Well that is an unfortunate move by SCOTUS

OMG!!!! That Repulican IM thing was absolutely hilarious!! Te he

The gun thing isn't surprising, but really upsetting to me

I am not surprised that England's economy is in the toilet from what I've read about their bailout.

That last article was like manna to me. I could go Republican if they could get some folks like that in office.

Ginsberg: "wasn't the statute responding to just that problem, that domestic abuse tended to be charged as misdemeanors rather than felonies? And it was that fact that the Senator was responding to when he included misdemeanor. The whole purpose of this was to make a misdemeanor battery count for the statute's purpose."

Sigh.

I second that "sigh", Jillness!

Thomas Beatie is not a "pregnant man".

The republicans have alienated everyone but "the base" and unfortunately for them, a strong base is useless if there is nothing built on it - or worse yet, if everything is repelled from being built on such as disturbing base...

IMO, they need to take a look a Ron Paul and see how he can get the youth vote and different groups to support him - bring him along and change the message to include some of his approach - oh and stop the CRAZY! No more Palins, Bachmans, and the other assortment of crazy repubs. Make the party about being smart, hard workers, fairness, liberty, prepared, and responsible - folksy, racist, and religiously mental need to go out of style. The "base" will vote red, and if they don't you still know they won't vote blue - so, if you back off courting the base it won't hurt as much as courting them in terms of net-total of vote - you lose more ppl courting them to the blue side then you would lose base people if you ignored their "values."

..ranting over

Even though I'm originally from the midwest, I definitely identify with the "Northeastern" Republicans. I am hoping that, as my generation gets more and more involved, the Republican party returns to the smaller government, "stay out of my life" ideals.

OK it is definitely scary to see a domestic abuser can still get a gun. I see where the judges ruled that it is not a felony therefore, at the time they cannot constitutionally take their right to bear arms unless they are a convicted felon. And I am really confused that any of the justices would actually vote to take away that right. I do agree that too many women will not press charges to the fullest extent. And truthfully, in the eyes of the law they are no different than any other misdemeanor assault/battery. Maybe the states need to enact some kind of domestic abuse law where if you are convicted of 2 misdemeanor assault/battery then that = felony. Then they would be felons and couldn't get a gun. Their right to a gun is equal to a right to vote in the eyes of the constitution. Should we take away their right to vote??? Just a theoretical question.

And, while I typically agree with Scalia and am typically pro-gun rights, so I think that ruling is ridiculous! I don't necessarily think everyone convicted of any misdemeanor should be banned from owning a gun, but I certainly think that anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery should be! In general, I guess I feel that gun ownership, like driving, is somewhere between a right and a privilege. It's a right in that everyone should have the chance to do it, but it's a privilege in that if you mess up, your chance (for a gun permit/driver's license) should be taken away.

The last article is awesome, i identify with that. I am pro-life but I am also pro gay marriage. therefore I fall in the middle but I feel I associate more with libertarian. Since I feel they are fiscally republican but more of the do what you want to your own body/mind/home etc...

Am I the only one that looks and Thomas Beatie and gets the willies? He looks like a she to me. And I saw the commercials of the Barbara Walters interview a few days ago. The pictures of him pregnant are just down right creepy.

And I'm sorry... if you hit someone, then you are an abuser. I don't know... to me there isn't much of a line between I hit you once across the face every now and then to get my point home or I drank too much and I'm going to beat you until you're unconscious. Abuse is abuse. I'm sure if this was for child abusers, this wouldn't even be an issue.

I see your point lilkimbo on gun rights. But the only law currently is felons... so until they write a constitutional amendment, everyone of the justices SHOULD vote that they can keep their guns. Now get on your phones to your congressmen/women and tell them to start writing the amendment

Sorry that's supposed to be looks AT Thomas Beatie... typing too fast = errors.

"Am I the only one that looks and Thomas Beatie and gets the willies? He looks like a she to me. And I saw the commercials of the Barbara Walters interview a few days ago. The pictures of him pregnant are just down right creepy."

Starangel it's because Thomas Beatie is (anatomically speaking) still a woman.

I guess all of our stock gun photos are of 1911 colts.

The pregant man thing..again? It is so sensationalized like it is a big deal. He is gentically a woman who chooses to live his life as man. With all his female reproductive organs intact..so for pete sake why is it such a shock that he can get pregant? You think he was frikin turn milk into beer or something...

Hainan, why would an amendment be needed prohibiting those with misdemeanors from having guns? There's no amendment that excludes felons from gun ownership.

bluesarahlou - Yeah, I know technically he has the female parts. Yet he is still considered a man. Confusing... poor kids. They are going to be so confused in school when it comes time to teach about reproduction.

"The pregant man thing..again? It is so sensationalized like it is a big deal. He is gentically a woman who chooses to live his life as man. With all his female reproductive organs intact..so for pete sake why is it such a shock that he can get pregant? You think he was frikin turn milk into beer or something..."

CYL - agreed. My one big hope for the economic downturn is that a reality show folks, celebrity personalities, et al will get less play in the media.

Felons should not be excluded from gun ownership, once they have served a reasonable sentence.

Compared to the rest of us, they are more likely in situations in which they must exercise their right of self defense.

I understand their point that under the law it's only felons that are denied the right to own guns. The laws for domestic abuse need to be tougher so that someone who abuses their partner gets a felony, not a misdemeanor.

