Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Discussion Topic: On Domestic Violence And Guns

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

February 26, 2009

Discussion Topic: On Domestic Violence And Guns

By Dave Hurteau

From Law.com:

In spite of its recent support for an individual right to bear arms, the Supreme Court on Tuesday adopted an expansive reading of the federal law that bans possession of firearms by those who have been convicted of felonies or of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

The meaning of the phrase about misdemeanors was the issue in United States v. Hayes, decided by a 7-2 vote.

Click on the link above to check out all the details: Basically, the decision states that even in cases where domestic violence is not explicit in the original charge, a conviction can result is loss of firearms if prosecutors can demonstrate a domestic relationship relevant to the crime.

What do you think of the decision?

 

Comments (18)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Bella wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

By "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" I assume the intended meaning is beating up your spouse.
This can happen for a number of reasons.
In one case a guy (it is almost always a guy) gets pissed, jealous or emotional in some way and takes it out on his partner.
In another case an abusive person (who has selected his partner for factors such as vulnerability, naivity, or insecurity) uses pain and psychodrama to break his chosen partner into his notion of obedience and co-dependence. Such individuals often come from very damaged family situations and perpetuate familial violence generationally. Sociopathology often seems almost to be inherited, with individuals modeling antisocial behaviors observed in others.
In another case an individual has a substance abuse issue and looses control, attacking those nearest to them.
In another case a person has mental health issues such as borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, or obsessive compulsive disorder and becomes psychotic.
However domestic violence comes about it is epidemic in our society, especially in those social classes that experience the greatest privation and stress.
If someone loves someone else, do they need to dominate them? When a person experiences frustration because some aspect of a loved ones attitude, presentation, or needs conflicts with a loving parner is violence helpful in coming to an accord?
If the love is ebbing, does fear of abandonment justify abuse?
Is a partner a possession?
I feel a factor in domestic violence often is the uncertainty that came about with the redefinition of gender roles. In Some cultures (both past and present) women were regarded exactly as possessions and brood stock. With globalization and the diffusion of egalitarian values, women refuse to be so catagorized in any situation that permits self identification. Men who had the secure, dominant position by virtue of their greater capacity for violence,sometimes do not see the rise in womens status as gaining an equal partner, but as a loss in their own status because they used to be on top and now they must compromise. As the capacity for violence (being physically stronger and bigger) was the former arbiting factor, without other notions some men lash out against that which they see as responsible for their percieved loss of status. BAM
As violence unchecked always escalates, the fist leads to the stick, leads to the knife, leads to the gun.
The ability to control onesself is the hallmark of a "responsible adult". If one cannot control ones capacity for violence in ones own home with loved ones, one is not a responsible adult. If one cannot control their drinking or their auditory hallucinations, if one looses the ability to discern right from wrong a person can become dangerous to their household first.
Every human is different, with unique motivations and challenges. Each case needs to be considered in the light of evidence and antecedants, but the law tends to want to impose blanket sanctions and black and white answers to problems. In general, I feel anyone who has so little self control (for whatever reason) that they bring fear and violence into their own home does not need access to firearms. I am not saying that some individuals can't change their behaviors, but violence brings violence. One does not show love through terrorism. My arms are for defending the ones I love, not enforcing my hegemony over them. People who interact with others by terrorizing them with violence and threats are sociopaths, and sociopaths should, once identified, never be allowed access to that which would allow them to wreak havok on the innocent.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CPT BRAD wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

On one hand I think it is the worst decision ever its stupid. On the other I think its cowardly for a spouse, father or family member to beat on the other. But you can get this from beating on ANY person you live with and my brother and I have got into some good ones.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I went to the website, couldn't find that case,so I'm winging it.
The campus shooting, acouple of years ago, had some references to a psychiatrist's opinion that the shooter had a tendency towards violence. As such, he should have been prevented from owning the firearms. Okay, now we're talking about individuals who have expressed violent behavior and we're saying it's OK for them to possess? We are walking a really slippery slope here. We're on the verge of seeing new legislation with this term of congress. Everyday, it seems I see something about new gun laws. Usually its H.B. 45. Today, there was something about A.G. Holder, wanting a ban on "Assault Rifles". Reason being, Mexican drug lords are smuggling these into South Texas to expand their turf war. I don't think Holder's proposed law will deter them. I do know that I would be wanting one if I lived in that area.
Anyway, my point is that, If we want our guns, we have to work to keep them out of the hands of those that don't deserve them.
Thanks,
YooperJack

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from s-kfry wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I always get concerned when politicians make laws that add some sort of intent that "aggravates" the crime. Hate crimes are an example where somehow it is worse to murder some one because you don’t like their gender, race, etc. rather than if you kill them for some other reason. In this case, for me, an assault is an assault whether it is against someone you know (spouse, child, etc.) or someone you don’t know. As such, if you have displayed a tendency towards illegal violence (through an assault or related conviction) in my opinion the government should remove our right to bear arms. It shouldn’t matter what your relationship is.

