Democrats Expand the Number & Types of Prohibited Possessors, to Limit 2nd Amendment

Opinion

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- -The Democrats in the House of Representatives expanded the number of classes of people prohibited from exercising Constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights. Those prohibitions have been added to H.R. 1585, [this bill has now passed the House and goes on to the Senate] hijacking a re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

The Act had not previously been used to restrict gun ownership. Speaker Nancy Pelosi added the infringements to the bill.

The NRA never commented on this Act before because it never included gun control and but has now has come out in opposition to this change.

In 1968, the number of classes of prohibited possessors, those people who were not allowed to possess or own firearms, was greatly expanded.  Before 1968, the classes of people who could not possess firearms were decided by state law.

When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, six categories of people who were not allowed to purchase firearms from federal dealers were created. The list included classes which did not exist in most states. The groups were these:

  • 1. Not a legal resident of the State where the federal dealership is located
  • 2. People under the age of 21 for handguns, and 18 for rifles and shotguns.
  • 3. Convicted felons or those under indictment for a felony (a crime punishable by more than a year of imprisonment)
  • 4. Fugitives from justice (fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding)
  • 5. Those adjudicated to be mentally defective or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
  • 6. Unlawful user/addicted to a controlled substance

The last four categories were prohibited from possessing firearms.

In 1987, Congress added four additional categories:

  • 1. Illegal aliens
  • 2. Persons Dishonorably discharged from the military
  • 3.  Persons who have renounced U.S. Citizenship
  • 4. People who are subject to a restraining order for domestic violence, harassment, or stalking (required a court hearing finding the person restrained was a threat)

In 1996, Congress added another category, people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

On April 4th of 2019, the Democrats in the House expand the latest class, domestic violence, by changing it from intimate partner to include “dating partner” or “former dating partner.”

They are also added another class of prohibited people.

The additional class would is those convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of stalking,” which includes a “course of harassment, intimidation, or surveillance of another person.

Stalking or harassment does not include any physical harm. The crime of stalking or harassment is relatively new, with the first laws being enacted in California in 1990. The crime is defined to include the creation of either a reasonable fear of material harm or emotional distress to another person.

With zealous prosecutors, it would be possible for a person to be convicted of harassment for a series of tweets that caused “emotional distress.

In many states, there is no right to trial by jury for misdemeanor offenses.

The general trend is easy to see. More and more classes of people who are prohibited from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment; less and less serious offenses are being used to take Second Amendment rights from people.

The expansion of the classes of prohibited persons and the expansion of offenses from felonies to misdemeanors results in a severe erosion of Second Amendment rights.

Several of the prohibited classes in existence have not been in existence for very long.

In the Supreme Court decision a controversial sentence is said to have been added at the instigation of Justice Stevens and the insistence of Justice Kennedy:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Most of the prohibited classes are not mentioned. Only  “felons and the mentally ill” are mentioned. It is uncertain if the Court would uphold challenges against the proliferation of prohibited classes. “Mentally ill” is far from clear. That prohibition is being challenged already, as are the prohibitions as applied to non-violent felonies.

The other classes are far from longstanding.

Second Amendment supporters would prefer to stop the current push by the Democrats to create expanded and new classes of prohibited possessors, rather than challenge the law in the Courts. Please contact your Senators and ask that the amended or oppose the new version of the bill.

Finally, the prohibitions in H.R. 1585 would apply retroactively to convictions that occurred before the legislation was passed. This could result in untold numbers of citizens being denied their Second Amendment rights because of actions that occurred years or even decades in the past.

Another Justice appointed by President Trump could make a significant difference in the restoration of Second Amendment rights.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 142
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    47 Comment threads
    95 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    94 Comment authors
    tomasDavid MehaffeyRyan Shapleigh RobisonRotaryConnectedNanci K Burns Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Ryan Shapleigh Robison
    Guest
    Ryan Shapleigh Robison

    Stolen airplanes! I am working on the sovereign of your nation he’s being attacked by traitors. This suggests your nation is quietly under attack.

    Raymond
    Guest
    Raymond

    Unconstitutional Laws are Null and Void! Patriots have a Duty and Responsibility to ignore any laws that restrict a Right we are born with! Plain and Simple, Unconstitutional Laws are not worth the paper they are written on! Down with Tyrants !! RH

    Nanci K Burns
    Guest
    Nanci K Burns

    AMEN

    Get Out
    Guest
    Get Out

    It won’t be long before they’ll be including any traffic citations for a non-working taillight.

    Stripeseven
    Guest
    Stripeseven

    They will never stop until those that could fight back against their global agenda are silenced. Predators, and Parasites. all of them…….

    m.
    Guest
    m.

    don’t care what any of you commie d-suckers think about anything, if you don’t want me to have something – show up and try to take it. otherwise FO, faggots.

    MR. A. B. JAMES
    Guest
    MR. A. B. JAMES

    even TRUMP has said that he favors taking away guns then prosecuting! that and his FAILURE TO OVERTURN DACA is the reason i am down to 30% support for him. i admit this is down from 110%! i repeat, the 1ST and 2nd should never be VIOLATED. neither needs interpretation!

    Joel Drotts
    Guest
    Joel Drotts

    The fact of the matter is the entire country has been fooled into a debate we need not have, as the Federal or State government may not legally pass laws stripping people of their rights. The Constitution is a hell of a thing, in that no where does it say the Courts or government may treat some rights as more important than others. What it does in fact state is that those rights listed and mentioned are inalienable. Unalienable is an old school term of art and prose which means “it can not be taken from you, EVER!” This is… Read more »

    Ward
    Guest
    Ward

    Spot on!

    RotaryConnected
    Guest
    RotaryConnected

    The only problem is, that once a mindset gets to be a status quo, then the police and the courts feel they have a right to enforce those heinous laws, even though they are illegal and unconstitutional. That is what is happening today. For decades, the progressives have led us down the slippery slope where, as Bush 2 said, the Constitution is just. “”a goddam piece of paper”. They do what they want regardless, and they use the guns of the authorities and the full force of the State against you. They can bankrupt most people in no time, using… Read more »

    David Mehaffey
    Guest
    David Mehaffey

    Unfortunately our elected representatives pass laws that take years in Courts to strike down.

    tomas
    Guest
    tomas

    So Does That Even Stand For Civil Protection Orders They Came And Took Mines Away And I Felt Deeply That, That Was Unconstitutional… You Seem To have Extensive Knowledge Mind Helping Me Out.?

