacile, who had previously committed a crime with a computer and been forbidden as part of his probation from using a computer.
      Unable to legally punish Bacile for blaspheming the Muslim religion (the pathetic excuse the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton made for the Benghazi attacks) with his film “The Innocence of Muslims”, they instead jailed Bacile for violating the terms of his probation by posting his video to YouTube. Now, if that court had simply forbidden Mr. Bacile from speaking publicly as a condition of his probation, that would be an obvious First Amendment violation. But he instead “spoke” with a keyboard, computer and Internet account – “protected speech” as detetrmined by the Supreme Court in overturning the “Communications Decency Act” which tried to outlaw Internet porn – instead of doing what they ought to have done and respecting Bacile’s right to free speech both in making that movie and then using the Internet to publish it.
      “Liberalism” no longer means what it did when Edmund Burke coined the term. It now stands for callous left-wing tyranny.

  • James July 1, 2016, 9:28 am

    Now if while texting, or what ever you cause a accident your child etc. gets hurt it becomes child abuse, you loose your gun rights, then you’d have to loose your job if you work for a school, or any other government, public job.

  • Mark Are July 1, 2016, 8:55 am

    “Convicted domestic abusers are prohibited from owning firearms under federal law. We all agree with this. You habitually beat your wife, your kids, your partner, you should lose your right to keep and bear arms. Period. End of story.” WRONG. We all DON’T agree with this. First off the right to keep and bear arms is an UNalienable right NATURAL right. You can’t loose it and you can’t give it away. These laws don’t just effectively disarm the alleged bad guy but they also effectively disarm the whole household. So what happens is the person who is abused can’t have a gun around just in case a robber or home invader breaks in. You people who say “we all agree with this” are nothing but people who use the constitution and rights like a smorgasbord. YOU EITHER HAVE THE RIGHT or you don’t in the first place. If ANYONE can “Take” the right, it wasn’t a right. It was a privilege granted by nothing but bullies with guns. So it isn’t the end of the story and it isn’t just habitual abusers. DO IT ONCE and you’re SCREWED.

    • brian July 1, 2016, 9:14 am

      And in this great country we respect your RIGHT to be WRONG. All legal rights can be taken away.
      Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”

      • Erik July 1, 2016, 9:36 am

        These are rights are God given, only tyrants can try to take them away.

      • retrocon July 1, 2016, 10:15 am

        Mark is mostly right and you are also right, but there is an important middle ground. It is possible to lose your rights, it’s called “prison,” or “detention,” or “probation.”

        You must lose ALL of your rights, not selectively “some” of your rights.

        Naturally, there needs to be a buffer zone, such as not losing your right to due process while you are accused and standing trial, even though you can’t have a gun.

        That’s the problem here. Liberals want ex-cons to instantly get the vote back, but not their firearms. This is, frankly, wrong.

        All or nothing once you have your rights restored after conviction or acquittal. Otherwise, you are treating one “right” as more important than another “right,” and that means that one must not be a real “right.”

      • Mark Are July 1, 2016, 11:09 am

        Read the founding document. Oh, maybe you don’t know which one that is? Well it’s The Declaration of Independence. Which STATES… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. PLEASE NOTE THE WORD…UNALIENABLE as defined: “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

        You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

        So you go ahead and let “them” take away your rights…some of us would rather shoot them first.

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 1, 2016, 10:02 am

      Mark is 100% Absolutely MOA right on that. I personally don’t agree either that so-called domestic abuse/violence/whatever mandates the violation of your ‘Un-Infringeable’ natural rights to use a firearm weapon of choice in the future. First, of all, this, along with the Brady bill (gun registration in disguise) are direct slaps in our faces while they are all laughing on their happy highway Totalitarian trip to Fascist heaven. Just another one of their big boat load of eventual mass gun confiscation tricks they pull on all the fools out there lining up for confiscation submission exercises.

      Back in the ‘day’, as a young Patrolman in major city all you heard on the radio between hot calls were “1512, when you get the chance handle another domestic at…” Today these Totalitarian gun confiscators rue the fact they didn’t think about passing this law back then? By now we would all be disarmed already!