As soon as the government takes black and white laws (like assault) and starts applying some sort of “intent” in order to lower the bar under which they can disqualify one from practicing his or her rights, we have a problem. At some point looking at someone wrong is going to constitute making a threat and will disqualify people from having guns.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Based on simply reading the post, it seems that the interpretation was that it didn't matter if violence was a factor, the ruling could be applied solely if there was a relationship to the criminal and victim. Therefore if some idiot son was caught stealing mom's change for cigarettes and she reports him, that would fall under this ruling. I understand the purpose and need for domestic abuse laws, but this seems like it's gone way past that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60256 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

It's hard to decide because you can think that they are "all right" in their head, but they could be faking to get whatever they want. It's all a mind game.

Nate

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from HogBlog wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

This is too much like the other "zero tolerance" laws. The states, and the courts, need room to interpret each case on its own merits.

Real domestic abuse is an awful thing, but there are many guys running around with domestic abuse charges who did nothing more than get in an argument with a spouse or a battle with a youngster. It happens. Every man who ever grabbed his wife too hard by the arm, or shoved a rebellious teenager is not a violent threat.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I thought this area quietly died when it was discovered 3 out of 7 active LEO’s in New York State would be fired because of domestic abuse convictions/filings.

Boy, Did the Powers-That-Be ever step back!!!!!!

So, I suppose the law extends to who the person knows, what they do, and their personal status within the Power Elite.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckslayer7893 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Posession of a certain amount of marijuana can be a felony. In other words, get caught smoking weed and lose your gun Rights forever. Bull Crap

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

As violence unchecked always escalates, the fist leads to the stick, leads to the knife, leads to the gun.
This is an urban myth perpetuated by those that use it to further there own anti-gun or sexist agenda; yeah ladies, you can be sexist too so get over it!
The ruling by the SCOTUS tells me that we will never see the infamous Lautenberg Amendment overturned in our lifetime. Case in point a son of a friend had a girl friend (now his wife w/3 kids) who decided to give him a very special present on his b'day. Unfortunately he was 17, she was 16. The parents found out about it and all had a sitdown. It was almost decided to handle it between the two families, but the girl's father had a fit, called the law and made a federal case out of it (more on him later). The case was picked up by a feminist (no exaggeration) assistant DA who also wanted to make a big deal out of it. The boy was looking at some serious prison time. Long story short, after several years and thousands of dollars in attorney fees, the state offered to let the boy plead guilty to simple assault. The main reason was while this case was ongoing the girl's father was having an affair, got found out, and left the area so the main complainant in the case couldn't testify. My friend and his son, tired of the stress and cost of the case agreed to plead guilty to the lessor charge to end the case. My friend found out through a mutual friend who was a former FBI agent that legally, because of his plea, his son cannot own a firearm because of the Lautenberg Amendment. This is a boy who grew up fishing and hunting and other than his one indiscretion with a person who is now his wife, can no longer legally own a firearm.
I do not believe in singular happenstance therefore if a situation like this occurred once, it has happened again. This is how ignorant slapdash legislation affects people when it is hurried through Congress without a reasonable amount of thought.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

BTW YooperJack I agree, good post. Those that shouldn't have them shouldn't. I still think that the criteria for whoever shouldn't have firearms needs to be better defined. Mentally unstable people and violent felons should without question not have firearms. A guy who slapped his wife ten years ago in the heat of an argument, realized it was wrong, and now their marriage is strong and they are doing great, I don't see the point.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

