Repeal the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Exculsion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not support the people who stand with wife abusers, I do not champion the rights of spouse-beaters to buy weapons.
I don't think anyone here is standing up for spouse-beaters (at least I hope not), but rather the fact that it's so easy to get someone charged with domestic violence when none occurred. From an exaggerated recount of an argument to an outright lie to the police someone can remove your RKBA. If you are innocent you will hopefully be able to get it removed, but what does it cost in time and money? $5,000 or more? Last I checked attorney's aren't cheap.

The law won't be repealed. If the folks on a gun forum can't even agree that it's wrong it sure as heck doesn't stand a chance of being repealed.

While the NCVS data indicate a decline in measurable intimate partner violence between 1994 and 2003 the court data from Colorado continues to show an increase in cases. In 1998, the earliest data available, there were 35 DV court cases per 10,000 residents. By 2003 that had increased to 40 DV cases per 10,000. As of 2008, the last year for which data are currently available, there were 41 DV court cases per 10,000 residents. It seems inescapable to conclude that half of these cases are either false allegations or gross exaggerations of a situation for personal gain.
So with a very basic equation of 300million citizens in the country at 41 cases per 10k people and half of them are false or exaggerations like suggested that works out to 615,000 folks who lost their firearm rights.

source for quote: http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-30.htm
 
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".
That's a slippery slope argument, and those usually fail in argumentation. The purpose of Lautenberg is not to lower a threshold for revocation of gun ownership rights. The purpose is as follows, from the text of the CRS Report:

As such, the court determined that, in light of the Amendment’s goal of reducing “‘the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into murder,’” Congress had rationally concluded that misdemeanor domestic violence offenders should not possess firearms.

Ergo, the objective leads to the application of the penalty. It is also a misdemeanor to throw trash out of a moving vehicle. We might envision a law that seeks to reduce occurrences of people littering from their vehicles. A person guilty of such a misdemeanor would not be at risk of having their firearms right curtailed because nothing inherent in the possession of firearms applies to the problem of littering. This logic applies to all the absurd comments about how any misdemeanor will ultimately lead to loss of RKBA.

Also:

Pursuant to the amendment, a misdemeanor conviction triggers the firearm possession prohibition only if the underlying offense includes an element requiring proof of the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon against the victim.

Emphasis added. There is no risk of loss to RKBA unless there is proof of misconduct. The girlfriend who wants to get even by filing a false report would have to establish proof of harm or threatened harm. Mere allegations are insufficient. It is certainly possible that fraudulent allegations could initiate an uncomfortable investigation of the defendant, but the burden of proof remains upon the prosecution.

Moral of the story: Don't be an abusive swine and you won't have problems under Lautenberg. There are probably exceptions. You can probably find a case where someone lost ownership rights due to a fraudulent charge and had difficulty thereafter. That does not invalidate Lautenberg because laws are not routinely observed to work perfectly in all cases at all times. You could safely argue that no law in effect can meet that test.

We know that some 15,000 people have been executed in America between 1608 and 1991. Of that number, a great many have been innocent. The assumption is that capital punishment, which denies the right to life - the first right guaranteed by the Constitution - is permissible even though it is applied imperfectly. Therefore, arguments that a law might be misapplied do not negate the validity of a law.

[Update, to DoubleTapDrew]: Your citation appears quite biased, given its repeated use of the term "draconian" without support. The numbers given do not support the argument made. Specifically: "In 1998...there were 35 DV court cases per 10,000 residents. By 2003 that had increased to 40 DV cases per 10,000...It seems inescapable to conclude that half of these cases are either false allegations or gross exaggerations of a situation for personal gain."

There is no reason to conclude either assertion and certainly no way to get to "half of these cases." Also, "cases" do not equate to "convictions." Do not discount the possibility that a more-friendly court system encourages actual victims to come forward.
 
Last edited:
There is no risk of loss to RKBA unless there is proof of misconduct. The girlfriend who wants to get even by filing a false report would have to establish proof of harm or threatened harm.
The fact that the INTENTION was to require proof of misconduct does not mean that every locale exerts that same yardstick. The Lautenberg modifications to Section 922 sadly rely upon localized statutes to define both what misdemeanor domestic violence means and that which is necessary to obtain a restraining order. For example, each state and city has a differing evidentiary standard for obtaining a temporary or permanent RO, and a differing period of time during which a permanent RO is in force. In some areas, a permanent RO is good for one (1) year and in some jurisdictions it can be issued for up to four (4) years. And the standard for being granted a temporary RO in most jurisdictions is terribly low, for all sorts of good and rational reasons that do not include preserving anybody's RKBA. Due to this amendment, most jurisdictions now require that the police conduct an immediate confiscation of all firearms from the person being served by a temporary RO, and the law ensures no means by which that person can legally replace them. That has nothing to do with being a spouse-beater and everything to do with the lack of due process.