    DRRON
    Guest
    DRRON

    Try taking away guns from the police. the dems are running scared. look at all the dems who put candidates signs in their yards, that is not a show of support, that is an invitation to criminals with guns, knives or any other kind of weapons. a baseball bat can beat you to death, do to you have to show proof you are on a team to buy one. the whole underlying reason is that WHEN or IF the socialist do take over, they will not have any opposition. FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC IS NOT THERE JUST FILL UP SPACE. BRING… Read more »

    Green Mtn. Boy
    Guest
    Green Mtn. Boy

    “BRING BACK SENATOR McCARTHY”

    After all the Marxist Leftard’s have proven him correct !

    willy d
    Guest
    willy d

    My EX tried, but failed, I didn’t have a lawyer, went to the hearing listened to all of the B S, then my turn came, I ran the risk of being held in contempt, shot back as to how the court system was so uneven as to the treatment of the males as verses the female, no matter what a man had to say it didn’t count, the judge never said a word about contempt , then I got a complement from the judge, I had presented my case very well and that all of my personal property was to… Read more »

    Robert
    Guest
    Robert

    Had to tie a bone around her neck to get the dog to play with her? Hell! To feed her they sat her in the corner and fed her with a sling shot! As she got older, her parents put her on a broom on their front porch on Halloween to scare the kids away because they didn’t want to hand out candy, and it looked so natural for her it stuck! I don’t know why she is always riding on military transport planes while claiming climate change is a threat to us, unless it is because she is always… Read more »

    Ed Caldwell
    Guest
    Ed Caldwell

    Why is it that the punishment for crimes is the loss of gun rights when no gun was used in the commission of said crime? Example….you commit tax fraud, get convicted and are sent to prison. You lose your right to possess a gun. You get arrested for DUI, get convicted and maybe you go to jail, maybe you don’t….you lose your right to own a gun. The target is guns not so much fixing the problem you have. The DUI convict doesn’t necessarily lose their right to drive a car do they? I think maybe the democrats have a… Read more »

    JoeUSooner
    Guest
    JoeUSooner

    Ed, I’m afraid your approach has one notable flaw. It is not the SEVERITY of punishment that acts as a deterrent. It is the CERTAINTY of punishment that prevents crime. A crime that law enforcement can solve almost all the time [for instance, bank robbery – only a 5-year sentence unless a brandished firearm is involved – which the FBI solves in 94-of-100 cases] is much more effective as a deterrent than a crime that is rarely solved [such as armed assault – carrying a 15-year sentence – which police have historically only solved in 29-of-100 cases]. The real key… Read more »

    JDL
    Guest
    JDL

    Why should the punishment for a crime, for example, armed robbery, be greater if a gun is used versus any other weapon? The type of weapon used should not influence the severity of the punishment.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Ed Caldwell, there is a mandatory 5 year sentence for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. It was quite effective during its use in Project Exile in the 90s in Richmond, VA.

    JDL, I concur 100%. The crime, not the tool needs punishment. Robbery by strong-arm, knife or handgun is still robbery, just as beaten to death or shot to death is still murder. In fact beaten or stabbed is much more visceral, personal and violent than being shot.

    Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger
    Guest
    Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger

    Worse than you think. The definition of “domestic violence” basically means following an ex on Twitter of Facebook.

    https://bearbussjaeger.wordpress.com/2019/04/05/vawa-2019/

    Nikki
    Guest
    Nikki

    Hi, sorry. I’m a new gun owner and still also new to American laws. Wouldn’t preventing domestic violence people with restraining orders be a good thing? I have a restraining order against my ex and idea of him with gun terrifies me. Sorry, English is 4th language, not my strongest.

    MikeRoss
    Guest
    MikeRoss

    Yes, of course we want to prevent people with restraining orders against them from hurting others. Your ex is already prohibited from having a gun, and this bill doesn’t change that. The problem is that it adds a poorly defined group to the list of prohibited persons, and can take away their right to own a gun without ‘due process,’ an important principle in US law. The person in question could very well be a danger and should not be allowed to have a gun, how that is to be determined is a problem. Another issue is making it retroactive.… Read more »

    Nikki
    Guest
    Nikki

    Oh. Ok that makes much more sense, thank you.

    freewill
    Guest
    freewill

    it doesnt matter if your ex has a gun or not, what matters is, can you stop an intruder or any kind of attack against you?…

    Richard Nutter
    Guest
    Richard Nutter

    NO. The fact is that prohibiting ANYONE from possessing a firearm is unconstitutional. Period. Be it felons, addicts, mentally Ill everyone is born with these rights. If any law is contrary to the constitution it is itself illegal and unenforcable why is it so hard for peeps to understand this. People wake up, if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything. Firearm possession is to protect from tyranny when are we going to remove these unlawful evil people from our governments. For one is the women crying the worst when they shouldn’t even be in A position such… Read more »

    Fred Lead
    Guest
    Fred Lead

    There’s the theoretical space (we want women to be safe from violent men) and the reality. Analysis of domestic violence shows restraining orders do not actually protect women. The simple (and Unconstitutional) option is to tie firearm confiscation with a restraining order. There are two problems with this. 1. There is still significant time between when the order is established and law enforcement can confiscate said weapons, leaving time to commit violence. Some argue confiscation actually increases the motivation to commit violence with a firearm, as the individual now has a clear deadline. 2. There is no way to ensure… Read more »

    Firewagon
    Guest
    Firewagon

    No apology required, Nikki. I only have one comment about “preventing domestic violence people with restraining orders.” It has been proven, time and again, that NO piece of paper, no law, will “restrain” someone with the intent to do you harm, if they already trend toward being a sociopath. DO NOT depend on the ‘restraining paper’ to save your life – it is probably just one document that ‘might’ keep you out of jail, AFTER you are forced to use deadly force to do that saving!! As someone already noted, if you intend to be ARMED, do the lawfully armed,… Read more »

    Vet
    Guest
    Vet

    I had no trouble understand it you Dean. Evidently Dillon lives in a perfect world where he is more interested in judging and finding fault with others than contributing to the the topic. Dillon expressed no thoughts on your subject matter so it must have been totally outside his realm of comprehension. I agree with your thoughts. Good article. All of us need to wake up and stand up if we expect to have and keep our rights and freedoms. This includes you too, Doilliee. Oooops! Misspelled a werd! Sorry!

