Welcome to Northwest Firearms
Join our community, sign up for free today!
Sign Up

National Spousal confiscation equals theft

Messages
13,156
Reactions
30,363
That is just...

I don't have words for it.

On the one hand she did not have his permission, on the other hand it could be said she was just making sure he complied with a court order. If the police had done it, would they have arrested themselves?
 

shibbershabber

Messages
3,657
Reactions
2,684
She should have taken steps to get herself a firearm or something else.

If she truly feared for her life, why would she go into his home? Break into it? What if he was there or came home during???
I mean, think about it... he could have blasted her right then and there and it would probably have been justified. "your honor, I came home and found my estranged wife standing there pointing a gun at me, I feared for my life..."

I suspect it was more about her sticking it to him... I get the feeling that whatever their differences, there was probably a lot of 'mutual combat' going on.
 
Messages
1,716
Reactions
3,631
But can you blame her?

The guy rammed her car. He was obviously prone to violence. Had she not done this we probably would be reading about how he shot her.
As reported. Yet they let him out after 1 day in jail? There are three possibilities:

1) Never happened.
2) She slammed on her brakes inducing a crash.
3) It happened as reported.

I think it should be pretty obvious based on how often basic firearms facts get twisted or are in complete error to push an agenda, that the same thing could happen in any newspaper article.
 
Messages
530
Reactions
1,208
As I don’t know the whole story, I don’t know who I would side with on this one. I’ve known more than one case where it turned out the female “victim” was actually Bat S.... crazy and upon further investigation it was discovered the male was the actual victim.
 

User 1234

Messages
1,696
Reactions
4,500
She should have asked the police to confiscate his guns, not broken into his house. How would she even know whether all of his guns were in his house? If she was worried that he might actually shoot her, as opposed to rear ending her car, she could have told the police that she believed he had guns and stayed somewhere else until things cooled down. The fact that he rear ended her in a parking lot does not support the “tried to run her over” news narrative.
 
But can you blame her?

The guy rammed her car. He was obviously prone to violence. Had she not done this we probably would be reading about how he shot her.
This makes her no different than a vigilante. Perhaps even worse, she somehow gained access to his apartment. Last I understood, that’s breaking and entering and theft of firearms...

But back to the vigilante aspect... Do we really want people taking the law into their own hands? I mean seriously? I understand the concern of him being violent, but that’s what the police are paid to do, enforce the laws.
 
Messages
27
Reactions
49
Tough to fault someone who can argue that fear for her life compelled her to take a non-violent action. In familiar terms, she was willing to be judged by twelve, rather than carried by six.
 

BrandonQuixote

Messages
243
Reactions
373
The confiscation talk is frightening. Just because you (or her In this case) feels frightened, doesnt mean your guns go to uncle Sam. Was the rear ending proven to be malicious or was he too close to stop? Just because hes at fault, does that equate to malicious intent?
What if you rear end someone while texting trying to get booty pics from your side piece and rear end someone? What about this, Can they come after you, have all your guns taken after seeing your sick thin blue line melon labia stickers? Im sure it makes someone, somewhere scared.

No matter what you do, even the GOVERNMENT has to get a warrant to break into your home. A spouse or ex doesnt get to circumvent that. The ends don't justify the means here. Just because you scare someone doesn't mean they get to sic our employees on us.

"Bring bachelors and come heavily armed"
 
Last edited:

nwslopoke

Messages
2,173
Reactions
5,454

Things don't always make sense in domestic situations but from my point of view, if you claim your fear of something your actions should reflect it. There are several sources of info, so not one clear narrative.

The police with the most facts seem to lean toward the husband. Any one of the things she claimed he did should have had him held for more than a day. The main story was from the Huff Post with a major anti gun rights bias and referred to his two firearms as an arsenal.
 
Appearantly, between the two of them, they don’t have enough brain cells to fill a thimble...

So I want to know if she’s being charged with theft of the firearms. She should be if they were never legally transferred to her name...

If it were me, I’d want her charged with everything possible. Make her an example for others to not follow.
 
Messages
27
Reactions
49
Imagine, Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Rights removed because you frighten someone...

Oh dear Lord have mercy on these poor pathetic souls who live their lives so frightened...
Is this really about Constitutional rights? Then here's the flip side of what you said: Imagine the legally armed soul who is placed in such fear for his life that he is willing to take violent action with the real potential to remove - permanently - another person's Constitutionally guaranteed right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. For most of us, this is a very easy scenario to imagine; in fact, anyone who carries for self-defense should have actually made a decision about that scenario a long time ago.

Can you decide from the available info if that woman was vindictive, merely a bit frightened, or actually in fear for her life? Neither can I.

We can compare available alternatives, though. Would it have been better for her to (1) do nothing except wait, hoping against hope that the dude wouldn't come at her with the guns he agreed to relinquish in exchange for release, (2) arm herself and be ready to "stop the threat" when he comes at her with a gun, or (3) commit a non-violent, preemptive burglary to effectively disarm the person who she believed posed an ongoing threat to her life?

Choices 1 and 2 have real potential for one or both of them to be seriously injured or dead. She chose number 3 - which left no one injured or dead - to non-violently de-fang the perceived threat, even though it made her vulnerable to burglary charges.
 

LATEST REVIEWS

  • Klickitat County Firearms Training Facility
    4.00 star(s)
    Not really a range guy, as in I am 53 years old and today is the very first time I have been to an actual managed shooting range. Also, not a WA...
    • CRBMoA
  • Supporting Vendor Oregon Arms & Ammunition
    5.00 star(s)
    I've made several purchases here over the past few years and I've had a great experience every time. Prices are good, their staff is helpful, and...
    • Joe Link
  • Big Iron Armory
    5.00 star(s)
    It's great to have an LGS inside Portland Metro. Walt and Noah have put care into setting good prices and acquiring quality firearms and...
    • kr0ptkin
  • Supporting Vendor Lucky Sporting Goods
    5.00 star(s)
    Well I finally got around to taking pics of the Cerakoting work that Jeremy of Lucky Sports did for my wife and me about 3 weeks ago. We couldn't...
    • jg rider
  • Supporting Vendor Lucky Sporting Goods
    5.00 star(s)
    Here's more work that Jeremy did for me The first 3 pics are of an RIA frame that I had Cerakoted years back by an outfit in Molino. I had Jeremy...
    • jg rider