John R. the escalation of behaviors in disturbed individuals is observed so frequently by mental health professionals that it is always a factor to be considered in evaluations of individuals with problematic behaviors. It is the get a bigger hammer thing. "Solving" problems with violence is "easy" and requires little consideration or self examination. Solving problems nonviolently is much more challenging and often requires some introspection. Persons who feel affronted by criticism are often incapable of self criticism, as they tend to feel infallible, especially when the opinions of others they consider subordinate. The complicated compassionate response isn't considered by such persons and the problem with violence is where you go when it doesn't work. If someone slaps another, the recipient is often motivated to respond with greater force. Violence begets violence till somebody surrenders or flees.
Escalation is a progression seen in nearly all conflict models. A bigger gun, a larger faster tank, an aircraft that can carry more and bigger bombs. Of course military hardware seldom is involved in domestic violence but the macrocosim mirrors the microcosim. As above, so below.
I am in general agin binary reasoning, on off decision making or black and white charicterizations. Nothing is ever so simple, although people like simple, they don't have to think so much that way. It is too bad that that young man was so penalized for doing what came naturally with his love, who he is now married to. It seems here that the real Bozo is the girls dad, for loosing it and objecting to the wind (young peoples hormones are like the wind and you curse them in vain). It also seems that the young man had a lousy lawyer, or when the key witness skipped the case would have been tossed out. Zero tolerance laws universally suck, because they always impose the harshest sanction whatever the provocation. Every situation differs, as does every participant, and "settling" for an unjust verdict just to move an issue through the courts satisfies nothing, but perpetuates injustice.
I apologize if I wandered into psychology speak excessively here, I am a mental health professional and such topics border on "talking shop" for me. Nobody knows the troubles I seen...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Only people with a history of violent crime/behavior and convictions should be banned from gun purchases. This is just another easy way to ban civilians from their rights, and it seems much weight will be placed on some 'authority's' opinion to ruin a persons life.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

One more thing, zero tolerance laws do suck, they themselves should be banned. They do not allow for intelligent discussion. It was just yesterday, I believe, I heard a report of a second grade girl bumping into a classmate on the playground and knocking him down, so he pushed her, well she ended up with a broken arm. The mother was so livid she wasn't happy with a simple punishment. She demanded the police arrest and CHARGE this boy. A Second grader! Police are now forced to do a complete investigation.
It's people like this mother that make it laughable that all domestic relation cases end up with a lifetime ban from owning a firearm.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Armchair Mike wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

The client of another attorney in my office was charged with failing to register as a sex offender, an offense that carries some pretty hefty jail time. The offense in question occurred when the man was in high school in another state, and consisted of a sexual battery. His crime? He touched a girl inappropriately at a school dance. A chaperone saw the incident, which amounted to touching a girls breast through her dress, and involved law enforcement. The man was in his 50s at the time of the new charge and had no criminal history from the intervening years.

The passing of any new criminal law has broad and often unintended consequences. On its face, registration of sex offenders seems like a good thing, and in general, it may be. Likewise, prohibiting domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms sounds like a good idea as well, but consider a possible scenario: In my state, domestic violence can include an assault against a present or former household member without regard to the sex of either party. Say two college roommates have too much to drink and one throws a punch? Should the offender be charged with domestic violence and barred from firearms possession for life? I've seen examples this bad and worse prosecuted, and you would not believe the pressure a prosecutor can bring to bear in order to obtain a guilty plea.

In either the real or fictitious example above, a little common sense could have resolved the problem, but common sense has nothing to do with the law and its enforcement. See buckslayer7893's comment, which is another plausible scenario for the loss of one's gun rights. We may want to keep criminals from owning guns, but the conception of criminality is vastly broader now than the image of an armed thug that comes to mind when one uses the epithet "criminal." What about speeders? Jay-walkers? Don't laugh, it could happen. When most people characterize another person as a lawbreaker, they only have in mind the laws with which they personally agree.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

I think many of these laws are written from the perspective that folks who commit the various offenses mentioned suffer from lack of self control or lapses of good judgement.

Right or wrong, self control and good judgement should be exercised at all times by those in possession of a firearm.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

No guns for crazy a-holes. Makes sense to me.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rocky d bashaw wrote 5 years 3 weeks ago

in texas any offense higher than a class c misdemeaner and no license for min of 5 yrs, and domestic abuse and felonies are never. i agree with that. another thing- doctors and cars kill more people than guns, guns dont kill people do.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from vel211c wrote 4 years 26 weeks ago

This law is crazy. First of all I have been convicted of domestic violence and I am the victim. She calls the police and says I pulled her hair. No scratch on her and I was the one attacked. I was kicked from my house for 4 months lost my guns and hunting rights. Furthermore my kids will be on welfare now and have no where to live and I likely will lose contact with them because of fear. This country is falling apart it does not take a genius to figure out the crazy women are using this stupid law as a weapon. Innocent till proven guilty does not exist here. I am ashamed to be an American and you all should to.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from HogBlog wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

This is too much like the other "zero tolerance" laws. The states, and the courts, need room to interpret each case on its own merits.