    Robert Messmer
    Guest
    Robert Messmer

    Quote: “Finally, the prohibitions in H.R. 1585 would apply retroactively to convictions that occurred before the legislation was passed.” Can someone correct me because I thought that ex post facto laws were forbidden by the constitution.

    JoeUSooner
    Guest
    JoeUSooner

    “ex post facto” laws ARE forbidden by the Constitution… 0but that has not stopped Democrats before! Why should they now – suddenly – stop efforts that they have historically gotten away with?

    Dillon
    Guest
    Dillon

    Dean, please consider using a proofreader. Someone of your professional background should not be allowing so many errors to slide through that it becomes a chore to understand what you’re trying to say.

    Oldmarine
    Guest
    Oldmarine

    It doesn’t take good spelling or grammar to get a Idea or Statement across. The gentleman got his thoughts understood quite well and doesn’t need any help. Have y.ou ever tried to correct a person while they are speaking? Communication is getting the thought or idea across, NOT spelling or grammar. Some people are hard of hearing , can’t see so well or have problems comprehending, and never understand. Stop criticizing and read the article again please. He got his point across.

    John Galt
    Guest
    John Galt

    ALL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD!

    John
    Guest
    John

    So a law forbidding the use of a firearm or knife or whatever during the commission of a crime, i.e., Armed Criminal Action, is unconstitutional? I think not sir.

    Constitutional Rights are not absolute. One cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded threater (folks scramble to get out, becoming injured or worse, trampled to death) and then successfully claim Free Speech Rights under the First Amendment.

    Respectfully, your blanket statements as here, serve no purpose.

    George
    Guest
    George

    2 things one It would depend on the crime. If the gun is merely possessed during an irrelevant crime ie possession of a controlled substance, then the gun crime addition imo would be unconstitutional however if one holds up liquor store with said gun then the gun crime would be perfectly fine . The gun must help in the alleged crime or they might as well ad a charge for using free speech during a crime . 2. The 2nd ammendment is absolute and unlimited sorry it says so in the actual ammendment therefore it is. Your metaphor is interesting… Read more »

    Bill
    Guest
    Bill

    Committing crimes is already unconstitutional (basic law). Using a weapon does not make a crime more illegal, and it inherently has an aggravating effect. Kind of stupid to say that using a weapon to commit a crime is illegal, when the crime is already so. Noting the seriousness of a crime in legal terms, meanwhile, is reasonable, when the damage or the threat is increased.

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    So a law forbidding the use of a firearm or knife or whatever during the commission of a crime, i.e., Armed Criminal Action, is unconstitutional? I think not sir. For one tning, the US Constituton names and defines only ONE CRIME.. treason. The enactment and enfrocement of criminal and/or civil law is NOT assigned FedGov, therefor that function is reserved to the States, or the People (read Tenth Article of Ammendment). For another, murder is a crime in every state in the union, as MUST be. Since the act of taking someone else’s life without dueprocess (justification) is already criminal,… Read more »

    Brad
    Guest
    Brad

    This is a silly comment. Committing a crime is already…wait for it…illegal. What you just typed is like saying “You cannot commit a crime while committing a crime”. Think it through slowly if you need to.

    Yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theatre. The charge would be “causing a panic” or similar, not “yelling fire”. If no panic happened, likely you’d just be asked to leave the theatre. This analogy is old and tired.

    Your comments here serve no purpose. The OP is correct. Gun Control is unconstitutional. Period. Full stop.

    JoeUSooner
    Guest
    JoeUSooner

    Wrong, John. There is NO law against yelling “fire” in a theater, and no one has ever been convicted of making such a statement. However, any person who yells that kind of word in a crowd IS personally responsible for any resulting actual damage. THAT damage is what the court adjudicates. But if there is no damage (for instance, if the theater crowd looks around, sees no fire or smoke, then tells the idiot to shut up, and simply continues to peacefully watch the movie), no harm is done. The offender may be asked by theater management to leave –… Read more »

    John
    Guest
    John

    I did not say there was sir. I said one cannot falsely yell fire in a crowed threater and thereafter claim free speech Rights, making the point Constitutional Rights are not absolute. The Supreme Court settled this question in the case Schenck v US, (1919).

    Furthermore, responding to the gentlemen’s post that all gun laws are unconstitutional – I merely pointed out there are gun laws which are not unconstitutional, (see Heller penned by Scalia)(McDonald case thereafter applied to the States).

    Good discussion…..thank you

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @John, The notion that Rights have limits was designed by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, who hated the common people and could not stand the thought of them being his equal. Holmes foisted the limited Rights theory on the American people in Schenk v US.
    This in one of the pivot points in American history where Rights are diminished and the chains of Government come off.
    You do have the Right to shout fire in a crowded theater, but you are liable criminally and civilly for how you exercise your Rights.
    Schneck is a power grab case.

    Robert
    Guest
    Robert

    Constitutional rights are absolute! That is why they are listed as “inalienable” rights.
    Inalienable means they can NEVER be taken!
    And yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, but you are held responsible for any injuries suffered by anyone due to you yelling fire.

    JDL
    Guest
    JDL

    Sorry, you are completely wrong. The law forbids the crime, not the instrument. Also, it is legal to yell “fire” in the manner to which you refer; it is inciting the panic that leads to injury or property damage that is illegal.

    Oldmarine
    Guest
    Oldmarine

    Right ON ….. Supreme Court Decision of 1803
    ” ANY LAW REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS NULL AND VOID”

    Alan Adams
    Guest
    Alan Adams

    WORD!!! And we the people don’t give a Damn anymore about what the liberals say or want to do… It’s time we say we will not comply to your laws anymore… Never give up you right to bear arms!!!! Don’t Do It!!!

