HappyHunting
Member
I imagine most cases get dismissed. Because the couples get back together.
Repeal the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Exculsion
- Thread starter arcsound
- Start date
- Status
brboyer
Member
leadcounsel
member
Yep, you can lose your 2A rights, and many men their livelihood in the military, police, etc. for what amounts to a spat with someone you once dated, lived with, was married to etc. The DV laws INCLUDE ex-girlfriends, ex-wives, etc. YOU BET they can be vindictive too. Filing harrassing charges against you. Costs them nothing and pulls you into serious trouble. Can also be a good way to disarm an enemy - send in a girl for a one night stand and then have her 'fall down the stairs' at his place and call the cops... science fiction?? It would be a really good way to disarm someone you wanted disarmed.
It's a dangerous end-around to the Federal Conviction rule to forfeit a mans 2A.
It's a dangerous end-around to the Federal Conviction rule to forfeit a mans 2A.
All right, guys. I'm taking the contrary position. The law is what it is for reasons. It didn't get established out of thin air just because some goof-a-doodle bureaucrat one day got the bright idea that 2A rights should be yanked from people on capricious grounds. Case in point:
This dirtbag had a restraining order against him, but I guess he already had the 40-caliber semi-semiauto that he used on his rampage. This is just one story, that happened yesterday, but it happens every damn day. Some dude gets all upset at his ex and goes crazy, and this has been happening for the past century or more. So the law tends to be extra protective of the domestic violence victim.
I am too. In fact, I have zero sympathy for the wife-batterer, the spouse abuser, the goon who uses fists to work out his insecurities on his loved ones, putting them into weird Stockholm Syndrome positions and I applaud the brave ones who finally try to get away. The law tries to protect them as best it can.
A collateral effect of that is that, on occasion, a woman (or guy, at times) may invoke this restriction out of malice. I'd like to see some stats that show how frequently that happens. I'll bet it's only a tiny fraction of cases and usually the injunction is fully warranted.
We do know for a stone-cold fact that the person falsely accused usually gets his rights back, and that it usually isn't that much trouble. In rare cases it's a bit of a hassle. Fine with me. Marry in haste, repent at leisure. Don't get involved with psychos. Don't be such a horrible person that your ex wants to punish you. If you're decent and do the right thing, in all cases, at all times, you won't have these kinds of problems.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Shakespeare said that 400 years ago and the truth of it hasn't changed one iota. Don't scorn women and they won't file frivolous domestic assault charges on you.
This dirtbag had a restraining order against him, but I guess he already had the 40-caliber semi-semiauto that he used on his rampage. This is just one story, that happened yesterday, but it happens every damn day. Some dude gets all upset at his ex and goes crazy, and this has been happening for the past century or more. So the law tends to be extra protective of the domestic violence victim.
I am too. In fact, I have zero sympathy for the wife-batterer, the spouse abuser, the goon who uses fists to work out his insecurities on his loved ones, putting them into weird Stockholm Syndrome positions and I applaud the brave ones who finally try to get away. The law tries to protect them as best it can.
A collateral effect of that is that, on occasion, a woman (or guy, at times) may invoke this restriction out of malice. I'd like to see some stats that show how frequently that happens. I'll bet it's only a tiny fraction of cases and usually the injunction is fully warranted.
We do know for a stone-cold fact that the person falsely accused usually gets his rights back, and that it usually isn't that much trouble. In rare cases it's a bit of a hassle. Fine with me. Marry in haste, repent at leisure. Don't get involved with psychos. Don't be such a horrible person that your ex wants to punish you. If you're decent and do the right thing, in all cases, at all times, you won't have these kinds of problems.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Shakespeare said that 400 years ago and the truth of it hasn't changed one iota. Don't scorn women and they won't file frivolous domestic assault charges on you.
The cornerstone of every relationship needs to be respect, if it ever gets to the point respect is lost by either party, then it's time to end things regardless of feelings or other circumstances. Thats the best way to avoid things getting messy. Just my advice from my experience. That said, I disagree with the OP's call to action. There are bigger fish to fry right now.
Gottahaveone
Member
And HOW do we know this for a "stone cold fact" Because YOU said it was so?
Do you think they start the conversation on the first date with " Hi, I'm a psycho"?
Really? What color is the sky in the world you live in? You honestly think that dating a woman for a while and dropping her because it wasn't working for you won't be seen as scorned in her eyes? Especially if the break up isn't her idea. Just as there are scumbag men out there who would do violence to a woman, there ARE women out there who are nutty as fruitcakes and who WILL lie about you. And *that* is a stone cold fact. And those lies should not be grounds to loose a fundamental right. You get convicted in court for a proven offense against a woman, then by all means take them away. But NOT on hearsay...
Don't post words in all-caps at me. Save your shouting for other purposes.
But here's a courtesy answer for you anyway: because on this board and on other CCW boards I frequent, this is a common topic. And many members discuss how they got their paperwork straightened out. Over and over.