      We always had two man cars back then and split the people involved, talked them down with the promise that, indeed, they would BOTH be arrested if we had to come back, and their kids would have to spend some time in the state home, and it would cost them a lot more then they would want to risk if they didn’t calm the fuck down and chill.

      That usually did the trick as we walked out one of them and told them to take a walk around the block and cool out for a while. Then we went back up on the radio with a ’19-Paul’ completion code which meant ‘disturbance-other-handled with discretion’ no paperwork)

      If that didn’t work and we had to make an arrest, the charge was usually misdeamor disorderly conduct which put him OR HER in the can overnight with an I-bond out early in the morning after the judge’s warning so they could make it to work. If it was one of those sad cases where the asshole was one of those habitual wife-beaters and/or child abusers, where the cops had been there several times, some of us handled it a bit differently. Undue hardship of charging the mope with battery requiring a financial burden to the family and back then women didn’t want to testitfy in court to have their ‘man’ do time which means he wouldn’t be working and maybe even lose his job.

      So My personal way of handing that was to put on my sap gloves and take the mope outside and do ‘tit for tat’ police work. If i noticed the wife or one of the kids with a black eye, I would give the fuck TWO of them along with a hard kick in the balls for good measure. Then I’d calmly promise him that if i have to come back or hear from another officer that you touched one of them again, I won’t kill you, but i’ll put you in so much pain for so long that you’ll wish you were dead.

      That actually worked pretty well at the time. They knew, without any shadow of a doubt, that we meant it. Simple Pavlovian conditioning.

      I realize things are ‘different’ now. But that’s no excuse. You don’t deter or punish crime by violating a persons Constitutional rights! Again, this is a Fascist Jeti mind trick on sycophant idiots who have no cognitive perception of how precious our 2nd/A liberty really is.

      If someone commits a crime, the tool is not responsible and only co-incidental. You don’t Ban anything but the Person by locking their ass up for however long it takes to ‘rehabilitate’ them!

      Any stupdidity in the form of saying shit like “Oh, we all agree that no terrorists, whack-nuts, or domestically violent people should have guns? Well, that’s about as embarrassingly stupid as saying since most domestic violence incidents involve fists, we should ban peoples’ hands forever. Then when the theocrats take over the government, we can just chop them off, like they do in ‘other’ countries this current regime seems to admire so much?

      In a Free Country it is none of anybody’s fucking business what you should, or should not have. Any equivocation means that you are part of the problem of gun confiscation, Not part of the solution to saving our liberties!

      And knowing how obsessed this government is with disarming everybody for their Totalitarian agenda, and knowing how everything they do falls down a highly slippery slope of injustice, THERE CANNOT BE ANY COMPROMISE if you want to keep your liberty and rights. PERIOD!

      Put that on your fireworks display and pop it this weekend!

      • Gratuitous injustice July 1, 2016, 10:53 am

        I agree Mahatma, I was a victim of the DV nonsense. I was forced to give up all firearms rights not to mention coaching my kid etc. California requires little or no evidence for a restraining order thanks OJ! I had no criminal or violent history. But one brief relationship changed all that. We had broken up and since I lived and worked in the area where she lived she would occaisonally see me in passing. She took this as stalking and unknowing to me was filing police reports that she was afraid for her life. After awhile I get served at work by some sheriff s in front of coworkers and wolla instant DV case. It’s as easy as that to get stripped of your gun rights. In court she had no evidence other then her police reports where I was never interviewed. She never even saw that I actually had firearms in my possession. So long story short my evidence that she was never scared of me didn’t matter to the judge and I got a year RA barring me 200 yards or so from her workplace and her boyfriends at the time whom I did not even know until she named him in the RA. During the year I was under the RA I was even visited by DOJ for a spot check due to a “paper work” error on one of the pistols I use to own. Needless to say, I have not owned a registered firearm since that debacle. But now I have permanent DV RA on my record which marks me for life. My fault right? Should have Moved and quit my job left town never to be seen again. Yes it’s that easy folks, and anyone can put an RA on you because they are scared in California. Registration is confiscation. They will come to your house 3 or more officers strong looking for firearms you don’t own anymore scaring your children and family in the process. When I asked the officer if I by chance did not have the proper paperwork to prove I did not have the firearm they where looking for, he stated I would have been arrested on the spot. That would have added an arrest record to my RADV….. Liberty at its finest…