    Greg H.
    Guest
    Greg H.

    Democrats’ REAL objective is to DIS-QUALIFY as many people as possible from owning firearms and from VOTING, as now-felons, since gun owners as a group tend to largely vote REPUBLICAN. They’re not fooling anybody. It’s never been about ‘public safety’ or anyone else’s ‘safety’ but THEIR OWN safety and the ‘safety’ of their own worthless political ‘careers’.

    TheHolyCrow
    Guest
    TheHolyCrow

    3 am Military Tribunals for these oath breakers. Drag them out of bed and make them face their already assembled Military Tribunal, waiting for them to answer their charges, right outside their front door, on their front lawn. Wake up the neighbors to be witnesses, and videotape the whole affair. These people are oath breaking traitors !

    Oldmarine
    Guest
    Oldmarine

    Oldmarine >>> TheHolyCrow Democrats think they have the power over the people. They will keep pushing their agenda until someone gets sick of it and fights back with a vengeance. I believe that they are nothing but political BULLIES that will be eliminated in the end simply because Human Nature can’t stand bulling. Someday this will come to an end and the dominating left will the citizen’s anger. The politicians that think they have the right to take natural rights away will have their rights taken instead. The left reminds me of young children with NO MANNERS. They forget they… Read more »

    John
    Guest
    John

    ALL of the new anti gun legislation introduced and passed are clear and convincing evidence public servants, both sides of the isle, admit their prior “gun safety laws” are failures. Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is the difinition of insanity. Because these public servants are not insane, the only conclusion then is they have engaged in an orchestrated scheme to complete confiscation of firearms via death by a thousand cuts. They are fearful of an armed citizenry – public servants fearful of an armed citizenry are up to no good. You decide, is this… Read more »

    PLM
    Guest
    PLM

    You keep showing up in my news feed so I’ll comment. The constitution does NOT say anybody and everybody no matter how unfit or dangerous can own any and all kinds of guns and weapons, no matter how dangerous. It does not say people can own semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, or specify in any way what or who can own anything anybody wants. It says people can own guns if they are in a well-regulated state militia. Are all you gun cult members who think you have the right to do whatever you want with your stupid guns in a… Read more »

    HenryHenry
    Guest
    HenryHenry

    The constitution limits the scope and actions of the Federal government. You have some points but fail to recognize that the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is an individual right that existed prior to the constitution and has been recognized in legal opinions of the SCOTUS and Congress many times; “well-regulated” does not and never has meant ‘regulated by the government’ but rather well disciplined (as an individual or group) as in trained or practiced.

    Thanks for your opinion.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @HenryH, You are correct, sir! Our Rights are chains on government. Our Rights make us the master of government. If we let government diminish our Rights, by various deceptions, government takes off the collar and puts the collar on us.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @PLM, Just because the founding fathers did not express our Rights using language that you would use does not negate its broad meaning. The rest, residue, and remainder of your comment is uneducated gabble, unworthy of dissection.

    Brian
    Guest
    Brian

    I dont understand did they lie in their article? Is he wrong to point out that they are adding a new class of people to be prohibited? The 2nd protects arms and guns are included in that. All guns are included in that. Thats why they used the term arms instead of gun. The 2nd isn’t just for militias, its the right of the people, which is comprised of individuals. So it is a individual right whether you like it or not. The 2nd also states shall not be infringed, which means you gun control laws are unconstitutional. I would… Read more »

    Gdubb
    Guest
    Gdubb

    You obviously are incapable of deciphering the written English language. 2A GUARANTEES the RIGHT of American citizens to bear arms, specifically. Do you understand what “shall not be infringed” means? 2A has very little to do with State Militia activity, other than insisting that States have the right form and regulate their own Militias. 2A does not say anything about joining Militias in order to own firearms – not even close – a very stupid argument, even for a complete libtard such as yourself. Go back to your Caliphate News Network feed and chime in with your comrades.

    James R
    Guest
    James R

    Too add to this, a well regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms are two separate sentences. The right to keep and bear arms ALSO the right to a well regulated militia. You can misconstrued the 2A all you want. The fact of the matter is that it’s separate. You do not need to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.

    Will
    Guest
    Will

    That’s not what it says at all. The phrases ‘well regulated militia’ and ‘keep and bear arms’ are distinct. The former indicates the purpose for the latter, but it does not in any way or by any construction of the sentence limit it. Moreover, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t grant the right. It references the the right as if it exists outside of the constitution and says that right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Reread the amendment. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” // “the right of the people to… Read more »

    TheHolyCrow
    Guest
    TheHolyCrow

    No, you silly goose. The Militia is made up of certain people between a certain age. They are required to bring their own guns. If they do not have one of their own, then they can go borrow or buy one from WE THE PEOPLE, like Grandma down the street, or Uncle Harry in the next town. It says the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, not THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Can’t you read ? Don’t you understand English ? Do you think that all the generations before us got it wrong ?… Read more »

    Roger J
    Guest
    Roger J

    The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In both Heller and McDonald, SCOTUS found the 2nd Amendment to refer to an individual right. The opinions are publicly available. You can read them if you wish. As for me, I’ll take the SCOTUS interpretation instead of your ill-informed and emotional view

    George
    Guest
    George

    Dred scott
    Cherokee vs ga
    That ruling on the death penalty recently
    I so hate when people reference scotus like if they were always right why is cnn complaining about a conservative court? If the constitution can only be interrupted one way then that would not matter.
    Oh nunn vs george for an example of a counter to miller

    Jack Mac
    Guest
    Jack Mac

    PLM: There are those demanding to live freely, those wanting to freely rule, and those willing to be ruled. The rulers and the ruled support each other. The free support themselves and by their existence are a threat to the others. The free believing in rights of life require weapons to defend rights. This is because the rulers require the free to be removed with weapons. The possession of weapons is an existing right, codified by the free. It is not a privilege granted by the rulers of the ruled. Which group are you in and willing to defend, with… Read more »

    John
    Guest
    John

    Respectfully, Heller and MCDonald settled the matter; it is the people who make up the militia. Once the militia accomplished the service called up for as required, the respective citizens go home, with their firearm and ammo in tow, ready to be called again when needed to maintain the Republic.