In the end, there appear to be two practical issues with Lautenberg. The first problem is that the law was applied retroactively and many folk that pled to a misdemeanor DV conviction as a means of making an unpleasant situation go away suddenly found themselves a prohibited person. Had they know of that consequence, they might not have accepted the notion of pleading guilty to a DV misdemeanor. It's easy to trivialize that issue if it doesn't impact you, but it dang sure impacts SOMEBODY. The second problem absolutely can impact any of us, and that problem is the lack of clear evidentiary standard for issuance of an RO. You may not feel it likely, but the fact remains that legally you can be served with an RO with no means by which to rebut or address the accusations prior to the RO being issued (no due process), and once that RO is issued you forfeit your RKBA for the duration of that RO.
 
What I don't understand is why a crime against one person is only a misdemeanor and it won't affect your rights but the same exact crime committed against another person while still being a misdemeanor...will affect your rights. The punishment should be the same for the same crime. It's just like the hate crime laws. Completely ridiculous. How the person is related to you or what race they are shouldn't matter. Let the punishment fit the crime itself.

If a misdemeanor is a crime that doesn't involve jail time that means they are basically saying you are not a danger to the public. If you are not dangerous....then I see no reason you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.
 
@ Shockwave:
1) We should NEVER take someones' rights away wrongfully
2) The 'small inconvenience' you refer to in getting your 2A rights back usually, at miniumum, mean years of not being able to own or possess guns or face a FEDERAL conviction if you do. So what do you do with all of your guns and ammo in the meantime? And then thousands, and possibly tens-of-thousands of dollars, and hours etc. with laywers and in courts just to demonstrate you are NOT a wife beater!! Meanwhile, you've possibly forever lost your career if you were in law enforcement, military, armed guard, etc. Lost many hunting seasons. Lost your rights to armed self defense and defense of your home/family in the meantime.
3) If you have a crystal ball and can tell me who is a 'psycho' then please do so... in the meantime, meeting and getting to know people is a process that takes YEARS... in that period of time, the 'psycho' could surface, instigate a fight, and leave you holding the bag after a 911 call or allegation is made against you to law enforcement.
4) You need to open your eyes man - these laws are a SERIOUS threat to gun owners (mostly men). And further, the SCOTUS has opened to door to ANY battery, even a simple fist fight!!! This is a SERIOUS threat to the 2A.

One more point - a RESTRAINING ORDER is a allegation of a threat or harm. That's it! An allegation! It immediately invokes a suspension of your 2A rights until a family court judge (typically a liberal left wing pro-feminist, anti-male type) holds hearing a week or two later. At that hearing s/he will solely determine whether YOU need to have a permanent restraining order issued against you. If the answer is yes, then you lose your 2A rights immediately and probably forever, or at least for many years. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. That's it! Having once been on the receiving end of a falsified restraining order, and spending $5,000 for a defense lawyer to fight the charges, and having had to surrender my guns and ammo for a month (with no promise of getting them returned), I can tell you the stress and cost was enormous. It's a totally unfair system. I won, but the cost was high. The cost to the woman that filed. Nothing. She made a false complaint that started the ball rolling and it nearly crushed me financially, emotionally, and my career.

Innocent men, or relatively innocent (meaning a small offense leads to the loss of their 2A rights), by the thousands, lose their right to the 2A. Under NO circumstances should a misdemeanor result in loss of 2A. Now if we are talking a felony then that's a different story, but a misdemeanor is practically nothing.
 
Last edited:
Good points of clarification, rbernie. Thanks.

What I don't understand is why a crime against one person is only a misdemeanor and it won't affect your rights but the same exact crime committed against another person while still being a misdemeanor

That's explained in the CRS Report linked a page back. Go read it and you'll see some in-depth discussion of the issue. Bottom line is that if you threaten some stranger or whatever, you and he can go your separate ways. And that's what usually happens. People get out of each other's faces and they cool off.

