Quoted: OK call me old fashioned, I won't hit a woman no matter what. I don't care what society thinks, women are the weaker sex and should be treated as such. Women have gotten stronger to some degree because men have gotten weaker. I say it again, Real men don't hit women. Flame on, I'm not going to change my morals.

Old school, eh?

That's alright.  Most would agree with you.  I agree with you.  I believe everyone is trying to say they'd restrain the woman from further attacks - not actual particpation in kicking ass.

Quoted: If guilty,It shows that you cannot control your temper. So should you be trusted with any weapons?

Friend of Frank (lautenberg)

Quoted: Quoted: OK call me old fashioned, I won't hit a woman no matter what. I don't care what society thinks, women are the weaker sex and should be treated as such. Women have gotten stronger to some degree because men have gotten weaker. I say it again, Real men don't hit women. Flame on, I'm not going to change my morals. Old school, eh? That's alright.  Most would agree with you.  I agree with you.  I believe everyone is trying to say they'd restrain the woman from further attacks - not actual particpation in kicking ass.

As someone who has been there once myself, I say walk away....and fast.

My first serious g/f was whacked. She was the prozac poster child. She attacked me one night and threw hot spaghetti sauce in my face. Then she picked up a knife and was going to cut me. All because her girlfriend said that I was sexy. I just wiped off with a towel and slammed the door, never went back or answered her calls. She deserved an ass kicking for what she did, but not by me.

Quoted: Quoted: It has been many years and the Domestic Violence  prohibition  -- The law that says that if you were ever convicted of DV you are not allowed to own a firearm. Do you think this is a "just"  law or just a partial gun grab by the anti's  ? I have know a few guys "unjustly" charged by their wives -- just before divorce and have seen many screwed by this bizarre law ??? What are your feelings on it ? It's a gun grab.  DV laws are way over enforced.  True domestic violence is a horrible thing, but the reality of the situtation is an Assault & Battery is an Assault & Battery.  People should not be punished more severly becuase they assaulted their girlfriend, life partner, or husband instead of their neighbor, brother or best friend. In my state we have misdemeanor and felony spousal assult.  ANY visable injury to include redness makes it as felony with a $50,000.00 bail.  an emergency protective order is issued and the "suspect" cant go back to his/her house. For a while we were making things better. When we would go to DV calls there was usaully PC to arrest both people. It really cut down on repeat cases.  The DA didnt like it and changed the law. we were supposed to arrest the "primary" aggressor. well lots of people read primary as "first" so if your wife shoved you, and you knocked her out, she went to jail as primary aggressor.  DA didnt like that, so he changed the law to "dominant aggressor."  problem with that is wifey attacks you, you defend yourself, but if you're stronger than wifey, and a better fighter, you go to jail as the "dominant agressor."  Kinda violates a basic tenant of self defense that used to be "It's not a crime to be a better fighter than your attacker." I have seen plenty of false accusations of domestic violaence. even when the charges appear false, the police will generally arrest anyway. That's in response to the battered womens shelters who file complaints against cops who dont arrest "batterers".  I have had women tell me "I already called the Nicole Brown Simpson foundation and they said you have to arrest her."   When I respond to domestic violence calls i do the following.  I try to keep an open mind. I try to determine which party is more credible, and weigh the statements with that in mind. If there are no injuries i try not to arrest anyone, and instead just "go paper", providing one of the involved parties can and will leave for the night.  I dont ask about firearms, becuase I am required to collect firearms at the scene of DV for 72-Hrs.  What i dont ask saves me a ton of paperwork and saves your collection.  I dont PUSH restraining orders.  I'm required to offer them, but i want people to be able to go home and get their stuff, or see their kids. I'm not going to try to talk anyone into an RO.  If there are real injuries, someone is going to jail for the felony section.  If both people are drunk, angry, uncooperative i WILL find any possible reason to take them both to jail.  a lot of times people that  invite the police into their lives, have warrants or drug habits. Act like a bitch and i'll take your husband to jail for DV and you to jail for the crank you left in plain veiw on the table. Remember, you invited me into your life. What I do in my personal life to protect myself from false DV charges;  I will not argue with a woman, period. She gets pissy, i go to a movie. we will talk when you calm down. Stop sleeping with women before you break up with them, no last grudge fucks, no booty calls, no sympathy fucks.  always dump her in a public place. Once you dump her, do not go to her place, or sleep with her again, for any reason, it's possibly a set up. Call me paranoid, i have seen lots of lives ruined by the over enforcement of DV laws.

  AR15fan,  Well said.
Roy

Quoted: My first serious g/f was whacked. She was the prozac poster child. She attacked me one night and threw hot spaghetti sauce in my face. Then she picked up a knife and was going to cut me. All because her girlfriend said that I was sexy. I just wiped off with a towel and slammed the door, never went back or answered her calls. She deserved an ass kicking for what she did, but not by me.

You too huh?  Haven't we all had at least one psycho g/f?

My last relationship was to a complete psycho.  She got mad at me because I wanted to go home and have some time to myself.  She was very needy and hated me not being around even when I was at work!  One time at her apartment she was yelling at me for wanting to spend the day doing something else, so she threw my bag of belongings across the room.  I was pissed of course and picked up my shit so I could leave right then.  She was making such a racket I was really worried about the police coming, so I wanted out fast.  Having a gun and her being so volatile, I was concerned I'd be the one to get fucked by the law.  Well, she blocked the door and tried to stop me from leaving.  I eventually had to physically move her from the door to get out.  What a disaster.  She was hopeless.  One thing is for sure however, I didn't hit or abuse her ever.  What really got me was how she told her friends I had abused her on that day when I moved her from the door.

AR15fan, you are a just human.

I'm glad you're out there.  I have read every post of yours concerning "cop bashing" and you consistently bring logic and reason to the table.

Good job.  You ought to be the Chief.

IT'S A TRAP, BITCH!!!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It shows that you cannot control your temper, so should you be trusted with any weapons? What he said I see  -- kind of like preventing a crime before it occurs ..... ?

yeah, it's pre-emption. we are doing it at home and abroad (war on terror).

if some guy cant control his temper and beats his kids and smacks around his wife, he shouldnt be allowed to own a gun. pure and simple.

Quoted:

If you can't afford one, we can all chip in to buy you a clue.

If the sumbitch is dangerous - lock him up.  If he's TOO dangerous to be out in public - KILL him.

EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY has the right to bear arms.

Losing a Civil Right (and that's what gun ownership is) over a misdemeanor is BULLSHIT!

Make it retroactive is even MORE BULLSHIT!

Making OOPs from intimate partners or former intimate partners, a prohibition of gun ownership is TRIPLE BULLSHIT...

(an OOP requires not one shred of proof and any bitch who knows the Law can fuck you 7 ways to Sunday, even if you've never laid a hand to her)

If you beat your woman with a pipe and committed a felony assault or aggravated assault and was convicted, well them's the breaks and standard felony conviction prohibitions against gun ownership and voting should apply.

D.
AZEX

Quoted: IT'S A TRAP, BITCH!!!

Fixed it for ya'.LOL

Quoted: Quoted: If you can't afford one, we can all chip in to buy you a clue. If the sumbitch is dangerous - lock him up.  If he's TOO dangerous to be out in public - KILL him. EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY has the right to bear arms.

dont you see how people like that will only make it harder on the rest of us to buy a gun? every time some idiot is in the paper for doing/planning x,y,z with a gun, some know-it-all politician/talking head runs to the nearest microphone and promises to crack down on 'the scourge' of firearms.

morons like that make it harder for the rest of us.

and locking up every potentially dangerous person is too costly and not a viable option.

Quoted: .

I must apologize for my previous post.  I failed to make myself clear.

EVERYBODY has the right to keep and bear arms.  (That's easily understood)


IF they PROVE otherwise (I.E. KILLING SOMEONE or attempting to KILL someone) then they shall be incarcerated.

I do not care about you or your past.  I do care about your right to protect the most precious of all gifts that god has given us - LIFE.

Hence - the people who were light years ahead of us - our founding fathers.

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 .

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 .

So I guess people who think like you would also agree that if a man kicked the ass of a guy who was making comments to his wife, he should be locked up and lose his right too, after all, he can't control his emotions, right?

Habitually violent people are one thing, but being accused of DV ONE TIME and losing your right forever is quite another. Most of you don't seem to see the difference.

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!

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!

Not all assault is felony assault, depending on where you is.