Real domestic abuse is an awful thing, but there are many guys running around with domestic abuse charges who did nothing more than get in an argument with a spouse or a battle with a youngster. It happens. Every man who ever grabbed his wife too hard by the arm, or shoved a rebellious teenager is not a violent threat.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Armchair Mike wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

The client of another attorney in my office was charged with failing to register as a sex offender, an offense that carries some pretty hefty jail time. The offense in question occurred when the man was in high school in another state, and consisted of a sexual battery. His crime? He touched a girl inappropriately at a school dance. A chaperone saw the incident, which amounted to touching a girls breast through her dress, and involved law enforcement. The man was in his 50s at the time of the new charge and had no criminal history from the intervening years.

The passing of any new criminal law has broad and often unintended consequences. On its face, registration of sex offenders seems like a good thing, and in general, it may be. Likewise, prohibiting domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms sounds like a good idea as well, but consider a possible scenario: In my state, domestic violence can include an assault against a present or former household member without regard to the sex of either party. Say two college roommates have too much to drink and one throws a punch? Should the offender be charged with domestic violence and barred from firearms possession for life? I've seen examples this bad and worse prosecuted, and you would not believe the pressure a prosecutor can bring to bear in order to obtain a guilty plea.

In either the real or fictitious example above, a little common sense could have resolved the problem, but common sense has nothing to do with the law and its enforcement. See buckslayer7893's comment, which is another plausible scenario for the loss of one's gun rights. We may want to keep criminals from owning guns, but the conception of criminality is vastly broader now than the image of an armed thug that comes to mind when one uses the epithet "criminal." What about speeders? Jay-walkers? Don't laugh, it could happen. When most people characterize another person as a lawbreaker, they only have in mind the laws with which they personally agree.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

By "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" I assume the intended meaning is beating up your spouse.
This can happen for a number of reasons.
In one case a guy (it is almost always a guy) gets pissed, jealous or emotional in some way and takes it out on his partner.
In another case an abusive person (who has selected his partner for factors such as vulnerability, naivity, or insecurity) uses pain and psychodrama to break his chosen partner into his notion of obedience and co-dependence. Such individuals often come from very damaged family situations and perpetuate familial violence generationally. Sociopathology often seems almost to be inherited, with individuals modeling antisocial behaviors observed in others.
In another case an individual has a substance abuse issue and looses control, attacking those nearest to them.
In another case a person has mental health issues such as borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, or obsessive compulsive disorder and becomes psychotic.
However domestic violence comes about it is epidemic in our society, especially in those social classes that experience the greatest privation and stress.
If someone loves someone else, do they need to dominate them? When a person experiences frustration because some aspect of a loved ones attitude, presentation, or needs conflicts with a loving parner is violence helpful in coming to an accord?
If the love is ebbing, does fear of abandonment justify abuse?
Is a partner a possession?
I feel a factor in domestic violence often is the uncertainty that came about with the redefinition of gender roles. In Some cultures (both past and present) women were regarded exactly as possessions and brood stock. With globalization and the diffusion of egalitarian values, women refuse to be so catagorized in any situation that permits self identification. Men who had the secure, dominant position by virtue of their greater capacity for violence,sometimes do not see the rise in womens status as gaining an equal partner, but as a loss in their own status because they used to be on top and now they must compromise. As the capacity for violence (being physically stronger and bigger) was the former arbiting factor, without other notions some men lash out against that which they see as responsible for their percieved loss of status. BAM
As violence unchecked always escalates, the fist leads to the stick, leads to the knife, leads to the gun.
The ability to control onesself is the hallmark of a "responsible adult". If one cannot control ones capacity for violence in ones own home with loved ones, one is not a responsible adult. If one cannot control their drinking or their auditory hallucinations, if one looses the ability to discern right from wrong a person can become dangerous to their household first.
Every human is different, with unique motivations and challenges. Each case needs to be considered in the light of evidence and antecedants, but the law tends to want to impose blanket sanctions and black and white answers to problems. In general, I feel anyone who has so little self control (for whatever reason) that they bring fear and violence into their own home does not need access to firearms. I am not saying that some individuals can't change their behaviors, but violence brings violence. One does not show love through terrorism. My arms are for defending the ones I love, not enforcing my hegemony over them. People who interact with others by terrorizing them with violence and threats are sociopaths, and sociopaths should, once identified, never be allowed access to that which would allow them to wreak havok on the innocent.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CPT BRAD wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

