Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/23/2013 5:21:29 PM EDT

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/colorado-lawmakers-pass-another-new-gun-law-requiring-domestic-violence-suspects-to-give-up-guns


One gun control bill was sent to the governor but another requires another vote from the Senate, meaning the issue has been stretched out again.



Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:25:40 PM EDT
Suspects?

What the fuck happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Are the courts so far gone as to let that shit stand?

Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:26:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cpt_Kirks:
Suspects?

What the fuck happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Are the courts so far gone as to let that shit stand?



If it saves just one life...
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:27:03 PM EDT



WTF

OVER


Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:31:19 PM EDT
It's that way in MS, I hate that law.
If your SO/family calls the cops on you, they confiscate all weapons, doesn't really have to be proven, he/she said and gone.
I know of a neighbor calling on a father and 17yo son arguing in their backyard, they rolled up arrested both and took over a dozen of their guns. It took him 3k and over a year to get them back.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:33:19 PM EDT
[HickenPooper] Fuck Due Process[/HickenPooper]
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:35:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:35:10 PM EDT
I don't understand.

The article says;

 Senate Bill 197 would prevent people who have been convicted of domestic violence from owning or carrying firearms.  


This is already a federal law, isn't it?

I see no mention of "domestic violence suspects", but isn't it already true that if you are charged with Domestic Violence, you have to surrender your firearms until the matter is resolved in court?
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:35:29 PM EDT
Yeah, I can see an angry jilted wife making up a bogus DV charge to get a spouse's guns taken away for spite.

That said, if you are found guilty of DV...well whatever bad comes your way you earned, IMHO.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:37:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless:
I have to stop reading this stuff, gets me so pissed that I wake up at night


Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:41:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/23/2013 6:07:38 PM EDT by AR-10]
Originally Posted By Aimless:
I have to stop reading this stuff, gets me so pissed that I wake up at night


Maybe I should log off for a while. I'd sleep better.
 

Link Posted: 4/23/2013 5:53:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By newarcher:
Yeah, I can see an angry jilted wife making up a bogus DV charge to get a spouse's guns taken away for spite.

That said, if you are found guilty of DV...well whatever bad comes your way you earned, IMHO.


You do realize you don't have to hit anyone to get convicted of DV in many places right ?
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:09:56 PM EDT
Bump.

I need clarification, or edumacation, or something.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:13:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 74AKZ:
Originally Posted By newarcher:
Yeah, I can see an angry jilted wife making up a bogus DV charge to get a spouse's guns taken away for spite.

That said, if you are found guilty of DV...well whatever bad comes your way you earned, IMHO.


You do realize you don't have to hit anyone to get convicted of DV in many places right ?


No I actually didn't....I'm thinking of acts of physical violence.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:18:37 PM EDT



Originally Posted By newarcher:


Yeah, I can see an angry jilted wife making up a bogus DV charge to get a spouse's guns taken away for spite.



That said, if you are found guilty of DV...well whatever bad comes your way you earned, IMHO.


I know at least one person that's already happened to. I'm not really sure what exactly this new law does?



 
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:19:15 PM EDT
AZ does it too. There was a thread about that here I think yesterday.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:21:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-10:
I don't understand.

The article says;

 Senate Bill 197 would prevent people who have been convicted of domestic violence from owning or carrying firearms.  


This is already a federal law, isn't it?

I see no mention of "domestic violence suspects", but isn't it already true that if you are charged with Domestic Violence, you have to surrender your firearms until the matter is resolved in court?


The article says:
"Senate Bill 197 would prevent people who have been convicted of domestic violence from owning or carrying firearms."

