Smoke weed, beat your spouse AND possess guns lawfully

[CAJUNLAWYER]

At least for now in the Fifth Circuit.
Federal Appeals Court Rules That Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers Is Unconstitutional - Marijuana Moment

Coupled with Rahimi 'Terrifying" court ruling lets alleged domestic abusers keep their guns | The Texas Tribune
Now domestic abusers and weed smokers are not constitutionally prohibited from possessing firearms, at least in the Fifth Circuit. For now.
Can the collective populace stand for this newfound affirmation of rights????

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for less big brother intrusion into the playground, but can us kids collectively accept the new found responsibility????

 

[Brooks]

That would mean the Feds...the ATF, must change the weed classification from a narcotic to something like alcohol or a tobacco product.

For the domestic violence issue, you don't have to be arrested or convicted of domestic violence in the state I live in... there only needs to be a complaint, and the cops will come and take your firearms away.....which I don't think is right. A psycho wife can make a complaint, and they will take your firearms out of your house.

 

[M29since14]

…Don't get me wrong, I'm all for less big brother intrusion into the playground, but can us kids collectively accept the new found responsibility????

There's the question. The majority of the kids probably will. The actions of the minority will be used against the rest of us. Nothing much new there, but it will keep the MSM and the lawyers busy until the next "cycle" of something comes along.

 

[Michaelp57]

Not sure how I feel about the domestic abuse aspect to this. I do not see a problem with the marijuana aspect though. Unless a person is already violent or their supply is laced, nobody smokes a joint and chooses violence. Some people get paranoid which may pose a problem, but I see smoking a joint after work as a better option than going home and downing a 12 pack after work. All else being equal I would trust a pot head with a gun much more than I would trust a drunk with a gun. I know plenty of pot heads that are gun enthusiasts and they've never caused any problems for themselves or others. The devils lettuce is not as scary as propaganda like reefer madness back in the day made it out to be. Even in my state it is now legal on a state level, and I live in ohio(wish.com Texas with snow).

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

… A psycho wife can make a complaint, and they will take your firearms out of your house.

I recommend getting a Divorce if you have a "psycho spouse".

But breaking a woman's nose for screwing up the eggs at breakfast does not make sense does it? I was a career Lawman and I have seen every thing.

 

[Echo40]

While I honestly don't like the idea of pot-smokers with firearms given my personal experience dealing with individuals who toked being the stereotypical irresponsible burnouts, I can at least get the Domestic Violence part because in many states you can get charged with such a thing for simply getting into a heated argument with your significant other and having a neighbor call the police under the belief that a physical altercation was about to occur.

It stinks, but that's what happens when anti-gun states attempt to game the system as a means to snatch guns away from citizens.

 

[Doug M.]

There are very real problems with how states use laws to disarm citizens, and the various "red flag" laws are a prime example. The problem for me comes with the DV offenders, as they often a violent problem for their spouse and the cops. As far as I know, after impaired driving wrecks, the next most common form of criminal homicide is DV based and is relatively easy to see/predict.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Someone close to me had a bi-polar sister-in-law who lived twenty miles away file a request for an ex parte restraining order on him in connection with HER violation of a legitimate restraining order. Police came and took what they thought were all of his guns. Local FFL took the rest, which was no small loading job. She didn't show up for the hearing, but it still took a couple of visits to the PD and a call from the victim's lawyer to get the two guns back. Lawyer had taken a liking to the victim and his wife, and only charged $300 for his involvement in the case.

Best wishes to the appeals court in the Fifth Circuit. Restraining orders are pieces of paper, and relate primarily to criminal proceedings, not to restraint, AFAIK. Regardless, I feel that the appeals court was right on both issues, especially in view of recent judicial recognition of the Second Amendment.

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

… the next most common form of criminal homicide is DV based and is relatively easy to see/predict.

When I was a cop it was called the "Cycle of Violence". In DV the violence only gets worse. Some victims endure a lifetime of violence and others die before their honeymoon is over.

 

[taz666]

I recommend getting a Divorce if you have a "psycho spouse".

But breaking a woman's nose for screwing up the eggs at breakfast does not make sense does it? I was a career Lawman and I have seen every thing.

I'll bet some days you really had to exercise maximum self control.

 

[TX-Dennis]

I have mixed feelings about marijuana. I don't use it, but I know quite a few folks who do. Many (most) of them are as responsible as anyone else. There are always a a few, though. All-in-all, though, I've seen way more violent drunks than violent "pot heads."

I'm comfortable with CONVICTED domestic violence offenders having their gun rights terminated at least for a period of time. I am very uncomfortable with those states that have the right to take your guns because you've been accused but not yet convicted of domestic abuse. Big problem, and in my reading of the Constitution very unconstitutional.

 

[Autonomous]

There has been a lot of abuse of the domestic violence card.
I am not discounting real abuse at all, just saying too many people have wrongly lost rights due to a vindictive mate.

 

[Rodan]

NONE of the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights should be abrogated for a MISDEMEANOR conviction of any kind.

In AZ, if you get in a fist fight with a college roomate (you 'cohabitated' in the past) at a 20 year reunion BBQ, it would qualify as a "domestic violence assault". Many states have similar laws... and often, even verbal arguments can result in a DV misdemeanor conviction.

It's a shame that it came down to Rahimi to bring this to SCOTUS, but citizens losing their 2nd Amendment rights over these kinds of incidents is wrong, and the DV laws (for misdemeanors) regarding firearms possession have always been unconstitutional.

There are plenty of laws (felonies) on the books to deal with truly violent offenders.

 

[Gamecock]

Do you have to turn in your hammers if you abuse your spouse or use marijauana?

How serious can the abuse be if the spouse is still there?

 

[Muley Gil]

Do you have to turn in your hammers if you abuse your spouse or use marijauana?

How serious can the abuse be if the spouse is still there?

I have seen women put into the hospital with life threatening injuries that STILL wouldn't leave their partners-married and otherwise.

That said, I am against firearms rights being taken away over MISDOMEANER offenses.

 

[OKFC05]

I know one divorce lawyer who automatically files a DA complaint against the husband "to gain leverage in the settlement".
An acquaintance went before a judge to challenge the DA complaint and got temporary custody of his 3 kids when his wife was arrested for felony assault of city police, resisting arrest, felony fleeing at 100mph. (She was subsequently tried and found guilty, and was proven to be the actual DA)
Taking rights or property without due process is, and should be, Unconstitutional, and just plain wrong.

 

[SMSgt]

Sixteen posts and no one shouted, "shall not be infringed," yet. We're slipping.

 

[Spurdann]

A misdemeanor should never be used to deny an individuals rights.

 

[TST]

If you want to confiscate someone's firearms, get a felony conviction.

 

[Borderboss]

But breaking a woman's nose for screwing up the eggs at breakfast does not make sense does it? I was a career Lawman and I have seen every thing.

That's a red herring argument and you know it. In the situation you cite, the guy gets convicted of a crime. In most jurisdictions, a protection order doesn't have anything to do with actually committing or getting convicted of a crime. No way a person should lose their 2A rights without an outright conviction of a felony.