On one hand I think it is the worst decision ever its stupid. On the other I think its cowardly for a spouse, father or family member to beat on the other. But you can get this from beating on ANY person you live with and my brother and I have got into some good ones.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I went to the website, couldn't find that case,so I'm winging it.
The campus shooting, acouple of years ago, had some references to a psychiatrist's opinion that the shooter had a tendency towards violence. As such, he should have been prevented from owning the firearms. Okay, now we're talking about individuals who have expressed violent behavior and we're saying it's OK for them to possess? We are walking a really slippery slope here. We're on the verge of seeing new legislation with this term of congress. Everyday, it seems I see something about new gun laws. Usually its H.B. 45. Today, there was something about A.G. Holder, wanting a ban on "Assault Rifles". Reason being, Mexican drug lords are smuggling these into South Texas to expand their turf war. I don't think Holder's proposed law will deter them. I do know that I would be wanting one if I lived in that area.
Anyway, my point is that, If we want our guns, we have to work to keep them out of the hands of those that don't deserve them.
Thanks,
YooperJack

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckslayer7893 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Posession of a certain amount of marijuana can be a felony. In other words, get caught smoking weed and lose your gun Rights forever. Bull Crap

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

John R. the escalation of behaviors in disturbed individuals is observed so frequently by mental health professionals that it is always a factor to be considered in evaluations of individuals with problematic behaviors. It is the get a bigger hammer thing. "Solving" problems with violence is "easy" and requires little consideration or self examination. Solving problems nonviolently is much more challenging and often requires some introspection. Persons who feel affronted by criticism are often incapable of self criticism, as they tend to feel infallible, especially when the opinions of others they consider subordinate. The complicated compassionate response isn't considered by such persons and the problem with violence is where you go when it doesn't work. If someone slaps another, the recipient is often motivated to respond with greater force. Violence begets violence till somebody surrenders or flees.
Escalation is a progression seen in nearly all conflict models. A bigger gun, a larger faster tank, an aircraft that can carry more and bigger bombs. Of course military hardware seldom is involved in domestic violence but the macrocosim mirrors the microcosim. As above, so below.
I am in general agin binary reasoning, on off decision making or black and white charicterizations. Nothing is ever so simple, although people like simple, they don't have to think so much that way. It is too bad that that young man was so penalized for doing what came naturally with his love, who he is now married to. It seems here that the real Bozo is the girls dad, for loosing it and objecting to the wind (young peoples hormones are like the wind and you curse them in vain). It also seems that the young man had a lousy lawyer, or when the key witness skipped the case would have been tossed out. Zero tolerance laws universally suck, because they always impose the harshest sanction whatever the provocation. Every situation differs, as does every participant, and "settling" for an unjust verdict just to move an issue through the courts satisfies nothing, but perpetuates injustice.
I apologize if I wandered into psychology speak excessively here, I am a mental health professional and such topics border on "talking shop" for me. Nobody knows the troubles I seen...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

One more thing, zero tolerance laws do suck, they themselves should be banned. They do not allow for intelligent discussion. It was just yesterday, I believe, I heard a report of a second grade girl bumping into a classmate on the playground and knocking him down, so he pushed her, well she ended up with a broken arm. The mother was so livid she wasn't happy with a simple punishment. She demanded the police arrest and CHARGE this boy. A Second grader! Police are now forced to do a complete investigation.
It's people like this mother that make it laughable that all domestic relation cases end up with a lifetime ban from owning a firearm.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from s-kfry wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I always get concerned when politicians make laws that add some sort of intent that "aggravates" the crime. Hate crimes are an example where somehow it is worse to murder some one because you don’t like their gender, race, etc. rather than if you kill them for some other reason. In this case, for me, an assault is an assault whether it is against someone you know (spouse, child, etc.) or someone you don’t know. As such, if you have displayed a tendency towards illegal violence (through an assault or related conviction) in my opinion the government should remove our right to bear arms. It shouldn’t matter what your relationship is.

