Supreme Court Gun Decision Doesn't Mean Domestic Violence Offenders Can Own Handguns

[onehandle]

Source: AP, Huffington Post

CHICAGO — A federal appeals court upheld a ban on gun possession for a domestic violence offender in a ruling that several anti-violence advocates applauded Wednesday for providing some clarity after the U.S. Supreme Court's recent landmark decision on gun restrictions.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled 10-1 on Tuesday to reinstate a southern Wisconsin man's conviction for having a gun while on probation for a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. The decision followed the high court's ruling last month that made Chicago's outright handgun ban unenforceable. The court held that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The Wisconsin case was being closely watched by advocates of gun rights and domestic abuse victims, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. While the court signaled some gun restrictions may survive legal challenges, it offered assurances only on laws that bar felons from having guns.

"Even with the new definition of the Second Amendment, it (Tuesday's ruling) shows that you can still have reasonable gun restrictions," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said of the appellate ruling. "This case really reaffirms that you can have limits." But Herbert Titus, an attorney for the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America, which filed an amicus brief for the Wisconsin man called the decision outrageous. He said the Supreme Court's ruling put the Second Amendment on par with the First Amendment, which can't be taken from someone.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/14/supreme-court-gun-decisio_n_646922.html

[madrchsod]

1. i guess herbie has`t heard of the libel and slander laws

[melm00se]

8. reading the article

I don't see how he committed slander...can you explain?

[katandmoon]

2. I'm sure the Supreme Court will overturn it. Domestic violence victims be damned. Fuck GOA.

[superconnected]

3. +1

[onehandle]

9. Our conservative court?

Well, if it will help sell more guns ...

[cowman]

11. Don't you have

a different saying. I don't think that anyone at the GOA would want to "fuck" you.

[U4ikLefty]

4. Ahhh, just in time!!!

:popcorn:

[rpannier]

5. With you there...

Feel free to share mine if you run out

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[JDPriestly]

6. Our neighborhood is under a gang injunction.

Here is how the police explain these injunctions in Los Angeles:

There are currently 37 active injunctions in the city involving 57 gangs.

A gang injunction is a restraining order against a group. It is a civil suit that seeks a court order declaring the gang’s public behavior a nuisance and asking for special rules directed toward it’s activity. Injunctions can address the neighborhood’s gang problem before it reaches the level of felony crime activity.

Gang injunctions have a clearly demonstrable positive affect on the neighborhood area covered. Some have had a remarkable effect. In smaller areas, gang nuisance activity can be permanently removed. In larger areas, with gangs entrenched for years, the gang’s hold on the area can be reduced and maintained with a small team of law enforcement officers. Anecdotal evidence is fully supportive; residents continue to ask for the period of peace a gang injunction can provide.

http://www.lapdonline.org/gang_injunctions/content_basic_view/23424

Now, I don't believe that a person has to actually have, personally, a criminal or arrest record to be identified as a gang member although certainly many of them do. Somehow, as I understand it, if the police observe someone hanging out or talking to a known gang member, that person is pegged as also being a gang member. Not sure that is true, but, what I am wondering is whether the Supreme Court decision will prevent suspected gang members from being allowed to own or carry guns. I'm wondering whether we, here in Los Angeles, are going to experience increased gun violence in our streets. I certainly hope not. If anyone sees any article that answer my question, please let me know. Our street is relatively safe. We know all our neighbors and talk to the kids when they pass by our house. We try to let them know they are safe and accepted. I don't know how prevalent gun ownership is in our neighborhood. I'm not basically opposed to gun ownership but this is a little frightening to me.

[old mark]

7. GOA routinely opposes everything it sees as a restriction on rights, even

things like this that the NRA supports. The GOA makes its money from those who think the NRA does not go far enough, and actually does goad the courts and government into thinking before they pass ridiculous anti gun laws such as the microstamping bill in NY state. They go too far much of the time, but they do serve a purpose in getting firm definitions of gun laws and trying to eliminating local restrictions on gun ownership "because the sheriff don't like it"...
I certainly don't agree with them in this case, and I am not a member.
mark

[jody]

10. As expected Paul Helmke leads the dung-beetle brigade with Herbert Titus responding in kind.

DUers should read and study D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago before commenting.