And so far, not a single case of a falsely accused person who did not regain their rights. The cause celebre of the OP is a waste of time. I do not support the people who stand with wife abusers, I do not champion the rights of spouse-beaters to buy weapons.
If you don't want to have this problem, don't be a jerk who goads the woman into retaliatory action. I'd say most members here don't have this problem. It's a self-inflicted wound and if you can't pay the piper, don't dance the reel.
mgkdrgn
Member
Police are not -required- to make an arrest even if they witness a crime take place (ie, robbery, murder, etc), so "color me doubtful".
rbernie
Contributing Member
TexasRifleman may actually be mistaken in post #9. Here's what I could google for the current Colorado law:
http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=513
http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=513
Last edited:
With all due repect to those who won't stand with a wife beater. If you want felony punishment get a felony conviction. I kind of wonder when jaywalking will remove rights after all it's also a misdemeanor. Once it becomes common for misdemeanors to cost you felony penalties, how long will it take antis to jump on it. I have no problem with felons not having guns, I do think a misdemeanor should lack that impact. FWIW IMHO
Thoughtful Responses
Thanks to everyone who responded to my original post. It seems clear that my concern that the thresold for losing one's gun rights under "lautenberg" is too low is very real, based on the those that have had experience with the law in this regard. Those that dismiss the potential for this occuring as a reasonable trade off for what I consider the "feel good" attempt to prevent real domestic violence, not the shouting match or door slamming version that apparently does get prosecuted, are sadly misguided. This is bad law, period. It is obviously this was put in place to make law makers look good, and will not, IMHO, discourage truely harmful acts.
Given that most responders see the danger with this bad law, then I don't understand why people of conviction don't stand up and say "the emperor has no clothes", and demand repeal of this law.
As a interesting study, I'd love to know the politics (R or D) of those that think Lautenberg is good law. I assume it is clear where I stand.
Thanks to everyone who responded to my original post. It seems clear that my concern that the thresold for losing one's gun rights under "lautenberg" is too low is very real, based on the those that have had experience with the law in this regard. Those that dismiss the potential for this occuring as a reasonable trade off for what I consider the "feel good" attempt to prevent real domestic violence, not the shouting match or door slamming version that apparently does get prosecuted, are sadly misguided. This is bad law, period. It is obviously this was put in place to make law makers look good, and will not, IMHO, discourage truely harmful acts.
Given that most responders see the danger with this bad law, then I don't understand why people of conviction don't stand up and say "the emperor has no clothes", and demand repeal of this law.
As a interesting study, I'd love to know the politics (R or D) of those that think Lautenberg is good law. I assume it is clear where I stand.
rbernie
Contributing Member
There are no 'politics' of this law that are appropriate for discussion on THR - only its impact upon the RKBA is on topic.
I don't agree arc sound, and it has nothing to do with feelgoods as you say. I don't think it's unreasonable to bar someone who has been convicted and shown to loose his temper and get violent to legally buy a weapon after its shown they can't control themselves.
Now, if you have a problem with the laws leading up to that determination, challenge those. Don't like the grounds for an conviction of domestic violence? Challenge those.
You can't rationalize the removal of a law that prevents someone, man or woman, from going out an purchasing a weapon after he's been convicted of being violent around someone he/she is supposed to treat with utmost respect.
Like shockwave said, if it's bogus you can get infixed, and that's what the track record shows as far as we can tell. If you have contradictory evidence, please show us.
Now, if you have a problem with the laws leading up to that determination, challenge those. Don't like the grounds for an conviction of domestic violence? Challenge those.
You can't rationalize the removal of a law that prevents someone, man or woman, from going out an purchasing a weapon after he's been convicted of being violent around someone he/she is supposed to treat with utmost respect.
Like shockwave said, if it's bogus you can get infixed, and that's what the track record shows as far as we can tell. If you have contradictory evidence, please show us.
I think it should be repealed b/c it is too easy for an innocent person to get convicted, much less arrested in our justice system. This is especially true of misdemeanors that don't really get that much attention from judges/ prosecutors. Too many times they really just don't treat a misdemeanor conviction as being that serious to the defendant. Just before I got a divorce my wife and Highway patrolman next door neighbor (her friend, definitely not mine), set me up on a DUI in front of my house. I had just finished A, as in 1 beer in my garage while cleaning a gun. Went and got in my truck parked in front of my house, drove about 100 yds. and this Deputy Sheriff comes flying around the corner with his lights on. They had received reports of a drunk driver fitting my description. Breathalyzer test, which I refused, was falsified. Stupid Hwy. patrolman ended up bragging to one of his buddies what they did and it got back to me. Nothing I could do, they even had 2 other cop "witnesses" show up to court that weren't even there. Point is, they could have just as easily gone the domestic violence route.
ohgrady
Member
Charging documents and OP's
To be a prohibited person under Federal law, the conviction does not have to be for a specific "domestic" battery charge. If a woman beat her husband and was charged with a simple battery, which made no mention of their relationship, she would still be prohibited.
