Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/19/2001 7:22:00 AM EDT
As I understand it, Dr. Emerson was accused of both threatening his wife, and brandishing a gun at her. Please correct me if I am wrong. Now, wouldn't it make sense to take all firearms away from such an individual?? I do believe the Second guarantess an individual a right to keep and bear ALL arms, including full auto, but when a person is convicted of a crime, they lose MOST of their rights. They go to jail. In fact, even at arrest, the whole idea of miranda is to inform the suspect of the rights they HAVE LEFT. Accordingly, the Second is NOT an absolute right. Criminals lose it upon conviction. Suspects lose rights upon arrest. What are the police supposed to do - send condolances AFTER a wife beater guns down his wife - and THEM remove his guns??? Don't want your guns taken?/ Don't threaten your wife, and don't point a gun at her. Now, I DO acknowledge the whole "frivilous restraining order" and false accusations that may occur, causing unfair removal of firearms from an innocent person, but the solution for that is NOT to not take away the firearms of a person who has wrongly threatened violence, it is to punish THE PRESON WHO MAKES FALSE ACCUSATIONS!!!! Have I missed something here??
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 7:55:17 AM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:01:32 AM EDT
Well, someone that were found to have actually threatened his wife (I.E. CONVICTED of aggravated assault with or without a deadly weapon) should have his 2nd Amendment rights denied. The frivolous restraining order, without a real, legal conviction, however, should NOT be a reason to revoke someone's RIGHTS. If they had no evidence that a man has ever threatened or hurt his wife, a restraining order shouldn't be enough. With evidence, or a conviction that he HAS threatened and/or hurt his wife before, the restraining order should be enough.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:04:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: As I understand it, Dr. Emerson was accused of both threatening his wife, and brandishing a gun at her. Please correct me if I am wrong.
View Quote
He was so accused, and subsequently acquitted by a jury of nine women and three men in under three hours.
Now, wouldn't it make sense to take all firearms away from such an individual??
View Quote
If said individual received due process of law, I'd say yes. However, even the Fifth Circuit judges stated that what Emerson received was "sufficient, though likely barely so"
I do believe the Second guarantess an individual a right to keep and bear ALL arms, including full auto, but when a person is convicted of a crime, they lose MOST of their rights. They go to jail. In fact, even at arrest, the whole idea of miranda is to inform the suspect of the rights they HAVE LEFT. Accordingly, the Second is NOT an absolute right. Criminals lose it upon conviction. Suspects lose rights upon arrest.
View Quote
And the Fifth Circuit agrees with you - except for the full-auto part. They decided not to go there in their decision.
What are the police supposed to do - send condolances AFTER a wife beater guns down his wife - and THEM remove his guns??? Don't want your guns taken?/ Don't threaten your wife, and don't point a gun at her. Now, I DO acknowledge the whole "frivilous restraining order" and false accusations that may occur, causing unfair removal of firearms from an innocent person, but the solution for that is NOT to not take away the firearms of a person who has wrongly threatened violence, it is to punish THE PRESON WHO MAKES FALSE ACCUSATIONS!!!! Have I missed something here??
View Quote
Just the part about his being acquitted on the charges and that that the "due process" he received was BARELY that. It appears to me that the Fifth Circuit really wants this to go to the Supreme Court to determine whether due process was actually met.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:06:19 AM EDT
OK, thanks for the reply. Hypothetical situation - Wife makes allegations of verbal threats and brandishing of gun by husband. Police invesitgate and get corroborating stories by three neighbors who have heard screaming and breaking glasss noise coming from house of married couple. Also, investigation produces evidence that husband was reprimanded at work for making a threat to a co-worker. Husband has not yet been convicted of anything. QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD THE POLICE DO??? SHOULD THEY REMOVE FIREARMS FROM POSSESSION OF HUSBAND??? If not, WHY???