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

Quoted: It has been many years and the Domestic Violence  prohibition  -- The law that says that if you were ever convicted of DV you are not allowed to own a firearm. Do you think this is a "just"  law or just a partial gun grab by the anti's  ? I have known a few guys "unjustly" charged by their wives -- just before divorce and have seen many screwed by this bizarre law ??? What are your feelings on it ?

I think its a good law.
It may be a partial gun grab by anti's, but at the same time, there are a LOT of violent domestic offenders. The whole point about gun ownership is that we should be supporting ownership by law abiding people, not the criminally minded, and these domestic violence guys are often guys who have other issues with the criminal justice system and are incredibly abusive to whoever happens to buy their line of bull and get sucked into a relationship with them. I see it too often at calls.They are NOT the type of law abiding people we should be encouraging gun ownership amongst.
Some guys may get unjustly charged by wives as you say, but thats what court is for..to hear the facts. An unjust charge will get tossed.

it could be a good law since its generally aimed at offenders already proven to be violent



the problem arises is that in different states different things constitute "domestic violence".  in more than a few states simply raising your voice means you have just committed "domestic violence"

The problem I have with it is that you don't even have to be convicted. You don't even have to go to court. An accusation and/or a restraining order can cost you your guns. That fact pisses me off just thinking about it.

A guy (or woman)  that actually beats his spouse habitually should himself be beaten habitually, IMO. Such a punk-assed POS should spend some time being Bubba's bitch in the klink.

However, the "beyond any reasonable doubt" thingy should apply. Sadly, in today's world, it doesn't.

Quoted: 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 .

So I guess people who think like you would also agree that if a man kicked the ass of a guy who was making comments to his wife, he should be locked up and lose his right too, after all, he can't control his emotions, right?

That is an entirely different situation and you know it . Domestic violence is within a family unit .

Habitually violent people are one thing, but being accused of DV ONE TIME and losing your right forever is quite another. Most of you don't seem to see the difference.

Did you read what I typed  ? I didn't say "Accused" I said if you really are guilty .

Quoted: The problem I have with it is that you don't even have to be convicted.

True. Many restraining orders are issued without the accused being present, or even notified of the hearing.

As azexarms has said it was made retroactive --- that is another WTF aspect of this law - very unfair, how many people said ok , I will plead and just get it over with to speed up getting on with their lives -- if they knew what was going to happen in the future it may have made a difference on how they preceded ???

Quoted: Quoted: The problem I have with it is that you don't even have to be convicted. True. Many restraining orders are issued without the accused being present, or even notified of the hearing.

But they're not effective until they've been served.

Quoted: But they're not effective until they've been served.

Nor is the initial order / weapons seizure permanent beyond the life of the temporary order of protection, which is anywhere from a  week to six months. I have seen some orders of protection that are good for ten years or so, but those are against people convicted of some very serious crimes.

I have a friend who got into a fight with his dad (according to him, dad was drunk and being an ass, but I do not know how true this is.).  He broke his father's nose, and the cops were called.  His dad was not planning on pressing any charges, but due to the law, the state prosecuted him for domestic assault.  

I am reluctant to choose any of the options in this poll for this reason.  Most of the people convicted of domestic assault should not own a firearm in my opinion. However, some cases should not apply.  

Hoppy8420

I didn't read the thread...this one is a no-brainer.

If you are not currently incarcerated, you have the right to own firearms.

Period.

Pity that our lawmakers have forgotten this.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The problem I have with it is that you don't even have to be convicted. True. Many restraining orders are issued without the accused being present, or even notified of the hearing. But they're not effective until they've been served.

Once served you may longer possess firearms or ammunition. the opportunity to defend yourself has already passed.

The judge is not supposed to issue a "temporary" restaining order (3-Years) without the accused being present. However, if a reasonable attempt to contact the accused has been made, the judge will issue the TPO.  What happens is the woman goes to family court first thing in the morning. She fills out the paperwork. she calls the accused house and leaves a message "you need to be at family court at 1PM today for a hearing."  she leaves the same message on his cell phone or at his work.  Most times the guy doesnt get the message, or simply cant drop what he is doing and get there on time.  Judge asks the accuser if she made a resonable attempt to notify the accused. Accuser explains she left messages as his house and work.  Thats good enough for most family court judges. They hold the hearing without the accused being there to defend himself. The order is issued and the accused is served.  No guns for three years, without having been convicted, or even charged with a crime.

Quoted: Quoted: But they're not effective until they've been served. Nor is the initial order / weapons seizure permanent beyond the life of the temporary order of protection, which is anywhere from a  week to six months. I have seen some orders of protection that are good for ten years or so, but those are against people convicted of some very serious crimes.

in my state

Emergency Protective Orders (EPO) are good for 5 -12 Days.

Temporary Restraining Orders (TPO) are good for 60 days to 3 years.

After a person has served their time they should get their rights back...

And with that all punishment should fit the crime...

No slap on the wrist stuff...

MT...

I cant believe how many people just sided with the Clinton administration.

Quoted: If guilty,It shows that you cannot control your temper. So should you be trusted with any weapons?

That is such bullshit...

That's like saying that a guy who's been in a fist fight during his life shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. The only difference here is that he konked a relative.

Get a grip!

Quoted: Quoted: It shows that you cannot control your temper, so should you be trusted with any weapons? What he said

You're opinion doesn't count, you've proven yourself to be a troll and a dingleberry already, this just furthers that.

If you can't control yourself, why should you be trusted with a weapon that is deadly? As I said this only applies to people who have a serious problem like being a hot head or over emotional.

Fist fights at a bar are a lot different than a domestic fight.

What he said,I know there are a lot of people that have passed thier CCW class and have firearms that should never have slipped through the cracks!!

They are just time bombs waiting to go off!   So one off the ways that they get weeded out is the way they treat thier own familys!


The Sooners lost one of thier defensive linemen because of a pattern of physical abuse on others!

Bob Snoops hated to lose him,but he could not control his actions off the field(therefor could not be counted on to control them on the field of play)!

Same analogy as to those that cannot control thier actions with those that they love(family)!

What would they do to those not as close?

Bob

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?

It seems to me we have serious vocabulary issues to fix before we start worrying about guns and such...

Quoted: Quoted: OK call me old fashioned, I won't hit a woman no matter what. I don't care what society thinks, women are the weaker sex and should be treated as such. Women have gotten stronger to some degree because men have gotten weaker. I say it again, Real men don't hit women. Flame on, I'm not going to change my morals. Why on earth would you think your post would get you flamed??  Geez, this board is awash with good-quality men who would NEVER strike a woman and would defend a strange woman from an aggressor.  You're absolutely correct--a real man DOES NOT strike a woman.  Period.  If she needs to be struck--what she really needs is to be walked away from.

Amen. I guess old (and wildly innacurate) stereotypes die hard....

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.


Domestic violence is a shitty way to decide who can or cannot be trusted to not run around blowing people's brains out. If you are not in jail or prison, your God given rights should not be screwed with. If you have proven you cannot function in society without physically harming others, you should be in jail or prison untill it is determined that you are not a threat to others.

All the "fell in between the cracks" are just your paranoid imaginations of what "might happen".  

Federal law imposes a ban on possession of firearms if the individual in question has been convicted of domestic violence, or if he is subject to a restraining prohibiting violence against an "intimate" issued after notice and hearing. The DV conviction ban is lifetime; the other lasts for the life of the injunction. While the terms of a temporary injunction issued w/o notice may preclude weapons possession, only a final injunction after notice and a hearing (which the person may not have attended) invokes the federal prohibition.

I have several times demanded a jury trial in injunction cases based on the proposition that under Florida law, the only other conduct (as distinct from status - e.g. incompetence) which can result in termination of a civil right is a felony conviction, and that the injunction proceeding can therefore result in a de facto felony conviction, and consequently a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are required. I've never won that point, but somehow, the injunctions are never granted in cases where I file those motions.

The big problems are:

1. Politicization of the criminal justice system. These cases are as a class politically charged. Every time a woman claims violence, she has the built-in support of a nationwide troop of weep-easy lesbian sob-sisters who conclusively presume that she is telling the truth and must be believed and supported;

2. Departmental "must arrest" orders;

3. Ignorance on the part of almost everyone involved of the application of the law of self-defense. Even judges, in their routine "what's we're doing here" spiel to the courtroom full of hapless mooks, violent bastards, victimized women, and scheming bitches say "Even if she hit or pushed you first . . . ;"

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.

The whole subject chaps my ass. It is a plague on society and particularly on the integrity of law enforcement and the judiciary. No cop should ever have to say "Buddy, I'm sorry, I don't think you did anything wrong, but I have to take you downtown," but they often do. The moral of the story: GET A GOOD LAWYER.