If you know your crime stats, you know that the murderer usually knows the victim. And when a wife is killed, the husband is almost always Suspect Numero Uno.
 
Okay, so you are saying that violence took place and justice wasn't carried out appropriately. That isn't reason reason for dumping the domestic violence exclusion. There is a problem, no doubt, but not with the exclusion.



This is a much more reasonable argument.

Question for you Double Naught Spy :

It appears to me that all "domestics" are lumped into one broad category, at least when it comes to 2A rights. Meaning the slightest misdemeanor, all the way up to murder, carry the same 2A punishment. That is where I take issue. If a man were proven to have caused broken bones, beat in and around the head with fists, or other moderate or severe injuries I can see losing 2A rights for life or for 10 years (not sure which applies).

How about the woman who hauls off and slaps her man across the face? I think that qualifies as a domestic, but to me doesn't warrant loss of 2A. Swap genders if you like, but the unjust act of taking 2A rights shouldn't apply to minor, superficial wounding, on a first offense - if it can even be called that. I'm not saying it's okay to slap anyone - sit in a jail cell for a week - but to lose any rights for the rest of a persons life is severe, cruel and unusual.

I also tend to agree with those saying the threshold for a domestic conviction seems lower than other crimes. No proof or documentation, just suspicion. I think a woman could easily wound herself, levy a complaint and it's a done deal. Scary! Is there any check or balance to prevent such a false claim?
 
@shockwave,
A personal question. Have you ever in your adult life had a disagreement, a loud shouting match, or been struck by a romantic or live-in partner? Have you ever cheated on or caught a romantic or live-in partner? Have you ever scorned a romantic parnter? Have you ever said something threatening in person, over the phone, or email/text to a romantic partner? A property disagreement? A bad breakup? Angry spouse during divorce proceedings? If not, I doubt you are being truthful.

The fact is that ANY disgruntled current or ex-romantic partner or live-in partner could simply file a false report with the police and you'd be in the hot seat, and sadly that's what it would take to make you see the light.

As far as the other gun boards, if you do a quick search on Lautenberg here, you'll see how unjustly it has been applied to THR members and see the costs it has borne on us.

See these threads for starters, but there are hundreds...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=514770&highlight=lautenberg
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=510322&highlight=lautenberg
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=500382&highlight=lautenberg
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=466604&highlight=lautenberg
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=507759&highlight=restraining
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=492925&highlight=restraining
 
Please tell me what the 2A deprivation for an alleged misdemeanor accomplishes....

We can agree that a felony assualt/battery is a serious assault/battery. resulting in serious bodily harm. Conversely, a MISDEMEANOR domestic violence conviction is something like pushing a person out of the way while you try to leave, and that left a small bruise; grabbing someones' wrist which left a small bruise; throwing something relavtively harmless in someone esles' direction and missing or hitting and causing insignificant harm.

Connect the dots on how a MISDEMEANOR offense relates in ANY way, shape or form to the 2A. Particularly in light of the fact that the same person could obtain a knife, sword, club, chairleg, can of gas and lighter....
 
A personal question. Have you ever in your adult life had a disagreement, a loud shouting match, or been struck by a romantic or live-in partner? Have you ever cheated on or caught a romantic or live-in partner? Have you ever scorned a romantic parnter? Have you ever said something threatening in person, over the phone, or email/text to a romantic partner? A property disagreement? A bad breakup? Angry spouse during divorce proceedings?

That's a long question, and one to which I can safely answer "no" - not once in my adult life have I ever been violent with a partner. I have certainly never threatened or raised a hand in anger to one. The dissolutions of my engagements have been peaceful. And maybe that's just a result of my trying to treat others as I would prefer to be treated myself.

I have, on the other hand, had to help the spouses of abusive partners and have seen at close hand the damage and terror a violent spouse or partner can inflict on another. And the courts have had to address this. It's a problematic calculus: lower the bar too low, a casual allegation of harm can bring an arrest on a partner. Raise it too high, a woman in danger must deal with a heavily armed, vindictive ex-lover with a massive grudge. One he nurses with whiskey and anger.

The results are found in morgues across the country. I linked to a single classic example above.

So we're looking to strike a balance that causes the least harm.

Now, to make some use of my minor in psychology, I suspect that the real problem here isn't the law at all. I think a big part of what's being discussed here is the perception of an imbalance in power. The man can buy all manner of firearms and ammo, train with them and arm up bigtime. Then, the little lady need only pick up a phone, call the police and say, "Yo - I got a 'domestic' going on here. Arrest this clown pronto."