    Whoever advocates disarming the citizenry, (or placing so many restrictions upon the arms they employ, rendering them useless) are up to no good.

    The fear of an armed citizenry is what maintains the Republic.

    One wonders sir why you fear an armed citizenry?

    DaveW
    Guest
    DaveW

    Clearly, you have never studied the history of the 2nd Amendment, nor the mandated means of changing the enumerated rights of the people. The authors, James Madison and George Mason, made it clear in testimony before the several state’s legislatures and in their own writings, which remain for us today, that 2A applies to every citizen. That it was commonly accepted that everyone has a right to self defense and to put food on the table, and that these “normal” activities had nothing to do with 2A. They made it clear that the purpose of 2A was to prevent what… Read more »

    Oldmarine
    Guest
    Oldmarine

    Everyone has the right to self defense. That is Natural law also Man’s Law. If some one is killed or injured because of an illegal law then the victim or family has the natural right to seek retribution against the people who caused it. Laws that kill anyone except convicted killers but causes citizens to be harmed is not only against man’s Laws but Nature’s also. Laws are supposed to protect us NOT KILL US and to say that only certain people has the right to life is inhuman and on the level of animals. Laws should be based on… Read more »

    Ed
    Guest
    Ed

    Go fuck yourself

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    real clear content, there, and most helpful in the furthering of the discussion.
    There needs to be a “flag” button for such offensive babble.

    Oldmarine
    Guest
    Oldmarine

    Oldmarine >>> PLM
    Why do you think that the fore fathers even put in in the Constitution? They did this with a lot of consideration as protecting, you the citizen from you own government. Your comment is just an BAD opinion . READ the 2nd again with an open mind please and think of the possibilities of you being a target of the government. . You ignore that it is based on Nature that is indisputable. Use common sense and what do you have to protect yourself form a perpetrator human or otherwise?

    George
    Guest
    George

    A well regulated milita being neccessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall nor be infringed.
    Its says that a militia is neccarrys
    It says not to limit the right to own and carry.
    Banning all of what you mentions limits owning and carrying so unconstitutional
    Nowhere does it say the miltia is required
    I’d say it protects my right to form one. Does the 1a only protect speech as it applies to religion? No it protects more then one right .
    Who is the miltia? the whole people minus a full ceritan officials- george Mason

    Gerald Jessup
    Guest
    Gerald Jessup

    Except for the fact the supreme Court says you don’t have to be in a mallita.you need to catch up

    Get Out
    Guest
    Get Out

    I believe Ed got it right PLM.

    Purpose of a comma.
    The general purpose of a comma is to separate closely related but distinct elements in a sentence.

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    It says people can own guns if they are in a well-regulated state militia. Find the section of the US COntitution that says THAT. Ya cain’t, cuz it don’t. Reread that pesky Second Article……. Your tirade smacks of someone who went through government run/funded public skewlz. Thus you likely never learned how to diagram a sentence to break down its parts, the interactions of the various words and sections, and thus clearly comprehend its meaning. As you re-read that Second, note the following “infringe” is the operative verb, the action word. This time it is in the negative, meaning the… Read more »

    Richard Nutter
    Guest
    Richard Nutter

    YES! FINALLY!

    MikeRoss
    Guest
    MikeRoss

    You condemn others for “vile lies” while lying. You’ve discredited yourself. “The constitution does NOT say anybody and everybody no matter how unfit or dangerous can own any and all kinds of guns and weapons, no matter how dangerous.” A straw man. The Second Amendment says only one thing, that the federal government can not interfere with a citizens right to keep and bear arms. “It does not say people can own semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, or specify in any way what or who can own anything anybody wants.” Another straw man. See above. “It says people can own guns… Read more »

    circle8
    Guest
    circle8

    Circle8 says;
    PLM: Read it again. You will see the phrase of well regulated militia is not inclusive but is “in addition to”. It is not a requirement to belong to possess. Your hatred is clouding your reading and understanding ability. Typical of those who hate America.

    Fred Lead
    Guest
    Fred Lead

    The Second Amendment protections today, and at every point since the writing of the Bill of Rights, operates as an individual protection. To argue otherwise is to ignore the entirety of Constitutional scholarship.

    JoeUSooner
    Guest
    JoeUSooner

    Lord, where to begin? PLM, you’re the only jackass spreading vile lies. 1) Yes, the 2nd Amendment damnably well DOES say that “anyone and everyone” (as long as they are responsible, law-abiding citizens) can, indeed own “any and all kinds” of weapons. In 200 years, the Supreme Court has said so eight (8) times. 2) In the Federalist Papers, as well as their private correspondences and journals, the Founding Fathers were absolutely adamant that the People (citizenry) must have access and ability to own weapons “suitable for war.” 3) No reference is made to “state” militia memberships (the reference was… Read more »

    Michael Jones
    Guest
    Michael Jones

    I can’t wait for a traffic infraction to become a reason to restrict 2nd amendment rights. I mean really if you can’t be responsible enough to follow simple traffic rules what business do you have with a firearm..

    justsayno
    Guest
    justsayno

    Law is nothing more than the opinion of a politician backed by the force of arms.

    There isn’t one thing the democrats have added that is constitutional.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Just, What you have described is more like an act of Congress or an act of a legislature or act of a city council backed by force or arms. Often these acts are referred to as a statute, code, or ordinance. They are not, however, law. Law, in the US, must conform to the Constitution.

    Green Mtn. Boy
    Guest
    Green Mtn. Boy

    UnAmericans Expand the Number & Types of Prohibited Possessors, to Limit 2nd Amendment
    Perhaps we expand the Number & Types of Prohibited UnAmericans who would impose tyranny on “We The People” to a nice permanent vacation to a island,perhaps Gitmo.

    Core
    Guest
    Core

    All free sane adult citizens 18+ have the right to bear arms. It’s time to enforce Article VI within the US Constitution: Defund, Disbar, and Discharge all bureacrats from Office who violate the Second Amendment at ALL levels of government. The only constitutional regulations are Free, Adult, & Sane. I would argue that even non citizens lawfully inside the US should also have the right to bear arms to protect life and limb. Let’s fly the freedom eagle, and restore the US Constitution! Lets charge these Democratic Bureacrats with treason!

    Oldmarine
    Guest
    Oldmarine

    Oldmarine >>> Core Right !!! All Public Servants ( Including Democrats ) have taken an Sworn Oath with consequences of Perjury under Oath. There are many State and Federal laws about this Breaking of the Oath because it becomes PERJURY , a FELONY. That makes any Politician a criminal because they knew is was against the law.. They do this not for you but for them, another criminal act against you. You have every right to charge them With Perjury and crimes against the citizenry. Political positions are created to represent you without committing a crime. Politicians tend to protect… Read more »

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    you were doing fine until you infringed the rights of those under 18 years of age. Are you not aware that many young men fought and died to further the war for our indepenedence from Britain? Some as young as fifteen took the field, fought hard, quitted themselves well as good soldiers, and survived to help build this nation. I teach rifle marksmanship, and I’ve worked with kids as young as six on the line. They pay attention, learn, follow the given instructioins enjoy what they are doing,. While I’d hate to see six year olds on the line in… Read more »

    Brian
    Guest
    Brian

    Alright then, let’s do this. When any politician or judge passes a law that is unconstitutional, let’s take away their right to own a firearm. Police officers can still beat the hell out of their wives and children and they are still allowed to keep their firearms. That’s a real bright idea. Any politician who violates their oath of office needs to lose their right to own firearms. Any police officer who commits domestic violence against their wives and children needs to lose their right to own a firearm. If gun laws are going to be passed, then they need… Read more »

    Joe Barilari
    Guest
    Joe Barilari

    All laws passed must be enforced against gov and people alike.
    Police should have no weapons not allowed to citizens, no NFA items.

    Or, get rid of the NFA, WHICH I support

    John
    Guest
    John

    Front door legislation barring yet again another category of citizens from engaging in Commerce, all the while pushing back door EPRO legislation to seize property legally purchased, all without due process!

    Both styles of legislation not only promote a false safety over Liberty, worse, the intent is to chill numerous inalienable Rights.

    This is not what Our Founders intended.

    och will
    Guest
    och will

    Gun safety laws work. Domestic abusers, stalkers and spouse beaters who have been convicted of any of these crimes simply have no business owning guns. 1800women in America died at the hands of their partners in 2016. The majority of those deaths involved guns. Opposing gun safety laws like VAWA simply means more women will die from gunfire. And in a country with the worst per capita gun violence rate in the developed world that’s not good. Did the founders intend that known wife beaters convicted in American courts of abuse, should have firearms with which to threaten or kill… Read more »

    Eric
    Guest
    Eric

    You will not need to worry about your wife or husband Beating you for too long! It will be government cronies Who will be beating your ass, just as soon as you hand over the last of your constitutionally protected rights! Ya need to wake up pal! This bill is a covert attempt at nothing more than subjugation! Do you not understand the M.O. that our government engages in with regards to anything they put a hand on? These stupid idiots can’t even balance the national debt and you are gonna give them the preserved natural rights that are exactly… Read more »

    Eric
    Guest
    Eric

    You don’t even know the difference between a right or a privledge so sit down and shut up! You are ill qualified to even comment!

    Jiveturkey
    Guest
    Jiveturkey

    My problem with it is the fact it’s so easy to get a restraining order, and it can be and is often done with no evidence. Just say I’m scared, whether that fear is justified or not doesn’t matter. Judges are scared to deny one then something happen to that person so they hand them out like candy. And to me that’s a bit too easy for someone to lose their constitutional right just one someone’s word. Especially in a world where abuse claims are often used in court to gain an upper hand in the divorce as well as… Read more »

    T.H
    Guest
    T.H

    So true!!
    In Indiana any woman can go into the local court and request a restraining order against her husband or boyfriend and the court will issue it immediately.
    You then are notified of restraining order and notified of your court date ” usually about 8 months to a year later, in the meantime you lose your rights to own or possess firearms.
    Then at the hearing…
    They issue a summary judgment and away go your rights for two years. (Unless she request that it be continued, then with no further due process it can continue for life as long as she request it.

    tomas
    Guest
    tomas

    So the Cops Just Came And Took Mines Yesterday I have 15 Days To Appeal I Was Wondering How That Would Turn Out Do You Have Any Insight ? I was also reading up on my 2nd amendment on infringement and reputable laws outside the constitution being unlawful also it being my right solely to bare arms. Can you help me?

    Paul Hardy
    Guest
    Paul Hardy

    I don’t own guns, but there could come a time when I might like to, however, I am not legally allowed to now. I have been married nearly 30 years ,and have 3 wonderful children and an intelligent & strong wife, but @ 15 years ago my wife and I got into a heated verbal argument on what would become the last night that she ever had a drink. As had happened a small number of times before, she became physical, but for the first time in my life, after being pelted three times in the head with a teapot,… Read more »

    Ralph M. Chavez
    Guest
    Ralph M. Chavez

    Utilize non-lethal self-defense tools, if/when needed. They can be very effective. In the case(s) of spousal abuse, this can be very comforting!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    The founding fathers intended that criminals be executed. Libtards have negated that. The founding fathers intended that people use facts, and logic rather than emotion to make decisions. The founding fathers did not intend that inanimate objects get blamed for a crime committed by a human. The founding fathers intended that the guilty be punished, rather than millions of persons that had nothing to do with the crime.

    daniel Hoffman
    Guest
    daniel Hoffman

    The US is near 10th on the list of per capita not 1st. What you fail to say is if these women were armed would the same rate of death by an abuser be true. There are between 2 and 2 &1/2 million times a year that the mere presence of a firearm has stopped a crime of violence. The vast majority of violent crimes take place in 8 cities that have strict gun control and are run by democratic administration. Much of it is gang violence and not from the average Joe. There is already a law that domestic… Read more »

    Ralph M. Chavez
    Guest
    Ralph M. Chavez

    I highly suggest that these domestic victims, whether they be male or female, take up arms and protect themselves! I speak of lethal and non-lethal!
    Let us take responsibility for our lives!

