gun ban for domestic violence

[Koda]

Not on regulation use. We all know you can't and shouldn't discharge your arms in a way which is reckless. What I'm referring to is the fact the words "Shall Not Be Infringed" are very simple to understand and that any law restricting the "keep and bear" even the slightest is infringing (limiting, encroaching upon, undermine, etc).

Waiting periods, background checks, going through a FFL, filling out forms - even tax - is all considered an infringement on a right. Yet the courts look at it form the other end and claim if you can eventually have even one firearm then the 2nd amendment is alive an well.

Consider all the restriction put on firearms as infringement as that's exactly what they are. Now consider each and every other right listed in the BOR having the same restrictions.

What if every single word ever typed and posted on the internet or in print had to be approved with a form similar to a 4473. Or if you were a felon you could no longer speak your mind.

Consider that before going to worship you had to apply for and receive a permit to do so.

I hear what your saying but that's not how the law has been applied. Unless there is some major re-write of the 2A in our favor (not gonna happen) or some sucessful overthrow... we are all subject to the law as its defined by the current process. SCOTUS has ruled that laws regulating the use of arms does not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

A couple of truths for you:

1. Any law which can be abused WILL be abused.

2. ANY law can be abused.

One other: Governments are never limited by words on paper, but by what they can get away with. When we start hanging congresscritters from streetlights, they will have found their limit. Until then, Government has not yet reached its limit. Think about it. 99% of federal laws are illegal on 10th amendment grounds alone. Doesn't even slow 'em down.

The would-be tyrants are running out of time. As 3D printers get better and cheaper, machine tools more affordable, more and more people become able to manufacture the tools of freedom.

 

[The Resister]

I need to learn more about what it means to "sustain the charge", does that mean a conviction? Are there any examples of anyone been convinced of domestic abuse for yelling at their spouse - or even looking at them "glaringly"

You do know those cases are unreported insofar as being in case law unless they were appealed. But, in the county I live in (and Georgia has 159 counties) they had 1500 prosecuted cases in one year.

You'd have to go to the clerk of the court and look up the individual cases. If you're serious and decide to go that route, I can provide you some cases... one where the defendant won the case, but where most of the conditions I describe were utilized.

 

[The Resister]

Just noticed there is no edit feature here. In response to Koda:

(1) Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another, or (2) intentionally causes physical harm to another. O.C.G.A. 16-5-23(a). Opprobrious or abusive language is a defense. O.C.G.A. 16-5-25.
<broken link removed>

The case law is that if you feel threatened by someone absent the physical contact, you can be arrested and tried.

 

[BT BT]

Supreme Court upholds reach of US gun ban for domestic violence | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/supreme-court-upholds-reach-us-gun-ban-for-domestic-violence.html?intcmp=trending)

SCOTUS rules that a domestic violence misdemenor conviction qualifies as a prohibited person from guns. The article mentions gun rights groups opposing that one should not lose their right for a misdemenor conviction.

Im curious what everyone thinks about this?

The last time Black Guns (By Several Other Names) were banned for public sale the "Aladdin's Lamp" program "Old Lamps for New" was launched, however in this case it was for Police Department guns: This was the most successful sales program ever, the company was even awarded the highest sales award for each year by Colt Firearms until the Black Gun ban was lifted.



Trader's Tactical, LLC. Offered every law enforcement, state and federal agency in the U.S.A. the option to trade-in used service weapons for Brand New Colt firearms with no-cash payment other than the FOB shipping. No budget effect, no Purchase Orders and No Budget Over Draft Approvals. Just better Law Enforcement equipment.



Now the PC thing to do is to destroy them, or give them to people that kill law abiding American's. What's wrong with this picture? BT Labs, SBD.

 

[Koda]

Just noticed there is no edit feature here. In response to Koda:

(1) Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another, or (2) intentionally causes physical harm to another. O.C.G.A. 16-5-23(a). Opprobrious or abusive language is a defense. O.C.G.A. 16-5-25.
<broken link removed>

The case law is that if you feel threatened by someone absent the physical contact, you can be arrested and tried.

I think I see what your saying, essentially in Georgia its against the law to threaten someone but being convicted of that is a loss of gun rights.

without diving deeper into case laws I'm formulating the opinion that regardless of the intent of these DV laws its not going to impact the goal if at all because of the various ways domestic abusers can stay armed.


PS, the edit button is hidden in a pull down menu dialog box....

 

[Bazooka Joe]

Are there any examples of anyone been convinced of domestic abuse for yelling at their spouse - or even looking at them "glaringly"

Well, he's why I'm against the misdemeanor DV disqualification. One of the reasons.

About 20 years ago I spent a year or so doing court appearances for this type of thing. One of the courthouses was located in a relatively poor suburb of a major metro area. At the time, getting misdemeanor DVs was a priority. So, let's say a defendant comes in with the charges DV, public disturbance, and maybe public drunkenness (because maybe he was drunk and shouting at/to his wife on the front porch and someone called the police). As a prosecutor, that's pretty much all the information that I have for the first appearance. I tell the guy, "Well, if you're found guilty at trial, you're going to pay a $500 fine for the DV charge, $300 for public disturbance, and $250 for public drunkenness -- a total of $1050, and maybe go to jail." At this point he gulps and wonders where he'll get the money. "But if you just plead guilty to the DV, I'll cut the fine to $200 and dismiss the other two charges." Then he says, "Heck, yeah! Where do I sign?"

