SmarterthanYou
rebel
why don't you know the difference between state and federal?
why don't you know the difference between state and federal?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Good question.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
here's another good question. why don't you know the difference between state and federal?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Why can't you read?
Here's what I cited earlier:
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti...fender_Gun_Ban
Then there's the state law:
(1) Any court when entering an order authorized under RCW 9A.46.080, 10.14.080, 10.99.040, 10.99.045, 26.09.050, 26.09.060, 26.10.040, 26.10.115, 26.26.130, 26.50.060, 26.50.070, or 26.26.590 shall, upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence, that a party has: Used, displayed, or threatened to use a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a felony, or previously committed any offense that makes him or her ineligible to possess a firearm under the provisions of RCW 9.41.040:
(a) Require the party to surrender any firearm or other dangerous weapon;
(b) Require the party to surrender any concealed pistol license issued under RCW 9.41.070;
(c) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon;
(d) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a concealed pistol license.
(2) Any court when entering an order authorized under RCW 9A.46.080, 10.14.080, 10.99.040, 10.99.045, 26.09.050, 26.09.060, 26.10.040, 26.10.115, 26.26.130, 26.50.060, 26.50.070, or 26.26.590 may, upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence but not by clear and convincing evidence, that a party has: Used, displayed, or threatened to use a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a felony, or previously committed any offense that makes him or her ineligible to possess a pistol under the provisions of RCW 9.41.040:
(a) Require the party to surrender any firearm or other dangerous weapon;
(b) Require the party to surrender a concealed pistol license issued under RCW 9.41.070;
(c) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon;
(d) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a concealed pistol license.
(3) The court may order temporary surrender of a firearm or other dangerous weapon without notice to the other party if it finds, on the basis of the moving affidavit or other evidence, that irreparable injury could result if an order is not issued until the time for response has elapsed.
(4) In addition to the provisions of subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section, the court may enter an order requiring a party to comply with the provisions in subsection (1) of this section if it finds that the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by any party presents a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety, or to the health or safety of any individual.
(5) The requirements of subsections (1), (2), and (4) of this section may be for a period of time less than the duration of the order.
(6) The court may require the party to surrender any firearm or other dangerous weapon in his or her immediate possession or control or subject to his or her immediate possession or control to the sheriff of the county having jurisdiction of the proceeding, the chief of police of the municipality having jurisdiction, or to the restrained or enjoined party's counsel or to any person designated by the court.
[2002 c 302 § 704; 1996 c 295 § 14; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 430.]
The federal law is on top...the state law is on the bottom...no need to thank me.
That is a good question.....why don't you know the difference ? Is it because you're an AssWipe ?
Alias
Banned
You're assuming a law was broken. Rabbit trail alert.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what you cited does not support your claim.
more self pwnage.
what an embarrassing thread for legion troll....no wonder he had to bump his self congratulatory thread about conservatives being pwned, he can't actually do so in a debate, so has to make believe.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I'm not assuming. That's your schtick. The news accounts say his wife applied for two orders of protection. The law says he should have been disarmed.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
watch....legon will ignore the law and the facts in order to continue posting lies
SmarterthanYou
rebel
do you need a timeline of the stupid shit you posted? like 'research washington law', or does that not ring a bell anymore?
and just so you're aware, the lautenberg amendment is an 'ex post facto' law, hence is unconstitutional on its face despite the cowardice of the supreme court to overturn it.
don't worry, no reason to thank you,.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Let's just examine some state laws, now that we all know what the federal law is.
Here's California:
California state law says that if you have a DVRO against the abuser, he cannot have a gun in his possession, or buy a new gun while the order is in effect.* This applies to ex parte (temporary) orders as well as orders issued after notice and a hearing...
http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=263&state_code=CA&open_id=703#content-9184
Shall I go through all 50 states?
Here's California:
California state law says that if you have a DVRO against the abuser, he cannot have a gun in his possession, or buy a new gun while the order is in effect.* This applies to ex parte (temporary) orders as well as orders issued after notice and a hearing...
http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=263&state_code=CA&open_id=703#content-9184
Shall I go through all 50 states?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
did he use a gun or dangerous weapon?
watch, legion will ignore this because it hurts his argument
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I recall it perfectly, and I recall you failed to research the law. Does that ring a bell? Now you want to blame me for your ineptitude and ignorance, even though I posted it after you begged me to repeatedly. Is that fair?
We agree. But didn't you deny the existence of the law earlier?
Who's worried? I said no thanks were necessary.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you were asked to post it, you refused and said 'google it'. does that ring a bell?
I asked you to post the law, you refused. HUGE difference, but i'm sure you can't grasp that concept either since you confuse state and federal.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Let's just continue schooling the ignorant by providing some info on the Washington state law:
If you have a Protection Order against your abuser, or if the abuser has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor, Federal and Washington state law make it illegal for the abuser to buy, own or have a gun in his/her possession.
http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=306&state_code=WA
I can do this with all 50 states if you crave more humiliation...
If you have a Protection Order against your abuser, or if the abuser has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor, Federal and Washington state law make it illegal for the abuser to buy, own or have a gun in his/her possession.
http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=306&state_code=WA
I can do this with all 50 states if you crave more humiliation...
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're 'conveniently' forgetting the 'MAY' portion of that state law you refused to post, remember?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I refused? I gave you good advice. You didn't take it, and pwned yourself. After much begging, I relented and posted the relevant federal and state laws.
Here's some more advice from Mr. Jackson:
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I guess class is dismissed...LOL
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you got an F. too bad.
Alias
Banned
So why was he allowed to own guns? Because he broke no laws that would require his guns to be taken away. You built a mansion with straw and it got blown away.