Should a person who is convicted of domestic violence be denied their Second Amendment rights to own or possess firearms? Domestic violence has become a tool of the liberal left to deny Americans the right to own and bear firearms. In a ruling that is sure to anger many anti-gun liberals and get them to renew their efforts for stricter gun control.
The 10th Circuit has issued an opinion that convictions of municipal and local ordinances for domestic violence do not remove a person’s rights under the Second Amendment. Current federal law makes a person who has been convicted of domestic violence under “Federal, State, or Tribal law” a prohibited possessor who may not legally purchase or possess firearms or ammunition. In this case, U.S.A. v. Pauler, the defendant, Alexander J. Pauler, had been convicted of violating a Wichita, Kansas municipal ordinance against domestic violence. From hutchnews.com:
WICHITA – A Kansas man convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery under a city ordinance can legally carry a gun, an appeals court found in a ruling that could have broader implications for firearm sales.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling came in the case of Alexander Pauler, a Wichita man who was accused of violating a federal law that prohibits someone from owning a gun if they’ve been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence “under federal, state or tribal law.” …
Some men and women get convicted of domestic violence over just having a loud argument and nothing more. The situation is often blown out of proportion by one or both of those involved or by others around them. That shouldn’t be enough to deny a person the right to own or possess a firearm and leave them defenseless.