      • Mark Are July 1, 2016, 11:15 am

        YOU were a PEACE officer. Today they are LAW ENFORCEMENT officers. There is quite a difference. At one time police officers were trained to be PEACE officers. They were even called PEACE officers. That is the difference between then and now. Today they are law ENFORCEMENT officers. Just the title reeks of power and piety. And the type of people who were PEACE officers were a lot different then the type of mentality it takes to be a law ENFORCEMENT officer. That is the major difference. One job actually attracted NORMAL people while the other attracts PSYCHOPATHIC personalities. Just look at how they take care of everything. At one time they carried six shot revolvers and would knock on the door and ask to talk to you and then politely arrest you if they had a warrant. Today, they use military hardware, and come as execution squads without knocking, shooting first and asking questions later ENFORCING laws that are for non violent actions with EXTREME prejudice. Its SICK. WHEN POLICEMEN BREAK THE LAW, THEN THERE ISN’T ANY LAW, JUST A FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL.

      • Snydes July 1, 2016, 12:33 pm

        Very well said, this is how it was when I was growing up. We need those days back my friend. The Librails have Our County and Our Constitutional Right all Fucked up Now. They need to go live in their own little 3rd World Country and Leave us Alone…. PEROID

    • Miles Huggins July 1, 2016, 10:17 pm

      Agreed 1000%

  • Tim July 1, 2016, 8:38 am

    There are bigger implications as well. Liberals abhor spanking of any kind. If you spank your toddler, even one swat, that would meet this loose definition. Your GF/wife gets very angry and hits you in the chest (you probably deserve it) and you simply grab her wrist in defense and to diffuse the situation. That too meets this loose definition.

    Liberals are better politicians and policy makers. They use a slow steady approach to take away rights, so incremental, hardly anyone notices. Because they’re weak minded and if alone, they’re frail, so they find strength in numbers, e.g., unions, protest groups, etc.

  • farmdog July 1, 2016, 7:56 am

    What about spanking a child? What about smacking a child’s hand when they’re reaching for the campfire? The way the laws have been changing, that may be considered domestic violence.
    What if you’re attacked, have lost your right to carry, and your child gets injured or worse? Does that make the Supreme Court liable for unintentionally causing harm to your child?

  • Jay July 1, 2016, 7:05 am

    This is just one more step to make it impossible to abide by the law and strip Americans of their 2nd amendment rights! This one time offense and your out will the obamanation let’s repeat federal criminals lose on the streets! Have you ever been falsely accused of domestic abuse? When you are and you have to prove otherwise, good luck as the tables are already against you in court, pissed off girlfriend, soon to be Ex in a child custody battle, there are many scenarios to use, Bad news for all! We are losing our rights, step by step one little nit pick thing at a time, why can’t we stop it before it’s too late!

    • Wood Chipper July 1, 2016, 8:36 am

      I just went through all of this and even without ANY allegations of violence all she has to say is – “I am scared because he shouted at me” (at least in WA). Then in divorce court expect to be treated like a your planning a mass murder. As far as the court is concerned (Legal) gun ownership is simply evidence that your crazy.

      My advice to anybody facing a divorce or allegations of DV. Put all of your guns in the trunk of your car, go to the range, forest or whatever, have a little shotgun therapy, but then take your guns to your buddies house. Don’t take em home, until its a done deal. Worse case scenario you DO lose your gun rights. If your firearms are “On Loan” You are at least able to decide what happens with them. Maybe you donate to your buddies or have a quick garage sale. – maybe you even get to have some more shotgun therapy during the whole F&*^ up process.

      I wish you best of luck

  • JGinNJ July 1, 2016, 3:27 am

    Everybody agrees that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is not protected Free Speech. But is someone does that and is prosecuted, would they lose their rights to legal free speech for the rest of their lives?