As soon as the government takes black and white laws (like assault) and starts applying some sort of “intent” in order to lower the bar under which they can disqualify one from practicing his or her rights, we have a problem. At some point looking at someone wrong is going to constitute making a threat and will disqualify people from having guns.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Based on simply reading the post, it seems that the interpretation was that it didn't matter if violence was a factor, the ruling could be applied solely if there was a relationship to the criminal and victim. Therefore if some idiot son was caught stealing mom's change for cigarettes and she reports him, that would fall under this ruling. I understand the purpose and need for domestic abuse laws, but this seems like it's gone way past that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60256 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

It's hard to decide because you can think that they are "all right" in their head, but they could be faking to get whatever they want. It's all a mind game.

Nate

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I thought this area quietly died when it was discovered 3 out of 7 active LEO’s in New York State would be fired because of domestic abuse convictions/filings.

Boy, Did the Powers-That-Be ever step back!!!!!!

So, I suppose the law extends to who the person knows, what they do, and their personal status within the Power Elite.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

As violence unchecked always escalates, the fist leads to the stick, leads to the knife, leads to the gun.
This is an urban myth perpetuated by those that use it to further there own anti-gun or sexist agenda; yeah ladies, you can be sexist too so get over it!
The ruling by the SCOTUS tells me that we will never see the infamous Lautenberg Amendment overturned in our lifetime. Case in point a son of a friend had a girl friend (now his wife w/3 kids) who decided to give him a very special present on his b'day. Unfortunately he was 17, she was 16. The parents found out about it and all had a sitdown. It was almost decided to handle it between the two families, but the girl's father had a fit, called the law and made a federal case out of it (more on him later). The case was picked up by a feminist (no exaggeration) assistant DA who also wanted to make a big deal out of it. The boy was looking at some serious prison time. Long story short, after several years and thousands of dollars in attorney fees, the state offered to let the boy plead guilty to simple assault. The main reason was while this case was ongoing the girl's father was having an affair, got found out, and left the area so the main complainant in the case couldn't testify. My friend and his son, tired of the stress and cost of the case agreed to plead guilty to the lessor charge to end the case. My friend found out through a mutual friend who was a former FBI agent that legally, because of his plea, his son cannot own a firearm because of the Lautenberg Amendment. This is a boy who grew up fishing and hunting and other than his one indiscretion with a person who is now his wife, can no longer legally own a firearm.
I do not believe in singular happenstance therefore if a situation like this occurred once, it has happened again. This is how ignorant slapdash legislation affects people when it is hurried through Congress without a reasonable amount of thought.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

BTW YooperJack I agree, good post. Those that shouldn't have them shouldn't. I still think that the criteria for whoever shouldn't have firearms needs to be better defined. Mentally unstable people and violent felons should without question not have firearms. A guy who slapped his wife ten years ago in the heat of an argument, realized it was wrong, and now their marriage is strong and they are doing great, I don't see the point.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Only people with a history of violent crime/behavior and convictions should be banned from gun purchases. This is just another easy way to ban civilians from their rights, and it seems much weight will be placed on some 'authority's' opinion to ruin a persons life.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

I think many of these laws are written from the perspective that folks who commit the various offenses mentioned suffer from lack of self control or lapses of good judgement.

Right or wrong, self control and good judgement should be exercised at all times by those in possession of a firearm.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

No guns for crazy a-holes. Makes sense to me.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rocky d bashaw wrote 5 years 3 weeks ago

in texas any offense higher than a class c misdemeaner and no license for min of 5 yrs, and domestic abuse and felonies are never. i agree with that. another thing- doctors and cars kill more people than guns, guns dont kill people do.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from vel211c wrote 4 years 26 weeks ago

This law is crazy. First of all I have been convicted of domestic violence and I am the victim. She calls the police and says I pulled her hair. No scratch on her and I was the one attacked. I was kicked from my house for 4 months lost my guns and hunting rights. Furthermore my kids will be on welfare now and have no where to live and I likely will lose contact with them because of fear. This country is falling apart it does not take a genius to figure out the crazy women are using this stupid law as a weapon. Innocent till proven guilty does not exist here. I am ashamed to be an American and you all should to.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs