This bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary, Division B Committee - Joey Fillingane, Chairman; Daniel H. Sparks, Vice-Chairman
Members: Juan Barnett; Jason Barrett; Andy Berry; Jeremy England; Rod Hickman; Angela Burks Hill; Tyler McCaughn; Sollie B. Norwood; Brian Rhodes; Derrick T. Simmons; Benjamin Suber; Joseph Thomas; Brice Wiggins
Each member of this committee needs to account for their vote.
An exception to any rule does not render the rule invalid. I have no doubt that My experience in this area of the judicial system grants me a view that you may not appreciate. My experience is that by the time the police, courts and restraining orders are involved as temporary measures as to firearms, the police, child services, the prosecutor office and the courts ALREADY know all of the parties history. Parenthetically, since you have placed such great emphasis upon a persons due process rights, you must also be outraged that ICE is depriving individuals of their statutorily granted due process rights on a daily basis.
The problem with saying this system doesn’t work is rendered incorrect by the fact that it works. Unless you are a domestic abuser none of laws impinge on your right to have your guns. Your due process rights have not been violated in any way. If you are so concerned about due process then where is your concern for the due process rights of women? 2400 +- women are killed by their domestic partner in 2024-2025 data. That 3 every day of the year. The men always have due process right to the highest court. There is no due process right or appeal for the deceased. Constitutional rights are taken away every day when people are convicted and sentenced to prison again unless you are an abuser you’re right to your guns is not affected, hindered or at risk. Your argument is the argument that abusers when they are in court
That argument has been made in my presence more times than I can count, usually by an attorney defending a man accused of domestic abuse. Anyone who thinks domestic violence is nothing either lacks the facts or condones violence to women. No one and I mean no one is at risk of loosing gun rights unless he first poses a threat or risk of violence to another person who is always his wife or girlfriend, exwife. Law enforcement officers will tell you that responding to a domestic violence call is one of the most dangerous calls According to fbi recordsbetween 80 and 100 officers died responding to domestic violence calls situations.between 2016 t2025 No one loses guns right unless they have demonstrated violence. You don’t let prisoners have gun. There are times and places your second amendment rights are less important . You really need to reevaluate what is more important. stop violence against women , officer safety or the right to bear arms against a state enemy, men may have a right to bear arms but they don’t have a right to do violence to women or to the police who are called. You really need to rethink your valuation of the testimony of women.
That isn't what Dana said. Domestic violence IS something, but so is due process. This isn't just a slippery slope, it is a toothy red flag law in the shabbiest of sheep's clothing. One of my closest friend's brother love in CA and had a similar law weaponized against him last spring. The ex called concerned about her child's welfare (the kid wasn't even there). Cops show up, also search his storage, find and confiscate guns.>$20,000 of my friend's $$ down the drain, brother's back home finally, but lost his job and still doesn't have his guns back. As Dana pointed out, we have laws in place to meet the intent. We don't need more overreach.
On the other side of this are men who are easily victimized by women seeking revenge for something by falsely accusing them of domestic violence. It is extremely easy to railroad an innocent man into permanent criminal /felony status. She can ruin his life in a heartbeat. That’s not fair or right either.
This bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary, Division B Committee - Joey Fillingane, Chairman; Daniel H. Sparks, Vice-Chairman
Members: Juan Barnett; Jason Barrett; Andy Berry; Jeremy England; Rod Hickman; Angela Burks Hill; Tyler McCaughn; Sollie B. Norwood; Brian Rhodes; Derrick T. Simmons; Benjamin Suber; Joseph Thomas; Brice Wiggins
Each member of this committee needs to account for their vote.
Mississippi must have a lot of extra money lying around to defend themselves in Federal lawsuits.
An exception to any rule does not render the rule invalid. I have no doubt that My experience in this area of the judicial system grants me a view that you may not appreciate. My experience is that by the time the police, courts and restraining orders are involved as temporary measures as to firearms, the police, child services, the prosecutor office and the courts ALREADY know all of the parties history. Parenthetically, since you have placed such great emphasis upon a persons due process rights, you must also be outraged that ICE is depriving individuals of their statutorily granted due process rights on a daily basis.
The problem with saying this system doesn’t work is rendered incorrect by the fact that it works. Unless you are a domestic abuser none of laws impinge on your right to have your guns. Your due process rights have not been violated in any way. If you are so concerned about due process then where is your concern for the due process rights of women? 2400 +- women are killed by their domestic partner in 2024-2025 data. That 3 every day of the year. The men always have due process right to the highest court. There is no due process right or appeal for the deceased. Constitutional rights are taken away every day when people are convicted and sentenced to prison again unless you are an abuser you’re right to your guns is not affected, hindered or at risk. Your argument is the argument that abusers when they are in court
That argument has been made in my presence more times than I can count, usually by an attorney defending a man accused of domestic abuse. Anyone who thinks domestic violence is nothing either lacks the facts or condones violence to women. No one and I mean no one is at risk of loosing gun rights unless he first poses a threat or risk of violence to another person who is always his wife or girlfriend, exwife. Law enforcement officers will tell you that responding to a domestic violence call is one of the most dangerous calls According to fbi recordsbetween 80 and 100 officers died responding to domestic violence calls situations.between 2016 t2025 No one loses guns right unless they have demonstrated violence. You don’t let prisoners have gun. There are times and places your second amendment rights are less important . You really need to reevaluate what is more important. stop violence against women , officer safety or the right to bear arms against a state enemy, men may have a right to bear arms but they don’t have a right to do violence to women or to the police who are called. You really need to rethink your valuation of the testimony of women.
That isn't what Dana said. Domestic violence IS something, but so is due process. This isn't just a slippery slope, it is a toothy red flag law in the shabbiest of sheep's clothing. One of my closest friend's brother love in CA and had a similar law weaponized against him last spring. The ex called concerned about her child's welfare (the kid wasn't even there). Cops show up, also search his storage, find and confiscate guns.>$20,000 of my friend's $$ down the drain, brother's back home finally, but lost his job and still doesn't have his guns back. As Dana pointed out, we have laws in place to meet the intent. We don't need more overreach.
On the other side of this are men who are easily victimized by women seeking revenge for something by falsely accusing them of domestic violence. It is extremely easy to railroad an innocent man into permanent criminal /felony status. She can ruin his life in a heartbeat. That’s not fair or right either.
Did the article mention his political party?