I had no idea lilkimbo, sorry for my misinformation

Last time I was at the gun shop, I was talking to one of the clerks who mentioned that this law prohibited a large number of police officers from owning firearms. They had gotten into an altercation with their wives, plead guilty to what they thought was a seemingly insignificant charge, and suddenly had one of their constitutional rights stripped away. Scalia is truly a champion of liberty.

"Following this and other exchanges, advocates for the law assume the Supreme Court will uphold the 4th Circuit's ruling that will leave many abusers able to purchase guns — and only another act of Congress will be able to fix the loophole."

Awesome--so not only can domestic abusers strangle/beat/suffocate the partner to death, but now the partners can be shot? Great!

It bugs me that a police officer would find a misdemeanor assault and battery charge insignificant!

(And Hainan, sorry, I didn't mean to sound condescending. I just meant that, to me, it makes more sense to either hold organic's view or hold the view that it's ok to ban gun ownership in both cases. Sorry!)

I think there should be specific crimes for which a conviction means no guns allowed in the future. I don't want the guys who've been convicted of beating their wives and/or children to be able to buy guns, when it's obvious they can't control their anger and lash out with violence.

I would just like to point out that victims of domestic violence can also purchase guns.

That's true, but a lot of women who are abused feel extremely uncomfortable being violent themselves. I know an adult who was shot at by her father as a child and now, 50 years later, she shakes when she has to be around guns, even hunting rifles.

I think the victims should be allowed, as they haven't been convicted of violent crimes.

lil, well said.

Lilkim, I don't think somebody's reluctance to protect themselves is a good reason to strip somebody else of their constitutional right.

I never said it was. I was just stating a fact.

I do think somebody's violent nature is a good reason to take away their right.

Felons can petition to have their gun ownership rights reinstated after a certain period of time. It's typically tough if it was a violent felony though...you really have to stay out of all trouble for a while. I think where I live anyway, if you have a domestic violence conviction you will at least be delayed if you try to buy a gun.

Anyway, we are clearly never going to agree. I understand your position, I just can't bring myself to agree with it. Have a great night, all!

I tend to think that gun ownership should be less of a right for all and more of a privilege for those who haven't been convicted of violently attacking their own family members when enraged (or of violent crime in general). I just find the idea of a guy who abuses his family having access to a gun and flying into an abusive rage very frightening.

I don't think that they should have their rights taken away at this point and I think the court is correct in their ruling. Misdemeanor is supposedly a minor offense. It does not set up a string of prior offenses (legally) to think that they would use a gun violently. However, stricter sentencing like charging them with a felony would let people know the severity of their actions. And if women will only press charges if it is a misdemeanor, you cant help the unwilling.

sorry I think the saying is you can't help those that won't help themselves// couldn't think for a minute

If somebody commits a violent act, we should incarcerate them until they are no longer considered a danger. We should not also strip them of their constitutional rights. Perhaps it could be a temporary part of their sentence, or of probation, but it should not be a permanent situation. If somebody is so violent that they can't be trusted with a gun, then they should also not be trusted with knives, hammers, rocks, matches, gasoline, etc. If they are that dangerous, they should not be loose in society.

"If they are that dangerous, they should not be loose in society."

I do agree with that, Mich, as well as most of the rest of your post, but unfortunately our criminal justice system doesn't seem to be set up that way.

Jude, I'm sure you and I could spend days talking about the problems in our criminal justice system, and I bet we'd agree about a lot of things, too. The system is so flawed it makes me sick to think about it.

Yep yep. Most definitely, Mich.

Hainam- unfortch. because the right to bear firearms is explicit in the Constitution, I'd have to agree with you that it's as fundamental (though probably less important) a right as voting. This is what happens when your Constitution is written at a time when your society is still a frontier society. Sigh. I'm going to have to go with Scalia on this one, it is a fundamental right and should be subject to the strictest scrutiny.

Those DA's HAVE to stop pleading the felonies down to misdemeanors or women are going to get hurt! The issue is that the abusers are being charged with felonies, but the DA's plea them down to misdemeanors, not that they "only" are committing misdemeanors in the first place. So sad and scary.

"Felons should not be excluded from gun ownership, once they have served a reasonable sentence."

Really? Even violent felons who have shot and murdered people? I understand you like the Constitution, but luckily we don't have to chuck all common sense to protect it. Don't forget the states are given the right to protect their citizens through the police power. A state's compelling interest to keep guns out of the hands of convicted killers and domestic abusers should withhold the strict scrutiny required for abrogating a fundamental Constitutional right; the right to own a firearm. The federal Constitution does not completely invalidate all state's rights. And protecting victims of domestic violence (and violence in general) is certainly a compelling governmental interest.

Wait- Michelin, Organic, I'm so confused. I thought Conservatives were for state's rights too? Do you guys just make an exception for the all-holy Second Amendment?

Did you ever think you would hear the sentence: He is so fertile.

gunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsguns

holy moly snow we agree on something...
And the state rights pertain to anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution BTW

"Wait- Michelin, Organic, I'm so confused. I thought Conservatives were for state's rights too? Do you guys just make an exception for the all-holy Second Amendment? Eye-wink"

I don't understand your question. I'm all for allowing the states to have the rights that aren't explicitly given to individuals or the federal government. The right to bear arms is explicitly given to individuals.

"Even violent felons who have shot and murdered people?"

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but obviously murderers should not be free from prison. And if they ARE, it should only be after they are no longer deemed a threat.

Strict scrutiny isn't very strict. It has been misapplied many times. Applying it here adds another.