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:08:14 AM EDT
garandman, The restraining order was in place before he allegedly brandished a gun at his wife. Therefore, he was subject to prosecution for possesing firearms prior to any alleged misuse of them. In fact, he was aquitted of, or had dropped, all charges except for the possession charge. My read of the original decision was that since there was no actual finding that Emerson was a credible threat that his 2nd Ammendment rights were suspended for insufficient cause. The appeals courts position was that since Texas law implies that a Judge must find that a credible threat exists before issuing a restraining order Emerson had just barely cleared the hurdle over which his rights could be suspended.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:10:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: OK, thanks for the reply. Hypothetical situation - Wife makes allegations of verbal threats and brandishing of gun by husband. Police invesitgate and get corroborating stories by three neighbors who have heard screaming and breaking glasss noise coming from house of married couple. Also, investigation produces evidence that husband was reprimanded at work for making a threat to a co-worker. Husband has not yet been convicted of anything. QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD THE POLICE DO??? SHOULD THEY REMOVE FIREARMS FROM POSSESSION OF HUSBAND??? If not, WHY???
View Quote
You're joking right?
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:14:28 AM EDT
I heard this: The wife brought her child to Emerson's Office whereupon she harrassed him about something or the other. THere was a gun present and accussations were launched that he threatened her. Sarah brady even claims he aimed the gun at the Wife's daughter (WTF?, When did she become the WIFE'S DAUGHTER rather than their daughter ?) From what I hear there was no evidence that he ever thretened her with the gun. He was aquitted after all of threetening her.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:19:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Texason: You're joking right?
View Quote
Elaborate please. I am NOT making any statements here, but rather trying to illicit intelligent answers. If you got an opinion, I want the WHY behind your opinion.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:26:04 AM EDT
If you [I]read [/I] all 76 pages of the Emerson decision, you will see that the wife, herself, denied that she was ever threatened. There is an unsubstantiated/uncontested claim that he threatened a friend.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:26:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: OK, thanks for the reply. Hypothetical situation - Wife makes allegations of verbal threats and brandishing of gun by husband. Police invesitgate and get corroborating stories by three neighbors who have heard screaming and breaking glasss noise coming from house of married couple. Also, investigation produces evidence that husband was reprimanded at work for making a threat to a co-worker. Husband has not yet been convicted of anything. QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD THE POLICE DO??? SHOULD THEY REMOVE FIREARMS FROM POSSESSION OF HUSBAND??? If not, WHY???
View Quote
Simple answer is NO. Reason: No Due Process
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:32:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Texason:
Originally Posted By garandman: OK, thanks for the reply. Hypothetical situation - Wife makes allegations of verbal threats and brandishing of gun by husband. Police invesitgate and get corroborating stories by three neighbors who have heard screaming and breaking glasss noise coming from house of married couple. Also, investigation produces evidence that husband was reprimanded at work for making a threat to a co-worker. Husband has not yet been convicted of anything. QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD THE POLICE DO??? SHOULD THEY REMOVE FIREARMS FROM POSSESSION OF HUSBAND??? If not, WHY???
View Quote
You're joking right?
View Quote
I believe that this would be a 'credible threat' upon which to issue the restraining order. However, I believe that too often restraining orders are issued based solely on the word of the wife. It's really a Catch-22. That wife might be telling the truth, but then again, she may not be. This is a really sticky wicket that I don't believe anyone has a real answer to. In the case of a possible wife abuser, I would rather err on the side of caution. I believe in the Second as much as anyone and I believe that many women lie to get their husband or ex-hubby in trouble, but I don't have a solution. I think that a guy in this situation should steer totally clear of her if he is innocent and make damn sure he has no firearm if he goes to pick up the kids, etc. A man who has been falsely accused will do this, a man who is an abuser will not be wise enough to do this. Just stay the hell away from her if you are in this situation. There is no easy answer to this and guys who own guns should just make damn sure they don't do anything stupid in such a case.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:33:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/19/2001 8:39:01 AM EDT by cnatra]
Originally Posted By garandman: OK, thanks for the reply. Hypothetical situation - Wife makes allegations of verbal threats and brandishing of gun by husband. Police invesitgate and get corroborating stories by three neighbors who have heard screaming and breaking glasss noise coming from house of married couple. Also, investigation produces evidence that husband was reprimanded at work for making a threat to a co-worker. Husband has not yet been convicted of anything. QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD THE POLICE DO??? SHOULD THEY REMOVE FIREARMS FROM POSSESSION OF HUSBAND??? If not, WHY???
