Liberal Forum

*Huey » 21 Jun 2024, 12:20 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:20 pm

Inferior opponents.  Of course.  Not really something to brag about.

Up your game, or get a bigger gun.
 

Blackvegetable » 21 Jun 2024, 12:27 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:27 pm

It's a matter of public record...

Since when do you accept public records?
 

ConsRule » 21 Jun 2024, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:33 pm

Since when do you accept public records?

All of them, all the time.

And I understand them better than you do, Connie.
 

Blackvegetable » 21 Jun 2024, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 10:16 am

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/politics ... index.html

8 - 1...

Free Ride dissenting.

What a **** blockhead that man is...

These are  weakest examples of so called Domestic Abuse that could get your right to own a gun revoked...

Emotional Abuse
Has the abuser ever:

• Called you humiliating or demeaning names?
• Treated you like a household servant?
• Withheld money, the checkbook, credit cards ?

I have little doubt Judge Thomas is aware of this.
I have little doubt that this never crossed BV's mind until now.
 
 

Blackvegetable » 21 Jun 2024, 12:30 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:30 pm

Up your game, or get a bigger gun.
 

 

Too funny.  A bigger gun for you?  I am still laughing over that.  

GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Jun 2024, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:35 pm

These are  weakest examples of so called Domestic Abuse that could get your right to own a gun revoked...

Emotional Abuse
Has the abuser ever:

• Called you humiliating or demeaning names?
• Treated you like a household servant?
• Withheld money, the checkbook, credit cards ?

Share that crap with @Vegas  

*Huey » 21 Jun 2024, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:36 pm

Too funny.  A bigger gun for you?  I am still laughing over that.

You're very small, wizened and impotent.

Isn't that why you hunt paper?
 

Blackvegetable » 21 Jun 2024, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:35 pm

All of them, all the time.

And I understand them better than you do, Connie.

Great news.  Jury verdicts are public record.  Tell us, what crime did the jury, in the Trump case involving Carroll, find Trump guilt off?

 

ConsRule » 21 Jun 2024, 12:40 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:40 pm

Great news.  Jury verdicts are public record.  Tell us, what crime did the jury, in the Trump case involving Carroll, find Trump guilt off?

So are judge's clarifications.

Your point?
 

Blackvegetable » 21 Jun 2024, 12:30 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:30 pm

Who else dissented?

**** idiot.

hmmm, do the math, moron...
 

ROG62 » 21 Jun 2024, 12:47 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:47 pm

hmmm, do the math, moron...

I asked you.

Struggling?
 

Blackvegetable » 21 Jun 2024, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:37 pm

Share that crap with @Vegas

Okey doke. You are back to incessantly tagging me again. **** your stalking. I am changing my name so you can't. 

**** sick piece of ****. 

Blackvegetable » 21 Jun 2024, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:37 pm

You're very small, wizened and impotent.

Isn't that why you hunt paper?
 

 

You're very small, wizened and impotent.

That's funny.

Isn't that why you hunt paper?

Says the Great White Hunter..................................of unarmed doves..

   

*Huey » 21 Jun 2024, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:51 pm

That's funny.

Says the Great White Hunter..................................of unarmed doves..

 

Is your paper packin'?

Blackvegetable » 21 Jun 2024, 12:47 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:47 pm

So are judge's clarifications.

Your point?

You didn't answer the question.

And the judge didn't offer a clarification, he offered an opinion that was in opposition to existing NY Law.

Blackvegetable » 21 Jun 2024, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:52 pm

Is your paper packin'?

Snore...do you have a point, Capt Vague?  

ConsRule » 21 Jun 2024, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 12:52 pm

You didn't answer the question.

And the judge didn't offer a clarification, he offered an opinion that was in opposition to existing NY Law.

What was the scotus ruling. Was it for people who currently have a domestic violence restraining order cannot buy or be in possession of firearms?
 

Warcok » 21 Jun 2024, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 1:37 pm

What was the scotus ruling. Was it for people who currently have a domestic violence restraining order cannot buy or be in possession of firearms?

That is the way I understand it.  I have a problem with the law as written, but since I can't think of a way to remedy that problem, I guess I can live with it as it would be rare an abuse takes place.

My problem is a restraining order can, in many cases, be obtained fairly easily.  So, a really pissed off spouse in a contentious divorce case, could make up abuse allegations and get a restraining order.  That means, someone's constitutional right has been revoked without due process running its course.  I guess the hope is a court will require some proof to support such accusations before granting a restraining order.  That said, this new law doesn't stop those people from owning or possessing a gun, they will just be doing so illegally.  If they really are abusive, they have already demonstrated a disdain for the law and probably won't be worried about breaking another.
 

Warcok » 21 Jun 2024, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 1:37 pm

What was the scotus ruling. Was it for people who currently have a domestic violence restraining order cannot buy or be in possession of firearms?

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge that would have allowed individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess guns.

*Huey » 21 Jun 2024, 1:49 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2024, 1:49 pm

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge that would have allowed individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess guns.

The law doesn't allow them to legally possess a gun...they can still possess one.