ETA: You can beat the crap out of your next door neighbor, steal $200 from your boss, have 3 DUIs, et c. et c. and still have your RKBA. WTF is so special about slapping your girlfriend?

Quoted: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Domestic violence is a shitty way to decide who can or cannot be trusted to not run around blowing people's brains out. If you are not in jail or prison, your God given rights should not be screwed with. If you have proven you cannot function in society without physically harming others, you should be in jail or prison untill it is determined that you are not a threat to others. All the "fell in between the cracks" are just your paranoid imaginations of what "might happen".

Well fortunatly you are not the one whom has to make such decisions!  How many times could your son-in-law  beat the crap out of your daughter before you would be concerned?

Blah,blah,blah?

No this is not a new study nor a random series of acquired data!

Physicaly violent people are the first to carry that action on with anything handy(machettees,clubs,or guns)!

Bob

Quoted: [Well fortunatly you are not the one whom has to make such decisions!  How many times could your son-in-law  beat the crap out of your daughter before you would be concerned? Blah,blah,blah? No this is not a new study nor a random series of acquired data! Physicaly violent people are the first to carry that action on with anything handy(machettees,clubs,or guns)! Bob

But why should DV alone - whether it's Husband on Wife, Wife on Husband, Step-dad on mouthy pothead Step-son, or whatever - invoke the disability? I just don't see it as significant enough to invade constitutional rights automatically.

What he said,I know there are a lot of people that have passed thier CCW class and have firearms that should never have slipped through the cracks!! They are just time bombs waiting to go off! So one off the ways that they get weeded out is the way they treat thier own familys!

That is nothing but your opinion. How many of those people that you refer to have gone out and shot some innocent party?


"Domestic Violence" is a very broad term that covers a lot of ground.

"God Given Rights" is a bit narrower, but gets trampled on frequently "for the children".



It is Bullshit.  

 

Quoted: Quoted: [Well fortunatly you are not the one whom has to make such decisions!  How many times could your son-in-law  beat the crap out of your daughter before you would be concerned? Blah,blah,blah? No this is not a new study nor a random series of acquired data! Physicaly violent people are the first to carry that action on with anything handy(machettees,clubs,or guns)! Bob But why should DV alone - whether it's Husband on Wife, Wife on Husband, Step-dad on mouthy pothead Step-son, or whatever - invoke the disability? I just don't see it as significant enough to invade constitutional rights automatically.

It souldn't be but the individual case by case evaluation would envolve slander probably by both sides!   But yes I agree if you are attacked by your son,or neighbor or by anyone you have the right to defend yourself!

And then thats where the slander and lying begin if you are one and there are two testifiying against you chances are you will be in deep shit(unless you can get witnesses) for your side of the story!

So just an accusation of DV should not be enough,but proof is another story!

So yes each charge and case has its own actions needed!


It is muddy waters but it is the first step taken to ensure that a really bad MOFO doesn't have the means to get a weapon that will not only take out the party in question ,but might cause a police widow in the process!

Bob

Quoted: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Domestic violence is a shitty way to decide who can or cannot be trusted to not run around blowing people's brains out. If you are not in jail or prison, your God given rights should not be screwed with. If you have proven you cannot function in society without physically harming others, you should be in jail or prison untill it is determined that you are not a threat to others. All the "fell in between the cracks" are just your paranoid imaginations of what "might happen".

+1

Quoted: What he said,I know there are a lot of people that have passed thier CCW class and have firearms that should never have slipped through the cracks!! They are just time bombs waiting to go off! So one off the ways that they get weeded out is the way they treat thier own familys! That is nothing but your opinion. How many of those people that you refer to have gone out and shot some innocent party? "Domestic Violence" is a very broad term that covers a lot of ground. "God Given Rights" is a bit narrower, but gets trampled on frequently "for the children". It is Bullshit.

Well we agree on one thing that God given rights are those that protect you from domestic violence!

Bob

I am very much against Domestic Violence as I believe most people are.  
I think the penalties if convicted should be harsh.

I do not believe an American should lose a Constitutionally guaranteed right for a Misdemeanor Domestic Violence conviction however.  If someone is convicted of Felony DV then yes they should lose their right to own and possess firearms.

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.