And there's nothing you can do about it. So it's like the female has been greatly empowered at the expense of Mighty Hunter.

Guys, read this remark to the wife and see what she says. I'll bet most are just fine with it.

Anyway, I've gotten through many years of my life without being arrested, without having domestic violence charges or restraining orders filed on me, and I'm sure you can avoid those things, too. Just takes about as much thought and care as you put into loading and handling your weapons. Don't be stupid and you won't have trouble.

In my experience, women tolerate much (more than we do) and forgive readily. It takes a sustained and committed effort at being a first-class bastard to get a woman to call the police on you. Chances are, if it happens, you will have had something to do with it.
 
Question for you Double Naught Spy :

It appears to me that all "domestics" are lumped into one broad category, at least when it comes to 2A rights. Meaning the slightest misdemeanor, all the way up to murder, carry the same 2A punishment. That is where I take issue. If a man were proven to have caused broken bones, beat in and around the head with fists, or other moderate or severe injuries I can see losing 2A rights for life or for 10 years (not sure which applies).

How about the woman who hauls off and slaps her man across the face? I think that qualifies as a domestic, but to me doesn't warrant loss of 2A. Swap genders if you like, but the unjust act of taking 2A rights shouldn't apply to minor, superficial wounding, on a first offense - if it can even be called that. I'm not saying it's okay to slap anyone - sit in a jail cell for a week - but to lose any rights for the rest of a persons life is severe, cruel and unusual.

I also tend to agree with those saying the threshold for a domestic conviction seems lower than other crimes. No proof or documentation, just suspicion. I think a woman could easily wound herself, levy a complaint and it's a done deal. Scary! Is there any check or balance to prevent such a false claim?
 
@ shockwave

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-14.htm

Here are many collected cases of DV laws and restraining orders either failing or as a catalyste to pain the alleged into a corner and they snapped, resulting in murder. You could say it pushed a minor aggressor over the edge after an argument with the ex, say, ruined his life because of the tag as a 'wife beater' or losing his guns, job, career, reputation, etc.
 
Shockwave:

It's not always about how calm, rational and sane you and I might be. If you're living with some who can be volatile, that volatility can consume and risk the rational one too. It can be difficult to escape. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're been fortunate enough to not involve yourself, intimately and personally, with anyone who can act crazy or irrational - based on how you answered LeadCounsel's questions.

Sometimes acting rational and sane are not enough, luck and good fortune are also required. I'm very fortunate and don't feel a person should have to rely on that good fortune to excersize their rights and stay out of trouble. IMO this whole issue with domestics require some good fortune if you live with anyone who can get irrational.

I live with a woman who can get a little crazy at times. During those episodes I go long stretches without saying a single word or doing anything (then get accused of being passive-aggressive). I go out of my way to keep things from escalating. I worry at least once a week, if something were to happen and the "wrong" deputy happen to show up here and haul me off and charge me. These laws we're discussing make mistakes too easy and the punishment too harsh. Besides if a wife-beater wants to kill his wife, there's a million ways, disarming isn't solving anything. Come to think of it, jail is the only way to keep a wife beater from beating and killing.
 
Last edited:
Ok lets take the next step.

You are charged with DV because you raised your voice and the woman felt threatened.

Lets not stop at the 2nd amdnt Lets do more!

Lets take way the Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

And what not the Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

When you remove one Amendment hell lets remove more. How about freedom of speech too!

There is your slippery slope. When you let them take the 2nd then there are more to go too. And they do it all in the name of a law that amounts to a speeding ticket! It is not a felony so all you guys that think it is a good idea you need to take a deep breath and think it through.
 
whether or not it has a chance to be repealed or modified if that's a good idea,
I don't know much about domestic violence (never had to deal with it thankfully) but if there are different levels, maybe change the Lautenberg to "convicted of felony domestic violence" where a physical or mental injury occurred. I am totally against true spousal abuse, but this would at least give the accused a chance to go to court and a judge/jury hear both sides of the story rather than blindly yanking your RKBA for the rest of your life because you ticked off your significant other and he or she wanted to teach you a lesson.
So it's like the female has been greatly empowered at the expense of Mighty Hunter.
This goes both ways too although most are thinking of a man beating his wife. What about the wife that throws a remote control at her husband's head because he's watching the game on TV when he said he'd fix the sink. Now she can be stripped of her RKBA for life and be forced to try fighting off a couple of rapists sometime in the future with her fists and pepper spray.
 
Quick background. I grew up around more DV than I ever want to talk about. It was a constant presence in my life and once an incompetent prosecutor even let me serve on a jury for a murder trial that was a direct result of what happens when a judge laughs off "minor" DV.

I do NOT agree with the bar as it is currently set to remove 2A rights. I do agree with temporarily suspending them when there is due cause until things cool down. We may just cut down on these murder suicides when an otherwise rational individual snaps under stress and tragedy ensues. However, an important thing about DV. I rarely hear cases where it lessens. Where he/she only hits once and then never does it again.

I would not go so far as to totally scrap it. I would revise it to raise the bar a bit.
 
So everyone is good with that?
Did you mean good with the outcome picture you painted in your previous post? Of course not. It appears we're on the same page and anything I say would be in agreement, mostly, and makes for boring reading.

In regards to what Gouranga wrote, I think if a pattern has developed that may be grounds for rights to be taken. I really feel for the person who makes a minor one time mistake or is the victim of a witch hunt.

Another point of view is, instead of taking weapons that probably were not part of the original complaint, why not take the offending fists instead (yeah, off with them)? Of course that's a joke, but there's some logic to confiscating what was used to offend, rather than just taking items that have been owned responsibly. Don't take this paragraph serious, I'm poking fun at the process.
 
The biggest problem I personally have with the Lautenberg stuff is the revocation of rights if a protective order is issued.

Many courts issue protective orders 100% of the time upon a divorce filing, just as a matter of routine.

I have a friend in Illinois who is going through a divorce right now and was placed under a mandatory TRO. He and his wife are splitting up in one of the most friendly and amicable situations I've ever seen in my life. She even asked the judge not to put a TRO in place so they could continue to talk about the division of assets, go to kids functions at the same time etc and she was told no.

That's just ridiculous in my opinion.
 
The current DV situation and punishment is beyond whacked out.

Imagine if you will 2 men getting pulled over for speeding.
Driver 1 was going 70 in a 65.
Driver 2 was going 90 in a school zone.

Both go to court the same day and each get 90 days in jail.

This is what we are dealing with, a "zero tolerance" law.

How did this pass muster in congress?
How is it allowed to continue in the courts?

Most important is "what can we do to change this"?

In my opinion it should be shot in the head and put out of its misery! We already have laws covering assault in all its different forms. What we need is total repeal of the whole messy law as it solved nothing and just created more problems.

Let them call me pro-wife beater I don't care as it will at least open the topic for discussion.

We are so far down the rat hole now in government I just don't see a way out no matter what we do.
 
As much as any reasonable person detests violence against women, spouses or anyone that may be weaker, the laws against DV, at least in Oregon, are, in my mind, prejudiced against the man and in favor of the woman and the State.

The posts in this thread so far expressing de facto outrage against any "wife beaters" bear witness that this prejudice/belief is widespread in our society...which, understandably enough, has given rise to the laws we have.

I spent a month as Grand Jury foreman. My job was to determine if the State had sufficient evidence to warrant a charge against an arrestee. We did quite a number DV cases and heard a fair amount of evidence. It doesnt make me an expert, but I can submit my experience as a finder of the fact.

The presumption of guilt in the minds of the arresting officers was generally against the man, whether or not any physical evidence was presented beyond the usual he/said/she/said. That was quite obvious, again and again from their testimony. In other words, if there was a benefit of the doubt, it always went to the woman, at least in the minds and in the testimony of the arresting officers. And in some cases it was even worse than that.

The Assistant DA's presenting the cases would take cases involving flimsy if not flakey evidence to us for consideration. Again, a presumption of guilt and an assumption that we would indict because we hate "wife beaters".

I am proud to say that we did not indict all comers, as is typical for most Grand Juries. In one particular case, I counselled the DA (in the restroom) to drop his case for the moment, to go back and get some real evidence, and then come back and try again. It was apparent to me that they really were banking on our natural outrage, as decent people, to rubber-stamp indict anyone they wished to have charged. Not that indictments mean anything to the career of a young ADA. Not in America, anyway.

DV is no different than any other crime, no matter how abhorrent the crime may be. It requires evidence to indict and proof to convict. We are supposed to have a government of Laws, not of men, and certainly not an administration of justice based on mere emotions or politically-correct agendas. I saw something different than an government of law during my service.
 
