Domestic violence

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fn-P9

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
164
Location
Washington State
Hard question: If a guy beats up his girl, they live together, it is domestic violence. My g/f 2 brothers got into a fist fight (one obviously won) and the one was charged with domestic violence. He went to jail for a night. The one brother dropped the charges. SO, if he was convicted would he loose his 2nd adm rights?

If he does, aren't we already on the road that leads to loosing our Inalienable human rights, listed in the bill of rights (lol over the top but it sounded good)
Aren't we already going down the path of: everyone is becoming a criminal.

Here is another random thought bubble. At work in the toilet stall, we have the paper barriers you put on the toilet seat. On them they read :Provided by the management for your protection

I was thinking of writing in: Provided by the overlords for your protection or [/U]Provided by the overlords (an extension of the United States Government) for your protection[/U]

I must be too into guns to start thinking like this:neener::neener::neener:
 
I think the specific domestic violence laws are a load myself, assault is assault. It's exactly like hate crime laws.
 
just being charged is enough under Lautenberg, conviction is a certainty of loss of RKBA. It is the ONLY misdemeanor that you lose rights over.

Jefferson
 
That is kinda scary. The one brother was drunk and high and antagonizing the other. DEFIANTLY asking for it.

They get along fine now and the (formerly drunk) brother was in the others wedding. Go figure that 2 people could have a fight, get over it, everything be fine, but you still don't have "R"KBA
 
The Lautenberg Amendment is wrong.

However, self-control is a good thing.

If the cops have to be called to your house to stop a serious fight, you've got problems my friend.
 
This is something I wish had been addressed during the debate on HB 2640.
Lautenberg is definitely an abominable law and, in my opinion, is one that is too easily abused.


So, how do we get rid of it without making the supporters of repeal look like the defenders of wife beaters?
 
Honestly and IMHO no conviction needed , he lost his 2nd rights when he was charged and the maditory restraining order was issued . IIRC he cannot even plea the case and retain his rights , he has to beat it .
 
Honestly, you don't get rid of it. Start by understanding that, no matter what a lout Lautenberg might be, those who voted for it probably did so with good intentions, not bad. Go after the unintended consequences, not the fundamental idea that we don't want wife beaters to become wife shooters.

You change the provision, in ways like these:

Add in due process. No removal of rights without due process. That's an American principle.

Set the threshold for "domestic violence" at a reasonable level. Accusations without evidence or due process should not be sufficient to permanently take someone's rights away. Allow for some sort of "suspension" period, since the concern is to prevent "crimes of passion."

Make it not apply if the claim of physical abuse is only part of a divorce proceeding, as opposed to an actual police call.
 
armed i differ .. I have been the cop who makes that arrest because of a " shall arrest " provision . the entire system for dv needs scrapped and re written , but it will wiser folks than i to write it so as it is both protective and fair .
 
like most laws

stupidity in motion...


The way I see it… Anyone beating up (or trying to beat up) anyone else who does not want to fight is assault. Two (or more) idiots, who want to fight is not assault… it is just two idiots fighting. Provided that no one who was not consenting in the first place is injured, then the cops should administer a swift kick in the derriere, or throw them in the drunk tank, and save the tax payers some money.
 
I think the specific domestic violence laws are a load myself, assault is assault. It's exactly like hate crime laws.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

Interesting that the Dimocrats agenda include the right for convicted felons that have done their time, get their civil rights back, including the right to own a weapon.

But a misdemeanor DV ARREST could lose your rights for ever.

Work on the Dimocrat logic and or reason behind that. (for the record Lautenberg is a Dimocrat, no surprise I am sure)

Go figure.

Fred
 
There's a definite need for domestic violence laws. Perhaps they do need to be thought out and codified more carefully, but they were originally intended to protect the wife or live-in girlfriend whose boyfriend / husband beats her, and who has nowhere else to go, so has to stay there and take it. There are plenty of abused spouses (of both sexes) who fit into the category of "no place else to go" who need protection.

In the past, abusive husbands were handled either by being ignored, or via mob justice. In these enlightened times, we prefer these cases to go through courts. Just as in anything, though, give the criminal justice system new powers, and they'll sometimes use them for the right things, and other times abuse them.
 
As a quick add... anybody know how Buford Pusser got the reputation of carrying around a big stick?




He was called out to a house where a woman was being beaten by her husband. Pusser broke off a hickory switch, and beat the husband with it. He then looked down at the man, and said, "I just beat you like a child... If I ever have to come out here for this again, I'm going to show you what it feels like to be beaten by a man".
 
the entire system for dv needs scrapped and re written , but it will wiser folks than i to write it so as it is both protective and fair .
Click to expand...

I agree with you about that. I was merely trying to answer the "how do we change this without becoming 'the guys that want to give guns to wife beaters'" problem.

Due process, to me, means you have to be convicted of something for it to count against you.

What I meant about the divorce thing is that many lawyers advise clients, particularly female because it's more "believable" somehow, to claim physical abuse in order to get a better settlement.

If the cops were never even called to the house, but some claim of "abuse" shows up on the court papers in a divorce filing, then that should definitely not count against someone in any way.

I never meant to suggest that "arrest" equals "conviction", by any stretch, if that's what it sounded like.
 