    TheHolyCrow
    Guest
    TheHolyCrow

    Now you’re talking !

    RotaryConnected
    Guest
    RotaryConnected

    Those kinds of laws have been on the books for decades in all States. Where have you been ?. Also, laws prohibiting felons have also been on the books for decades, if not centuries. And laws barring the insane, and mentally diminished, have all been on the books for centuries. What, you want to rewrite them again ? Is that what you are so upset about ? I don’t think so, your ilk wants to do away with all guns for all people, except those you think are in authority and will never go rogue. Who do you think you… Read more »

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    another load of false statistics and your anti-gun bloomie-backed screed. One big difference between the Founding era and today…. any man who would physically harm his WIfe would be severely dealt with in the loca courts, tried by a jury of people he KNOWS and LIVES WITH. Such behaviour was not tolerated in those times. By the way, as in your earlier rant, what difference does the MEANS EMPLYED make to the already prohibited crime of bearing, murde,r etc? NONE. Rocks, bricks, claw hammers, fists, are all lethal weapons. so, is a wife beater to be perhobited the use of… Read more »

    Drowning-im
    Guest
    Drowning-im

    No these laws don’t work, not in the smallest capacity. How many men were killed or killed themselves when their children were kidnapped by those wives with “silver bullet”? Those numbers are in fact astounding. Father/male suicides actually make a very large number of the “homicide” by gun statistics. You know what else makes those “homicide” static “gun deaths”? Lawful police shootings of criminals. Getting back to your lack of a point about spousal violence, guess which gender is singled out at more than 90% as the bad actor?… Yeah the men. Now guess what percentage of spousal abuse goes… Read more »

    MockingBird48
    Guest
    MockingBird48

    When I was younger, I was put into mental institution. But that was because of the medication I was on, and I wasn’t really ever taught right from wrong when I was really young, I was on medication when I was four years old up until I was 14 years old, then my doctor took me off those medications. Because they were not helping, infact they were making everything worse, and since I’ve been off them, I’ve never been calmer, I hardly ever raise my voice at anyone. But of course I still make a mistake every now, then like… Read more »

    Constantine Contempt
    Guest
    Constantine Contempt

    It’s not about safety, the profiduious pompouse pigs in obamagrad want power and control. . .That’s it. The elitist vipers have each committed treason and, as you do to an asp, we should gather them up and throw them into a fire. I have a dick the elite scum can tate! To hell with the swamp, FLUSH THE DAMNED TOILET.

    Kenneth Clark
    Guest
    Kenneth Clark

    Over and Over I head Democrats promise that they dont want to take guns, They just want (Common sense gun laws) after implementing these common sense gun laws.. Suddenly it’s not enough they want more stricter laws and more and more.. I’m tried of political lies from the left aimed only at stripping all Constitutional rights away from the American people and push their socialist agenda.. my father, grandfather & great grandfather and many more ancestors fought and died for our Constitutional rights. Never will I or anyone else disrespect their memories by turning this country communist by brainwashed uneducated… Read more »

    Michelle J. Lyman
    Guest
    Michelle J. Lyman

    They should let ex felons live the same as any other law abiding citizen. I guess it looks like our legalislative system has failed all of us. They call our prisons in USA … So called … Correctional. Ffaculties although none are obviously correcting anyone at all. We must all approach the Senate with thwar unlawful ways the system Do sent work at all for us. Why is that?

    Erika Donneson
    Guest
    Erika Donneson

    This elitist attitude is another reason that l quit the so-called Democratic Party. Where does Nancy live? And does she have body guards? She does not speak for me. She is going to invite a revolution, like what happened during Vietnam, because her ideas are life threatening.

    Richard L Kemp
    Guest
    Richard L Kemp

    They must all be charged with PERJURY in violation of their oaths of office which is treason and a felony under state and federal law,you cannot uphold the constitution and war against it they are TRESSPASSERS of THEIR OFFICES.
    Every politician who writes or votes yea on any arms bills or laws must be charged under title 18 U.S.C. section 241 CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS and title 18 U.S.C. section 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law.
    These terrorist traitors must be tried and executed under the law.

    SouthernMaine
    Guest
    SouthernMaine

    Many people have been illegally abducted to uncredialed, unlicensed mental wards by gangs colluding with police, with no due process, as well as Alzheimer’s facilities who do not have Alzheimer’s. So the word “committed” should be replaced with the specific diagnosis as well as the name of the doctor so that someone takes responsibility. Another illegal trick commonly used is to falsely committed, but the person does not spend one minute of the false commitment in any facility. This is especially true for women, and includes politicians. This could not happen when only a violent crime has occurred, and the… Read more »

    Drowning-im
    Guest
    Drowning-im

    Speaking as a lawful citizen that was subject to the women protection acts overreach already I can only hope that the sponsors of this bill get prosecuted for treason. At the meer suggestion of and extremely vague legal standard of “fear”, I watched everything I spent my whole life on destroyed instantly. That’s right the mental I’ll ex wife claimed she was “afraid” (more like mad I didn’t pay the cable bill in hopes she would peel herself off the couch after years of being a worthless sponge…). She left with two kids claimed abuse without the slightest shred of… Read more »

    Mitch
    Guest
    Mitch

    Been there myself

    Clint Baker
    Guest
    Clint Baker

    Oooooooooohhhh, just reading this makes me angry. Im sorry forall you went through. Robert plant said it best: the soul of axwoman was [email protected] below.

    Butch
    Guest
    Butch

    That is one of the worst crimes in my opinion!!! Not giving due counseling to the party in question and being railroaded without a lawyer to present your case!! I feel so sorry for this man. He was prosecuted with no proof and the powers that be let it go down that way!! Shameful!!!

    John
    Guest
    John

    Your story sadly is compounded by the fact it is not unique.

    Chris
    Guest
    Chris

    I had a similar experience, she was drunk off her ass. Called the cops they hauled me to jail for nothing and left a drunk mentally I’ll woman with three kids at home alone !
    Four days in the county jail before she dropped the charges.
    Men have no rights!