The proposed legislation says:

"When a court subjects a person to a protection order to prevent
domestic violence or a protection order that prohibits the person from
possessing or controlling firearms or other weapons, or the court convicts
a person of a misdemeanor or felony domestic violence offense, the court
shall require the person to relinquish any firearm or ammunition in the person's immediate possession or control or subject to the person's
immediate possession or control. In the case of a person who is served in
court with a protection order to prevent domestic violence, and in the case
of a person who is served with a mandatory protection order prohibiting
the person from possessing or controlling firearms or other weapons, the
person must relinquish any firearm or ammunition within 24 hours. In the
case of a person who is served outside of the court with a protection order
to prevent domestic violence, the person must relinquish any firearm or
ammunition within 48 hours. However, a court may allow a person up to
72 hours to comply if the person demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
court that he or she is unable to comply within 24 or 48 hours, as
applicable."


No conviction is required.  The court has only to 'subject a person to a protection order'

.


Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:22:35 PM EDT



Originally Posted By LePew:





No conviction is required.  The court has only to 'subject a person to a protection order'



But as far as I know that is already the case?



 
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:26:53 PM EDT
California law requires police to ask about firearms at the scene of a domestic violence incident and collect them for a 72-hour cooling down period. Stupid law.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:27:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By newarcher:
Yeah, I can see an angry jilted wife making up a bogus DV charge to get a spouse's guns taken away for spite.

That said, if you are found guilty of DV...well whatever bad comes your way you earned, IMHO.


So, who do YOU believe? In a he-said/she-said situation, who do YOU believe?  

What if you have to take one of them to jail just because someone called the emergency number?

You can't leave without one or the other in cuffs.  Who do you cuff, and why?
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:27:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By newarcher:
Yeah, I can see an angry jilted wife making up a bogus DV charge to get a spouse's guns taken away for spite.


Practically SOP in divorse court.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:28:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/23/2013 6:28:25 PM EDT by VooDoo3dfx]
Originally Posted By ElectricSheep556:

Originally Posted By LePew:


No conviction is required.  The court has only to 'subject a person to a protection order'

But as far as I know that is already the case?
 


It is, as long as the protection order is in place.

Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:29:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LePew:
Originally Posted By newarcher:
Yeah, I can see an angry jilted wife making up a bogus DV charge to get a spouse's guns taken away for spite.

That said, if you are found guilty of DV...well whatever bad comes your way you earned, IMHO.


So, who do YOU believe? In a he-said/she-said situation, who do YOU believe?  

What if you have to take one of them to jail just because someone called the emergency number?

You can't leave without one or the other in cuffs.  Who do you cuff, and why?


Used to be primary agressor. first not worst.

Now its dominant agressor. worst not first.

I was always a fan of take them both to jail but we cant do that anymore.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:30:25 PM EDT
The law is basically turning to the point that only the most effeminate Beta-males qualify to own a firearm. And those are the liberals that don't want them..
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:32:37 PM EDT



Originally Posted By sq40:


The law is basically turning to the point that only the most effeminate Beta-males qualify to own a firearm. And those are the liberals that don't want them..


Alpha males don't care about the law when it restricts their rights.





At least that's what I hear, I'm a Beta.



 
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:33:51 PM EDT
In messy divorces, it is not unheard of for the wife's atty to suggest she file for an order of protection against that mean hubby that might hurt her.  Divorce proceedings can drag on  for years
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:34:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bushamster21:
AZ does it too. There was a thread about that here I think yesterday.


I just searched for that thread.
Looks like it may have been sent to the trash. The guy who started the thread just got out of jail, and what was being posted could have been used against him in the up-coming trial.

From what I remember, in Arizona, you can be convicted of DV for a verbal altercation with a college room mate (living in the same apartment), or a girl you are dating, or a relative...

The law, as quoted, was unreal.

Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:37:10 PM EDT
Have no doubt that some women lie.  They know that society assumes that anything they say when it comes to a male is presumed factual.  

This just means more guys will be screwed.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:41:15 PM EDT

Rhonda Fields

Fine Representative of Colorado,  classic bloomburger cumo thug.



"We have made great progress this session on measures to reduce the gun violence that is ravaging our neighborhoods," said Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora,
who is a prime sponsor of three of the five bills. "And we’ve done it while remaining respectful to the Second Amendment."

Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:41:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ElectricSheep556:

Originally Posted By LePew:


No conviction is required.  The court has only to 'subject a person to a protection order'

But as far as I know that is already the case?
 


I was replying to this, mainly:

The article says;

Senate Bill 197 would prevent people who have been convicted of domestic violence from owning or carrying firearms.


As in, the article is FOS and misrepresents the specifics of Senate Bill 197.

That is my point.  The bill would do much more than the article states.

In addition, this bill codifies into state law the idea that a judge can revoke rights simply by rendering a decision.

That's not something to celebrate.

Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:47:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar2de:
In messy divorces, it is not unheard of for the wife's atty to suggest she file for an order of protection against that mean hubby that might hurt her.  Divorce proceedings can drag on  for years


Yea tell me bout hit.  Have been havin to listen to my rents bitch about theirs for goin on two years now.  No clear end in sight!  
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:49:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LePew:
*snip*
The proposed legislation says:

"When a court subjects a person to a protection order to prevent
domestic violence or a protection order that prohibits the person from
possessing or controlling firearms or other weapons, or the court convicts
a person of a misdemeanor or felony domestic violence offense, the court
shall require the person to relinquish any firearm or ammunition in the person's immediate possession or control or subject to the person's
immediate possession or control. In the case of a person who is served in
court with a protection order to prevent domestic violence, and in the case
of a person who is served with a mandatory protection order prohibiting
the person from possessing or controlling firearms or other weapons, the
person must relinquish any firearm or ammunition within 24 hours. In the
case of a person who is served outside of the court with a protection order
to prevent domestic violence, the person must relinquish any firearm or
ammunition within 48 hours. However, a court may allow a person up to
72 hours to comply if the person demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
court that he or she is unable to comply within 24 or 48 hours, as
applicable."


No conviction is required.  The court has only to 'subject a person to a protection order'

.


So, does this new laguage mean that a person would not be able to get their firearms back?
Does it strip them of their RTBA permanently?

Or is there more wording in current law that makes the confiscation temporary?

Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:50:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar2de:
In messy divorces, it is not unheard of for the wife's atty to suggest she file for an order of protection against that mean hubby that might hurt her.  Divorce proceedings can drag on  for years


Happened to me. Never raised a hand at her in my life, wasps nest of betties (Bitter divorced coworkers) told her to do it (she was the only married woman). Guns were lost in a very tragic boating accident though before the paperwork hit the sheriffs office.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 6:55:39 PM EDT
Suspects?
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 7:00:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 7:07:22 PM EDT
If you want to help, several members of this site are running recall efforts against four gun grabbers in CO.

Copy/paste from the home town forum.


This weekend is the official kick off to our petition drive against CO State Sen. Angela Giron.  Our group, "Pueblo Freedom and Rights" is a 501(c)4 issues committee.  We are not affiliated with any other group in Colorado.  We are doing this on our own.

We had a great day at the gun show today, and gathered over 1000 signatures.  That is nearly 10% of the signatures needed on the first day of petitioning.


We could use your help spreading the word, and especially financially.  This is being funded almost entirely by a member of this site and his brother.  To donate to our effort, visit our rally.org site.  We are using rally.org instead of paypal because pp is anti gun.

Follow our progress on facebook here

And check out our website at http://www.pueblofreedomandrights.org

Here are the two latest news articles about our recall.  denver post

pueblo chieftan about us.

and Pueblo Chieftan with some Dems calling us "fuzzy thinkers"


We can succeed here in Pueblo, and help the rest of the state while we are doing it.  Please help us out.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 7:08:37 PM EDT
If you can see the writing on the wall it sound like a good time to invest in a storage unit.
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 7:08:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless:
I have to stop reading this stuff, gets me so pissed that I wake up at night


Link Posted: 4/23/2013 7:10:19 PM EDT
No way of THAT ever getting abused.  No, sir, not here.  Not in America....


Right?



Guys?


Guys, right?  No chance?
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 7:10:25 PM EDT




Originally Posted By chupacabras:



Originally Posted By Cpt_Kirks:

Suspects?



What the fuck happened to innocent until proven guilty?



Are the courts so far gone as to let that shit stand?







If it saves marginalizes just one life gun owner...


Fix'd it 4 u

Link Posted: 4/23/2013 7:18:14 PM EDT



Originally Posted By Aimless:


I have to stop reading this stuff, gets me so pissed that I wake up at night


Tell me about it, try running one of the recall efforts here. I wake up at 3am sometimes and never go back to sleep, I start writing things down and making flyers and shit. I feel like a mad scientist sometimes.



 
Link Posted: 4/23/2013 7:26:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-10:
<snip>

So, does this new laguage mean that a person would not be able to get their firearms back?
Does it strip them of their RTBA permanently?

Or is there more wording in current law that makes the confiscation temporary?



I didn't find anything in the proposed bill that makes any seizure temporary.  If it defines some time limit  for claims to be resolved I missed it.   Please point out to me where it does if it does.  

To be clear, this is the proposed legislation I'm talking about:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/24B586DC34FB057F87257B08007A98F7?Open&file=197_01.pdf

Link Posted: 4/24/2013 12:23:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/24/2013 12:25:03 AM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 4/24/2013 12:25:04 AM EDT



Originally Posted By Paul:



Originally Posted By ElCoyote:

Suspects?





Senate Bill 197 would prevent people who have been convicted of domestic violence from owning or carrying firearms.




Confusing ... the headline says suspects, the text says convicted.


just as bad IMO.  damn near anything can be a domestic violence charge nowdays. Yelling included.



 
Link Posted: 4/24/2013 12:27:31 AM EDT





Originally Posted By Aimless:
Originally Posted By AR15fan:




Originally Posted By newarcher:


Yeah, I can see an angry jilted wife making up a bogus DV charge to get a spouse's guns taken away for spite.






Practically SOP in divorse court.



I have had female clients admit to me that the local battered women's shelter told them to lie and say that men had assaulted them so they could get an order of protection and to move and hide the children from the father, tell the school he prohibited from seeing them and on and on.    






Edit note time of post



I suspect that at some point it will be easier to kill your significant other and try to get away with it rather than deal with divorce or breakups.




 
 
Link Posted: 4/24/2013 12:29:36 AM EDT
I have no issue with this, if we're talking about the type of men who beat the hell out of their wives daily, and it never ends. But, it's only really gonna fuck it up more for people falsely accused.

side story;

Had a co-worker who used to work security at a womens shelter.. on the night shift. He lasted the longest of their original crew.. He was the only one who didn't take a bite of the forbidden fruit, if you know what I mean.
Link Posted: 4/24/2013 12:30:23 AM EDT



Originally Posted By newarcher:


Yeah, I can see an angry jilted wife making up a bogus DV charge to get a spouse's guns taken away for spite.



That said, if you are found guilty of DV...well whatever bad comes your way you earned, IMHO.


You got it. This has been a law in CT for a little over a decade and its abused like crazy.

 



What's worst is that the court does not give the person who gets arrested their guns back even if they are not convicted 99% of the time.
Link Posted: 4/24/2013 12:52:03 AM EDT
And people wonder why I don't want to get married, ever.  





Link Posted: 4/24/2013 1:05:10 AM EDT



Originally Posted By the-fly:


And people wonder why I don't want to get married, ever.  


Don't have to be married. ANY other person sharing your dwelling will suffice for 'domestic' violence. Roommate, family member, girlfriend, etc. All it takes is a verbal argument and a phone call to the police.

 
Link Posted: 4/24/2013 1:10:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless:
I have to stop reading this stuff, gets me so pissed that I wake up at night


It's got me up nights too.. and that's the truth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahdhGZteyK8
Link Posted: 4/24/2013 5:24:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

Originally Posted By the-fly:
And people wonder why I don't want to get married, ever.  






Don't have to be married. ANY other person sharing your dwelling will suffice for 'domestic' violence. Roommate, family member, girlfriend, etc. All it takes is a verbal argument and a phone call to the police.  


Depends on the state.

in my state its only spouse, dating partner, parent of child in common. Roomate, brother, sister, ect is not domestic violence
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top