gun ban for domestic violence

[bmtm09]

Wait Wait Wait ..........Due Process...Have we not kept up on Home Land Security laws...Speeding tickets and domestic violence are now considered "terror" threats.

 

[Koda]

well by due process I meant that there is a trial. I'm assuming in order to be convicted of something, there has to be a trial?

I don't buy the idea of accepting a plea bargain. I don't care how broke I am if I am innocent I'm pleading not guilty.

 

[bmtm09]

Last time I checked and Im sure it hasnt changed...they can lock you up forever with no trial...they just lose track of you..Even if there was a trial how can you be assured of a fair one?

 

[bmtm09]

dont mean to sound all paranoid but I dont doubt that its happened before...not for one second

 

[Koda]

dont mean to sound all paranoid but I dont doubt that its happened before...not for one second

oh its happened before, people have been executed that were innocent, people have been proven innocent after being incarcerated for most of their life... its true there is no guarantee one will always get a fair trial but statistically speaking that is a rare thing... at least to that extreme. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on DV rulings, so far the best argument against this law is how easy it is to find yourself in court over a bogus lie. All it would take is a vindictive dishonest spouse or partner to fabricate a lie you hit them or whatever.

 

[albin25]

Isn't that guy who made the movie that caused the Benghazi attack but as it turns out it didn't cause the Benghazi attack after all because it was a lie to cover powerful political a55es and they needed a nobody fall-guy to make them look like they gave a dam about anyone they think they're better than and wanted to make Muslim terrorists less the problem and us more of the problem and the Media went along with it all.
You know THAT guy...



...Isn't he still in jail?

 

[bmtm09]

Slightly off but on subject 13 hours was an excellent movie

 

[bmtm09]

oh its happened before, people have been executed that were innocent, people have been proven innocent after being incarcerated for most of their life... its true there is no guarantee one will always get a fair trial but statistically speaking that is a rare thing... at least to that extreme. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on DV rulings, so far the best argument against this law is how easy it is to find yourself in court over a bogus lie. All it would take is a vindictive dishonest spouse or partner to fabricate a lie you hit them or whatever.

Had a similar instance recently...split up with wife for a few months ...after we reconciled she said her sister told her to call cops on me claim abuse so I would loose my gun rights... She said she would never...but made the hair on the back of my neck stand up...it would be just that easy

 

[Koda]

Had a similar instance recently...split up with wife for a few months ...after we reconciled she said her sister told her to call cops on me claim abuse so I would loose my gun rights... She said she would never...but made the hair on the back of my neck stand up...it would be just that easy

now that's an example I'm talking about, what scares me the most. The fact that this is the only misdemeanor that removes a constitutional right concerns me, yet I agree if someone is truly guilty of DV I don't have a problem with removing their gun rights. The difficulty here is in DV cases it often comes down to he said she said arguments that are difficult to defend against.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Ok, that's where I thought you were headed with the question of due process. I agree, we need to find a reasonable way to decide what constitutes a legit claim and how it gets processed!

 

[bmtm09]

physical evidence is the only way to be sure

 

[Koda]

Ok, that's where I thought you were headed with the question of due process. I agree, we need to find a reasonable way to decide what constitutes a legit claim and how it gets processed!

in my opinion, there ought to be a law that immediately convicts a person caught lying in such a case under purgery . Should be able to sue the bubblegum out of them too...

 

[bmtm09]

Absolutely plus one for that

 

[Koda]

physical evidence is the only way to be sure

even that can easily be fabricated. Im shur its happened... one evil spouse assaults the other who then (lawfully) defends themself...

 

[bmtm09]

I guess there is not an easy answer for this one. All I know for sure it is I am glad mine is not vindictive LOL

 

[Koda]

there is no easy answer on this one, but you can blame the antis for the confusion. If they werent trying to strip us of our right, Id be more inclined to blindly accept some laws that could work otherwise. There is no reason an idea to protect the innocent couldnt be included in any proposed legislation.

 

[albin25]

there is no easy answer on this one......There is no reason an idea to protect the innocent couldnt be included in any proposed legislation

You're right, there are no easy answers, mainly because the expectation that perfect safety can be provided through the law is not possible in the real world. Certainly not in a free society. Our VERY fallible Government can't even maintain a simple voters list without massive error and fraud because political meddling makes it overly complex yet lax in oversight. Enforcement of even obvious breaches of law and ethics are willfully ignored.

Protections for the accused's 2ndA rights is easy to say, but for someone to protect against loss of a constitutional right due to false/malicious accusations, inevitably requires the accused to hire expensive legal counsel, pay fees etc. All while their property has already been seized "to be on the safe side", possibly for years. A gun owner is left to somehow prove they didn't do something (good luck with that). It becomes yet another "guilty until proven innocent just to be on the safe-side" situation that is turning more than just the 2nd Amendment on it's head. It doesn't even need to be a spouse in some proposals, merely someone with the knowledge you have a gun, willingness to say your spouse was afraid to call, and nothing better to spend their time on.

One improvement would be to require loss of gun rights only if a gun is
actually presented during the commission of a DV event and evidence of that use was witnessed by responders and reported at the time. A simple claim of abuse occurring at some point in the past, or a fear that it may occur at some time in the future should not be a consideration. Basically, for someone to lose their 2ndA rights should only be done in formal hearing requiring the accuser to show through actual provable evidence that there is a real threat and that there is no other way to resolve it. The presence of non-firearm weapons should not be considered in removing 2ndA rights as too many everyday items can be considered "weapons" (Just ask the TSA about the threat posed by a high capacity bottle of mouthwash or a pair of black assault sneakers).

There definitely needs to be severe consequences to an accuser should their claims be found to be false. Loss of child custody, prison time, reduction of some value in spousal asset claims in divorce settlements, etc....

 

[Hamilton Felix]

Face it, we are approaching the point where we will all be declared criminals with the stroke of a pen (actually, we're there; read "Three Felonies a Day"). Ayn Rand warned us.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Ayn Rand ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

After this has been accomplished, it is up to "them" to decide who they go after, and for what reason or whim. The whole concept of denying the basic human right to arms is ridiculous and counterproductive. "Oh, you did a bad thing (or at least someone said you did), so we're going to take away your arms." Well, if I'm a bad guy, I'm going to obtain arms through illegal means, and I'll go on doing bad things. If I'm a good guy, I may actually obey, and end up stripped of my means to defend myself from criminals and tyrants.

The No-fly list is a horror. Most of the people on it are there by mistake. There are children, even an 18 month old, on the list. And there's no easy way to say "hey, check me out and see that you made a mistake." Your rights are simply trampled because of a mis-checked box or a bureaucrat's whim.

 

[PaulB47]

This is all very nice, these dreams about fixing the system - but it assumes the system is broken.

It is not broken. It is working exactly as intended. It's just that the operation of the system is different from the propaganda that "justifies" its existence.

We have no power, other than a very disorganized and diffuse power that is often defeated by "divide and conquer" tactics and by propaganda. The rulers and bureaucrats and other minions have the real power; and unsurprisingly, the system works for them. It's not there for us.

 

[bmtm09]

This is all very nice, these dreams about fixing the system - but it assumes the system is broken.

It is not broken. It is working exactly as intended. It's just that the operation of the system is different from the propaganda that "justifies" its existence.

We have no power, other than a very disorganized and diffuse power that is often defeated by "divide and conquer" tactics and by propaganda. The rulers and bureaucrats and other minions have the real power; and unsurprisingly, the system works for them. It's not there for us.

Well that was positively depressing..although very accurate.