View Quote
edited to answer the last two questions [:)] Q#1 maybe keep an eye on him Q#2 [size=3]NO[size=3] What crime is the accused guilty of commiting. If he has committed NO crime what can he be arrested for?? When you say "making threats" do you mean threatening to take some one's life?? I guessing (I'm not Perry Mason but)that very well may be a crime & action could be taken. If so get the DA to write up charges & prosecute in a court of law. one word I would use is ALLEGEDLY!! Let's see, he has not been convicted in a criminal court by a jury of his peers. I thought the concept was INNOCENT until proven guilty & the BURDEN of proof is on the prosecution! Anyone can make an allegation. IMHO unless the accussed gets his day in court with a fair trial by a jury of his peers then NO government entity should be denying his rights.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:48:58 AM EDT
Cnatra, how many women have been killed because the police couldn't do anything based on what you said. I agree with due process, but this is a sticky question to which no one really has an answer. Women should arm themselves and if threatened, respond in kind. That's the best answer.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 9:43:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/19/2001 9:40:31 AM EDT by cnatra]
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Cnatra, how many women have been killed because the police couldn't do anything based on what you said. I agree with due process, but this is a sticky question to which no one really has an answer. Women should arm themselves and if threatened, respond in kind. That's the best answer.
View Quote
I don't know BUT we are all potential criminal's aren't we?? Should I be arrested because I may drive my Yukon XL onto a crowded sidewalk & hurt/kill innocent people? What if in a fit of anger I threatened to do so? Should my DL be revoked?? As a gun owner this gets tricky. It's a fine line & I'm afraid of falling victim to the distorted logic of the Schumer/Feinstein types. We should ban all these evil guns because someone MAY do something BAD&AWFUL with those evil assault/rifles/pistols. The potential is there BUT until the criminal act is commited how can we arrest someone. We could end up throwing a lot of people in jail if we think they MIGHT be a danger to society. There are a lot of anti-gunners out there who think people subscribing to this board would fall into that category. I think your last suggestion is an excellent one.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 9:53:07 AM EDT
There was no threatening of the wife and no brandishing of a pistol. He was stripped of his rights for [i]owning[/i] a Beretta pistol a year before a boilerplate restraining order was issued. He was [i]accused[/i] of threatening the wife's new boyfriend. LarryG, How many men have been falsely accused and been stripped of their right and had their lives shatered because of a lying wife? I'd bet they outnumber the beaten wives, except on television. We do have due process, last I heard. Problem is, the cops ignore any violations of restraining ordes until actual contact occure, making them totally worthless.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 10:48:56 AM EDT
This is a good and thoughtful discussion. Garandman, I tend to say that persons who have demonstrated a violent nature (including threats) do not have a right to keep and bear arms. I think that there is a common sense correlation between people who make violent threats and people who act upon them. However, I have a problem with the current system of restraining orders. I think we should have more due process than that. At the very minimum, the person who is served with the restraining order should have the right to (easily) obtain a re-hearing, at which time, the standard of evidence required should be higher. In the meantime, the person should be able to keep his guns. This would help out with the cases where a restraining order is obtained improperly. People who are sure of their innocence and conduct are more likely to challenge the order in court.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 10:53:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/19/2001 10:49:26 AM EDT by ckapsl]
I also agree with LarryG's excellent idea. Part of the problem with restraining orders lies with the stupid people who feed us with "lie down and do nothing, the government will take care of you". Plenty of abused women fall for that line, do nothing to protect themselves, believe in the magic of the restraining order, and wind up dead. If a restraining order served as an automatic concealed carry permit, and the abused women could obtain free firearms training courtesy of the police or someone else, that would serve as a far better deterrent than any restraining order ever would.
Top Top