    • John July 2, 2016, 1:37 pm

      “Off with their tongues!”

    • Mg July 3, 2016, 3:43 pm

      What if it resulted in a death?

  • Jerry July 1, 2016, 3:00 am

    Sorry, but I disagree! Yes there are those out there that are habitual abusers, but what about those who are accused but innocent?
    Domestic violence is one situation where a man CAN NOT get a fair hearing! ALL it takes is a woman’s accusation. No evidence needs to be presented, just an accusation! The man is arrested, and after making bail, is forced into anger management classes, and treated as if he were guilty before ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. Then when he does get his day in court, there is no defense, it’s his word against the woman’s and the court ALWAYS rules in favor of the woman.
    The man then faces jail time or probation AND loses his right to bear arms, ALL because he was accused of a crime he didn’t commit.
    Where is the justice in that?
    And the sad thing about the situation is that there is no appeal and he never gets his rights back!
    Again, I ask, where is the justice in that?

  • Matt June 30, 2016, 6:55 pm

    You said habitually beat your wife no it’s just once. One domestic violence charge not just to your wife but girlfriend that dies 30 years ago that you no longer see it come into contact with obviously. This is bull I don’t think we “all” agree to this forever losing our constitutional right forever. I know I don’t so there you can’t say all anymore.

    • Brett Antonacci July 1, 2016, 6:31 am

      Agreed, “we” don’t agree!!!….

  • SuperG June 30, 2016, 5:22 pm

    I’ve said this before, but the government won’t go after groups to disarm them, they’ll go after individuals by increasing the laws that cause you to lose your rights. One by one, Americans will be disarmed. Soon, if you jaywalk, you’ll lose your gun rights. If you think I’m be farfetched, re-read this article. It is happening now.

    • El Alamein July 1, 2016, 5:15 am

      Yep, jaywalking is a dangerous crime.
      All joking aside, this is no joke and it’s definitely not funny, but it looks like it’s coming.
      I agree with you. The slippery slope is here.

    • Brett Antonacci July 1, 2016, 6:34 am

      Incremental infringement upon our innate rights. I concur and understand that this decision by the SCOTUS is another step toward totally gutting the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution….

    • John July 2, 2016, 1:50 pm

      You are absolutely right! I’ve repeated this to as many people as I can, to the point of being an annoyance. But when the cops arrive next door, you are not going to know what for most likely. Are you going to be willing and able, or is a group of neighbors going to be willing and able to help your neighbor defend against these officers?
      Hell no, you’re going to sit there and mind your own business, and hope that they don’t come for you next.
      This is the problem- one side (government) has ALL of the power. We have virtually none when you think about it. We are an enslaved population working from one weekend to the next, and mostly to support our governments. Think of your wages, and how they have not increased as prices increase. Now you’re really a slave to your job, because if you don’t work, you don’t eat.
      So you’ve got this job, and you eat! And you buy things. Everything that you buy, somewhere down the line, and probably multiple times, a government entity has taken a bite. Right from the very beginning of the manufacture of the goods that you are purchasing, government has regulated this and that, so the cost of the goods go up right there. And you’re paying for the enforcement of these regulations, so there’s government feeding itself from your hand. This goes on right down the line until the goods end up in your hand. You are paying taxes on tires, liquor, sales, fuel, and on and on to infinitude.
      Heck, I go to town to buy something, I am paying $11.00 on every $100 that I spend. Then you drive back home on your taxed fuel, your taxed tires, your forced to buy insurance, and maybe right a check for property tax when you get home.
      OH, by the way, the car insurance that is forced on you- the rate is determined by your credit score. So if you have had bad luck or are stupid, you are gonna pay out the ass for your insurance. What that has to do with safe driving or avoiding accidents is beyond me, but heck, nobody said a word, we just took it up the ass.
      THIS is another problem. No organization and no single voice for us. Another user mentioned this. There are a lot of us that are unhappy right now. I have never felt so afraid for my country that I love, and the people in it. Something must change.

  • Aaron June 30, 2016, 3:45 pm

    You didn’t ask the government for permission before posting this, did you?

    I’ll have to report this…

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend