Domestic Violence is a fucking joke. At any moment your female partner could call 911 and say you hit her or threatened her. Then your gun rights are gone.

Do we take away a mans right to vote, peacefully gather, and worship freely if he hits his wife or girlfriend? No we don't.

We can't deny people there natural rights because they "might" hurt someone. DV is all bull shit.

And I worked as a firefighter  / EMT-B for 4.5 years and saw plenty of DV. Women and men beaten severly. I have also seen the disparity in how it is addressed by the law, if you are a man being beaten then you are SOL. If you are a woman all you have to do is accuse.

The lautenburg amendment is complete bull shit, we can't sacrafice natural rights at any costs. Even if that means a few dead / injured people. If we are going to give up rights becuase a few folks die than we need to give up all right to arms completly.

FLame away.

Quoted: Originally posted by bobbyjack; Well we agree on one thing that God given rights are those that protect you from domestic violence! I will agree with that, but your "time bomb" theory still sucks. Most Sheriffs in Iowa would side with you, which is why Iowa needs Shall Issue. Your opinion does not outweigh the Constitution when it comes to what I might do.

I'm sorry I didn't know your state didn't have the shall issue!  Oklahoma is a long way from you!

I think that it needs to be brought up to a Suprem court issue that what is good for one state should be good for another,even if the Constitution says what is not dictated by the constitution shall be legeslated by the individual states!


One must or should concur that if (and I don't know how many)say 40 of the 50 states have CCW then by majority of reason the rest of the nation should also follow suit!

This is a Republic that belives that the majority rules!

Somebody needs to take it to the courts!!

Bob

Quoted: No law is perfect , Most can be manipulated .......  But   If you really are guilty of Domestic violence then you have proven that your emotions are capable of overcoming your self control and reason , and you deserve the sanctions that go with it .

Yeah but you don't have to be "really guilty". You don't have to do anything wrong at all. In some areas with mandatory arrest laws and liberal judges all that would have to happen is that you and your g/f or wife get a little kinky, have loud sex, or play fight and someone hear it and call 911.

If she has any sort of marks on her , her clothes are messed up, you are in cuffs and charged. Then if you get a liberal judge your ass is grass. And at best you have to get a lawyer to fix the problem and your reputation is smered.

And if it doesn't work out, bye bye to your guns. All because your nosey neighbor decided to call 911, he heard some rough sounds and thought it mught be DV. The system took over and your rights are gutted. By law you are "really guilty".

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What I don'y understand is, isn't "demostic VIOLENCE" simply a fancy, femenist-friendly term for ASSAULT? Isn't ASSAULT a FELONY? Aren't FELONS denied guns? So, IF "domestic violence" means "assault", then yes, I agree with the law. If it means, "He yelled at me", then HELL NO, I don't agree! Assult is not a felony and domestic violence is a misdemenor Assault is not a felony? You mean omeone can walk up to you and beat you silly, and that's NOT a felony? Also, how can a man beating up his wife be a misdemeanor?

simple Assault & Battery (Bar fight, school fight, ect) is a misdemeanor in most states.

Domestic Violence with no traumatic injury is a misdemeanor in my state.  Domestic violence with traumatic injury is a felony.

Quoted: 4. Ignorance about procedural rights. It is common for respondents to be served with notice of the hearing between 18 hours and one week before the hearing. Guess what? Given the potential consequences, that notice is inadequate as a matter of Constitutional law, if you know enough to object and ask for a continuance.

In my county the typical notice prior to for a TPO hearing is less than 4 hours, and the family court judges accept answering machine messages as "notice."

As a kid I saw my dad hit my mom a few times (I'm embarassed to say). Therefore to this day I abhorr pieces of shit who smack their wives around. They need the favor returned!

Having said that, as an adult I've seen situations where not all "domestic violence" is what I witnessed as a child. Of course there is the lying bitch who will falsely accuse their significant other of assault and get away with it. Or the guy who comes back from Iraq and his whore of a wife has bankrupted him while fucking the whole town and he gets pissed. Neither of these types of situations warrant the loss of a Constitutional right forever. Felonies are felonies for a reason, like BATTERY: send your wife to the ER and, yes, you've commited a felony. Bye-bye guns. Hello Bubba. You deserve it.

There should also be recourse for people who lie to get a restraining order or falsely accuse another of DV. And this recourse SHOULD BE ENFORCED! I don't want to hear any crap about over-burdening the legal system. It's their fucking job! The law should be just as interested in validating the accusations as it is in enforcing them. "Better that 99 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished" seems to be how our justice system is set up. Why is it ONLY in DV situations where that line of thinking goes out the window?  


You "absolutists" (and our judiciary system) really need to look at each case individually and not use the blanket approach. AR15Fan seems to set the stage for what an actually "thinking" cop should be allowed to assess and make a decision based on THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION, not some all-encompassing law.


Ex-post-facto laws are supposed to be unconstitutional. Why is it that ONLY in DV situations this also goes out the window?


BTW, for those of you who insist that any future AW legislation will HAVE to contain "grandfather" clauses to prevent being ex-post-facto, I present to you: The Lautenberg Amendment. Don't bet on it.        


Oh, one more thing: thanks a lot, O.J. (you asshole).

Quoted: It's Bullshit. Ssgtar15

Tell that to Nicole Simpson.

I despise laws that bring together physical assault and firearms. They are completely unrelated as far as punishment goes. If you're going to beat up your wife, then you need to be in prison. If you're going to shoot your wife, then you belong on death row.

Look,

The DV law is invoked way too often - even when there is no real threat severe physical injury.

There are plenty of men and women that can't keep their tempers, and derserve a TRO when it comes to potential for violence.  There are just as many scheming men and women who will seek a DV charge against another just to "get" their S.O.

I can safely say that as the "victim" of the former, I wouldn't wish on the abuser the loss of the right to defend themself from bodily injury or death.  That sentiment doesn't make me some sort of "enabler", it just shows that I believe the ability is a fundemental right.

Are there circumstances when someone should lose that right?  Absolutely!  That occours when they're locked up and serving time for comitting a crime.  Period.  End of sentence.

In a perfect world, we'd punish criminals for the actual crime comitted, and if they served their time, they'd have the freedom to enjoy basic rights (like owning guns).  Removing someone's rights based on ex-parte RO proceedings, DV disputes where there was no physical violence, or based on the criminal conviction or nolo contendre pleadings stemming from either is just one more step towards the removal of all the rights the rest of us enjoy.

JMO

-FMD

DV laws are alot like "hate crime" legislation.  If a beating occurs that is a felony assault, then charge it as such.  There should be no distinction for wives, gf, gay lovers, etc..  

Our society has gone crazy with this PC bullshit.  I suspect that is why we hear of so many cases of guys completely going over the edge.

In our society, It is very, Very, VERY easy to find yourself on the wrong side of the law.  Good luck to all of you staying safe, sane and free.


edited to add: If AR15fan, our self proclaimed "Resident Jack Booted Thug police apologist" thinks that DV laws go to far,  guess what: they probably go too far!    

All of you that think "if you can't control your temper, you shouldn't have a gun"  should really take a moment to consider what you are saying.  Shoving someone is a lot different from shooting them.

Quoted:  Shoving someone is a lot different from shooting them.

You can downplay "shoving" all you want, but anyone who lays hands on their significant other already has some issues they need to address within their relationship and how they can handle disputes. Like a serial killer who starts out by killing small animals, a person shoving today will be punching tomorrow, and doing worse next month. I have never in 13 years with my  current wife laid a hand on her. Have I at times thought about it? Sure. But I have better impulse control than that, and simply walk away.My first wife loved to argue, and it pissed her off something terrible that I would walk out of the house and walk around the block to calm down.  I have argued with other  people to the point of literally seeing red and have my field of view narrow down to a pinhole, but I recognize that thats a time to back up, calm down and think rationally rather than emotionally. Other people don't have that self control, and if they can't control themselves from shoving the person they are supposed to love, what other kind of acting out behavior are they incapable of self-correcting without harming someone?