If anyone wants to start a serious discussion about how to make a change to Lautenberg you're welcome to open a discussion focused on how we might actually come up with a plan to make that change. Remember that Activism Discussion means we have to work on coming up with something to make a change not just rant.
 
Police are not -required- to make an arrest even if they witness a crime take place (ie, robbery, murder, etc), so "color me doubtful".
ARE YOU AND SHOCKWAVE FOR REAL???? DO A LITTLE GOOGLE SEARCH AND YOU WILL SEE THAT AT LEAST 8 STATES HAVE "MUST ARREST" DV LAWS IN PLACE AND MOST OF THE REST OF THE STATES IN THE U.S. HAVE SIMILAR OR NEAR SIMILAR TYPES OF DV LAWS! I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT BECAUSE THE STATE I LIVE IN (CT) IS THE STATE THAT WROTE THE FIRST SUCH LAW CALLED THE THURMAN LAW. IT WAS BASED ON A CASE INVOLVING A WOMAN NAMED TRACEY THURMAN WHO SUED THE TORRINGTON, CT POLICE AND THE STATE OF CT IN 1989 AND WON A MULTI MILLION $$$ SETTLEMENT. A MOVIE WAS MADE ABOUT THE CASE-GOOGLE IT. YOU NEED TO BE MORE INFORMED AND LESS OPINIONATED!!

On that note, some of you people are complete idiots on here. You make statements with no idea what the truth is. Because something sounds too crazy to be true you are certain it can't be the truth. Welcome to America! And if I hear one more idiot refer to someone charged with DV as a "woman beater" I'm going to puke. For those idiots, here's a little education. You don't have to have even touched a woman to be charged with DV. There are many DV charges that a man can be charged with (harassment, threatening, stalking, just for starters) that will be good enough to destroy his 2A rights for life. People are people and people are prone to losing their cool and saying or doing things that may be poor judgement, but MOST don't come even close to warranting the loss of 2A rights. The reasoning behind Jackass Lautenbergs' law was that a man charged with DV will eventually shoot a woman if he owns a gun. It was a joke of a law that most law makers were afraid to oppose for fear of being labeled a supporter of "wife beaters". What most people don't get is that the rationale for this law was so far from reality, Lautenberg should have been arrested and charged with lying to congress. The rationale is so ridiculous, it's like saying that drinking caffeinated coffee will eventually lead to heroin use and addiction. But it's no different than any other crock of shiite the anti gunners spew in their attempt to disarm the world. And what's really sad is that those of you who agree with this thinking and this asinine law can't see that it's just a tool used to steal guns from men and has nothing to do with protecting anyone.

If our retarded (and criminal) lawmakers are so interested in protecting women, why is it legal for a man to give a woman a cigarette or buy a woman a drink in a bar? After all, these things kill more women every single DAY (lung cancer and liver cancer) than significant others with guns do over decades! And why is it that if I am ticketed for speeding with a wife/GF in the car that my drivers license isn't revoked for life and my car confiscated? More women are killed every week in car accidents where the cars were driven by men than are killed by significant others with guns over the span of decades! But if speeding is so dangerous and causes so many deaths, why wouldn't speeding with a wife/GF in the car be a misdemeanor or felony?

I could go on and on with these types of double standards, but the fact is the anti-gun lawmakers could care less how women die or how many die. They use women as pawns in DV cases to take our guns and our 2A rights away.

The Lautenberg law should never have been passed because it is utter nonsense. If a man is charged with a DV misdemeanor, does the law take away his collection of carving/steak knives? or his baseball bat collection? or his extensive tool collection? or his car? Do they make him stop training in martial arts? or lifting weights so he won't get big and strong? Any of these things could be used to kill a female partner/ex, but the courts could care less. GEE, I WONDER WHY??????

Mark my words, if we don't organize and execute a "million man gun owner march" on Washington, we will all eventually be members of groups like "Illegal Gun Owners of America". And it will happen sooner than any of you idiots who support shell laws like the Jackass Lautenberg law can possibly fathom. Only then will you understand how deaf,dumb, and blind you really are.
 
from my understanding.....an arrest is only made if:

1.) someone admits to battery
2.) there is substantial proof (ie. one person bloody or bruised)
3.) there was a witness(s) to the event


anything else would seem like a "he said/ she said" event......
And what do you call the fantasy land you live in? I'll bet it's something really catchy, like "My Perfect World".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top