The Supreme Court in a unanimous 9-0 vote strengthened the law that states if someone is found guilty of domestic violence, even if no actual violence was proved, they can’t own a gun.
What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ regarding the 2nd Amendment do these ‘justices’ not understand?
To take someone’s gun because they have been involved in domestic violence will NOT stop domestic violence from occurring in the future.
These 2 issues are not related in any way.
See Page 2 For Complete Story:
Isn’t this decision making the SCOTUS a legislative body. What happened to separation of powers?
supreme court??? supreme to what?
315 million people controlled by 9 incompetent fools.
LIBTARDS IS AS LIBTARDS ARE ! STUPID MF`S !
Anyone that has already shown any form of violence at all should be banned for life from owning a fire arm!
Mike Schultz, if President Obama is such a traitor, why weren’t you calling for George W. Bush’s impeachment? Compared to Bush, President Obama is a saint, or a seraphim, in the highest choir of angels. Obama isn’t a war criminal, who DIDN’T give $47 million to the Taliban to do something THAT DIDN’T EVEN DO! Bush was just a lucky little Bush kid, who followed in daddy’s steps because of a name. Not because he had the right, or the intelligence, the name. And some money. If you want to fight corruption, fight it ALL. Fighting one side’side’s corruption only makes the other MORE corrupt…
The liberal future of mankind; lame obedient docile pussified marshmallows.
Has less to do with public safety and everything to do with diminishing your rights
yes
they obviously don’t understand the term shall no be infringed, especially the liberals on the court, but to have all 9 is preposterous. A true lack of understanding of the 2nd amendment.