Most defendants don't know their rights in the first place. They don't know how much better off they'd be if they had gotten an attorney. They can't afford an attorney even if they knew. And if they had known then that they would lose their arms rights sometime in the future, they might have made a different decision.

It's all part of why I keep telling people that we have a legal system, not a justice system.

 

[The Resister]

Well, he's why I'm against the misdemeanor DV disqualification. One of the reasons.

About 20 years ago I spent a year or so doing court appearances for this type of thing. One of the courthouses was located in a relatively poor suburb of a major metro area. At the time, getting misdemeanor DVs was a priority. So, let's say a defendant comes in with the charges DV, public disturbance, and maybe public drunkenness (because maybe he was drunk and shouting at/to his wife on the front porch and someone called the police). As a prosecutor, that's pretty much all the information that I have for the first appearance. I tell the guy, "Well, if you're found guilty at trial, you're going to pay a $500 fine for the DV charge, $300 for public disturbance, and $250 for public drunkenness -- a total of $1050, and maybe go to jail." At this point he gulps and wonders where he'll get the money. "But if you just plead guilty to the DV, I'll cut the fine to $200 and dismiss the other two charges." Then he says, "Heck, yeah! Where do I sign?"

Most defendants don't know their rights in the first place. They don't know how much better off they'd be if they had gotten an attorney. They can't afford an attorney even if they knew. And if they had known then that they would lose their arms rights sometime in the future, they might have made a different decision.

It's all part of why I keep telling people that we have a legal system, not a justice system.

I too have watched that scenario play out many times. Before the Lautenberg Amendment, the well to do would plead guilty because it was a couple hundred dollars and probation - done and done. Had they known that in the future an ex post facto law would cost them their Liberties, most would have fought it.

 

[Koda]

before the Lautenberg Amendment, there wasn't a law prohibiting convicted DV offenders from guns? I thought that amendment was created for that reason?

 

[Ura-Ki]

woa, woa, woa, ceasefire Oregon!

Look at this part of their plan. er, "plan", highlighting is mine:

View attachment 299883

I think what we are seeing, and I have been careful to avoid this analogy, until now, is a slow-motion reenactment of the Newtown hysteria.

A code on each BULLET linking it to the weapon. How? This doesn't even merit a response.

Sort of like the tagent they tryed to mix into the powders several years back!

 

[bmtm09]

It includes shooting someone with a squirt gun too.

not that i've done it ...but...throwing a partially burnt pancake at them as well...they have no sense of humor...

 

[bmtm09]

Lets face facts...they can't come straight at us and take our guns away... Law by Law, one by one, change by change until its too late and we have no choice. Eventually they will win...if we let them. At this point is a war of attrition. They are raising a generation of liberals being taught in the schools we pay for with our taxes. Liberal teachers shoving liberal views down our kids throats, and we are paying them to do it! Our kids aren't allowed to say grace at the lunch room table because it will offend some other kid that doesn't believe. They will win ...if we let them. We are too scattered, not organized, sitting in the corners bubbleguming about the way its going...What chance do we have?
Unless.........
We have to have a voice ,,A LOUD voice and cry out in unison that we will not go quietly into the night that we are here to stay and will keep our freedoms and rights.

 

[bmtm09]

I expect unmarked cars at my house after that little rant...lol

 

[bmtm09]

Lets face facts...they can't come straight at us and take our guns away... Law by Law, one by one, change by change until its too late and we have no choice. Eventually they will win...if we let them. At this point is a war of attrition. They are raising a generation of liberals being taught in the schools we pay for with our taxes. Liberal teachers shoving liberal views down our kids throats, and we are paying them to do it! Our kids aren't allowed to say grace at the lunch room table because it will offend some other kid that doesn't believe. They will win ...if we let them. We are too scattered, not organized, sitting in the corners bubbleguming about the way its going...What chance do we have?
Unless.........
We have to have a voice ,,A LOUD voice and cry out in unison that we will not go quietly into the night that we are here to stay and will keep our freedoms and rights.

I am not subversive... I love my country and just want to keep what I have. What I and so many others fought for...FREEDOM

 

[albin25]

A owns some guns
A beats B with a Baseball bat.
A must get rid of all guns and can never own one again...
but, gets to keep Baseball bat and buy golf clubs too!

Gov....go figger.

 

[bmtm09]

A owns some guns
A beats B with a Baseball bat.
A must get rid of all guns and can never own one again...
but, gets to keep Baseball bat and buy golf clubs too!

Gov....go figger.

Lmao you are so right.. your post hit the nail right on the head that is so funny
. I wrote a letter to my congressman and ask him a very simple question along those lines. I asked if someone in a car drove into a large crowd of people and killed 50 and wounded the other 50 would you try to ban cars. There is just no common sense anymore.

 

[Bushman]

Yep, death by a thousand cuts. Next they will ban anyone that has ever been investigated by a cop, as in, pulled over for a traffic violation.

 

[Koda]

ok so... there is something in this conversation that I'm not seeing I'll be honest about.

what I'm looking for here is how does this law deny due process? ...and so far I'm not finding it.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Enlighten please!

 

[bmtm09]

ok so... there is something in this conversation that I'm not seeing I'll be honest about.

what I'm looking for here is how does this law deny due process? ...and so far I'm not finding it.

It depends on if the judge is anti gun or not???