With respect to orders of protection, they are greatly abused in the legal system. A petitioner can get an OP even though the DA's Office has declined charges in an alleged incident or even if the police investigate an incident and don't find any probable cause to make an arrest. It is amazing how many OP's get issued during divorce proceedings that are later used as bargaining chips during the settlement of the property/child custody & support issues.
To be a prohibited person under Federal law, the conviction does not have to be for a specific "domestic" battery charge. If a woman beat her husband and was charged with a simple battery, which made no mention of their relationship, she would still be prohibited.
With respect to orders of protection, they are greatly abused in the legal system. A petitioner can get an OP even though the DA's Office has declined charges in an alleged incident or even if the police investigate an incident and don't find any probable cause to make an arrest. It is amazing how many OP's get issued during divorce proceedings that are later used as bargaining chips during the settlement of the property/child custody & support issues.
rbernie
Contributing Member
rbernie
Contributing Member
Here's the actual law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
Bubbles
Member
If the act(s) committed by the abuser are egregious enough to warrant the loss of RKBA and other rights, then convict the perp of a felony and be done with it.
I am not comfortable with a misdemeanor conviction for DV resulting in a loss of RKBA, because from there it's a short step to any misdemeanor conviction will result in a "prohibited person". Given the Heller and McDonald decisions, the anti's have given up on gun control in the form of gun bans. Their only remaining strategy is to expand the list of prohibited people, e.g. anyone convicted of a misdemeanor (because who would want criminals to have guns?), anyone diagnosed with a mental disorder (because who would want crazy people to have guns?), etc.
I am not comfortable with a misdemeanor conviction for DV resulting in a loss of RKBA, because from there it's a short step to any misdemeanor conviction will result in a "prohibited person". Given the Heller and McDonald decisions, the anti's have given up on gun control in the form of gun bans. Their only remaining strategy is to expand the list of prohibited people, e.g. anyone convicted of a misdemeanor (because who would want criminals to have guns?), anyone diagnosed with a mental disorder (because who would want crazy people to have guns?), etc.
Unistat
Member
I believe in Michigan it is routine for misdemenor DV convictions to be reduced or changed to a non-DV offense once the offending party has completed a court-mandated anger management program or something similar. It is up to the offender to follow through with this though, by making some sort of petition to reduce the conviction.
I am probably getting the terms and details wrong, I've only heard a few guys talking about it as it relates to firearm ownership.
For what it is worth, this was posted by a lawyer at the Michigan Gun Owners forum:
I am probably getting the terms and details wrong, I've only heard a few guys talking about it as it relates to firearm ownership.
For what it is worth, this was posted by a lawyer at the Michigan Gun Owners forum:
Last edited:
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Greatest Harm
When contemplating whether a law should be enacted (or repealed for that matter), one should not ask, "what is the greatest benefit of this law?"
Instead of trying to envision the best outcome from the application of a law, one should ask, "what is the greatest harm that can result from this law?"
Laws are often passed using the "if it just saves one" reasoning. This is contrary to the standard of "it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" (Franklin).
Look instead to what ruination may follow from applying the law.
Revocation of rights is ruin.
Therefore, enact laws abridging rights with the greatest care, taking all precautions to guard against injustice.
Bad laws are like commas: when in doubt, leave it out.
When contemplating whether a law should be enacted (or repealed for that matter), one should not ask, "what is the greatest benefit of this law?"
Instead of trying to envision the best outcome from the application of a law, one should ask, "what is the greatest harm that can result from this law?"
Laws are often passed using the "if it just saves one" reasoning. This is contrary to the standard of "it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" (Franklin).
Look instead to what ruination may follow from applying the law.
Revocation of rights is ruin.
Therefore, enact laws abridging rights with the greatest care, taking all precautions to guard against injustice.
Bad laws are like commas: when in doubt, leave it out.
scythefwd
Member
Arfin - just remember that commas are very important. There is a world of difference and a couple of felonies between :
"Let's eat, grandma" and
"Let's eat grandma"
"Let's eat, grandma" and
"Let's eat grandma"
So is it bring said that this is actively being abused? Or is it being argued that it needs to be amended because it has a potential to be abused? Evidence please.
I'm more than happy to get active on this but need to make an informed decision, need evidence.
I'm more than happy to get active on this but need to make an informed decision, need evidence.
test drive
Member
Yes this is a bad law. I think it was made with good intentions but has gotten greatly twisted from how it was intended. I once overheard a drunk wife tell her husband that she would call the police and tell them he hit her so he would loose his guns. This argument came about when she found out he had bought a motorcycle and hid it at a friends house. (He was scared to tell her because she didn't like motorbikes ). Also there's the retro part. If you did something 20 years ago and paid the price of what the law said that should be the end of it, not to be find again years later. With that logic, why don't they make all speeding tickets a 10,000 fine. and make it retro. It would cut down on speeding and look at the revenue the states would make.
). Also there's the retro part. If you did something 20 years ago and paid the price of what the law said that should be the end of it, not to be find again years later. With that logic, why don't they make all speeding tickets a 10,000 fine. and make it retro. It would cut down on speeding and look at the revenue the states would make.- Status