DV laws are blatantly unfair and need rewriting

I'll share a quick experience I had to illustrate how awful the DV laws are.

I was the vice president on a community home owners association. We had a tennant that refused to pay so we repeatedly tried working with her but she was unreasonable so we placed a lien and later filed a foreclosure. She became very aggressive and vindictive toward me because we are the same age and she always harbored a unilateral "crush" toward me (often, and I mean OFTEN asking me out romantically and I always refused - I did have a girlfriend that lived with me). Anyway I was WRONGLY accused of domestic assault by her at the tail end of her living there before she was foreclosed on. It's a l-o-n-g story but in summary she and we never had a romantic relationship and she readily admitted that to the police one night after I called the police against her after she vandalized my property. A few days later, this deranged woman got a wild hair and filed a domestic violence complaint and temporary restraining order (TRO) against me!

It was free and easy to do and she even had help filing the paperwork out. TROs prohibit contact, mandate certain distance to keep away, and make it a automatic 5 year sentence if you are caught with a gun! Meanwhile, I had to move out of my neighborhood, get rid of my guns and then hire a $5,000 lawyer to fight the charges. I ultimately got the lawyer and beat the charges, but it was a very scary experience for me. The cost to me was about 2 months of intense anger, fear and frustration and embarrasment (I had to explain this to my boss). The cost to her was zero.

Completely unfair with DIRE consequences.
 
Christmas Day 2002: I was arrested for 2 counts of Domestic Battery and took a year to get charges dropped and another 2 to completely put it behind me. It was another 2 years before I could buy a gun without being delayed for days.

The sad thing is I never touched my wife: It was my mother and brother who filed false charges. Despite her being a witness in my defense, no marks on the "victims" and me sporting bruises and bent up glasses I went to jail. I'm almost certain the DA in the county being mom's attorney before taking public office and that one of the responding officers was my brother's roommate had absolutely nothing to do with the way it played out,either. (Sarcasm mode on)

Hey, I'm all about sticking it in and breaking it off in a wife beater. However these DV laws are written so poorly and the topic so politically charged I don't know how it's going to be righted.
 
It is the ONLY misdemeanor that you lose rights over.
Click to expand...

Actually, you lose your right to purchase firearms for conviction of any misdemeanor with a POTENTIAL sentence of over two years. That's stung quite a few people.
 
It goes deepen than wife beating. In DV cases there is a decent probability there are children in the home in many of the cases. Putting guns in the hands of those that have been convicted of DV can be a touchy subject to say the least.

I agree with Bear. The laws could be written in a much better fashion.
 
"If the cops have to be called to your house to stop a serious fight, you've got problems my friend."

or your irish and forgot to take it out in the back yard instead of the front yard. said a guy whose long name has edward patrick and peter in it
 
....so, what I'm hearing from the majority of posters on this thread, is that people who can't control their temper to the extent that they employ physical violence against a spouse or domestic partner, should nevertheless be trusted to exercise mature enough judgment to be permitted to own firearms?

Having said that, I agree that a firearms disability should result only from a conviction of a violent crime, but I'm not sure that I'd trust someone with a gun who only beat his wife enough to result in a misdemeanor assault & battery conviction.

The only reliable predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
 
I didn't notice that, Hypnogator, just a prevelance of the belief that domestic "violence" laws need to be reworked be cause some many innocent people are getting screwed, and the insinuation that if they are actually beating their wife (of course it's sexist to just refer to wife beaters in DV, women can be the beaters as well) mabye they should be charged with a felony.
 
And, listen up, a domestic violence or felony charge can be leveled for something as benign as unplugging the phones in your house when you and your spouse are arguing. Yep, in many states that's a felony!

Loud shouting match and your neighbors call the cops. Bam! One of you MUST be arrested and hauled off to jail and booked due to mandatory arrest policies and then there are mandatory restraining orders and DV prosecutions, all over an argument and even when neither party wants the charges!

Maybe you got pissed and punched YOUR wall or broke YOUR property. That's also a crime and evidence of Domestic Violence.

Are you a soldier or marine? You're a trained killer in the eyes of the law and subject to extra scrutiny!

For extra reading check out this informative website. Donate your time and money to the cause. http://www.ejfi.org/
 
I don't agree that it should be domestic violence, but that is where thee liberals have taken us.
I also must say that I have no sympathy for what happens when one gets drunk and gets into a fight. At least no sympathy for the drunk. Considering the current laws, I would not even stay around one who was drinking if he had any history of fighting when under the influence.

Another case of not seeing any redeeming value to drinking, but I have seen a lot of destruction to families, other drivers, etc.

A man who hits his wife should be jailed, and not permitted to own a gun. If he cannot control his temper any more than that he is a danger to society in general.

Jerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Domestic Violence convictions
2 3
Replies
66
Views
3K
Zoogster
Z
D
  • Locked
(NC) Domestic violence bill aims at guns
Replies
2
Views
891
Feanaro
Feanaro
S
  • Locked
Gun License for Domestic Violence Victims 'Dangerous,' Group Says
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
gezzer
G
J
  • Locked
NRA A Rated Missouri Rep Calls for More Gun Control
Replies
20
Views
782
Ezekiel
E
L
  • Locked
Domestic Assault Offenders
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top