    T.H.
    Guest
    T.H.

    Oh!!!
    You must be a man…
    That’s the way it goes in most states.
    “IF YOU ARE A MAN…YOU ARE WRONG!!”

    m.
    Guest
    m.

    pees-loosely: BIOOYBMFA

    Steven Sarasky
    Guest
    Steven Sarasky

    My fellow supporters of the 2nd Amendment ..it’s like this The Republican party FAILED ! during the last. Election the GOP never Put one.TV ad not one about protecting the 2nd Amendment. And. Never Never ran any Ads about what would happen if The COMMIECRATS took either house. with the Senate election Here Arizona the. GOP AND THE NRA FAILED.!! NOT ONE TV AD .

    Laddyboy
    Guest
    Laddyboy

    Agreed!!! However, here on the East Coast the DemocRATic communist/islamist/nwo party members that CONTROL the “media” do not allow ANY decent current gun, shooting exhibits of any kind on their CONTROLLED channels. I have called very often to these channels. The only response I receive is: “I will relay your concern.”

    BRANDON BUJAK
    Guest
    BRANDON BUJAK

    The founding fathers believed these rights to be inalienable, endowed by our Creator. That means government can not take away what they did not give. Hold on to your Bible and your guns firmly and draw near to Jesus, I believe he will be returning soon!

    Danny Johnson
    Guest
    Danny Johnson

    The 2nd amendment says “Shall not be infringed upon” Period….. All gun laws are unconstitional, including the one about felons. After your time is served and you are deemed safe enough to reenter society you should be able to own a gun. Especially when bad people still have guns. I have children, if my house is broken into and by chance I can call for help I’ll have to endure whatever until help arrives. B.S. j I have the right to life &so do my kids. This Gov. can piss off with this shit.

    Ricardo E Chinea
    Guest
    Ricardo E Chinea

    Yes!!! My gun is my 911…. 🙂

    Greg K
    Guest
    Greg K

    This is interesting, because all progressives exhibit the hallmark attributes of the “Domestic Stalker.”

    Nicholas Napier
    Guest
    Nicholas Napier

    I like that one that was pretty good beef triple you with you that those guidelines of a stalker fit very much real Joe Biden

    Nanashi
    Guest
    Nanashi

    The last FIVE categories were prohibited from possessing firearms. If you actually went to a gun shop you’d know that considering there’s warnings about 2 all over. Yes, in 1968 the NRA endorsed a law that banned over a quarter of the population from owning handguns.

    George
    Guest
    George

    The Democratic party is a party of evil. They are Anti- Constitutionlists, and promote unrest to hide their lawless nature. They are masters of manipulation, they need to go.

    BobbiSue
    Guest
    BobbiSue

    Fortunately the senate should vote this down, but if it gets passed there President Trump will veto this overreach and totally unconstitutional attemp to take weapons away from law abiding citizens.

    Cymond
    Guest
    Cymond

    Yeah, Donald is a real ally to RKBA. I’m so glad he stood with us when the gun grabbers came for the bump stocks.

    Oh, wait …

    och will
    Guest
    och will

    Gun safety laws work. I doubt the dead and wounded from the Las Vegas massacre would agree with your claim that you have a “right” to modify your AR weapon of war to be able to kill even more innocent people. Ridiculous rambo.

    AG
    Guest
    AG

    Ever take notice how fast the Vegas shooting dropped from the news cycle? Once people with a brain started asking questions it vanished. Too many holes in the official story so they went on to claim there was no motive and closed the case. What a joke.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @AG, Also disturbing is how the LVPD did not share the facts with the public after the case was over. Appartly, the people are no longer the masters of government, not even city government. The people are mere serfs in LV.
    Oh and Och is mere Swill

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    NOT ONE SHRED of evidence that any “bump stock” was actually used in that event. BATF were berred from examining any of the guns found upstairs. And the gummit uffishuls immediately took as “evidence” all the privtely made video footage, erased it from the phones confiscated, returned the bleached devices, and have done… what? (no one knows) iwith all that”evidence”.. none of which was part of their report. You think we’ve really been told what happened? Yeah,and I’ve go a pet chicken can fly to the moon and back in a week…… what about the multiple credible unconected reports of… Read more »

    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    @ Och will Why don’t you show some proof that an Ar15 caused all that carnage in Las Vegas. It is not proven either way. It is impossible to aim with a bump stock and impossible to use one with a tripod. Once, on this stage, you proclaimed to be a Major in the US Marines. If you were I doubt if you could be as stupid as you post. You and The Green Weenie have a lot of the same talking points and both of you are lying sacks of bull.

    Ken
    Guest
    Ken

    Here’s an idea to stop this bullish!t, add on anyone prohibited from owning a gun is also prohibited from voting…

    Cymond
    Guest
    Cymond

    That honestly makes a lot of sense! And I think it’s an argument that could play well with the silent majority in the middle.

    George S
    Guest
    George S

    Most shootings have been done by Demoncrats,fact.
    Let’s disarm Demoncrats and problem splved.

    Fred Lead
    Guest
    Fred Lead

    They don’t really care about voting, more effective would be to end government entitlements and benefits if they cannot legally own a firearm.

    Son_of_Liberty
    Guest
    Son_of_Liberty

    I disagree with this push solely because of what this is. This is a “nickle and dime” scheme to make it easier to pass further legislation. Today it will be person’s that may do harm, tomorrow it will be vets with minor cases of PTSD, the day after will be anyone who doesn’t vote Democrat. In my personal opinion, stalkers and creeps of similar nature probably shouldn’t have access to firearms. As stalking can escalate pretty quickly depending on the mental state of the stalker. Usually it’s an unknown, so would fall in between “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause”. We… Read more »

    Ansel Hazen
    Guest
    Ansel Hazen

    “Another Justice appointed by President Trump”

    WHERE IS RBG and why is this off the radar?????

    Burner
    Guest
    Burner

    All gun control laws are unconstitutional

    Gas Block in WA
    Guest
    Gas Block in WA

    Hopefully the US Senate will stop this crap.

    MockingBird48
    Guest
    MockingBird48

    We can only hope.